Mo Dowd's column is going to be talked about.

A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.

Also in the Times, "Corporate Welfare Run Amok."

There was one other point in The Vegetable's Saturday column that deserves comment.

The new mood has also brought a resurgence of soft-power thinking. Administration officials are trying to think big about what institutions can be used to implement the freedom agenda the president sketched out in his Inaugural Address.

When you ask exactly which institutions need to be created, they get more than a little vague, but you get a clear sense of their preferences. Bush folks have not developed any new love for the Security Council. Instead, they are much more interested in working with regional groups, like the Organization of American States.

Their favorite kinds of institutions are the kinds they created in response to the tsunami disaster: the kind with no permanent offices and no permanent staff, the kind that is created to address a discrete problem and then disappear when the problem is over.

I haven't heard much about Bush's not-the-UN tsunami relief coalition and whether it is doing an effective job. I agree with this Arab News analysis that the Bush coalition was created primarily to snub the United Nations. In other words, it was all grandstanding on Bush's part. From what I can gather from the news, the United Nations is still leading the relief effort, whether Bush likes it or not.

But it strikes me that such an organization, with "no permanent offices and no permanent staff, the kind that is created to address a discrete problem and then disappear when the problem is over," is the sort of damn fool idea that someone with absolutely no management experience would think up.

I've coordinated and managed some fairly complex projects -- nothing on the scale of tsunami relief, but complex, as in requiring a zillion little parts to come together. I've managed projects that require coordinating the work of several departments and diverse vendors and associates scattered about the country, all handling different pieces of the whole project, while keeping track of costs and a multi-million dollar budget. And big, complex projects require a core management staff with established working relationships, decision making processes, and procedures. Otherwise, you've got weeks or months of people flailing around trying to figure out what they're doing and how they're supposed to work together before any real work gets done. I've seen staffs (not mine) that wasted time re-inventing the wheel every bleeping day for weeks until they began to form procedures and a work flow process.

I've said this before, but Bush and his administration are bad managers.

Last week Jim Hoagland wrote a column in the Washington Post called "Leading vs. Managing." He makes the point that the Bushies may be leaders, but they are not managers.

The Bush team came to Washington with a self-cultivated reputation for CEO-like managerial efficiency. ...

The gap between goals and results has been so glaring in the occupation of Iraq and in the administration's efforts at global alliance management that Bush and Rice should concentrate now on bringing their aspirations in line with U.S. capabilities. ...

The rhetoric in Bush's inaugural address and in Rice's testimony at Senate confirmation hearings on her nomination to be secretary of state was genuinely stirring and appropriately visionary. ... Bush's words defined the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan, NATO and other institutions that implemented the doctrine of containment. But the administration still lacks convincing institutional and programmatic frameworks for achieving the Bush doctrine of "expansion of freedom in all the world."

Hoagland's article is kind to the Bushies, suggesting that they could manage but that circumstances (September 11) got in the way. I don't see any evidence that they can manage, but let's go on ... one of the differences between "red" and "blue" America, Hoagland suggests, is that the "reds" are inspired by Bush's leadership, but the "blues" castigate his abilities and motives. And, I would add, results.

 

|

 

The Bush administration has started its second act, and it is striking how different this one feels. When you ask senior officials to remember the first term, they remember it as a time of war. There was the attack of Sept. 11. There were invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. There was the political war of the 2004 campaign.

That was a time when pieces of things were cast asunder. Senior Bush officials talk about this term as a time when pieces of things will be put back together. There's almost a springlike, postwar mood.

The campaign is over. Afghanistan had its election. Even in Iraq, there will probably not be any more big military assaults like the one in Falluja. ...

Compare/contrast with James Wolcott's observation from Thursday...

At NRO's Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez is impressed by the endorphin surge President Bush displayed during his press conference today.

"I only saw parts of it so I'm not going to be particularly helpful in relaying specifics--but, wow was he in a good mood. You almost get the impression he enjoys doing these now.
Posted at 11:14 AM"

Scroll down a bit and you'll see two earlier entries from the gal they call K'Lo.

"31 DIE [KJL]
in a Marine helicopter crash in Iraq.
Posted at 09:43 AM

"FYI [KJL]
W is holding a press conference at 10 a.m.
Posted at 09:39 AM"

Ponder that a moment. The White House announces a press conference in the morning. After the announcement comes the news that 31 Americans died in a chopper crash in Iraq (6 others died today in seperate incidents). The president takes the podium fresh with the knowledge of that tragedy--and radiates a cheerful disposition bantering with the press about senior citizens and their faulty memories. She can't see something scarily wrong with that? She doesn't spot some sort of emotional disturbance or disconnect? ...

Be sure to read all of James Wolcott's post; he makes a lot of good points.

Dan Froomkin also described the press conference in yesterday's Washington Post.

When Bush strode out before the press corps on Wednesday morning, his cheerful opening statement contained no recognition of the tragic overnight death of 31 Americans in the crash of a Marine helicopter in Iraq, the largest single-incident death toll since the war began. When he was asked about it, he addressed it tersely.

