Maybe the partisan purging of that "hotbed of liberals" otherwise known as the CIA, the nomination of uber-yes man Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General (a man who has argued that the president can have US citizens arrested and held forever without trial - oh, and he's said that they can be tortured too), and the nomination of Condi Rice, queen of lies and incompetence, as Secretary of State is all part of some master plan to convert more Americans to Christianity. With people like this in charge of the asylum (and, unfortunately, the country as well), I can certainly see an argument for the idea that we all need to start praying much more often.
Josh Marshall's point is basically right - Bush is ensuring that those closest to him are in top positions. This is hugely problematic in that this administration is already the most tightly-knit in memory. And the level of insulation that this administration has practiced has had serious consequences that have badly damaged US interests (see my previous posts on this here and here - they make an important point). What he's doing is replacing the handful of top people that he's not completely, absolutely, 100% comfortable with, with people who have a long history of never raising a peep of opposition, or bringing up ideas that will rock that boat. Now I'm thrilled to get Rice out of the NSC. She was an unmitigated disaster. But it strikes me that at this point the chief attribute that recommends her to serve as head of the oldest cabinet office in the US government is that the president enjoys singing old songs around the piano with her at Camp David. And if that's what things have come to ... well, I fear what the myopia of this administration will mean for this country and its citizens down the road. With Gonzalez at Justice, the president's buddies running foreign policy, and the no-dissent-allowed majorities that Frist and Delay have in Congress, there will be no check on this sort of behavior. And no one present who will be able to even bring up unpleasant realities we need to confront to run the country effectively. Not only will a dissenting voice not be heard. There will likely be even stronger unanimity than in the past arguing that planning for unpleasant possibilities is unnecessary.
As an upside, one could say that perhaps there will be fewer inter-agency squabbles of the sort that Rice has proven herself unable, and even unwilling, to confront. But the goal should be to effectively manage a variety of voices and information, not to eliminate the little dissent that exists. Often that results in poor planning, and a skewed perception of reality. And we'll all have to live with the consequences when the ever-narrower echo chamber the president is creating refuses to confront problems that don't mesh with its worldview.
Posted by armand at November 16, 2004 11:34 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politicsleaving behind the temptation to kiss my own ass good-bye, panic, run screaming from the room, here's my sober question, which i think is robust and crucial:
what sort of credibility does rice have overseas?
i'm not looking for a to-the-choir lament about this administration's indifference to foreign opinion, which is well-documented and really beyond cavil. rather, i'm wondering just how much worse things might have been had we not had powell to mitigate the damage caused by this admin's bull-in-a-china-shop mentality in all things diplomatic for the past four years. furthermore, in what way is she possibly qualified for such a high-visibility position in the international arena?
Posted by: joshua at November 16, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKWhat credibility does she have? In terms of her relationship with the American people, she shouldn't have any. Though lucky for her most people don't follow foreign affairs that closely - therefore they are unaware of her egregious string of lies (think there were a string of them on the Iraq Intelligence Brief alone, much less her comments on other matters like the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US" presidential daily brief). In terms of her credibility overseas - I presume Putin, the Uzbeks and the other autocrats we get along with will admire her loyalty, but I don't see any reason to expect that she'll have much credibility with the Western world. She's played a central role in facilitating policies they loathe for the last 4 years, and I think they believe she was less sympathetic to their views than Powell was. I think they'll know they are hearing from the president when they talk to her - but I don't see that she has any skills that will help bridge current divides.
Posted by: Armand at November 16, 2004 11:58 AM | PERMALINKI suspect she is a relative unknown in the rest of the world. Her job wasn't sentate-confirmable, and I read somewhere (lost the link) that she rarely traveled outside the country and met with few world leaders (that would have been Powell's job). Hence, I don't really know if the rest of the world has any feeling - pro or con - for her personally. I'll second Armand's point that Bush's policies are not liked very much, and Rice will be seen as executor of those (she certainly doesn't have any public background of arguing against what this adminstration has done). She'll end up carrying the baggage of what Bush has done, and she doesn't have a hint of the stature internationally that Powell did (to be fair, I'm not sure anyone would). I suspect, in the end, she'll do more for purging State and making it loyal to Bush than she will for managing America's relations with the rest of the world.
Posted by: baltar at November 16, 2004 02:08 PM | PERMALINKin other words there will be far more "secretary" than there will be "state" in her tenure.
delightful.
Posted by: joshua at November 16, 2004 02:23 PM | PERMALINKSo do we want her to stay in DC - purging - or flying off to foreign lands (something Powell rarely did) serving as the face of opinions and operations that are likely to remind most of the democratic countries of the world why they don't like the Bush administration? Decisions, decisions.
Btw, my impression (though I have little to back it up with) is that she's pretty pro-Sharon, and of course the president is very pro-Sharon, so I don't know that I'd expect active US involvement on getting the Middle East peace process going again. That's rather a shame since it would seem that with Arafat's death and the Gaza situation there might be a chance for some important on that, if not immediately, then perhaps in the fairly near future.
Posted by: Armand at November 16, 2004 04:09 PM | PERMALINKOr, as a third option, is she going to be just nothing: not much of a face or actor. There are many forceful personalities in the Bush administration (fewer, now), and she may be buried among them, even though her post carries a higher "viewership" than many of the others. I'm not sure if that would be good or bad. She could also surprise us and do very well: she doesn't have any previous track record, so she actually has a great deal of latitude at this point to define her goals and aspirations. This could work well for her.
I don't expect this administration to touch the mid-east peace process at all, but I could be surprised.
Posted by: baltar at November 16, 2004 05:05 PM | PERMALINK