Written by a Bush appointee? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

Right, Mike. This is the first time in your life you've ever been outraged by the fact the political appointments end up being political. And there are no other individuals anywhere in the world qualified to fill that job. The Obama administration will be forced to hire some homeless man off the street who never even made it to squeegee manager now, because they let the only good one on earth go.

Way to end with Yeats, though. That makes you sound real literary and shiat.

the only way to be sure - nuke-from-orbit-sure - is to fire every single bush appointee in the entire federal government. the, ahem, bush taint is so foul and far-reaching, it must be removed at every level.

so, if you're one of the .01% of bush appointees who are actually dedicated and non-partisan, yeah, well, it sucks to be you. go QQ somewhere else.

He serves at the pleasure of the President.

I used to love hearing that "get out of blame free" card in regard to the fired attorneys.

FlashHarry: the only way to be sure - nuke-from-orbit-sure - is to fire every single bush appointee in the entire federal government. the, ahem, bush taint is so foul and far-reaching, it must be removed at every level.

so, if you're one of the .01% of bush appointees who are actually dedicated and non-partisan, yeah, well, it sucks to be you. go QQ somewhere else.

Let's also salt the earth by disbanding Regent University.

Somethingsomethingsomething...Baby...bathwater...

An AIDS program that could have saved millions more if, for years, one-third of its spending wasn't mandated to be abstinence-only education, or if it used generic drugs? A program that's duplicating the efforts of UNAIDS, only with faith-based programs that opperate under "right of conscience" rules.

But seriously, Mark Dybul sounds like a stand up guy. Especially that bit about preventing condoms from being purchased with PEPFAR funds.

Well, I guess that will appease the rabid ideologues who are still suffering the lingering effects of BDS. I can't say I'm surprised by this sort of thing.

Every single appointment or termination during this guy's tenure was political and now he's butthurt about it? You guys are a special brand of hypocrites.

WaltzingMathilda: Every single appointment or termination during this guy's tenure was political and now he's butthurt about it? You guys are a special brand of hypocrites.

If it's hypocritical to thing political appointees should be judged on their effectiveness and capabilities as to whether they are retained on the job as opposed to blindly firing people along partisan lines, so be it. I don't care who appointed this guy. If he's doing a good job and has the respect of his peers and those with whom he deals, then firing solely because he was a Bush appointee is simplistic and stupid. Which is not to say the Bush Administration wasn't guilty of the same thing on numerous occasions, but that doesn't excuse it now.

Nabb1: Well, I guess that will appease the rabid ideologues who are still suffering the lingering effects of BDS. I can't say I'm surprised by this sort of thing.

Would you have expected a Clinton appointee to comply in full spirit with the global gag rule Bush reimplemented?

I'm sorry, the answer is:

D) It's a trick question. There were no "openly" gay Bush appointees.

/We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

fosborb: Nabb1: Well, I guess that will appease the rabid ideologues who are still suffering the lingering effects of BDS. I can't say I'm surprised by this sort of thing.

Would you have expected a Clinton appointee to comply in full spirit with the global gag rule Bush reimplemented?

Is that a b-b-but Bush and a b-b-but Clinton? Isn't that like dividing by zero?

If The Bush administration claims that the program saved 2 million lives, the actual number is probably closer to 14.

/hotlinked

Nabb1: WaltzingMathilda: Every single appointment or termination during this guy's tenure was political and now he's butthurt about it? You guys are a special brand of hypocrites.

If it's hypocritical to thing political appointees should be judged on their effectiveness and capabilities as to whether they are retained on the job as opposed to blindly firing people along partisan lines, so be it. I don't care who appointed this guy. If he's doing a good job and has the respect of his peers and those with whom he deals, then firing solely because he was a Bush appointee is simplistic and stupid. Which is not to say the Bush Administration wasn't guilty of the same thing on numerous occasions, but that doesn't excuse it now.

It's hypocritical to get all upset about a political decision when you reaped the benefits of said decisions for the past 8 years and said nothing. What that has to do with whether or not this decision was right or wrong, I'll never know.

Nabb1: Is that a b-b-but Bush and a b-b-but Clinton? Isn't that like dividing by zero?

