OBJECTIVE REALITY--He's dead, Jim. It wasn't enough to harass the people--most just like us--who work in the government bureaucracies back in the middle-1990s. Now, Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on his wife when he was accusing another man of doing the same, is trying to save the tattered-remnants of his brand of so-called "conservatism" (TM). Check this quote, I love it, he's desperate:
"The problem is not broad strategy and policy, it's that the bureaucracy is so inefficient and there's been so little follow-up that the machine doesn't work," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. ..."It's the nuttiest idea ever," said James Carafano, a defense expert at Heritage Foundation. He said a war coordinator at the White House would be outside the regular chain of command. "It confuses lines of authority. It's like adding a fifth wheel on a car." Trying to integrate government operations inside the White House is a prescription for disaster, he added. (AP, 05.07.2007)
Sorry, it's the CPU (the head/the White House/Cheney/Bush/Rove) that doesn't work. Thanks Newt, I couldn't have scripted it any better as a way of tripping-you-up. You must be desperate, considering that what you're suggesting is the opposite of traditional conservatism--you want to consolidate power and authority even further in Washington, a no-no to most (rational) conservatives. Well, the ones that are remaining and still believe what you say. They must feel lonely.
What's ridiculous is that what Gingrich wants is exactly what was done in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a boondoggle if there ever was one. Remember how botched the reaction to Hurricane Katrina was? Get ready for more-of-the-same in Kansas, they screwed-up the lines of communication and authority with that one. You see, the bureaucracy worked much better before George W. Bush and the neocons began occupying the Oval Office like the students at Columbia University back in 68.'
What they've illustrated--boldly--is that it's not the bureaucracy that's the problem--it's the politicians. I'd say they should start drinking again, but...It was a U.S. Attorney (part of the bureaucracy) who even-handedly investigated "Scooter" Libby and the push to smear former-U.S. Diplomat Joseph Wilson over cooked CIA data from Nigeria (found those WMDs in Iraq yet?). The Bush administration also outed a field CIA agent, Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife), which is highly-illegal under federal law. Then, there are the hundreds of whistle-blowers within the federal bureaucracy who have anonymously reported hundreds of illegal-acts authorized and committed by the GOP and the Bush administration.
These bureaucrats did their jobs, protecting all of us, and they demonstrated their loyalty to this nation by doing these things. When you look at Gingrich and the GOP in-general, it's hard to see anything but a horde of brigands and traitors.The lie that the bureaucracy is inherently-evil, destructive, and anti-democratic is absurd. This is the same as saying technology is evil. It isn't, it's benign, and the evil comes from how someone misuses it. The bureaucracy of the federal government of the United States of America answers primarily to the Executive branch and to the public for whom they serve.
In short, federal bureacracy is more-accountable than corporations, the institutions we should have the most concern about. Yes, there was J. Edgar Hoover, and there have been individuals in positions within those bureaus and departments who didn't bring honor to their jobs--the majority of these people were appointed by the Executive. So why is Gingrich doing all this talking about creating a "War Czar"? Because it's the only way he's sees in preserving his shibboleth musings.
Newt Gingrich is a demagogue and a whoremonger. He jokingly calls his cobbled-together assertions as an "ideology." Central to the Gingrich religion is that federal bureaucracy is "bad," never mind that it's provided human services to a needy public--it should just deliver the mail and feed the war machine according to Newt and sundry flat-heads. Right, let's ..."add another layer of bureaucracy," that won't slow anything down, or gum anything up more than it already has been by the Bush administration. We didn't see that with the war or Katrina, not at all. The value of the "plan" is made clear by how many upper-ranking generals have agreed to serve as the War Czar: exactly zero.
The idea for such a czar has been promoted by various people, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who sent a memo to the White House several weeks ago advocating it as part of an 18-point plan. "The slowness and ineffectiveness of the American bureaucracy is a major hindrance to our winning, and they've got to cut through it," Gingrich said in an interview yesterday. Under the proposal by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, the execution manager would talk daily with the military commanders and U.S. ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The official would then meet with Bush each morning to review developments.(Washington Post, 04.13.2007)
Problem: you've already alienated a bureaucracy that isn't going-away, but you need them to cooperate with you. Also, you've compounded your problems by betraying and jettisoning anyone you can to save yourself from your poor decisions and illegal-actions. You've also alienated the High Command, both active duty and retired, and nobody in the military--or any of the federal bureaucracy--trusts you. This is wise of them, and the reasons why there will be no generals coming-forward to be War Czar. The formula of "nothing succeeds like failure" works fine with a "Drug Czar" or even an "Education Czar," but that's not going to float with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not going to provide a backdoor escape for the Bush administration.
Everyone has already seen numerous examples of Bush administration scapegoating, and nobody with a modicum of sanity would take the position. It just gives them one more career bureaucrat to blame for their own mistakes. This is the real subtext to what Gingrich is suggesting, since he doesn't believe anything substantial except seizing-power and holding it. That never constituted an ideology, only a will to power. Well, and how to cheat on his wife, but he's good at hiding such things. Ms. Palfrey: did Newt Gingrich ever utilize your services? There have been a lot of questions as to the timing of this renewed-call for a War Czar, but the truth is that it's because there won't be anybody to run the wars, and soon:
Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan was approached about the job, but declined because he thinks that decision-making in Washington lacks connection to a broader understanding of the region. ...At the White House, the Iraq team is shrinking. Meghan O'Sullivan, one of Hadley's deputies who handled day-to-day coordination of Iraq, recently announced she is leaving. On Friday, Hadley's deputy, J.D. Crouch, said he was departing next month. (AP, 05.06.2007)
At the rate they're going, they should have a War Czar in the next presidency, and they won't be a Republican. It should also be noted that some of this is to limit the damage to the Office of President, that gun they all want in their pocket. The damage has already been done, and we've seen a dwarfing of Watergate (and COINTELPRO) as evidence of deeply-rooted corruption in our political culture. The Teapot Dome scandal was nothing compared to the last six years, and it isn't simply isolated to George W. Bush and his administration. Clinton was easily as corrupt, but Republicans had their hands in the same pies, so a blowjob-it-would-be. They just didn't like him personally, and he had stolen their fire.
But it isn't the bureaucracy who's to-blame, it's the politicians who give them their unethical and illegal marching-orders. The politicians, their appointees, lobbyists, and the biggest campaign-donors are the problem. The rich and their servants are the problem in Washington. This can be changed when the public won't have it anymore. It appears that that time is nigh. Keep pushing. Silly me, I misread the Constitution when it said that the president is Commander in Chief of the military. Apparently, George W. Bush has never been up to the challenge. So why does he keep insisting he is Commander in Chief, or even president? Power, and access to the public-trough for poppy's friends.
This administration's, Gingrich's and Norquist's so-called "conservatism" has failed, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why we hear anything from Newt Gingrich at all--he has friends who own swaths of the mainstream media who want to salvage their vision of American economy and misgovernance, when it's already dead. Even the Heritage Foundation is distancing-themselves from the mess. Worshipping at the Temple of Ronald McReagan isn't going to cut it. Time's up.
AP Yesterday on Gingrich's bloviating: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4780415.html
The Washington Post on a poor idea, 04.13.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202147.html?nav=rss_world
AP, 05.06.2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6612584,00.html
"Guatemalan gals won't you come out tonight!": http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=24922
No comments:
Post a Comment