I think the main problem is the timing. If the commission had been done sooner, it would have been less political (as it could have done less damage to Bush being further from the election), and we would be able to implement improvements sooner.

Given that its being done this year, they should have held it to after the election. There would be much less reason to use it to attack a lame duck Bush, and a new administration Kerry would not be involved. Hence, less politicization.

Furthermore, given that the only administration where blame can be laid is the defunct Clinton administration, the whole thing is a natural setup for those wanting to attack Bush.

In other words, the commission is not serious because of the timing. Furthermore, the blatantly anti-Bush bias of almost all major news outlets will turn it into a propaganda show trial, regardless of what actually happens in the hearings.

Setting aside anything else, I am stupidly unable to understand what you're saying here, John: "Furthermore, given that the only administration where blame can be laid is the defunct Clinton administration, the whole thing is a natural setup for those wanting to attack Bush."

What does this mean? How does the alleged fault of the Clinton administration lead to attacks on Bush?

How does the alleged fault of the Clinton administration lead to attacks on Bush?

The way I see it is that the Clinton administration had some sort of knowledge and instead of acting on the knowledge they sat on it for quite some time. Then Clinton was out and Bush was in, and the same information was still there somewhere. Then 9/11 happened. Now people left and right are saying (in hindsight) to Bush "You had information (because it was still there from the Clinton era). Why did you do nothing?"

The same people would have been attacking him if he went after the "islamofacists" proactively. The prime time for prevention of 9/11 if it were at all possible might have been after the first Trade center bombing, but Clinton did not have the balls (or perhaps evidence) to undergo major military action at that point.

Andrew -

Good post and I agree. It's important to remember who "the enemy" is and critical to keep in mind that it is not anyone in this or a former USofA Administration.

Further, I'll say that I wish we could achieve a state of...I don't know...less "enemy-based" politics in this country, so that every sneeze and stumble wasn't seized on by the opposing party and trumpeted as proof of venality or criminal incompetence.

If the fallible human beings in positions of responsibility were able to lay out their thinking and the rationale for their decisions more openly, without having to worry about being pilloried, maybe we'd be in a better position to compare what we've done (and why we did it) to the results and use that information to help us make future decisions.

I'm babbling. Again.

Never mind.

One reason to re-elect Bush is that he will indeed be a lame duck president. If Kerry is elected, much of his time and energy will be focussed on how to get re-elected in 2008. If Kerry is elected congress will spend an inordinate amount of time just trying to impede anything Kerry thinks is important.

I'm with Anne, I wish there were some way to make all politics less confrontational. The last good example of that was the first Gulf war where both houses of Congress debated the issues, not each other. I still think term limits would help here.

Wes -

I'm not entirely sold on the issue of term limits. One way of looking at them is they prevent anyone from going to Washington and setting up camp there, building a 30-year power base from which they become a sort of de facto arm of a shadow government.

Another way of looking at them is that every eight or ten years, you throw out everyone with experience and put amateurs in power.

I don't object, rationally, to the idea of a career politician. I do frequently object to the reality of some of them. :)

The whole "lame duck" thing is another problem, from the presidency on down. Influence is partly based on the idea that you'll be around later and people will have to deal with you and with the consequences of their interactions with you. "You wash my back...." That sort of thing.

People don't have to worry about working with a "lame duck" official after the end of that final term, so every time we enact a term limit for an office, we reduce the influence of the elected official during their last years in office.

Why do none of these problems ever have easy solutions? I think it would be nice if elected officials were altruists who wanted to be in office just to get the job done, but that's just not how it is. It's all power-brokering.

Also? I think the whole "lame duck" thing is a reason why electing Bush would be a bad idea. Kerry, with a potential 4 more years in front of him, is going to be a lot more concerned with the consequences of the policies we iplement from here on.

I think the whole "lame duck" thing is a reason why electing Bush would be a bad idea. Kerry, with a potential 4 more years in front of him, is going to be a lot more concerned with the consequences of the policies we iplement from here on.

Conversely, a lame duck knows he's got to do whatever he hopes to do now, or it won't get done. Kerry can rationalize putting some things off by telling himself he'll get to them in his second term. Bush will know that he has to prioritize and do what matters most before the 2008 campaign gets moving.

Andrew, While I agree with you on lame ducks, it still depends on what "matters most" to the lame duck - which MAY OR MAY NOT matter most to the rest of us....