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point, actually.

Bush deserves accolades and praise for the help and efforts in Africa. Bush, and those working for him in that area, deserve scorn and derision for the faith-based, anti-contraceptive parts of the program, which muddled the good and worked against the major part of the program.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If The Bush administration claims that the program saved 2 million lives, the actual number is probably closer to 0.14.

FTFY

Nabb1: fosborb: Nabb1: Well, I guess that will appease the rabid ideologues who are still suffering the lingering effects of BDS. I can't say I'm surprised by this sort of thing.

Would you have expected a Clinton appointee to comply in full spirit with the global gag rule Bush reimplemented?

Is that a b-b-but Bush and a b-b-but Clinton? Isn't that like dividing by zero?

I guess that's one way to not answer a question. Seems to get a lot of mileage around here.

It's clear Obama isn't out trying to replace every Bush appointee -- he kept on Gates. This one looks like it was a decision that might have sounded good at the time but now will end up being a lot more trouble than it should have been for them.

WaltzingMathilda: I guess that's one way to not answer a question. Seems to get a lot of mileage around here.

Why bother? I mean, I pose a point about judging someone on job performance, and I get a partisan argument in response.

Obdicut: Bush deserves accolades and praise for the help and efforts in Africa. Bush, and those working for him in that area, deserve scorn and derision for the faith-based, anti-contraceptive parts of the program, which muddled the good and worked against the major part of the program.

This. If I'm on fire and you save me by throwing me in a vat of acid, you sure did put out the fire, but don't tell me to be grateful about it. Bush's toadying to fundamentalist Christian demands regarding humanitarian aid shames every American. It were better that we refused to give ANY aid than to give aid with preconditions that sabotage any good it does.

Obdicut: Nabb1: Is that a b-b-but Bush and a b-b-but Clinton? Isn't that like dividing by zero?

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point, actually.

Bush deserves accolades and praise for the help and efforts in Africa. Bush, and those working for him in that area, deserve scorn and derision for the faith-based, anti-contraceptive parts of the program, which muddled the good and worked against the major part of the program.

At least the latter statement goes to specific policy issue. That doesn't explain why after initially being asked to stay on until a replacement was found that he was suddenly terminated, especially if he was as respected as the article claims.

Was he a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Our government is so mucked up. Shame to tell the guy one thing and then do another.

Who cares if he's gay?

FlashHarry: the only way to be sure - nuke-from-orbit-sure - is to fire every single bush appointee in the entire federal government. the, ahem, bush taint is so foul and far-reaching, it must be removed at every level.

so, if you're one of the .01% of bush appointees who are actually dedicated and non-partisan, yeah, well, it sucks to be you. go QQ somewhere else.

Well, except for that one guy. The guy charged with winning the war everyone said was unwinnable. Let's keep him around for a bit.

Diogenes: He serves at the pleasure of the President.


Are you saying Bush was pleasured by an openly gay man?

Nabb1: WaltzingMathilda: I guess that's one way to not answer a question. Seems to get a lot of mileage around here.

Why bother? I mean, I pose a point about judging someone on job performance, and I get a partisan argument in response.

"Rabid ideologues suffering from BDS" isn't partisan in your question? C'mon, Nabb, I know you're smarter than that.

Can you at least admit there may have been a bit more than this guy's vision about why the decision was made ... even if it was a bad decision? I mean, we're reading an opinion column by a Bush appointee about political decisions by the Obama administration ... I'm going to defer to "there's more to this story."

FTA: Over the years, PEPFAR distributed 2.2 billion condoms -- hardly an "abstinence only" approach.

Did you know that the Bush administration saved MILLIONS with their Aids policies?

I, for one, will always honor his legacy for this. He will truly go down as one of America's great presidents.

Nabb1: At least the latter statement goes to specific policy issue. That doesn't explain why after initially being asked to stay on until a replacement was found that he was suddenly terminated, especially if he was as respected as the article claims.

Well, that's a rather minor quibble, isn't it? Maybe they found someone quickly, maybe after meetings with him they realized he wasn't going to be effective in helping hand over power. There's any number of reasons. The most probably reason is the same reason they decided to let him go in the first place, and after further examination they decided to move up that decision.

