Month: May 2007

He’s Gonna Keep The Medal, Even Though He Knows He Doesn’t Deserve It

by tristero

Wanker. And if he did simply accept that medal for all those hard-working folks at the CIA, as he claims, then he should give it to the CIA.

Tenet’s behavior then and now is utterly disgraceful.

The Ugliest American

by digby

This E&P article about the way the NY Times celebrated Codpiece day back in 2003 is illuminating in a number of ways. But I particularly found this to be interesting:

The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.

I don’t think enough attention has been given to that particular bit of Bushian hubris. He truly believed that he could force the rest of the world to come in and help pay for his misdaventure after the fact with troops and money. I don’t know why any country would want to take on such a moral hazard, and they very obviously didn’t, but Bush had so bought into his own hype that he believed he was not only the undisputed and sole leader of America, he thought he was Emperor of the world.

The American people must understand when I said that we need to be patient, that I meant it. And we’re going to be there for a while. I don’t know the exact moment when we leave, David, but it’s not until the mission is complete. The world must know that this administration will not blink in the face of danger and will not tire when it comes to completing the missions that we said we would do. The world will learn that when the United States is harmed, we will follow through.

The world will see that when we put a coalition together that says “Join us,” I mean it. And when I ask others to participate, I mean it

.

This administration didn’t just insist that this thing be done their way. They went out of their way insult and demean any ally that expressed reservations. And they didn’t just insult their leadership, they insulted the people themselves. It was one of the worst cases of ugly Americanism I’ve ever seen.

Bush (because of his own lack of curiosity and innate provincialism) and the neos (because of their dreams of American Empire) have long been hostile to “Old Europe.” Bush even made his personal disdain obvious when he was forced to travel there in the early days of his presidency. (The press seemed to think it was charming.)

Sam Parry at the Consortium wrote about it at the time:

During that rocky week-long tour of Europe, intended to rally U.S. allies, Bush faltered badly. He said jet lag got the better of him as he struggled to stay alert. He also displayed his thin skin.

Bush bumbled one question about the sensitive issue of Russia’s support for efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Iran. During a joint news conference with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Bush announced that Putin had offered Bush “assurances” that “will be very comforting for you (the public) to listen to.”

Immediately contradicting Bush, Putin reaffirmed Russia’s support for Iran’s nuclear power plant.

Bush’s fatigue also showed in testy exchanges with reporters. During a joint press conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush lost his cool when NBC correspondent David Gregory followed up a question to Bush in English with a question to Chirac in French.

“Very good, the guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he’s intercontinental,” Bush said in what looked like Bush impersonating Saturday Night Live’s Will Farell impersonating Bush. “I’m impressed – que bueno. Now I’m literate in two languages.” [New York Times, May 28, 2002]

Taken as a whole, Bush’s inappropriate behavior – which included winking at reporters in front of a naked statue of the Goddess Venus – gave the impression of a president having trouble keeping focused. [Financial Times, May 29, 2002]

Most establishment reporters in the U.S. portrayed Bush’s stumbles in Europe as quirky gaffes. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, for instance, attributed Bush’s poor performance to his proving how “Texas” he is by overdoing “the anti-elitist, anti-intellectual sneer.” [NYT, May 29, 2002]

But the European press was less forgiving. Bush’s behavior was described as “clownish.” Published reports examined Bush’s limited intellectual abilities. Europeans also expressed amazement at his high standing in U.S. opinion polls. Throughout the May trip, in scenes reminiscent of Bush’s inaugural parade, average citizens on the streets gave Bush the middle finger as his motorcade passed. In Germany, tens of thousands of protesters turned out with signs telling Bush to go home.

Bush’s insistence on U.S. exceptionalism from international laws governing other nations also infuriated Europeans. While insisting that U.S. adversaries such as former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic be tried for war crimes, the Bush administration demanded a special waiver from the U.N. Security Council to shield U.S. forces from the authority of a new global war-crimes court.

