Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Patterns of Behavior and Falling on Swords
As details of the inquiries into intelligence failures and their creation of a causus belli for War against Iraq take shape in Washington, DC and belatedly (in poodle like fashion) at 10 Downing Street we begin an interesting period that requires very close attention.
As no investigations, likewise no actions, take place in a vaccuum we should all bear in mind the context of this situation and similar events of the recent past. The obvious pattern is one of politically-driven beatdowns coming out of TeamBush since the beginning of their Reign of Error.
No president has had such an active or lengthy 'Enemies List' since the days of Nixon, and no president since has so ruthlessly wielded the carrot and stick (OK-lots of stick, few carrots).
Paul Krugman reminds us of this history in his recent NY Times piece. He concludes with the statement that:
"These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse."
But the other part of this story is who else is willing to fall on their sword for TeamBush. Since these folks took office there's been so much ritualized disembowelment going on across the Capitol that it looks like Julius Caesar meets Sumo-Night Seppuku Party.
David Kay is the latest. But he has a track record of being a parrot for this administration from the start. As former UNSCOM inspector he was trotted out to refute and disparage the remarks and person of Scott Ritter, another fellow inspector who was adamant about the lack of threat posed by Iraq in the days leading up to our invasion. His piece of chum for that performance was heading up the Iraq Survey Group--perhaps the most partisan group of weapons inspectors that could have been assembled. Made up of pro-War folks who wanted in the worst way to peg something on Iraq, even the ISG had to admit there was nothing there. So Kay blamed the CIA and went on to provide a strong alibi (or at least testimony) for the administration. No doubt a cushy job at Halliburton or The Carlyle Group awaits him after any hearings on the Hill conclude.
George Tenet is the real lynchpin here. He seemed to take full responsibility for allowing the President to include the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union, even though anyone could see that politics was driving that emphasis more than intel. Even so, any reading deeper than the USAToday headline indicated that his carefully worded statement left open the kind of wiggle room perfected by a man who's job is being our 'Chief Spook', as it were. More falling on a stage sword than really taking steel for 'The Man.'
If the winds are changing, and the donkeys look like they'll be measuring drapes for the Oval Office, and the pack of lies he's being asked to cop to is just getting too heavy, I have little doubt he'd be less-pliable than Team Bush requires.
And, of course, lets look past John Snow to the real 'first squealer' of the Bush Administration, Philly's own John DiIulio. Before Ron Suskind ever got to Snow he was painting an unflattering picture of life inside Bush's Dark Camelot with the help of info given by DiIulio, who saw it all first hand. And had the lack of foresight to write it all down.
Like Tenet's, DiIulio's prompt apology seemed gushing at first but later seemed to be more theater than honesty. In fact, the actual apology came not from his mouth but from a flak from the PR Department at Univ. of Penn, DiIulio's employer. It seems clear that it was Penn President Judy Rodin, not he, who woke up with the horse's head in her bed that morning.
So as this whole thing unravels (and during an election year, no less) lets keep these lessons of the past in mind and study the Administration for signs of structural weakness. As we know from experience, when great stresses build up, huge pressures, and the structure finally gives way, it rarely does so in a slow,orderly fashion. Rather, a long build-up is often followed by sudden, total, catastrophic, failure. Think bridge collapse. Dam bursting. Skyscrapers plummeting on an onimous September day.
As details of the inquiries into intelligence failures and their creation of a causus belli for War against Iraq take shape in Washington, DC and belatedly (in poodle like fashion) at 10 Downing Street we begin an interesting period that requires very close attention.
As no investigations, likewise no actions, take place in a vaccuum we should all bear in mind the context of this situation and similar events of the recent past. The obvious pattern is one of politically-driven beatdowns coming out of TeamBush since the beginning of their Reign of Error.
No president has had such an active or lengthy 'Enemies List' since the days of Nixon, and no president since has so ruthlessly wielded the carrot and stick (OK-lots of stick, few carrots).
Paul Krugman reminds us of this history in his recent NY Times piece. He concludes with the statement that:
"These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you're with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don't tell them what they want to hear, you're an enemy, and being right is no excuse."
But the other part of this story is who else is willing to fall on their sword for TeamBush. Since these folks took office there's been so much ritualized disembowelment going on across the Capitol that it looks like Julius Caesar meets Sumo-Night Seppuku Party.
David Kay is the latest. But he has a track record of being a parrot for this administration from the start. As former UNSCOM inspector he was trotted out to refute and disparage the remarks and person of Scott Ritter, another fellow inspector who was adamant about the lack of threat posed by Iraq in the days leading up to our invasion. His piece of chum for that performance was heading up the Iraq Survey Group--perhaps the most partisan group of weapons inspectors that could have been assembled. Made up of pro-War folks who wanted in the worst way to peg something on Iraq, even the ISG had to admit there was nothing there. So Kay blamed the CIA and went on to provide a strong alibi (or at least testimony) for the administration. No doubt a cushy job at Halliburton or The Carlyle Group awaits him after any hearings on the Hill conclude.
George Tenet is the real lynchpin here. He seemed to take full responsibility for allowing the President to include the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union, even though anyone could see that politics was driving that emphasis more than intel. Even so, any reading deeper than the USAToday headline indicated that his carefully worded statement left open the kind of wiggle room perfected by a man who's job is being our 'Chief Spook', as it were. More falling on a stage sword than really taking steel for 'The Man.'
If the winds are changing, and the donkeys look like they'll be measuring drapes for the Oval Office, and the pack of lies he's being asked to cop to is just getting too heavy, I have little doubt he'd be less-pliable than Team Bush requires.
And, of course, lets look past John Snow to the real 'first squealer' of the Bush Administration, Philly's own John DiIulio. Before Ron Suskind ever got to Snow he was painting an unflattering picture of life inside Bush's Dark Camelot with the help of info given by DiIulio, who saw it all first hand. And had the lack of foresight to write it all down.
Like Tenet's, DiIulio's prompt apology seemed gushing at first but later seemed to be more theater than honesty. In fact, the actual apology came not from his mouth but from a flak from the PR Department at Univ. of Penn, DiIulio's employer. It seems clear that it was Penn President Judy Rodin, not he, who woke up with the horse's head in her bed that morning.
So as this whole thing unravels (and during an election year, no less) lets keep these lessons of the past in mind and study the Administration for signs of structural weakness. As we know from experience, when great stresses build up, huge pressures, and the structure finally gives way, it rarely does so in a slow,orderly fashion. Rather, a long build-up is often followed by sudden, total, catastrophic, failure. Think bridge collapse. Dam bursting. Skyscrapers plummeting on an onimous September day.
Comments:
Post a Comment
