Jump to navigation
Your Majesty, There Is Poo On Your Shoe
he vaunted Iraq Study Group (sans Gates now because of his nomination) meets with Dubya and Cheney on Monday. Oh to be a fly on the wall.
We wouldn't be surprised at an initial round of defensiveness beneath the faux receptivity. Who can blame Dubya and Cheney? A World Historical CF doesn't get created every day.
ill they have a new slogan to trot out for the ISG? One that they will claim always represented their thinking? There are no more process gimmicks for them like elections or other empty ceremonies. No more cheap stunts left. Will the duo be more truthful with the ISG than they were with the 9/11 Commission? How will Cheney recall this meeting for his serial fabricator Stephen Hayes?
Baker the cold fixer is on the last great mission of life, perhaps. We always thought he never got the props he deserved for the swift and painless unification of Germany into NATO. That was a diplomatic coup de main
beyond even Talleyrand at the height of his influence. Hamilton, the solid voice of the eviscerated Establishment, serves as a Banquo's Ghost come back to haunt the tattered remnants of the “Endless War for Freedom” regime.
Individual interviews are also planned for Negroponte, fresh back from a tour of the chaos in Iraq. As well as a sit down with Cher Condi.
Condi can be counted to tack with the prevailing winds and embrace the new Realist line as dutifully as she ordered a 2005 senior State Dept. retreat at the Greenbrier to chart how “transformational diplomacy” presented the greatest chance to reshape the international order since the Treaty of Westphalia.
Her fans choose to ignore these and other inconvenient realities. Instead these toadies, apologists, sycophants and self-promoters still seek to attach themselves to her media persona. (At least they did when she represented their only access to influence in a One Party State).
Conveniently they all chose to forget that she was right in there from 2001-2005 pitching in with the loathesome radicals and their coercive philosophy. That even Cheney was too dark and misanthropic even for her light mental capacity and better interpersonal skills is no excuse. The reckoning on her disasterous contributions to our strategic predicament only has been delayed, not obviated.
With the liberation of the HIll there are now multiple avenues to advance agendas, personal marketing schitcks and settle old scores without needing Cher Condi. It would be a disservice to history if Cher Condi's tragic incompetence and support for the past 6 years gets forgotten in the rush to pragmatism and Realism.
So! now, the danger dared at last,
Look back, and smile at perils past!
The Bridal of Trierman
Since knowledge is but sorrow's spy,
It is not safe to know.
The Just Italian
“It is time to turn away from the disagreements of the past — It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship and a new chapter in our alliance.”
Conciliiatory Address To France
“You don't turn the page just like that - But we are going in the right direction.”
~Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
Former French President
Replying to Cher Condi
Cleary, Doctor Rice (she of the low co-pay) has managed to give an incredible number of speeches devoid of content - What's interesting - If you read her speeches, almost all of then are context dependent. Years from now, historians will have no idea what she was really talking about - except for some some artifical sounding bromides about freedom. Analysis of her speeches will mean footnotes longer than the text: footnotes will be needed to explain where she was, why she said what she did - why she used filler words, why her speeches say less than other diplomats. Her use of cliche as a policy - a domestic political tactic. Banality as a tool, rather than a result, etc.
“The vaunted Iraq Study Group ... meets with Dubya and Cheney on Monday. Oh to be a fly on the wall.”
Politicians of both parties are hiding behind this group - soley on the basis of leaks. The neos have expressed alarm - it was the NY Sun that broke the story that the ISG gave up on victory and was gonna advocated discussions with Axis nation Iran and mini Axix nation Syria.
The politics of this will be interesting - Mr. Baker is a pretty sharp operator. He even had Jon Steward somewhat taken aback.
Baker's effort in the Florida vote mess was a display of near perfect political-legal skill. He let Gore get his guidance from the NY Times editorial page and rest his hopes on the thin as ice Florida Sp. Ct decision, while he decided to win instead. Bush owes him. Whose side is Cheney on? By the way - that Scooter trial, if Bush lets it go forward, may flesh things out. That will be a great event.
Re Stephen Hayes
If you go back and read his clips from the beginning, you'll be stunned by how wrong he is - about everything. We say “you” will be stunned - because even you, as skeptical and aware as you are, will be stunned by the shere magnatude of error. Think of a scientist who knws intellectually that we can get to the moon, but stunned nonetheless when he sees it actually happen. Reading Hayes is like that - a bit. “Now we know, but back then, even France....,” is Hayes excuse. That would work if he was wrong about a few things, but he is wrong about almost everything post 9-11. Intentionally wrong?
