Thursday, October 16, 2003
Presenting the Latest Adventures in the Meta-Administration!
White House Entering Complete Fucking Meltdown Mode!
From the Philly Inquirer:
The Bush Meta-Administration (from here on the "M-A") is concerned not with
the fact that it is in disarray, and that members of the M-A are feuding
over issues of substance--but rather with the appearance of disarray and
feuding!
The M-A is concerned not with the fact that there may be problems with the
substance of its Iraq policies--but rather with the fact that there is
"resistance" to those policies!
Whereas a regular old run-of-the-mill president might follow the tedious
course of showing that he is in charge by being in charge--i.e., by being
the president--in the M-A, the president takes charge by "declar[ing] that
he is in charge"!
Or else what? Or else Roberto Gonzales will have to review their emails and
delete the ones that prove they have been involved in leaks?
Ha.
In the M-A, the problem is not so much with the events in the real world
which the stories refer to--but rather with the presence of the stories
themselves!
Well, who did he ask? The members of his own administration? But that
wouldn't make sense, because unless there were news stories describing the
"infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering," then there wouldn't really be
any "infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering," would there? And since Bush
has said he doesn't read news from newspapers, how does he even know it
exists?
God, it's just fucking embarrassing. Yes, Bush: it's "as bad as" that!
Hopefully he's treating that excessive strain with an extra nap or two.
"Message" clear, President! But where, one might ask, is Bush getting his information from? And once he has obtained such information, where does he find the epistemological
courage to assert his discovery of an identity between "The person who's in
charge" and "me"? I can imagine the syllogistic process: "Okay, there is a
person who is in charge. And there is me. Now..."
Right again! In the M-A, it's not the "merits" of the policy that
matter--it's whether or not there "appears" to be any "resistance" to that
policy!
WHOA there, Mr. President--let's stay on track here; let's keep our eye on
the ball. It's not the policy that is good or bad; it's the appearance of
resistance from the people who do/do not find fault with the good/bad policy!
Right. That's Leadership. That's Decisiveness. Remember the applicable
equation: "Person who is in charge" = "me."
After years of difficult complexity and near-inscrutable levels of subtlety
and suggestion from the president, this "directness" must almost come as a
breath of fresh air!
I don't see why not; is there something wrong with "I'm not
here to debate it" as a persuasive gesture?
Actually if his eyes had been lasers they would likely have appeared as a
single laser, judging from how close together his "eyes" are set in his face.
Watch out, media--you've got an oddly singular-looking set of dual
eye-lasers heading in your direction...
From the Philly Inquirer:
Bush orders officials to stop the leaks
He warned of action if anonymous sources were quoted, a senior aide said. Visiting senators also heard a stern line.
WASHINGTON -Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding
within his administration
The Bush Meta-Administration (from here on the "M-A") is concerned not with
the fact that it is in disarray, and that members of the M-A are feuding
over issues of substance--but rather with the appearance of disarray and
feuding!
as well as growing resistance to his policies
in Iraq,
The M-A is concerned not with the fact that there may be problems with the
substance of its Iraq policies--but rather with the fact that there is
"resistance" to those policies!
President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he
is in charge -
Whereas a regular old run-of-the-mill president might follow the tedious
course of showing that he is in charge by being in charge--i.e., by being
the president--in the M-A, the president takes charge by "declar[ing] that
he is in charge"!
told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media,
or else.
Or else what? Or else Roberto Gonzales will have to review their emails and
delete the ones that prove they have been involved in leaks?
News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Ha.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any
stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore,
In the M-A, the problem is not so much with the events in the real world
which the stories refer to--but rather with the presence of the stories
themselves!
and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior
administration official who asked that his name not be used.
An escalating turf war involving Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld,
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell has generated an unusually bountiful crop of leaks in
recent months, and one result is a criminal investigation of anonymous
officials in the White House who are alleged to have leaked the name of
a CIA covert officer.
The infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering on such major
foreign-policy issues as North Korea, Syria, Iran and postwar Iraq have
escalated to a level that veterans of government say they have not seen
in years. At one point, the senior official said, Bush himself asked
how bad it was.
Well, who did he ask? The members of his own administration? But that
wouldn't make sense, because unless there were news stories describing the
"infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering," then there wouldn't really be
any "infighting, backstabbing and maneuvering," would there? And since Bush
has said he doesn't read news from newspapers, how does he even know it
exists?
"This isn't as bad as [George] Shultz vs. [Caspar] Weinberger, is it?"
he asked, referring to a legendary Reagan administration rivalry
between secretaries of state and defense. One top official reportedly
nodded and said it was "way worse."
God, it's just fucking embarrassing. Yes, Bush: it's "as bad as" that!
The infighting has strained Bush's patience.
Hopefully he's treating that excessive strain with an extra nap or two.
On Monday, reacting to reports of internal conflict among his top
advisers, the President told one regional broadcaster: "The person
who's in charge is me."
"Message" clear, President! But where, one might ask, is Bush getting his information from? And once he has obtained such information, where does he find the epistemological
courage to assert his discovery of an identity between "The person who's in
charge" and "me"? I can imagine the syllogistic process: "Okay, there is a
person who is in charge. And there is me. Now..."
Bush's attempt to assert himself extends beyond the executive branch.
Late Tuesday, in a brief, brusque arm-twisting session with nine
senators, the President made it clear that he was not there to answer
questions or debate the merits of his $87 billion Iraq and Afghanistan
aid package.
Right again! In the M-A, it's not the "merits" of the policy that
matter--it's whether or not there "appears" to be any "resistance" to that
policy!
At one point, as he discussed the question of providing some of the
money as a loan, Bush slammed his hand down on the table and said:
"This is bad policy."
WHOA there, Mr. President--let's stay on track here; let's keep our eye on
the ball. It's not the policy that is good or bad; it's the appearance of
resistance from the people who do/do not find fault with the good/bad policy!
When Collins tried to ask a question, the President replied: "I'm not
here to debate it."
Right. That's Leadership. That's Decisiveness. Remember the applicable
equation: "Person who is in charge" = "me."
One participant told The Inquirer that some of the senators,
particularly those who have never been on the opposing side of an issue
with Bush, were "surprised by his directness." It was clear he was not
there to engage in any give-and-take, the participant said.
After years of difficult complexity and near-inscrutable levels of subtlety
and suggestion from the president, this "directness" must almost come as a
breath of fresh air!
Nevertheless, Bush failed to sway any of the pro-loan Republicans.
I don't see why not; is there something wrong with "I'm not
here to debate it" as a persuasive gesture?
That failure was in sharp contrast to the President's lobbying of House
members last week. Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who had pushed a
loan plan, backed away after meeting with Bush. "If his eyes had been
lasers, mine would have burned out," Wamp said then.
Actually if his eyes had been lasers they would likely have appeared as a
single laser, judging from how close together his "eyes" are set in his face.
"What's most revealing is the extent of frustration taking hold," said
historian Robert Dallek of Boston University, a biographer of
Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy. "It's really
reminiscent of Johnson and Vietnam. Members of the Senate... and the
media were giving him grief. It sounds like Bush is falling into that
pattern. He's blaming the media, much like Johnson did."
Watch out, media--you've got an oddly singular-looking set of dual
eye-lasers heading in your direction...