Bush almost never mentions specific incidents in the war, but I think it's safe to say that most people expected him to express some sorrow -- and to do so on his own.

In Wolcott's description of the press conference, as Bush spoke of the dead Marines, his "hand was flatly smacking downwards for emphasis, as if he were pounding the table during the business meeting, refusing to pay a lot for a muffler."

Dan Froomkin again:

National Journal media columnist William Powers observes that Bush appears to have lost any trace of humility. "He's CEO of the world, and he walks and talks as if he's about to fire everybody. His indifference to tone is mesmerizing, like a work of conceptual art designed to provoke and madden his audience. He's the Marcel Duchamp of American politics."

Bush is intoxicated with power. He's ready to charge ahead with his schemes and agendas, and little details like 31 dead Marines are beneath is concern.

Iraqis are about to go to the polls, as Bush ordered. Today a rocket struck the U.S. embassy inside the Baghdad Green Zone, killing two Americans. Reuters says one other American and 17 Iraqis were killed by insurgents today. The insurgents threaten a bloodbath on election day.

I hope that Iraqis can vote safely, and I hope the election brings Iraq some stability. But I don't know what will happen. I will make one not-so-bold prediction: Whatever happens, Bush will call the elections a "great success" in his State of the Union speech next week.  He will say this no matter if innocent voters lose their lives. He will say this if all Sunnis boycott, or if entire regions are unable to hold elections at all. Whatever. It will all be a great success. And the righties will believe him.

He will also claim that once an elected government is functioning, the insurgency will fade away. Of course, the Bushies said the same thing after the "transfer of sovereignty," and before that after the capture of Saddam. And after the "Mission Impossible" strut. And after the fall of Baghdad. Bush draws another line in the sand, and once again the insurgents step over it. Same old, same old.

Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press writes, "The White House is keenly watching the Iraqi election because it could affect U.S. military action there and sap President Bush's political strength here and abroad if the balloting doesn't lead to stability." I've heard that one before, too. No matter how badly the Chimp screws up, somehow he keeps going -- the Energizer Chimp -- and the true believers keep believing, and Congress grovels, and the Dems play dead.

Yet what else can we do but struggle on? The confirmation of Alberto Gonzales will be voted on by the full Senate soon, probably this week. This is going to be a vital test for the Democrats. The number of Democrats who vote no will show us if the party has any relevance at all. It's way past time for the Dems to start drawing their own lines in the sand, but maybe they'll do it this time. (Write your Senator if you haven't already done so, btw.)

The fight to save Social Security is also critical, but some Republicans will break ranks, so this should be a winnable fight. Josh Marshall writes,

As this and other articles make clear, the president will hit the road right after the State of the Union, with the avowed aim of breaking through the biggest obstacle standing in the way of his efforts to begin phasing-out Social Security. As the Times puts it,"the trip next week will be in part an effort to crack the Democratic wall" of opposition.

In fact, that probably understates how central that aim is, since breaking free some Democrats loosens up everything else.

So there it is. The Democrats have built a solid wall of opposition to phasing out Social Security. And it's there -- in many ways more than in his own party -- that his plan has been momentarily stopped in its tracks. He knows it. The Dems know it. Everybody knows it.

The Dems have built it up. And next week we get to see if the president can knock it down.

I am fearful of predicting turning points, because it seems to me we should have had several by now. Mike Allen writes in WaPo that Bush and Republicans in Congress are not necessarily on the same page. I believe I've heard that one before, too. 

But if The Vegetable believes that it's all blue skies and clear sailing ahead for the Bushies -- that means there isn't. So maybe there's hope.

Would he have dared to take the oath of office with a ski cap on? People would have justifiably considered that an insult to the office, the day, the country.

A war against Iraq will be expensive. It will cost you, the taxpayer, about $300 billion over five years. I know Wolfowitz is telling you Iraq's oil revenues will pay for it all, but that's ridiculous. Iraq only pumps about $10 billion a year worth of oil, and it's going to need that just to run the new government we're putting in. No, we're going to have to pay for it, ourselves. I'm going to ask you for $25 billion, then $80 billion, then another $80 billion. And so on. I'm going to be back to you for money more often than that unemployed relative that you don't like. The cost of the war is going to drive up my already massive budget deficits from about $370 billion to more like $450 billion a year. Just so you understand, I'm going to cut taxes on rich people at the same time that I fight this war. Then I'm going to borrow the money to fight it, and to pay for much of what the government does. And you and your children will be paying off that debt for decades. In the meantime, your dollar isn't going to go as far when you buy something made overseas, since running those kinds of deficits will weaken our currency. (And I've set things up so that most things you buy will be made overseas.) We'll have to keep interest rates higher than they would otherwise have been and keep the economy in the doldrums, because otherwise my war deficits would cause massive inflation. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: After you read all of Juan Cole's post, read the new Frank Rich column.

