TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Boy, I bet this has never, never, never, ever happened before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buford T. Justice Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Loyalty to a boss as part of a job requirement? Interesting. I know in my company they only hire unloyal people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good. 599267[/snapback] Care to comment on Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, a DEMOCRAT who "promised" to do away with cronyism and "yes-men", hiring her sister (who has zero experience) a week after her election to a $90,000 gig as her own personal secretary? At her inauguration Monday, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said the public "bestowed upon me a trust that I will not take for granted." But by the end of the week, she had already undercut that promise. Rice is making a mistake in hiring her brother's wife as a $95,000-a-year executive assistant. She should correct this early misstep. Rice defends her choice of Cheryl Rice, wife of her brother, Larry, as the most qualified person to fill the job of confidential aide, scheduler and trusted adviser. But a good lawyer should know when an argument is off point. This is not about her sister-in-law's competence or credentials, which are impressive. It is about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety as top law enforcement officer. Rice is running the district attorney's office, not Off Track Betting. Rice has quickly forgotten that she was elected on a "holier than thou" Democratic ticket that attacked the cronyism and patronage of its Republican opponents. She especially criticized Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray for putting her father and brother on the public payroll. Murray defended her family by saying they were very competent. Is Murray now right, or is Rice now wrong? This need for an all-in-the-family hire sends a troubling message about Rice's judgment and that of her inner circle of advisers. It is an amateurish miscalculation. http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpr...rials-headlines But Democrats Different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Loyalty to a boss as part of a job requirement? Interesting. I know in my company they only hire unloyal people. 599285[/snapback] Government employees are supposed to be loyal to the country and the constitution, not to a particular party or president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good. 599267[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Great idea... "Thomas Lehrman, a political appointee who heads the new office of Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, advertised outside the State Department to fill jobs in his office. In an e-mail to universities and research centers, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder, he listed loyalty to Bush and Rice's priorities as a qualification. " Just what we need at State, and especially the office of WMDT, YES-men. But Bush Good. 599267[/snapback] So you'd rather hire people who might subvert the President and leak national intelligence in doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 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 suporting 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. 599298[/snapback] where the heck have you been ???????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 where the heck have you been ???????????????????????? 599305[/snapback] Around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Around. 599313[/snapback] Fag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Fag 599314[/snapback] Poof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 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. 599298[/snapback] Oh, like YOU know anything about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Fag 599314[/snapback] Oh great, there you go...scared him back into his hole. Does anyone know if he saw his shadow?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Oh great, there you go...scared him back into his hole. Does anyone know if he saw his shadow?? 599352[/snapback] Ghosts have shadows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 So you'd rather hire people who might subvert the President and leak national intelligence in doing so? 599303[/snapback] So you'd limit your hiring pool to only those that were overtly allied with a sitting president's domestic policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 So you'd limit your hiring pool to only those that were overtly allied with a sitting president's domestic policy? 599377[/snapback] Realistically, though...why wouldn't you? On the project I'm working right now, we're trying to design a three-tier enterprise application with a team consisting of COBOL programmers who've never done and do not believe in three-tier architecture. Basically, we spend so much time arguing we never get anything done. And that's one software project. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to extrapolate that dynamic to a foreign policy team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Oh, like YOU know anything about it... 599347[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Care to comment on Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, a DEMOCRAT who "promised" to do away with cronyism and "yes-men", hiring her sister (who has zero experience) a week after her election to a $90,000 gig as her own personal secretary? At her inauguration Monday, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said the public "bestowed upon me a trust that I will not take for granted." But by the end of the week, she had already undercut that promise. Rice is making a mistake in hiring her brother's wife as a $95,000-a-year executive assistant. She should correct this early misstep. Rice defends her choice of Cheryl Rice, wife of her brother, Larry, as the most qualified person to fill the job of confidential aide, scheduler and trusted adviser. But a good lawyer should know when an argument is off point. This is not about her sister-in-law's competence or credentials, which are impressive. It is about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety as top law enforcement officer. Rice is running the district attorney's office, not Off Track Betting. Rice has quickly forgotten that she was elected on a "holier than thou" Democratic ticket that attacked the cronyism and patronage of its Republican opponents. She especially criticized Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray for putting her father and brother on the public payroll. Murray defended her family by saying they were very competent. Is Murray now right, or is Rice now wrong? This need for an all-in-the-family hire sends a troubling message about Rice's judgment and that of her inner circle of advisers. It is an amateurish miscalculation. http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpr...rials-headlines But Democrats Different. 599287[/snapback] You obviously don't get the point since you're stuck in the lemming mode: cronysim goes on all the time in "politically appointed" positions, and yes on both sides. However, for civil service hires, especially in the area of WMD, don't you want the most highly qualified person? Don't you want someone who is not afraid to have a counter argument to the Neocons? Sorry GoB, but I think this is more than a "change of policy." It's making sure that everyone is on board with one policy. That is NOT good at the STate department. Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 You obviously don't get the point since you're stuck in the lemming mode: cronysim goes on all the time in "politically appointed" positions, and yes on both sides. However, for civil service hires, especially in the area of WMD, don't you want the most highly qualified person? Don't you want someone who is not afraid to have a counter argument to the Neocons? Civil Service? "Most highly qualified"? Do you even know what civil service is? Sorry GoB, but I think this is more than a "change of policy." It's making sure that everyone is on board with one policy. That is NOT good at the STate department. Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing. 599392[/snapback] Yeah...because what the !@#$ does he know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Civil Service? "Most highly qualified"? Do you even know what civil service is? Yeah...because what the !@#$ does he know. 599396[/snapback] Oh boy, is this one of those "all government workers are incompetent" posts? So you're in favor of hiring political sycophants instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts