The creation of the group, according to several administration officials, grew out of Mr. Bush's frustration at the setbacks in Iraq and the absence of more visible progress in Afghanistan, at a moment when remnants of the Taliban appear to be newly active. It is the closest the White House has come to an admission that its plans for reconstruction in those countries have proved insufficient, and that it was unprepared for the guerrilla-style attacks that have become more frequent in Iraq. There have been more American deaths in Iraq since the end of active combat than during the six weeks it took to take control of the country. [David E. Sanger, "White House to Overhaul Iraq and Afghan Missions," The New York Times, October 6, 2003]

Since then I've come to realize why Condi is powerful and well paid and I am not. Because if I'd been named the head of something called the "Iraq Stabilization Group," I'd have packed up some overalls and walking shoes and headed off to Iraq. And I would have poked all over Iraq checking out for myself what needs to be stabilized. Condi did no such thing. After all, what are fax machines for?

To be fair, the Stabilization Group, with staff to be drawn by Condi from several Cabinet agencies, is not going to be doing any stabilizing itself. Instead, the group is "intended to remove a bottleneck in decision-making by identifying and resolving problems faced by the U.S.-led occupation. [Link]"

I'd just love to take a few cases of Old Rummy over to the soldiers and staff on the ground in Iraq -- and I don't mean Bremer's inner circle, either, but the hands-on people -- and once they are thoroughly lubricated, ask them what THEY think of the Iraq Stabilization Group and the big shots in Washington who will be identifying and resolving the problems they face. Hoo boy, I bet that would be a story!

In the meantime, last week's Washington power struggle between Condi and Rummy reminded me of the old Soviet Union. Every year on May Day the heads of the Soviet Communist Party would line up on a balcony to review the parade. Legend said that the men lined up in order of influence; whoever stood furthest from the Big Guy at the time -- Stalin, Khrushchov, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, or Gorbachev -- was lowest on the party totem pole. So every year the gray photos of fat gray men in fat gray overcoats were studied for clues of what was going on inside the Kremlin.

But today in Washington the tell-tale sign is who's been briefed on what. So when the Secretary of Defense is suddenly not copied on information that used to fall under his purview, you know he's just been moved to the end of the balcony.

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense let it slip that he hadn't been briefed about Condi's new role.

In an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organisations, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the new NSC role appeared to be no different from the policy-co-ordinating structure that had existed for more than a year.

He said he did not know why Ms Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, had felt it necessary to send a memorandum about the new organisation to cabinet officials or brief the New York Times about the move.

"That's what the NSC's charter is," Mr Rumsfeld said. "The only thing unusual about it is the attention. I kind of wish they'd just release the memorandum." [Peter Spiegel, "Rumsfeld Said Not Told of Postwar Shakeup," Financial Times/New York Times, October 7, 2003]

The next day, however, some reporters had a jolly time prodding Rummy a little more.

Rumsfeld said in an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organizations that he did not learn of the new Iraq Stabilization Group until he received a classified memo about it from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday.

Rumsfeld was asked several times why the changes were necessary. "I think you have to ask Condi that question," he said, according to a transcript posted on the Web site of the Financial Times.

Pressed, he said: "I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English? I was not there for the backgrounding." [Mike Allen, "Iraq Shake-up Skipped Rumsfeld," The Washington Post, October 8, 2003]

The new Iraq flow chart wasn't the only party Rummy wasn't invited to. Wednesday the White House rolled out its new plan to make a silk purse out of Iraq -- a public relations blitz. Dissatisfied with the way conditions in Iraq are portrayed in news stories, the President sent Condi and Dick Cheney forth to make speeches and preach the gospel of success in Iraq. Rummy, once prized for his fun press conferences, was not asked to take part.

To show how serious the President is about Iraq, aides announced that in October all of Bush's Saturday radio addresses will be about Iraq. [Link] Wow, that should really shake things up!

But back to Condi and the Group. David Ignatius pointed out in Friday's Washington Post that, in fact, Rummy was right when he said that the Iraq Stabilization Group would be doing work that a National Security Adviser should be doing, anyway. Now Condi's going to be challenged to actually perform her job, while at the same time serving a public relations function for the administration. Can she do it? Hey, does a bear use flush toilets?

The PR campaign got off to a smashing start Thursday, when President Bush told National Guardsmen and Reservists in New Hampshire that Iraq is in shaping up nicely and "Americans are not the running kind." As the world's most powerful draft-dodger spoke, eight Iraqi policement were killed in a suicide attack, a Spanish diplomat was slain, U.S. convoys were attacked near Fallujah, and a soldier from the Fourth Infantry died of wounds received in a rocket propelled grenade attack.

Condi took the road show to Chicago and told her audience,

Right up until the end Saddam Hussein lied to the Security Council and let there be no mistake, right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbour ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction and to hide his illegal weapons activities. [Link]

Does this mean the Bushies went after Saddam Hussein for thought crimes?

But the real thrill of the week was the sight of Cheney -- mighty Cheney -- out in the open for all to see. And today he boldly showed himself to the Heritage Foundation and announced that Saddam Hussein's scientists had actually worked on designs for weapons. (He had to make this speech at the Heritage Foundation, because Heritage is the Ground Zero of Stupid. If you don't believe me, just spend some time reading their web site .)

