(Wallace Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,630 messages
Updated 5/22/2024 10:56:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Wallace Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 7:46:27 AM
|
Watched the first half and then switched between it and the Steeler's game. Was interesting and of course Matt Lauer was about 80% negative. Bush handled it very well.
Hound, they discussed the decision about Cheney and a second term. Turns out Cheney went to Bush and told him he would be OK if Bush wanted a change. He said he thought about it for a couple of weeks and decided not. It was not Bush's initiative but he said he didn't answer right away because he was deliberative.
|
| Name: |
Yankee06
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 7:51:33 AM
|
In my opinion, Laur was awful.
-You can be a tough interviewer without being a pretensious jerk, ..or at least some people can.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 8:57:13 AM
|
I didn't think Matt Lauer was awful. I thought he asked the questions that people wanted to know. He pressed Bush a few times, and I thought it was fine that he did. He didn't interrupt Bush and he let him speak.
Mostly I thought Bush handled the interview well. I noted that when pressed about the "torture" he rather became defensive and said that the "lawyers told him it was okay". I think he could have done a better job answering that. For the most part he came across really well, but it became instantly noticable when he was defensive.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 11:40:27 AM
|
I agree that Lauer wasn't awful but after seeing his interview with Obama and all the softballs there was a definite contrast with the Bush interview. But Hound is right, he probably asked a lot of questions people wanted to hear about, even supporters of Bush.
I do think he did a better job of answering the torture question, especially about waterboarding, than Hound thought. His point is that the lawyers were asked to advise him as to whether waterboarding was legal and the answer was yes. When you combine that with the lives saved and the limited use (on only 3 of hundreds of prisoners) it was a decent defense of his decision. I also came away from that segment thinking there was a lot more to the story than he was able to discuss.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 1:09:02 PM
|
I'm just saying that they way he said "the lawyers said it was okay" sounded weak. He could have said that he consulted with the lawyers, and after due consideration he decided to authorize it.
What did you see as the "hardball" questions? I think he must have followed the outline of the book. I thought he that if he wanted to play hard ball with the former President, he would have pressed him harder, but he didn't. Don't forget that Bush is raising all these issues again with his book. It's not like Lauer hunted him down and blindsided him with the questions.
What I found most interesting was Bush's visceral reaction to the issue of Kayne West saying he didn't care about black people. Apparently, Bush has an excellent record when he was Governor of Texas in dealing with minority issues. But you could visibly see his back get up about that. And why he should care, I don't know. He obviously felt more strongly about that than his popularity rating.
You know, one thing about being the President. You do what you do with the best information you have available to you at the time. It's a hard job and you are somewhat insulated by the people around you. Hindsight is 20/20, but the day you must make a decision, you can only go with your knowledge, your gut and what seems right at the time.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 2:24:29 PM
|
You were watching an Infomercial witn Bush who is hawking his book. He also did an interview with Oprah. He could have chosen FOX but he or his publisher did them with NBC and ABC. He deserves credit for going on these two as his first interviews. I wonder if NBC offered the most money for the interview? We don't know, so to suggest that Lauer was too tough or pompous is unreasonable, as it is all about selling books.
I
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/9/2010 7:31:43 PM
|
He is hawking his book. I wondered why he didn't go with Fox, but more likely, his publisher made all the arrangements.
I liked the way he side-stepped the Sarah Palin question on Oprah. Obviously, if he thought she was all that, he would have said so.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 8:48:41 AM
|
I found the Kanye West reaction interesting as well. I think this goes back to some of the ads during the campaign against Gore where they more or less accused him of participating in the murder of blacks in Texas. The guys that did it were captured, tried and sentenced to death and Bush did not commute that sentence and said they got what they deserved for such an awful crime. His reaction to the Katrina mess was pretty much spot on. They did not do a good job and made several mistakes that made him look disconnected. But I have no doubt that Bush is not a racist and I think he cares about people regardless of the color of their skin. In some ways I think that informed some of his decisions, sometimes for good and sometimes not. One of my favorite sayings about my business partner is he always means well, sometimes he just doesn't do well.
I was actually reflecting on this issue of mistakes and as far back as I can remember almost every single President made some whoppers. For example, Kennedy with Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, LBJ doubling down in Vietnam, Nixon...nuff said, Ford maybe being the exception unless you consider falling down a mistake, Carter with the Iran rescue snafu and his infamous malaise speech, Reagan with Iran Contra, Bush 41 with his feckless response to the recession, Clinton and his Lewinsky's, Bush 43 with Katrina, et al. I think as time wears on each Presidency retains one or two key issues that become their legacy, for good or ill. Probably if we go back further we would see a similar pattern. I need to reflect on what it is that causes that to happen but it is curious.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 8:51:13 AM
|
Hound, I don't watch Oprah......I mean, I'm a guy after all......and even if I did watch Oprah I wouldn't admit and would immediately grab a beer can and crush it against my forehead or perform some other equally manly (i.e., stupid) act to prove I don't watch a chick show like Oprah.
What was the question and answer?
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Multiple Choice
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 10:05:38 AM
|
In a hypothetical national crisis, you have two choices:
[ ] Cowboy with business experience, reformed alcoholic, religious, and former
governor of the third largest state in the union, expressly released credentials.
