Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

After the neo-con / Iraq debacle should congress vet ‘think tank’ access to the presi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • After the neo-con / Iraq debacle should congress vet ‘think tank’ access to the presi

    Given the now evident dangers of a receptive and malleable president listening to the siren-song of probably well-intentioned but naïve and un-realistic ideologues (the now fast disappearing and discredited neo-con cabal) that surrounded him should the US Government seriously consider some form of vetting of these ‘advisors/thinkers/lobbyists or whatever term one wishes to employ.
    Yes, I know a president has a right to choose secretaries, cabinet members etc and there is a robust congressional committee vetting process for the ‘official’ posts. But what about access by unofficial barrow-pushers especially those concerned with foreign affairs?

    I’m not suggesting the President by denied access to any-one in particular just shielded from charlatans, fantasists and simplistic advocates of feel good American exceptionalism (which the neo-cons so obviously were!).

    In short the President needs exposure to differing view-points (mandatory exposure if need be).
    You can’t be a ‘decider’ as Bush has claimed to be if you really only have seen one approach suggested to you by those with privileged access to your ear.

    lodestar was called a man with no honour, no courage, no integrity and no honesty. To which he replied: "Hey, you forgot to add no moral compass!! How could you miss that one?"
    keep reading the good read
    lodestar

  • #2
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Given the now evident dangers of a receptive and malleable president listening to the siren-song of probably well-intentioned but naïve and un-realistic ideologues (the now fast disappearing and discredited neo-con cabal) that surrounded him should the US Government seriously consider some form of vetting of these ‘advisors/thinkers/lobbyists or whatever term one wishes to employ.
    Yes, I know a president has a right to choose secretaries, cabinet members etc and there is a robust congressional committee vetting process for the ‘official’ posts. But what about access by unofficial barrow-pushers especially those concerned with foreign affairs?

    I’m not suggesting the President by denied access to any-one in particular just shielded from charlatans, fantasists and simplistic advocates of feel good American exceptionalism (which the neo-cons so obviously were!).

    In short the President needs exposure to differing view-points (mandatory exposure if need be).
    You can’t be a ‘decider’ as Bush has claimed to be if you really only have seen one approach suggested to you by those with privileged access to your ear.
    A president's beliefs, ideals, and values dictate his style of leadership and how he makes decisions. Regulating his sources of information will not change what the consistent qualities a leader relies on to make decisions........and often make them President.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lodestar View Post
      Given the now evident dangers of a receptive and malleable president listening to the siren-song of probably well-intentioned but naïve and un-realistic ideologues (the now fast disappearing and discredited neo-con cabal) that surrounded him should the US Government seriously consider some form of vetting of these ‘advisors/thinkers/lobbyists or whatever term one wishes to employ.
      Yes, I know a president has a right to choose secretaries, cabinet members etc and there is a robust congressional committee vetting process for the ‘official’ posts. But what about access by unofficial barrow-pushers especially those concerned with foreign affairs?

      I’m not suggesting the President by denied access to any-one in particular just shielded from charlatans, fantasists and simplistic advocates of feel good American exceptionalism (which the neo-cons so obviously were!).

      In short the President needs exposure to differing view-points (mandatory exposure if need be).
      You can’t be a ‘decider’ as Bush has claimed to be if you really only have seen one approach suggested to you by those with privileged access to your ear.

      lodestar was called a man with no honour, no courage, no integrity and no honesty. To which he replied: "Hey, you forgot to add no moral compass!! How could you miss that one?"
      keep reading the good read
      lodestar
      Wow. There's a lot of underlying assumptions there, buddy. Looks like you are ranting, like I do sometimes when I'm rather frustrated by things. Cool it down, have a drink, and watch a comedy on TV. It helps.

      Comment


      • #4
        I really don't see an upside to this idea . . .

        You may be confusing hind-sight with prudence. In their time those who sought to end slavery were frequently considered fringe radicals as well. Should they have been "kept away" from Lincoln?

        At the moment the US Congress has a LOWER public approval rating than the president and multiple members are under investigation for corruption and influence peddaling. Suggesting that they are capable of imposing some sort rational restraint on another co-equal branch of goverment is equivalent to putting a pyromanic in charge of a fireworks factory. The results cannot be expected to be positive, only loud.
        Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

        Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

        Comment


        • #5
          "Should congress vet ‘think tank’ access to the presi..."

          I don't think I've ever heard of a more idiotic idea...This thread rivals the Odessa Files thread in the "shear lunacy" category. Not even Al Gore would suggest something so antithetical to our Constitution.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Howzabout this: We get the Supreme court to vet access to Congress, specifically by approving every dime they and their entire party gets from every source. Then the President could vet access to external advisors and research assistants to the Supreme Court, etc.. ad naseum. The whole thing could turn into a giant ménage à trois!

            And nothing would change... Washington would still be one giant cluster-frack. This is definately a tin hat thread.
            Welcome to the adult world. Kinda sucks when you have to be the responsible ones and take all the pot shots from the chagrined lefties and mongoloid celebrities, who don't know their collective posteriors from sound economic policy. - 98ZJUSMC

            Comment


            • #7
              Telling Americans who they can and can't associate with?

              Not likely to fly.

              Though there are a whole lot of dumb ideas and stupid people out there I think they have a right to associate themselves with who they want as long as they are not breaking the law in some manner.

              You got a problem with neocons? Well, maybe they have a problem with you.
              "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

              Comment


              • #8
                problem is when think tank or libbies are in fact on the payroll of other countries or businesses.

                the best investment if you are a company, or a foreign countrs (i..e Israel) is to buy a congressman or a senator (or all of them) and see the money pouring towards your business or country, etc.

                US citizens should really know (and act about) who payrolls their representatives.... but my impression is that the vast majority is numbed down anyway and so does not care.
                "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X