I can't wait to watch what the Three Stooges will be up to this week!

***************

Speaking of stupid -- I've become a follower of a columnist named J. Grant Swank who may be the most clueless man in America. While researching this article I stumbled across a new Swank piece on Condi Rice that is an absolute howler. It'll be given a Link of Honor on the Bush Barf-O-Rama! page. Click here.

Related Links

David Ignatius, "...And the Infighting," The Washington Post, October 10, 2003.

Jim Lobe, "Neo-con Fingerprints on Syria Raid," Asia Times, October 9, 2003

Maggie Mitchel Salem, "Condoleezza Rice Takes Charge," The Beiruit Daily Star, October 11, 2003

 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (search), which funds NPR, gets a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money.  Why is the government allowing a far-left outfit  like NPR, which is obviously biased, to operate on taxpayer money?

Joining us now from Capitol Hill is Congressman Cliff Stearns, a  Republican from Florida who sits on a committee that oversees NPR.

You know, I just have one question for you, Congressman.  How much longer do I have to pay for this outfit which is so blatantly unfair, and uses it's power to, you know, advance left-wing and defamatory causes?  What do I have to pay for this?

REP. CLIFF STEARNS (R), FLORIDA:  Well, I think you and the  American taxpayers don't have to pay for it much longer.  We have Discovery Channel, we have the American Movie Classics.  We have the Animal Planet.  We have the History Channel.  All of these stations do not get huge amounts of subsidy from the federal government.

So the question for taxpayers and the elected officials have to say why do we have to fund NPR, particularly in light of, for example, the interview you did. 

O'REILLY:  Yes.

STEARNS:  You saw the whole...

O'REILLY:  I mean, we can send you the transcripts of the whole  interview.  How would you categorize it?

STEARNS:  Well, I think -- she calls it  "fresh air."  It's probably "biased air" in this case, because frankly, for her to say that the interview with you was a lot tougher than with Al Franken because it was his -- his book was a political satire was not fair because she should have been just as tough with him as she was with you.  [O'Reilly Factor, October 8, 2003, Fox News Transcript]

1. Emotional immaturity. Behavior is not age appropriate.

2. Self-centeredness. He comes first and foremost. Is insincere about real interest in other people.

3. Little if any remorse for mistakes.

10. Tendency to project his own shortcomings on to the world about him - frequent blaming. Never at fault.

17. Low stress tolerance with explosive behavior.

20. Ready rationalization - rarely at a loss for words - twists conversation to divorce himself from responsibility. When he  is trapped, he just keeps talking or changes the subject, or gets angry.

22. Chronic lying.

24. ‘ Chip on shoulder' attitude - cocky and arrogant.

42. Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentment.

53. Grandiose. Convinced that he knows more than other people and is correct and right in almost all he says and does.

54. Clueless as to how he comes across to others and to how he is viewed.Gets defensive when confronted with his behavior. Never his fault. May be apologetic and seem sincere but soon repeats offensive behavior without appearing to have learned from it.

63. Convincing. Successful at getting other people to believe in his perception of a problem. Is adamant that people side with him vs. Allow them to feel/believe differently.

65. Scorns everyone/everything that he disagrees with. Does not allow for differences to be respected. Scorns the responsible world.

69. He announces, not discusses. He tells, not asks.

75. Unilateral condition of, "I'm OK and justified so I don't need to hear your position or ideas"

81. Is usually through listening once he's made his arguments.

Sound like somebody we know?

 

 

... that O'Reilly interview was far from the toughest treatment I've heard her give to someone. If he thinks that was a rough, unfair interview then he's just a big crybaby (which he is) who thinks he's too good to be questioned or criticized. Of course he was reduced to, "You didn't treat me the way you treated Al! Not fair! Waaaah! Waaaah!"

Bill hates Al Franken Big Time. He hates him so much, Al Franken may yet be the death of O'Reilly, maybe an embolism from one of his rages. That's a good thing.

The interview with Terry Gross of Fresh Air was the best example of psychopathology I've seen in a long time. The boy beaten by his father grows up to beat up on everyone else. Such bully-boy tactics are the stuff of middle school, not professional journalism. But then, O'Reilly isn't a professional journalist in the sense that Gross is a professional journalist. If he were, he'd realize she was sucking him in with the oldest technique in the book--let the interviewee hang himself on his own petard.

 

I do believe that Al Franken is positively gleeful after reading about the Gross [pun intended] O'Reilly interview. I've not seen such sophomoric melodramatics since the day O'Reilly verbally assaulted a man whose father was killed in the WTC on Sept. 11--a despicable display of faux patriotics topped off by malicious histrionics. Even worse than the browbeating of the poor man, O'Reilly threatened to physically assault him after the show--in front of his staff, who were forced to witness their bully-boy boss' meltdown, and subsequently had to offer solace to O'Reilly's poor victim--who's only failing was saying that he didn't agree with going to war in Iraq because of 9/11!  

 

Bill O'Reilly is an embarrassment even to Fox. Now, that's bad.