Has a comprehensive legislative voting record for evaluation.
This one surrounds himself with advisors having extensive and directly related
professional credentials and experience.
[ ] Community activist lawyer, with no business, management, or leadership
experience, no discernible religious values, multiple name changes,
no unambiguous national or ethnic origin, purposefully hidden credentials.
Has no cohesive voting record. This is one surrounds himself with political
appointee advisors having little directly related professional credentials
and experience.
|
| Name: |
Jim Dandy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Third largest state in the Union?
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 1:36:20 PM
|
BTW - I'm from TX.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 8:15:06 PM
|
Oprah asked Bush if he thought Sarah Palin was "the one". He said -- you're trying to drag me back down in the swamp".
It was a pretty funny exchange -- more lighthearted than disagreeable.
With regard about issues that haunt each President -- let's face it, mostly it is a lapse in judgement. It happens because no one is all knowing. In every case (except Clinton), the President felt the urgent need to do "something" for whatever reason. In Clinton's case, his weakness has always been women and he should have realized that would ultimately bring him down. I guess it is a lapse in judgement to some degree. You know, while the ultimate responsiblity falls to the President, I don't think they are sometimes well served by those around them. No one wants to speak the truth to power, so when they perceive that the President is leaning in one direction or another, they step up and provide the "facts" that support that decision. It's nothing that the President does directly, but people are always trying to read the tea leaves and provide what they think the President wants. At least, that's my thought.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Anybody else watch the Bush interview?
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 8:49:41 PM
|
I think you may be right on both counts. Even if it is a result of the President not being well served at least for the senior positions it is ultimately their decision as to who does what. In that regard it could be a simple lapse in judgment or a result of a flaw that no one could predict.
That sounds like a funny exchange with Oprah. Reminds me of what Harry Truman said (I think), if you want a friend in Washington buy a dog.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Advice and Decision
|
|
Date:
|
11/10/2010 10:21:19 PM
|
In the military, we were trained that there are three types of decision makers (Fort Leavenworth, 1985):
You begin your decision brief. Before you get 20 seconds into the alternatives, the GUNSLINGER whips out his six gun and tells you his decision.
You end your decision brief. The INDECISIVE commander gives you a follow-on homework assignment. He won’t make a decision next time either.
You give your decision brief. You offer your advice as to your preferred alternative. The Commander asks you some questions. He is DECISIVE.
Then there is Barack Obama. Who knows what he is thinking? He has incompetent advisors and makes stupid decisions.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Unfortunately
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 8:51:59 AM
|
following the military model doesn't always result in a great decision either. In fact, it sometimes results in very flawed decisions. But, in a military situation, a decision has to be made, usually about a specific situation with defined parameters. A lot of Presidential issues are not quite as clear, and have a lot more parameters that must be considered.
You might be surprised to learn that there are more "indecisive" leaders in the military than decisive ones these days.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hound
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 11:56:35 AM
|
Huh?
|
What do you mean "huh"? What didn't you understand?
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Huh?
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 2:30:21 PM
|
Substituting “Boy Scouts” in your condescending lecture to me about military decision making, results in the following:
“following the Boy Scout model doesn't always result in a great decision either. In fact, it sometimes results in very flawed decisions. But, in a Boy Scout situation, a decision has to be made, usually about a specific situation with defined parameters. A lot of Presidential issues are not quite as clear, and have a lot more parameters that must be considered.
“You might be surprised to learn that there are more "indecisive" leaders in the Boy Scouts than decisive ones these days.”
The information content in your rhetoric escapes me.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Mey there Maj
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 3:02:12 PM
|
The Hound simply diagreed with you. How you found that to be a condescending lecture on military decision making is rather amazing. You seem to imply that the decision making prowess of the military is perfect. What you are really arguing is how dare you diagree with me. Well, welcome to the real world.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Mey there Maj
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 3:21:15 PM
|
OH! She was disagreeing with me. Thank you for clarifying that.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not condesending
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 6:20:08 PM
|
Military style decision making doesn't work in every situation. And sometimes it doesn't work in the military either.
As for the boy scouts, well, I'm sure you know more about that than I do. I was a girl scout.
Really, MAJOR, must you be so obscure? And as far as accusing me of being condesending.... I suggest you re-read your post.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not condesending
|
|
Date:
|
11/11/2010 11:17:00 PM
|
Both Hound and the Major are assuming that humans can make an accurate decision every time if provided pertinent information.
That is an empirically incorrect assumption.
|
| Name: |
MAJ USA RET
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not condesending
|
|
Date:
|
11/12/2010 7:51:33 AM
|
Yes, Comrade (sic), you are correct, as a military officer, I NEVER made ANY bad decisions. As a matter of fact, I have NEVER made a bad decision in my life. (Duh!)
My original premise stands: There are three types of decision makers… four if you count Obama.
|
| Name: |
comrade
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not condesending
|
|
Date:
|
11/12/2010 11:13:45 AM
|
I'll grant you your premise then.
But it still has nothing to do with the accuracy (desired effect) of the decision - it's just another way to talk about style.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Louisiana Lakes
»
Wallace Lake
Login
|
Home