... television's ceremonial coverage of the Inauguration, much of which resembled the martial pageantry broadcast by state-owned networks in banana republics, made a dutiful show out of the White House's claim that the four-day bacchanal was a salute to the troops. The only commentator to rudely call attention to the disconnect between that fictional pretense and the reality was Judy Bachrach, a writer for Vanity Fair, who dared say on Fox News that the inaugural's military ball and prayer service would not keep troops "safe and warm" in their "flimsy" Humvees in Iraq. She was promptly given the hook. (The riveting three-minute clip, labeled "Fair and Balanced Inauguration," can be found at ifilm.com, where it has seized the "most popular" slot once owned by Jon Stewart's slapdown of Tucker Carlson.)

Alas, there were no Fox News cameras to capture what may have been the week's most surreal "salute" to the troops, the "Heroes Red, White and Blue Inaugural Ball" attended by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The event's celebrity stars included the Fox correspondent Geraldo Rivera, who had been booted from Iraq at the start of the war for compromising "operational security" by telling his viewers the position of the American troops he loves so much. He joked to the crowd that his deployment as an "overpaid" reporter was tantamount to that of an "underpaid hero" in battle. The attendees from Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital, some of whose long-term care must be picked up by private foundations because of government stinginess, responded with "deafening silence," reported Roxanne Roberts of The Washington Post. Ms. Roberts understandably left the party after the night's big act: Nile Rodgers and Chic sang the lyrics "Clap your hands, hoo!" and "Dance to the beat" to "a group of soldiers missing hands and legs."

Comedy writer Lonny Ross: "President Bush said the word 'free' about 25 times in his inauguration speech. However, he wasn't talking about the war; he was talking about the ride he'd gotten growing up." [Link]

 

Update: As if sanitizing the news to fit their political agenda weren't enough, the righties are also rewriting history. Of course, Lynn Cheney has been working on the history revision project for a while.

 

See also "When Wingers Predict Media Bias" by Dwight at Wampum.

 

We have a beautiful example of this phenomenon [flaming idiocy] this morning in this Wall Street Journal editorial in which its journalistically cavalier ideologues blame New York City’s homeless policies for a subway fire that it says will put the C train out of action for “perhaps as much as three to five years.  The rest of the country should think of this as the perfect liberal storm.”  They add “only in Manhattan could a burned-out switching system take years to repair,” and blame “distributional politics and entitlement culture.” 

It is the Wall Street Journal editors who seek to starve the public sector in general and mass transit in particular, and then they complain, using discredited information, about the results of that starvation.  Call it “chutzpah.”  Call it “ideological fanaticism.”  Just don’t call it journalism.

"Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him." -- Armando, Daily kos

This [2005] budget, to go into effect October 1, calls for a 7 percent increase in military spending but does not provide for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the New York Times.  An Associated Press story adds, "Officials said a supplemental request for these funds [for Iraq and Afghanistan] will be sent to Congress but not until after the November elections."

 

Um, excuse me, but, if you already know you're going to ask for the money within the 2005 fiscal year, isn't it kind of dishonest not to budget it now? Doesn't this amount to pre-planned budget busting? Do businesses let managers get away with this (none that I've worked for)?

 

Now, in this Associated Press story, the ubiquitous White House Officials say they plan to ask for a $50 billion supplement spendng bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in this calendar year. However, keep in mind that the fiscal year goes from October to October.

 

If a business manager were to submit a budget for a fiscal year and deliberately leave out a $50 billion item for that fiscal year, thinking that he could wait until three or four months into the fiscal year and then ask for the money then, he would no doubt meet with much disfavor from his superiors. Wouldn't you think?

The administration is also considering including $1 billion to $2 billion to construct a new U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad ...  Bush has so far pledged $350 million in tsunami aid. The new package is expected to include up to $650 million ...

In other words, the cost of building one bleeping embassy is way more (like, twice? help me out here) than the projected total amount of tsunami aid money.

Of the two (one bleeping embassy v. tsunami aid) which, do you think, will have a bigger long-term impact on U.S. foreign relations? And what is the point of an embassy, anyway, but to facilitate foreign relations?

The Reuters article cleared one point up for me, which is that the $80 billion is, in fact, the $50 billion the Bushies were going to ask for anyway, plus a bunch:

Administration and congressional officials had initially expected this year's supplemental spending to total closer to $50 billion. But cost estimates skyrocketed to as much as $100 billion as the Iraq insurgency intensified.

Now, remember, this is all supplemental spending that was not budgeted, even though the Bushies knew they were going to need at least some of it when they drew up the budget. (If you haven't already done so, be sure to read the "Wizard of Oz Budgeting" article from yesterday's New York Newsday.)

Reuters reminds us that, before the Iraq invasion, Paul Wolfowitz told Congress "We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."   

Now let's skip to the last paragraph in the Reuters article.

Yet only a fraction of the $18.4 billion set aside for rebuilding Iraq has been spent. The White House blames the insurgency for the slow pace of reconstruction.

What do you bet that money's been siphoned off and used elsewhere?

Laugh (bitterly) here.