Hello Jim;

Something I learned from the Air Force is, “You can delegate authority but not responsibility”! It is amazing how many people do not agree with or understand that concept. It boils down to a member of a team being given a task. In such a capacity this individual is the spokesperson for the “boss”. He or she may do whatever they deem necessary to accomplish what they perceive as the given task.

In the end it is the person in charge who is responsible for actions and words that underlings have uttered and deeds accomplished. When an employee speaks for his or her company they are the spokesperson for the organization.

I recall comments related to the Bush Administration personnel which questions what in fact was the reason or policy for a specific action. It seems that there have been many viewpoints expressed to rationalize or explain any particular item this Administration has come in contact with. All too often these viewpoints and actions differ from each other.

What in fact is the viewpoint of the Administration on any subject? It seems there are many but it is up to the President to set policy and for his staff to carry it out. Just who makes policy at the White House?

If I had employees who would "shoot from the hip" I would council them. Are we all on the same page? Being representatives of the Administration of the most powerful country in the world, you would think that there would be just one message coming out of the White House. Apparently this is not the case and creativity and personal interpretation are allowed and picked up by the media.

What should we think on any subject when so many voices of authority differ?

Some people question the different messages and others could care less. When you are in contact with inconsistency you like to understand what is really occurring. To not set a clear policy and voice it is a grave mistake our President is accustomed to making.

Tom


>Hi Tom,
>
>It is interesting to see the use of a technicality to obscure the issue.
>
>That President Bush may never have said "imminent threat" when he and his henchmen/henchwomen said the equivalent or better on numerous occasions is an argument of the desperate. We're (the people) gullible for sure, but I don't think that badly! And it does seem odd the Republicans (who comment) seem to prefer obfuscation and the taste of power over truth and accountability as regards this issue and its implications.
>
>cheers
>
>
>>John;
>>
>>
>>Excellent links! Well done! Once again we either depend upon memory or something that has been published. It is amazing how many things are not on the Internet that are pertinent to knowledge. Others can be hard to find. With this administration I am amazed how many things are not to be found once uttered over the media. Those that are remembered are pushed aside. No one seems able to defend a position that something is wrong in the White House.
>>
>>The Republicans spent eight years attacking Clinton and almost shut down our nation. Somehow we continued but not with the will of the American people and certainly not with cooperation between the White House and Congress. Our present administration can do no wrong – they are “good Americans”. Everyone who thinks differently is suspect.
>>
>>It is interesting to argue over the use of a word, and depend upon forgetfulness to defend a position. I think what is really important is the end result – the attack on Iraq.
>>
>>Having read several of the writings of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, I shutter at his concepts for the world.
>>
>>By the way, seeking balance, and providing evidence are irrelevant to mad dogs. :)
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>>Just for balance...
>>>
>>>here is something interesting, initially asserting that the admin never claimed SH/WMD was an imminent threat, but see the interesting commentary further down, incuding the ref to an official document about imminent threat:
>>>
>>>http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001158.html
>>>
>>>and here is something easy (from Pakistan!) that has some relevance too.
>>>
>>>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-1-2004_pg4_2
>>>
>>>Finally this; important to realise that a lot of people interpret the current situation as an argument that "two wrongs make a right..."
>>>
>>>http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/05lawless.htm