Picture this: hypothetical cover of the W. Stanard or even NR - “Has Condi Gone Wobbly?” - Below that a cartoon on Condi seeming to fall off her boogie board as stabilit-types like Haas or Baker pounce on a trampoline named diplomacy. Above her - some soon to be annoited idealist hero will try to offer her a hand, but she may be too weak.
Up until now - it has not really made sense for the pundits to be against Condi because she was so close to Bush - and the Bush Doctrine. But the world has changed. She may be the next target for the pundits to oppose - or psuedo oppose.
Excellent point about Condi's empty speeches. It is also true about Soviet politics as well after say 1924 and certainly 1928. The foreign dipomatic corps of course could care less in the end because the only thing that mattered (as you noted later) is that she had good access to her Husband.
Hayes being the anti-compass for locating even the general direction of the true state of affairs is curious. I am sure it would be stunning to take it all in at once and see the magnitude in one glance. Yet Hayes as far as I can tell still gets a reasonably respectful hearing from his alleged peers in the non-Kool Aid press today. Part of that may be an unspoken truth. They won't articulate his stupendous failures if he won't unmask their unseemly offers to perform unnatural acts in return for access during One Party Rule.
Hayes oddly gets a respectful treatment by the mainstream media - even thought they 'know' (perhaps in a non-grokish way) that he has been suspiciously wrong about most things.
Maybe because he is considered cool - not as cool as Woodward, but he made it into a cool clique.
Woodward is cool: Consider how many times it was reported that Condi was warned by Tenet in June of 2001 that UBL was on his way. Many reportereed this -
But it was only after Woodward reported it - that it became a news story. It matters not that Woorward seems to have sat on the fact - just as it matters not that Hayes is wrong.
Hayes is not Woodward, but he has still managed to become non 'freak-show' in establishment eyes.
By hiring Hayes to write his bio - Cheney wins , in a sense, because he forces people to deny or contest things that should not even be part of the debate. Things even he, Cheney, probably never believed
That may be wrong - Woodward is not wrong. People disagree with what he'll note or draw attention to or what he'll leave out. But he is not contested on the facts. But Hayes seems to be factually wrong, along with being wrong in the 'sources are wrong, you are wrong' sense.
But because he straddles this line between being part of the story but pretending to cover the story. His pre war stories all his this flip attitude - a tone that was pretending to be amused by the frauds and traitors who cast doubt on the Iraq wmd threat. But there was a defensive tone to them too.
Maybe Woodward is wrong on facts - but that's just a maybe - Is he known for that? On NRO's blog, Frum speculates or conjectures that Woodward is wrong about a scene with Dubya and Bandar in '97 - wherein Bandar promises Dubya to speak ill of him, so those who turned against 41 will give 43 a new look. But then again - Frum may not really think that incident did not happen. He may be pretending in a faux-naive way - setting out some markers - until he knows which way the wind blows. There's a war on, you know?
To clarify we think we recall that he conjectured that Woodward's source was wrong - probably Bandar. But who knows - it seems odd. Anyway. The excuse of “now we know, but back then, even France..” is not something we think of as just for Hayes, but a general excuse.
“It's too important to our own security ... Iraq has to be successful for America to be secure.... we will certainly make adjustments to our policy ... We will certainly look to new ideas. ... the American people clearly were voting for change, as the president said, ... not voting for anything less than a success in Iraq. ... The American commitment to the goals that took us to Iraq remains absolutely steadfast, and that is what is important ...”
~Condoleezza Rice 11-9-06
“The United States will certainly keep after the goal that took us to Iraq, because it's too important to our own security. Iraq has to be successful for America to be secure. And so we will maintain that course.”
~Condoleezza Rice 11-9-06
What were those goals again, Doctor Rice?
You know if a reporters asked her that and insisted on a lucid answer to that ordinary question, the reporter would be viewed either as liberal, foreign, or disrespectful.
Even if that was in response to what she says above about maintaining a course and keeping to the goals. Notice how their are no goals explicated - no course is outlined. It's all hollow filler words, cliche and tautology. It's unique in being disingenuious without really saying anything.
That Chalabi quote is something else - you couldn't script that - Too absurd.
That second Chalabi quote needs to be fixed - the one where he says he prefers to be America's enemy - has text problems when it appears. A bunch of question marks show up.
If Condi wants to vindicate her tenure, she should do something about what is about to happen in Lebanon and no one in the US news seems to care about. Lebanon may be about to explode - the government is already spliting apart; Israel confirmed that they believe that Hizbollah is now stonger than before the last war and have indicated a likelyhood of conflict before next spring. Of course, this is connected to Iraq and our Shia allies in power. Now European troops are stuck in Lebanon - dodging incidents day by day. Cheney is isolated. Things are falling apart. Condi, wassup woman?