If you don't argue with the decision, and are just arguing with the timing of the decision, it seems like a very, very minor matter to me.

Manfred J. Hattan: FlashHarry: the only way to be sure - nuke-from-orbit-sure - is to fire every single bush appointee in the entire federal government. the, ahem, bush taint is so foul and far-reaching, it must be removed at every level.

so, if you're one of the .01% of bush appointees who are actually dedicated and non-partisan, yeah, well, it sucks to be you. go QQ somewhere else.

Well, except for that one guy. The guy charged with winning the war everyone said was unwinnable. Let's keep him around for a bit.

The war on terror is as "winnable" as a war on "crime." Oh, did you mean the Iraq War? Because no one wins that war.

FlashHarry: the only way to be sure - nuke-from-orbit-sure - is to fire every single bush appointee in the entire federal government. the, ahem, bush taint is so foul and far-reaching, it must be removed at every level.

so, if you're one of the .01% of bush appointees who are actually dedicated and non-partisan, yeah, well, it sucks to be you. go QQ somewhere else.

News flash 2012 or 2016 almost all Obama appointees will end up on their a$$es too. Its the nature of appointee positions.

I don't wanna here no complaint when that happens. Politicians and government bureaucrats (especially senior people)need to be thrown out once in a while no matter how "competent" lest they accumulate too much power and privilege. Power corrupts.

WaltzingMathilda: Nabb1: WaltzingMathilda: I guess that's one way to not answer a question. Seems to get a lot of mileage around here.

Why bother? I mean, I pose a point about judging someone on job performance, and I get a partisan argument in response.

"Rabid ideologues suffering from BDS" isn't partisan in your question? C'mon, Nabb, I know you're smarter than that.

It was an appeal against hyper-partisanship.

Can you at least admit there may have been a bit more than this guy's vision about why the decision was made ... even if it was a bad decision? I mean, we're reading an opinion column by a Bush appointee about political decisions by the Obama administration ... I'm going to defer to "there's more to this story."

I'm sure there's more to the story, but it seems odd to suddenly yank the guy off the job by the end of business day leaving the program without anyone in charge until a replacement is appointed, when he was by all accounts doing a good job and was asked to stay on until the replacement was found.

Serves at the pleasure of the President... hmm.. where did I hear that before?

What differentiates this guy from any other Bush appointee? Is it that he's gay or that this program, flawed as it was, might be the only foreign policy program that could be spun as a success story of the Bush years?

Either way, who cares? The man is a political appointee and like all political appointees, his employment ended on Jan. 20th.

Also, is there an implication in the headline here that being gay makes one better able to manage an AIDS program? Because, first of all, the most qualified person should manage the program regardless of sexual orientation and the population affected, and second, the global AIDS epidemic affects far more heterosexual people, so it is somewhat irrelevant.

Obdicut: Nabb1: At least the latter statement goes to specific policy issue. That doesn't explain why after initially being asked to stay on until a replacement was found that he was suddenly terminated, especially if he was as respected as the article claims.

Well, that's a rather minor quibble, isn't it? Maybe they found someone quickly, maybe after meetings with him they realized he wasn't going to be effective in helping hand over power. There's any number of reasons. The most probably reason is the same reason they decided to let him go in the first place, and after further examination they decided to move up that decision.

So, you think your speculation should satisfy my curiosity on the issue?

If you don't argue with the decision, and are just arguing with the timing of the decision, it seems like a very, very minor matter to me.

I'm sure it does. Thank you for your input.

Bob Geldof astonished the aid community yesterday by using a return visit to Ethiopia to praise the Bush administration as one of Africa's best friends in its fight against hunger and Aids. The musician-turned activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union's "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crises. "You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian. The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side." Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did f*ck all." (new window)

Bob Geldof has parachuted into the White House travel pool here in Rwanda, and will join us on the flight from Air Force One to Ghana tonight. He's going to interview President Bush for Time magazine and several European outlets, such as Liberacion, about aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS, malaria, and business development. Mr. Geldof is an Irish rock and roll singer and longtime social activist who has helped, along with U2 rocker Bono, raise awareness about need in Africa. His most well known achievement is organizing the Live Aid concert in 1985, which raised money for debt relief for poor African countries. But Mr. Geldof has remained closely engaged with African affairs since then, and he spoke off the cuff to reporters today who were waiting for a press conference with Mr. Bush and Rwandan President Paul Kagame. Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement. Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, "has done more than any other president so far." (new window)

