The Failed Businessman Does It Again
Maureen Dowd writes about George Bush's latest failed business -- our national and international business:
Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?)
The defense chief got hung out to dry before Saddam got hung. The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in. Two trusted members of the Bush 41 war council, Mr. Baker and Robert Gates, have been dispatched to discipline the delinquent juvenile and extricate him from the mother of all messes.
Mr. Gates, already on Mr. Baker’s “How Do We Get Sonny Out of Deep Doo Doo in Iraq?” study group, left his job protecting 41’s papers at Texas A&M to return to Washington and pry the fingers of Poppy’s old nemesis, Rummy, off the Pentagon.
“They had to bring in someone from the old gang,” said someone from the old gang. “That has to make Junior uneasy. With Bob, the door is opened again to 41 and Baker and Brent.”
W. had no choice but to make an Oedipal U-turn. He couldn’t let Nancy Pelosi subpoena the cranky Rummy for hearings on Iraq. “He’s not exactly Mr. Charming or Mr. Truthful, and he’d be on TV saying something stupid,” said a Bush 41 official. “Bob can just go up to the Hill and say: ‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there when that happened.’ ”
The difference between Arnold and W? Arnold made something of himself -- again and again. Bush was handed everything -- and ran it all into the ground. Including this country of ours. What made people vote -- twice -- for a guy who could never even take high-level handouts and make something of them? I guess Reagan is proven right about welfare yet again.
> Poppy Bush and James Baker gave
> Sonny the presidency to play with
> and he broke it.
What could this supercilious fuckwit possibly, possibly mean by this? That James Baker, fifteen years without an office in Washington, was somehow cranking the levers of power through some dastardly but unseen white-guy authority? What exactly is the feeling of warmth that comes to people who read Dowd?
Where's Cathy Seipp while all this is going on?
This is analysis from the newspaper of record? I woke up earlier than you did today, and the first thing I read about the NYT was how Hassan Elmasry of Morgan Stanley is preparing to squeeze the shit out of the Sulzbergers because they can't seem to make enough money.
> and getting him some new minders
> who are a lot more practical.
Will someone, anyone, else on this planet share my amazement that self-righteous dorknobs like Dowd are celebrating, howsoever back-handedly, a return of "practicality" in international affairs?
Next time the bad guys kill someone and Maureen gets upset about it, tell her to go fuck herself.
And have a great weekend.
Crid at November 10, 2006 5:38 AM
Maureen Dowd is a little too cute and pat for my taste, but they "gave" him the presidency by taking a drunk and a failure in business and propping him up in politics. Where Clinton scraped up on his own, Bush had help and then some, and made a mess of it all -- and now a mess of our country's business.
Amy Alkon at November 10, 2006 6:22 AM
First of all, be nice to drunks.
OK, scratch that.
First of all, it's Bush's teetotaling inflexibility that's made such a mess of this administration. If he could lighten up with a single can of Pabst every third Saturday --and run his operations with as much informality-- things would be different.
Secondly, let's not pretend that Clinton paid for his books at Oxford by busing tables at the Denny's by the highway in Hope, Arkansas. He avoided 'Nam by kissing the asses that smart guys were supposed to kiss, just as Dubya avoided overseas service by kissing the asses that rich guys were supposed to kiss.
Thirdly, it's fascinating that Americans claim intimate understanding of (and resistance to) marketing techniques, but in the case of Bush will presume something sinister happened to get him into the White House... Whereas Ted Kennedy was *destined* for a life in the senate. No less in media circles than elsewhere, people inexplicably deny the power of branding and name recognition in his election and re-election. It must be easier to discount one's own sophisticated, hard-won theories of social intercourse than to admit that the competition sucked hose.
Fourthly, Dubya is a fuckup, but think twice before you call someone a "business failure" in the United States. If our success stories have a common thread, it's their willingness to stand up and fight after taking a punch. Remember Steve Jobs in 1986?
Crid at November 10, 2006 6:45 AM
If you read any Stanton Peele (peele.net), you'll probably realize that Bush is not a cured drunk, he's simply a drunk who's substituted religion for drinking.
I've had business failures, too, but the difference is, not every single enterprise I've entered has been a failure; I only took a few risks that didn't pay off.
There are a lot of unworthy trolls in politics on both sides, and draft dodgers, too - including our president.
Amy Alkon at November 10, 2006 7:17 AM
> not a cured drunk, he's simply
> a drunk who's substituted
> religion for drinking.
Nothing could be more disheartening than an afternoon spent with someone you'd call a "cured" drunk. People have personalities, Amy! By definition character is somewhat inflexible. Also, Bush did OK by the Texas Rangers, and the Lone Star State as a whole did OK in his tenure.
Crid at November 10, 2006 7:34 AM
Long live King George.
Roger at November 10, 2006 8:04 AM
> long before Saddam got hung
Feeling peevish today, so I'll pick on this semantic error. I don't know or care how Saddam is hung, but in any case he is scheduled to be *hanged*, i.e. executed by hanging. Sheesh.
Marie at November 10, 2006 8:48 AM
Marie is absolutely right about that. Hooray.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at November 10, 2006 9:42 AM
I am hopeful now that Baker et al are involved. It certainly does smack of an intervention type operation. I am shocked that it took a heymaker punch like an electoral humiliation for W to finally respond to the smelling salts. History will not be kind to the necons--it already seems like a bad nightmare, doesn't it?
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
MinorRipper at November 10, 2006 10:59 AM
I am hopeful now that Baker et al are involved. It certainly does smack of an intervention type operation. I am shocked that it took a heymaker punch like an electoral humiliation for W to finally respond to the smelling salts. History will not be kind to the necons--it already seems like a bad nightmare, doesn't it?
