The logic of the White House’s defense of its pre 9/11 counterterrorism policy escapes me.
Critics have charged that the administration’s pre 9/11 policy was slipshod. The White House contends that its pre 9/11 policy was excellent. To prove its point, the White House (see here, here and here) discusses Richard Clarke, the man the White House put in charge of counterterrorism policy.
According to the administration, the person they charged with keeping America safe from terrorism is a grandstanding liar who is concerned only with which meetings he was permitted to attend. The person in charge of the administration’s pre 9/11 counterterrorism policy was out of the loop, just makes things up and is an irresponsible partisan who would “suck around” for a job.
The person the administration turned to lead the fight against terrorism did not want to eliminate Al Qaeda and just presented a bunch of tired old policy ideas. Of course, the administration also argues that it adopted most of those tired, inadequate policies.
Apparently, the administration believes that if it proves that the person in charge of its counterterrorism policy was incompetent, somehow that will show that the policy was good.
I find that argument completely convincing. After all, the White House has similar views of Paul O’Neill, the man it chose to run economic policy as the Secretary of the Treasury and we see the results of the administration’ economic policy.
Perhaps the White House can write a book about management entitled “The Key to Good Decision Making: Hire Bad People.”
(applause)
Posted by: Ted Barlow at March 23, 2004 12:00 PMI wouldn't want to be cynical, but do you think that this administration hopes to simply exhaust its critics by supplying an almost overhwelming number of illogical defenses of their chosen policies? hmmm.
Posted by: dog1 at March 24, 2004 05:14 PMWhat's with the blogging dogs? OH yeah...
Right now, its starting to look like death by a thousand cuts for the Bush Administration: its on the defense on everything.
However, the Administration is counting on around 50% of the American people to be delusional-- believing we are in good, strong hands, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. It may have a point in thinking it can achieve that.
As to the "winning by hiring incompetents", I don't have to tell anyone (1) look who is in charge of the operation, and (2) lest we forget, Al Gore LOST the debates 4 years ago by sounding articulate and intelligent.
I wouldn't bet against the Bush Administration; I certainly pray for its fall-- and will do what I can to bring it about-- but I wouldn't BET against its continuation.
Posted by: the talking dog at March 24, 2004 09:29 PMTD: I agree. I have not checked Tradesports or the the Iowa election market lately but my guess is that GWB is about a 60-40 favorite to win reelection as of today.
I was guessing about 67% as of the beginning of this year.
Posted by: Dwight Meredith at March 24, 2004 10:03 PMSo you are the talking dog.
We just bark and yelp and such.
At the beginning of the year I would have figured him at 70% or so. They seem to have mastered the art of media manipulation. Not, as some argue, the ability to manipulate an underlying rightist agenda, so much as frame the media debate as he said/she said. Especially on TV, when I see it, the faces seem compelled to treat every utterance as serious, no matter how ridiculous. In that vacuum, no real discussion of facts can take place. I take my hat off to them. Cynical and determined.