You see, this is why I loath the two-party system. In spite of the fact that Bush dedicated billions to fight AIDS in Africa, doctrinaire little prick Democrats like the ones in this thread can only try to find reasons to criticize Bush, even though high-profile people who have forgotten more about the subject than they'll ever know praise the effort. You see, it's all about winning and demonstrating dominance over the other team. It has nothing to do with actual results. What a bunch of stupid, pin-headed assholes.

Nothing will get better with this new Administration and Congress. We aren't witnessing a changing of the guard, we're witnessing a shuffling of the cronies.

I'm guessing that any money allocated for abstinence programs within the budget goes away.

While I worked at the White House -- from 2001 to 2006 --

Nuff said.

CDS started somewhere in the mid-'90s. BDS started as soon as Fox News declared FL for Bush in '00. ODS started before the primaries were even over.

Obdicut: Bush deserves accolades and praise for the help and efforts in Africa. Bush, and those working for him in that area, deserve scorn and derision for the faith-based, anti-contraceptive parts of the program, which muddled the good and worked against the major part of the program.

And let's not forget denying help to those most at risk. (new window)

bobbette: Also, is there an implication in the headline here that being gay makes one better able to manage an AIDS program?

And what's funny is the guy in the article suggests that he's so awesome DESPITE being gay, as if to say "see, we're good guys when it comes to letting gay people do stuff for us (we just don't want those god damned queers marrying each other and turning our kids into godless heathens)."

FTA: It mattered little to the Bush administration that Dybul was openly gay or that he had contributed to Democratic candidates in the past. He was recognized as a great humanitarian physician ...

Well, aren't you guys sweet for overlooking his deadly sins to help with your agenda.

WaltzingMathilda...
Can you at least admit there may have been a bit more than this guy's vision about why the decision was made ... even if it was a bad decision? I mean, we're reading an opinion column by a Bush appointee about political decisions by the Obama administration ... I'm going to defer to "there's more to this story."

Replacing a Bush appointee with an Obama appointee is the story. Obama didn't decide to change the focus of PEPFAR but keep the guy who's been running it on for a few months to transition. Obama Denial Syndrome seems to be spreading rapidly around here.

canyoneer: You see, this is why I loath the two-party system. In spite of the fact that Bush dedicated billions to fight AIDS in Africa, doctrinaire little prick Democrats like the ones in this thread can only try to find reasons to criticize Bush, even though high-profile people who have forgotten more about the subject than they'll ever know praise the effort. You see, it's all about winning and demonstrating dominance over the other team. It has nothing to do with actual results. What a bunch of stupid, pin-headed assholes.

Nothing will get better with this new Administration and Congress. We aren't witnessing a changing of the guard, we're witnessing a shuffling of the cronies.


RON PAUL 2012!

FinishedTFY

canyoneer: In spite of the fact that Bush dedicated billions to fight AIDS in Africa, doctrinaire little prick Democrats like the ones in this thread can only try to find reasons to criticize Bush, even though high-profile people who have forgotten more about the subject than they'll ever know praise the effort.

Look, just because Elvis Presley took some pictures with Nixon doesn't make Nixon a good guy to remember.

Oh no! No one could possibly be as good as him for that job! What a mistake this was!

Cry me a farking river. Go get in the unemployment line with the thousands of other poor saps.

1) What does him being gay have to do with anything?

2) The writer of this Op-Ed, Michael Gerson, was Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until 2006, so of course he's going to stand up for his old boss, co-worker, and trash the Democratic President. The Obama team probably concluded that Mark Dybul's philosophy on fighting AIDS doesn't jive with Obama's, so he was given the boot.

From the first line of the farking article:
"Some of the personnel stumbles of the Obama administration -- including the abortive nomination of Bill Richardson as commerce secretary -- resulted from incompetent vetting"

I'm sorry, but wasn't that an example of competent vetting?