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
MinorRipper at November 10, 2006 11:00 AM
> before Saddam got hung.
Was that when he was a little boy or after the surgery?
Roger at November 10, 2006 12:22 PM
> it already seems like a bad
> nightmare, doesn't it?
Not just that, it already *was* a bad nightmare! Miney, we're just clearer than we used to be about taking part in it.
Crid at November 10, 2006 3:41 PM
>>What made people vote -- twice -- for a guy who could never even take high-level handouts and make something of them?
Two things:
1. Al Gore.
2. John Kerry.
Gary S. at November 10, 2006 7:10 PM
Except that in the case of Gore, more people actually did vote for him...
deja pseu at November 10, 2006 7:21 PM
In the case of Gore, also, Bush had a little help from election stealer and world class nutcase, Katherine Harris. Thankfully, Harris got the best comeuppance she could have, short of Judy Garland dashing her with a bucket of water.
I believe that the current administration is by far the most unapologetically corrupt that has ever existed in my lifetime. You may disagree, but you all have that right (except Crid).
I see an unprovoked invasion of Iraq being done for phoney reasons. We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Moreover, we always did. You won't get the current administration to admit that, but it's true. Afghanistan was given up on too early, as the Taliban is resurfacing. And we did lose Afghanistan. Our objective was clear. We wanted the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, and we have failed in that agenda.
Now the invasion of Iraq has been given a variety of justifications, and none of them hold true. Some say it's because we believed they were involved in 9/11. So sorry, but we never believed that. Clark had been saying so from the get go. Some say that we did it because Iraq was flaunting the U.N. All well and good, but then why are we doing this without the U.N.? It's their sanctions that were defied, yet, they were against the invasion. Why are we doing this without them? Who gave the U.S. the right to decide which sanctions we should uphold and which we shouldn't? Also, shouldn't we have gotten bin Laden first? He attacked us, after all.
Because Iraq was under a repressive regime and a tyrannical dictator? If that's such a huge concern, and Bush is merely being a benevolent liberator, then Sudan should have gone down first. The Sudanese government supports genocide, slavery and terrorism.
Because Iraq was trying to build nukes? Wrong again. North Korea was closer to a nuke, and we've always known that.
Some Democrats have cynically claimed that Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein tried to kill Bush the elder. I don't think so. Daddy's quite safe and it happened over eight years prior to the invasion.
Iraq was slated for invasion for purely selfish reasons. And I believe everyone on this board knows that, whether they will admit it or not. Look at all the no-bid contracts that went to Halliburton. Why is no one outraged over what is so obviously the pursuit of selfish ends? If Cheney and his cronies are so obviously and unapologetically benefitting from the invasion of Iraq, then that simply serves to cast more suspicion (as if we needed any) on the motives. Quite frankly, I think if anyone should be impeached, it should be Cheney. Then tried for war profiteering, and if convicted, consign him to the dankest most inhospitable prison in the land, with 7 foot cellmate named Bubba who prefers to be called Dominique.
The Diebold voting machines, which seem to be having problems. Yes, I did predict the Democrats would win nothing, because those machines were made by Republican donors and leave no paper trail. (The crow is delicious, thank you.) Why is no one outraged that those machines are made by an organization with such an obvious political agenda given exclusive control and produce machines that leave no paper trail? Conservatives, liberals and everywhere in between, if they're at all interested in fairness, should be outraged.
In Bush's place, I would have allowed Diebold to make the machines, but I would have demanded a paper trail, and I would have allowed Democratic donors to inspect those machines for possible vulnerabilities to tampering. Or perhaps appointed a bipartisan committee headed by a Democrat to inspect those machines. Some way to get both sides of the political fence involved. There is absolutely no way I would have allowed one side to control every aspect of our voting machines. Doesn't anyone see the inherent unfairness of allowing one side to do all the work, hold the keys and retain all intimate knowledge of our voting machines?
Would you want Democratic donors to have that kind of control? I wouldn't.
Bush's intoxication on power. Power grab after power grab after power grab. If you're comfortable with Bush having the authority he has been giving himself, then would you want Clinton to have the same authority? If not, then you don't want Bush to have it either. It's as simple as that. Would you want Clinton the right to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant, for example?
Is there any administration in your lifetime that has ever come close to this one in corruption? Nixon perhaps. But please, don't say Clinton. If you imagine that some hanky panky on the side is a threat to national security, particularly in comparison with everything that's been going on for the last six years, you're going to make me laugh.
Patrick at November 11, 2006 6:49 AM
Crid wrote:
Pot, meet kettle.
Your ignorance of self is astounding.
Patrick at November 11, 2006 6:51 AM
I love the phrase "supercilious fuckwit."
Melissa at November 11, 2006 10:21 AM
Judy Garland. Right.
> don't say Clinton
Can we mention Mark Rich and the 11th hour pardons? People forget that the Arkansas hillbillies (and their ne-er do well in-laws living in the basement) literally stole the silverware as they left the White House.
Crid at November 11, 2006 10:44 AM
Crid writes:
People cannot "forget" something that never happened. Why don't you check your information before you go spouting baseless rumors?
Patrick at November 11, 2006 5:27 PM
I see that this is "Bush is a drooling idiot" day. Tomorrow, it must be "Bush is a criminal mastermind" day.
Anyway. Though two wrongs - whatever they are - don't make a right, don't be totally stupid and think that sex was all that Mr. Clinton was doing wrong. Where is John Huang?
As you celebrate recent election results, do be honest and dispute results as narrow as the ones so noisily protested last election. I know you all want to be fair, right?
Radwaste at November 13, 2006 3:00 AM
Leave a comment