"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

April 09, 2004
That's all I'm sayin'

This is the sort of thing you get when you have a CEO instead of a leader.

I heard on NPR last night that one of the things Richard Clark was told, when he was trying to get time on Bush's schedule to brief him, was that he'd get time with the president after the staff had had time to decide what the Administration's position on terrorism was.

Think about that. Bush isn't guiding his Administration's position on issues. They're choosing their own positions and taking them to Bush to rubber-stamp them.

It's very much the way a CEO operates.

It's not at all how a leader should act.

Also, in the past when people have shouted that the Bush Administration had told an out-and-out lie about something, analysis usually showed that it was possible to check the semantics and see that the Bush Administration hadn't, quite, been saying what we were hearing.* I don't know if that's going to happen with Rice's testimony.

* I wonder if that's why Bush's speeches strike me as being so clumsy and inept? Because they're making such a focused attempt to imply one thing while not actually saying it? A task like that doesn't leave much room for choosing your words based on making the speaker sound intelligent. Or even convincing.

Anyhow.

Eric Rauchway, my favorite Alterman Alternate, is subbing today and he's talking about Rice. He's interested in her syntax.

This conspicuously careful language raises a question. Dr. Rice and I have one experience in common: responsibility for teaching undergraduates. I know that at Stanford, where Rice was Provost, they teach students not to begin sentences with "there was," because it makes for poor communication -- it allows you to assert something about the existence or non-existence of an action but it makes it unclear who did what, where and when. The National Security Adviser is not using this impenetrable locution by accident. What is she being vague about?

Also note the quoted bit of Rice's testimony where she's defending the Administration's failure to take the pre-9/11 warnings seriously by saying that no one told them to take action against the threats.

That, too, can play two ways. If the memo in question was that solid, should the intelligence agency have included a specific, "do something, dammit" notation?

But even more interestingly, let's sit here for a moment and think about what kind of Administration can't figure out for itself when it should act…or at least demand immediate follow-up data when the course of action is unclear?

The answer, of course, is obvious. An Administration headed by a CEO and not "led" by a leader.

Moving on, Eric also quotes for us, Rice's careful disclaimer: "There was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C." and I'm left wondering if the memo suggested, for instance, that an attack was coming on LA or San Francisco and the Administration figured there was no big rush to save either of those places?

I pick on that specific statement of hers because it's obviously one she rehearsed in advance. She's saying exactly what she wants to say there. What are we not being told?

Anyhow. I'm feeling fair and balanced today, but really and not in the way FOX others mean it, so let me point out something else:

Kerrey picked up on this question of what had been done by mentioning the president's much-quoted "I'm tired of swatting flies" line, which he wanted to "disabuse" Rice of further using: "What fly had he swatted?" Kerrey asked. Rice wanted to give context to the question, and Kerrey came back: "No, no, he hadn't swatted.... We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?"

Much as I like dissing Bush, I have to say that this is a bit silly.

I can easily imagine Bush making this statement and actually thinking of everything this country had or had not done about terrorism over the last ten or twelve years. In that context, to someone infatuated with the picture of himself as a 'war president' it could well have seemed that our bombing raids, sanctions and discoveries of small-scale terrorist cells was "swatting flies." In fact, almost any president might have made a similar statement. "I'm tired of [this country] swatting flies." Like I said, I'm no Bush-booster, but that's certainly the read I would have given that statement.

More broadly, let's just admit that he's not the only person in this country who secretly thought all you had to do to make the world a better place was to kill everyone you thought was evil. He's just the only one we handed an army to and an invitation to give it a try.

And now I'm all distracted from Rice's testimony because I'm wondering if any of the people who shared that secret view are learning anything from watching our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Posted by AnneZook at 11:38 AM


Comments

Seeing the thought processes of think administration exposed is rather unsettling. They really believe that somewhere there is one, and only one, solution for every problem.

I'm a computer programmer, which most would consider a rather concrete environment, but every problem has multiple solutions with different advantages to each.

Waiting for the Lone Ranger to show up with a Silver Bullet is not an option I have ever considered.

Posted by: Bryan at April 9, 2004 11:47 AM

Unfortunately, the idea that CEOs can run states or countries better than politicians has become endemic. It's like nobody's pointed out to the general electorate that it's a bad idea to treat a service like a business. Businesses exist for the bottom line; services like government are supposed to exist to help people, not to make money.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at April 9, 2004 12:26 PM

Bush is failing on both accounts. Heh.

And, Bryan, I understand that "silver bullet" line played well on tv the first time they used it, and that's why Rice was repeating it in front of the Commission.

Posted by: Anne at April 9, 2004 08:26 PM