Throwing Georgie under the Bus

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

mostly about the notion that success in Iraq would produce transformational change in the middle east.

Nothing new there. The goal of almost any invasion and occupation is to 'produce transformational change'. Usually, this involves imposing ones belief system on the target country.

BTW, TW makes a good point about the failure to supply relief to Indonesia and New Orleans. The GWB administration seems to have beaten down any independent action by subordinates in the system. If you look at the Monica Goodling situation, this system appears to be enforced in much the way political officers were used in the Soviet system. This might work better if the administration and its apparatchiks were at least competent, but sadly this was not the case. The Bush administration is anti-goverment and does not trust bureaucrats. In many ways, they have disabled the independent bureaucrats in most government agencies in the same manner they de-Baathified the Iraqi government, with much the same results.

We are left with a government on autopilot, with basic functions running, but all higher functions disabled or delayed by being micro-managed by political appointees selected more for their capacity for devotion than their ability to take independent action.

I agree that McClellan, when compared to someone like Clarke (I'm still wading through Against All Enemies), is a lightweight. However, he does have the advantage of being the 'safe' guy, one of the devout true believers that Bush thought he could trust to toe the line forever. Clarke was compromised on day one because he was a 30-year career bureaucrat who had major roles in two prior administrations. McClellan was insignificant enough that he may actually have been given more access.

Think of Mark Felt as Deep Throat. When going down the list, he was the last guy Nixon thought could be the leak. I'm reminded of the scene from 'Mr. Roberts' where the Captain is going down the list of possible troublemakers. When he gets to Pulver, he publicly dismisses him as insignificant even though he was the culprit.

Scott McClellan and Mark Felt are the real life Ensign Pulvers, people who were though to be so insignificant or blindly loyal that they were allowed to witness history being made. Bismark once made a remark about sausages and politics. These guys got to see exactly what was being stuffed in the sausage and it made them sick. What mixture of pride, patriotism, revenge, or disgust made them rat out the boss is open to debate. At least Felt never tried to make a buck off of the thing for 4 decades until his children outed him.

History will not be kind to GWB, and part of that history will be written by guys like McClellan.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The Bush administration is anti-goverment and does not trust bureaucrats. In many ways, they have disabled the independent bureaucrats in most government agencies . . .

Hmm, so a Republican Administration acts in accordance with a Republican fondness for limited government. I don't have a problem with that, not really.

History will not be kind to GWB, and part of that history will be written by guys like McClellan.

They thought history would be similarly unkind to Harry S. Truman, too, particularly in the first few years after he left office. And really, who opposes W most strongly in our Republic? -- the kind of people who don't want us winning wars against the kind of foes we get into fights with. This, in my view, discredits these oppositionists profoundly and utterly. They seem unable to appreciate accurately the nature of our foes. We just don't shoot at the nice people. Haven't for over a century now, so it certainly seems to be our habit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hmm, so a Republican Administration acts in accordance with a Republican fondness for limited government. I don't have a problem with that, not really.

Making them ineffective, while leaving them and their budget in place, is stupid.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Making them ineffective, while leaving them and their budget in place, is stupid.

Bruce made my point much more succinctly then I did. Instead of cutting budgets, fixing issues, etc, the administrations approach was to reduce effectiveness while keeping costs the same. This is like ripping a cylinder out of a V8 and assuming that the owner will be so disgusted that he will go out and buy a horse.

So instead of actually fixing or at least maintaining stability, the administration kept costs in place, reduced efficiency, and cut taxes as if they had made any improvements in cost.

This is the equivalent of buying a V8, disabling 2 cylinders, and running up the difference between the cost of a V8 and V6 on a high interest credit card you have no intention of paying off under the assumption that since you're only using 6 cylinders, you deserve the extra money.

F*****g insane.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by richlevy

--snip--

Scott McClellan and Mark Felt are the real life Ensign Pulvers, people who were though to be so insignificant or blindly loyal that they were allowed to witness history being made. Bismark once made a remark about sausages and politics. These guys got to see exactly what was being stuffed in the sausage and it made them sick. What mixture of pride, patriotism, revenge, or disgust made them rat out the boss is open to debate. At least Felt never tried to make a buck off of the thing for 4 decades until his children outed him.

--snip

It certainly makes me sick, as sick as this.

Excellent post, richlevy.

eta:

Actually, we, as a nation, are all sick from this behavior, *already*. Reading about it from McClellan doesn't sicken us. It only alerts us to our condition. A condition brought upon us, and exacerbated by the deliberate policies and leadership of this administration. Reading about it helps us understand *why* we're sick, and that is the biggest help to becoming well and avoiding this avoidable peril in the future.