I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
Who is in charge? Is anyone?
President Bush has prominently declared that he is 'the decider' --- the final arbiter of all decision-making in his administration. (what's that old bromide --- if you have to announce your importance then something is amiss'?)
Then how can Vice President Dick Cheney's continuous disconnected-from-reality utterances be explained?
Now the Bush White House has been noted by the media for strict and tight-lipped obeyance to protocol and for staying on-message with extremely few leaks (that is, unless the leakage portrays the Administration in a good light and terrorists, Democrats or anyone that opposes any element of the Bush Administration are displayed negatively).
So, are Cheney's statements indicative that Bush has lost control (or maybe never had control since Cheney and his cohorts have been reality-bending from the get-go)? That Cheney can say whatever he wishes, with no repercussions from within? That the chain-of-command begins with Chaney?
Or are Cheney's offerings pre-approved by Bush as a calculating back channel, red meat conveyence to the remaining diehards, as the real truth?
Just imagine if Al Gore had gone around contradicting Bill Clinton --- so much of the media and the righty wing nutters would have never let go of that one.
Will someone press Bush in his next press conference for an explanation of his administration's conundrum? That is, beyond the pathetic Cheney is a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. Yep, I always thought Dick was a Norman Vincent Peale acolyte.
Here's the corresponding portions of a recent New York Times editorial covering this same territory:
January 27, 2007top
New York Times Editorial
The Bait-and-Switch White House
We often wonder whether there is a limit to the Bush administration’s obsession with secrecy, its assault on the rule of law, its disdain for the powers of Congress, its willingness to con the public and its refusal to heed expert advice or recognize facts on the ground. Events of the past week suggest the answer is no.
In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush stuck to his ill-conceived plans for Iraq, but at least admitted the situation was dire. He said he wanted to work with Congress and announced a bipartisan council on national security.
That lasted a day. By Wednesday evening, Vice President Dick Cheney was on CNN contradicting most of what Mr. Bush had said. We were left asking, once again, Who exactly is running this White House?
While Mr. Bush has been a bit more forthright lately about how badly things have gone in Iraq, Mr. Cheney spoke of “enormous successes” there and refused to pay even curled-lip service to consulting Congress. Whatever votes Congress takes on Iraq, Mr. Cheney said, “it won’t stop us.”
Whenever the vice president does this sort of thing, and it’s pretty often, Americans are faced with an unpleasant choice: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney running a bait-and-switch operation, or does the vice president simply feel free to cut the ground out from under Mr. Bush?
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |