Ghost of BiB

I think we knew that.

I haven't been keeping up. My bad. I considered that most everyone here knew that, but thanks for pointing that out. KBR is easier to type than "Halliburton". Can I use "HB" from now on? It works on the football board!

Who cares? What impact does it have on anything, other than a right to B word about something to make a pointless point? If Hillary Clinton had an avocation for bird hunting, and the same thing happened, I'd think the same way. Damn, this is an issue? Anyone who has ever hunted knows there's guns, bows or whatever involved. Who really thinks it's a matter of national importance that CNN and FOX reported within 15 seconds? Who cares? (I think if the guy who got shot died, or was in any real danger things would be different - because it IS TV...but, damn...)

Still can't lick the windows through the faceguard, though. When was the last time you heard anything substantial about KBR? (It's only Halliburton because Cheney was involved...guess everyone should strive to stay in government forever, if they belong to "X" party). But, this has been beat to death. It's business. It's sad that in this short a thread, two different posters bring up enlightening no-bid contracts that have nothing to do with anything. I haven't been remotely political for a couple three years, but I'm sure some will say I'm a Bush mouthpiece.

And is prevented by law from doing so, unless a convoluted, Congressionally approved process is followed, or a Presidential order is given. Wonder which happened? Not a pro-Bush statement, I have no doubt Clinton would have done so as well. Oh my, what a dream. I wouldn't advocate this for most agencies, but FEMA is crisis response by definition. When you break it down, responding to a natural disaster is very much like responding to an attack by a very powerful adversary. Or, a nut case adversary with the right tool set. Like it or not, the military overall has been doing this for a few thousand years. The basic principles haven't changed. Yup, it's logistics. For a crisis response, who would you rather head domestic emergency response and relief? A good, proven General or a former Wal-Mart Exec?

The GAO doesn't "belong" to either party, and is generally and uniformly hated by everyone (as they rarely, if ever have anything nice to say - that's not their job). I was more interested that that was their take. Don't confuse "responsive" with "perfection as evidenced by hindsight". Thought someone else might catch the GAO angle. As far as me personally, I don't give anything that comes out of Congress (Rep or Dem) the time of day 99% of the time. Everyone there has an agenda, mostly personal to one degree or another.

Article

Wasn't I featured on the travel channel recently? The "Haunted Web Boards" episode? Or was it that place in the Hamptons? I forget. Might have been Gettysburg on the History Channel. I don't get out much.

Awwww, walk it off.

As maybe an exclamation point, I also have personal knowledge that there are some staunch Bush supporters including his own appointees that fight certain actions like dogs over a bone. Some people in those positions don't like having their "power" adjusted. Even if it is only in perception. Yes, I'll speak vaguely because I'm not that much of an idiot. No doubt, having some knowledge of the personalities involved, and knowing how petty people in Washington can be - some crap indeed came into play, but I don't think it was in terms of placing "unqualified" people into jobs over qualified people because of allegiances. This sounds in-house, and probably has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. I also get the impression from the article that this "mass exodus" is self induced. I didn't see nor have I heard anything where folks were summarily fired. There are power plays in any organization, and one side apparantly lost. So now, as is typical - especially for State - they go to a friendly press for their sour grapes. There are many precedents. State's role in this thing is very large, and very important. Can't be done without them. BUT - the approach to this role has changed. People not on board can undermine the overall effort sometimes without even intending to do so. And sadly, some intend. I don't view it as disloyalty or treason - they just think theirs is a better way and at the same time probably don't have a clear understanding of where their part fits into the bigger picture. Don't assume that "experts" are "expert" in all facets of any operation. They are considered "experts" precisely because they know the minutia of a particular piece. That also tends to narrow thinking and innovation. Sometimes it is better to have "generalists". I would say that placing a loyalty oath statement into an email, to me at least is an incredibly dumb thing to do - were it me, I would have addressed agreement with direction and policy in the interview process. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy got a good spanking for that one.

As I and others have said, no doubt crap goes on. All administrations do it. Out of my lane. But, my perspective on the WMD issues and what is going on behind the scenes is coming from first hand experience. I am part of a fairly small group that is responsible for integrating and coordinating the efforts of these departments, agencies and international partners to do this thing. From that perspective, I know first hand how difficult "change" is for some people. And why for some - they are much more concerned with preserving their own rice bowls than in contributing to a unified joint effort. If it wasn't for this level of resistance, often for purely personal reasons, things might be a lot farther along. I hope my perspective here has some value. It's just not that everything is always as it seems.