Diplomats also objected to Bush’s new military doctrine of preemptive invasions of countries, such as Iraq, deemed by Bush to threaten U.S. security. “What member states find most irritating is this perennial argument that the United States is a special case, that rules are for everybody else,” one diplomat told the New York Times. “Even close friends are very, very nervous. This is really a serious assault on the international legal order.” [NYT, June 19, 2002]

“In 32 years of reporting on international affairs, I have never seen Britain and the United States more separated from each other: not during the terrible last years of the Vietnam War, not during President Reagan’s Iran-Contra dealings or his espousal of the crackpot Star Wars system,” wrote correspondent John Simpson. “The way George W. Bush’s administration deals with the outside world is affecting even the most traditionally pro-American elements in British society.” [London Telegraph, June 30, 2002]

After 9/11 the whole world was open to US leadership and willing to work together as never before to deal with our common challenges. Imagine if we’d had a visionary in the presidency instead of what we had. Think of how we could have parlayed this international goodwill into comprehensive renewable energy agreements, nuclear non-proliferation with teeth and common security goals. Instead he treated the world like he owned it, was disrespectful and rude and when it came time to get his allies on board with his misbegotten war, there was no more goodwill left.

And the American people are left with the bill, both finacial and moral, not that we don’t deserve it. But it is still galling beyond belief that the man who was in the white house on that fateful day was not the man a majority of the American people really chose to lead them. And it continues to gall that the American press pumped up this character from the moment he came on the scene and gave him the rope he needed to hang us all.

.

It Comes Faster Every Year

by digby

Happy Codpiece Day!

It seems like only yesterday that the country was enthralled with the president in his sexy flightsuit. Women were swooning, manly GOP men were commenting enviously on his package. But there were none so awestruck by the sheer, testosterone glory of Bush’s codpiece as Tweety:

MATTHEWS: Let’s go to this sub–what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo op in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I’ve got to say.

Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on–onboard that ship loved this guy.

Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I’m not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn’t do it for me personally, especially not when he’s in a suit, but he arrived there…

MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.

Ms. KAY: …he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn’t he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.

MATTHEWS: I want him to wa–I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.

Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just–I can’t think of any, any stunt by the White House–and I’ll call it a stunt–that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It’s not a stunt if it works and it’s real. And I felt the faces of those guys–I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.

Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of–the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he–you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That’s what he has going for him.

MATTHEWS: Fareed, you’re watching that from–say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We’re coming.’ Do you think that picture mattered over there?

Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not–we’ve allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it’s time to tell them, you know what, `You’re going to be help accountable for this.’

MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well.

Two weeks later, They were still talking about it:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?

LIDDY: Well, I– in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man [Official Naomi Wolf Spin-Point]. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know — and I’ve worn those because I parachute — and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those, run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count — they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.

“You know, it’s funny. I shouldn’t talk about ratings,” he [Matthews] said, also gazing at Bush’s crotch. “But last night was a riot because … these pictures were showing last night, and everybody’s tuning in to see these pictures again.”

And they wonder why we no longer take them seriously.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Brave New Films has made an impressive short film for Codpiece Day that you can view here and send to all your friends. Be sure to make your own “Mission Accomplished” banner and enter the contest. I did, as you can see.

Standard Practice

by digby

You’ve probably already read the latest Murray Waas scoop which reveals that Gonzales and the white house secretly delegated the hiring and firing function of the justice department political appointees to the little political oppo twins, Kyle and Monica. It’s a fascinating tale.

But I have to point out one little passage that made me laugh out loud:

Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto said it was “unremarkable” that Sampson and Goodling would be involved in the hiring and firing of Justice Department officials.

“The job of a chief of staff is to work with the White House liaison to hire qualified people,” he said. “That is fairly standard practice in any large Cabinet department or agency.” Fratto added, “The White House has full authority in hiring and firing presidential appointees” and “can choose to delegate that authority. There is no need for written authority to exercise that power.”

Asked why, if the process is routine, Gonzales issued the confidential order, Fratto responded, “I don’t know why anyone would force the need to write such a memo.” He referred further inquiries to the Justice Department.

Ooopsie.

It’s a good question though. If Gonzales had to sign off anyway, why did he issue a confidential memo delegating “authority” to his underlings? The buck stops with the boss, right? If Gonzales wanted to change the rules and deny the senior staff the right to hire and fire their own staff then all he had to do was issue the first memo on February 7, 2006. When it was later determined that he couldn’t keep his hands clean and just delegate the whole thing to Sampson and Goodling, why document their “authority” at all? Does he issue a memo saying that he’s delegated the typing to his secretary but he signs off on all documents that he produces? It’s weird.

I suppose the idea early on was to distance the important people from this dirty little operation. But once the lawyers said it was unconstitutional he should have just let stand the first memo giving him the total hiring and firing authority or ended the operation because it exposed him to charges of unethical political manipulation of the DOJ. Instead he went on a created a secret paper trail for no good reason. I don’t get him — can he possibly be as inept as he seems?

.