![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearAnd its not because I think he's wrong as such; I think refusing Dubai blindly as some members of congress and industry want us to is bigotist and hypocritical. I agree there should be a more open investigation, as well as a more open description of if and how the DHS will improve security at those installations to help the naysayers relax.
However...
The problem is not Bush's stance. The problem is how Bush's stance played itself out.
The ideal mode by which things *should* happen is that the administration presents the facts and the possiblities to the president so he can make a quick but (theoretically) informed policy decision, and then the administration defends the President's decision to the other branches of government and to the public and media, and acts on it while the President gets on with making all the other important decisions and things he needs to do.
What seemed to have happened here, and signs are similar things have happened before in the last 5 years, is that the administration made the decision, informed the President after the fact, and now we have a President publicly defending a decision of his administration rather than the other way around.
Extremely ass-backwards. I have no idea if or how much this has happened to Presidents before (outside of military taking action in a war, often a tactical or strategic necessity), but in this instance, it disgusts me. Perhaps it does happen a lot more than I think, but in this case it continues to support the impression that we have a President acting as a figurehead for an administration (an administration where the Vice President has asserted more authority over things he has no right to than any before him), rather than an administration serving the goals and ideals of the President.
However...
The problem is not Bush's stance. The problem is how Bush's stance played itself out.
The ideal mode by which things *should* happen is that the administration presents the facts and the possiblities to the president so he can make a quick but (theoretically) informed policy decision, and then the administration defends the President's decision to the other branches of government and to the public and media, and acts on it while the President gets on with making all the other important decisions and things he needs to do.
What seemed to have happened here, and signs are similar things have happened before in the last 5 years, is that the administration made the decision, informed the President after the fact, and now we have a President publicly defending a decision of his administration rather than the other way around.
Extremely ass-backwards. I have no idea if or how much this has happened to Presidents before (outside of military taking action in a war, often a tactical or strategic necessity), but in this instance, it disgusts me. Perhaps it does happen a lot more than I think, but in this case it continues to support the impression that we have a President acting as a figurehead for an administration (an administration where the Vice President has asserted more authority over things he has no right to than any before him), rather than an administration serving the goals and ideals of the President.