Policy is perhaps the wrong word. There is a national strategy to combat WMD, and several sub-strategies, plans and inter-related things that comprise the overall program. Across the broad spectrum, I don't see this as an issue of ass kissing. Before these policy and strategy documents are signed off on and issued just about everyone who might possibly become involved gets to chop and comment on the drafts. So, in effect folks at State had their chance at their say - as did those at Justice, Defense, treasury, etc. Key to this campaign, and I would imagine to most things is effectively leveraging the best capabilities and resources of all applicable agencies and departments to prosecute the strategies directed. This isn't effective with dissent. I don't know that dissent is even really involved here - though it's implied. There's just a new way of doing business that a some people don't agree with, but - that's in effect, too bad. In order for a synergistic process to work, just as with a sports team as an analogy, everyone must understand the playbook and their role in a particular play. No doubt "cronyism" to a degree is involved here, it is everywhere. But, there is also the angle of trying to change the institutional mind sets to better fit the accepted strategy. There's been a lot of shuffling and replacing in Defense, but I guess the author doesn't have the same in's with them as he has with State. But anyway - whether there was a pissing contest and death match at State or not, my point is like I said, that there is more to the big story, and the article in some respects is quite misleading. This is a very brief attempt to try to explain something that is really sort of complicated - but FWIW, I can guarantee you without any doubt in my mind whatsoever that their are "dissenting" voices in the system, and plenty of new ideas. That's actually the whole point. You might also be surprised to actually see how many "career civil servants with years of expertise" go into blank eyed shut down mode when asked to look at something differently than they have for the past 15 years.

As with most anything, there's two sides to most stories. I can't comment much on the inner politics at State because I don't know. I would expect there are issues across the board. One thing I AM certain of though, from talking with some WMD staffers at State is that there was a lot of resistance to any changes or new positions from some people because they resulted in unclear career and promotion paths. I can though, comment on the hows and whys of the overall government reorganization in this area. The article linked presents an innaccurate take of the "consequences" of changing one small part of the overall organization to make it fit better with what everyone else is doing. BTW, everyone else is reorganizing to better fit their piece into the pie - but this was a vendetta "Bush Bad" article - whatever. The sky is not falling. I take particular issue with the implications about treaty verification. For what it's worth, I don't believe that State has a very big involvement in that. On-site Treaty verification is overseen by the OSD/P and executed by a certain Defense agency. I don't get the feel that the USG is losing any WMD expertise. In fact, over the last two years it's gained a lot. Also, I'm more than certain (or at least I hope) that the author of the article is not familiar with the strategy to combat WMD terrorism.

Poof

Around.

Speaking as someone with more than a cursory knowledge and involvement in this area, it's important at the organizational level that everyone be on board with the concepts, visions and direction. The "Combating WMD" mission is and has been going through some very major changes in terms of planning, emphasis, strategy, organization, etc.. It is more important that everyone involved understand the current policy and strategy direction, and contribute to it rather than continue to forward a bunch of legacy processes that haven't worked. There are many "food fights" in all areas of the government generally initiated by folks who have done things a certain way for a certain period of time, and have no intention of supporting anything new. This is often budget driven. A change in responsibilities changes budgets. As such, we (as a system) get in our own way an awful lot, but things are really finally going in a very, very positive direction. So, if one wants to say "Bush Good", or "Bush Bad", go ahead - but that's not really what is at issue here.

Well, as you have published and your publishings have been futher referenced by others on whatever you geeks call orbital mechanics and astronomy stuff, I definitely defer to you on that part. Since I look at simpler issues, I haven't run across anyone who gives a sh--. The Chinese have a hell of a lot more on the ball than that.

Being a ghost, I thought I had finally graduated from purgatory. Then I read this thread.

I've been dead quite a while, but then again I am a ghost. I did make it past 40, though.

This is damn sure bizzare.

Sumatra is good, we all have our biases. After all this Bills from the teenagers crap, I'm not going to argue coffee. I do like good coffee, I like my choices but I'm more than willing to learn.

Jamiacan Blue Mountain, and pure Kona when I can get it. There are some nice Kenyan small plantation things too, but I lean to the Jamaican. I drink maybe two cups per day, and I like my coffee, scotch, bourbon, cigars and tea. Quality over quantity. I hand grind my own beans in an old coffee grinder. The motorized one gave out, the boys in the office abused it to death. Affectation? Sue me. Everyone else is.

Let me see a show of hands of anyone here who knows what the fugg they are talking about? OK, thought so.

Anybody see my pants? No? Ok.

Something I've never seen posted, though it's been discussed, is just how much money has been made off the Bills in the last few years. Actual profit. Net, not gross. Never will get a true answer, but it would be fun to know.