by emptywheel
I'm literally dizzy keeping track of the many levels of self-delusion chronicled in this Mike Allen article. First, there's the expected kind of self-and-other delusion, pretending Iraq is a smashing success.
Still, the Administration is ever optimistic. In an e-mail titled "Setting the Record Straight" late last week, the White House declared, "The President's foreign policy is succeeding."
Then there's the really dangerous self-delusion that the Bush Administration's actions are having (and are perceived as having) a positive effect on the crisis in the Middle East.
Making a virtue of necessity, the President's team says it sees the opportunity for a "leadership moment"—and, however counterintuitive, an unexpected new chance to make headway on Bush's grand goal of leaving the Middle East more democratic than he found it.
Which of course we know won't happen, because of the next self-delusions, that Sunni Arab client states are supporting the US for any other reason than fear of their own populist opposition, or that they will continue to support the US and Israel as Lebanese casualties rise.
By sending Rice to the region, the White House is gambling that Arab governments fear the Hizballah militants more than they resent the Israelis.
Then there's the self-delusion of White House staffers who believe a guy who just made an ass of himself on MTP and a guy who loses it when questioned by the grande dame of American journalism are helping Bush's cause.
Indeed, the West Wing is relatively upbeat after its annus horribilis. People close to Bush say chief of staff Josh Bolten and press secretary Tony Snow have given the place a desperately needed karmic injection.
And I'm not sure who is deluding whom, here. Is Mike Allen quoting someone in the White House, or does he really believe that the trouble with Iraq is simply that it "won't be peaceful"?
Yet Bush would dearly love to accomplish something, to neutralize anti-American forces in the Middle East and to redeem himself as a peacemaker. Without that, his foreign policy legacy lives and dies with Iraq, and it's looking ever more likely that the country won't be peaceful before he leaves office.
"Won't be peaceful"?? Um, Mike, at the very least, we're talking full-blown civil war. And it's looking more and more like, "biggest foreign policy blunder in American history." That's a little bit more problematic than "won't be peaceful."
About one thing only does this White House seem capable of clarity--their outlook on the mid-term election and the consequences losing the election would have on staying out of jail.
As for Bush himself, he is curtailing his traditional August working vacation at the ranch so that he can barnstorm before the midterm elections. Their outlook thus far seems so ominous for the G.O.P. that one presidential adviser wants Bush to beef up his counsel's office for the tangle of investigations that a Democrat-controlled House might pursue.
Well, at least we finally found something that could convince Bush to skip his French-style month-long vacation. Terrorists ready to strike in the US? Nope. A category 5 hurricane bearing down on America's most vulnerable city? Nope. The threat of facing consequences for his own actions? That will get him to cancel the vacation.
Glad to see Bush has his priorities in order.

The barrage of images from the war in Iraq and the war being waged against innocent civilians in Lebanon by Israel will be enough to convince the pulic that this Administration and Republican-led (Democrate enabling) Congress is a failure.
And, then, there are the videos of the presidential gaffes in Russia this past week: the ignorance about geography, about Syria vis-a-vis Lebanon, and the Merkel grope. These images are pretty indicting, even for the "true-believers" who don't want to know their president is either a fool, heavily medicated, or just plain clueless.
Posted by: margaret | July 24, 2006 at 12:16
No one's making Allen call it a traditional "working" vacation either. Why slip in that bit of spin? I thought we'd gotten past the rationalization that time off helps Bush make "crisp" decisions.
Posted by: SaltinWound | July 24, 2006 at 12:26
Good point Saltin. My senses must be getting dulled by the barrage of propaganda.
Posted by: emptywheel | July 24, 2006 at 12:30
These guys are like the queen in Snow White who gazed into the mirror to be assured that she was lovely. The media were syncophantics for Bu$hCo. Rupert Murdock shares culpablity for Iraq and Global Warming with Cheney, Rummy, Abrams, and the rest of the Bu$hCo Believers.
But I do believe that media mirror is in the process of shattering, and we hear a few more cracks each day.
I expect a Rovian shitfest directed at the media, in rough proportion to the degree of panic experienced by Bu$hCo. I also expect interesting shifts in the media. The biggest syncophants (Faux News, wingnut media) will assist Rove; I expect their shares to drop. I'd be investing in independent media like crazy if I had deep pockets; people do want information (how else did the blogs explode?).
One of the things that I'm fascinated to watch is how much of Big Media the Bu$hCo Believers will take down with them. Those 'newz' sources most closely aligned with Bu$hCo will probably assist Rove in his shit-flinging; when the boat sinks, they'll all go down together.
Can't happen too soon.
Posted by: readerOfTeaLeaves | July 24, 2006 at 14:25
I find this Lamont statement on the situation disappointing:
http://nedlamont.com/issues/627/situation-in-the-middle-east
More talk about kidnapped soldiers and Israel's right to defend itself. He's not going to outflank Lieberman on this one. I wouldn't mind some truth telling on the atrocities.
Posted by: SaltinWound | July 24, 2006 at 16:51
If you're looking at a Democratic majority in November, and your first instinct is not to reach out for bipartisan comity, or strengthen support among Democratic moderates, but to find as many lawyers as humanly possible, you're guilty as sin.
Posted by: dday | July 24, 2006 at 17:13
Not to be too much like the Rude Pundit, but anus horribilis -- does that refer to Bush or Cheney?
Posted by: kaleidescope | July 24, 2006 at 17:56
The fog is thick alright. Hardly an original thought but I am hard pressed to imagine a greater measure of arrogance and incompetence in the same package than in Bushco. Full blown dissociation takes careful work to explain but Mike Allen can surely do better than that.
I am sure Bush does do a little work during that entire month. The point is he should be working harder (much, much, much harder) and he ought to be in his office sending the message he is serious after f***ing up every single thing he's touched (although thankfully the Merkel-rub was aborted). For a man so evidently obsessed with the primacy of "body language" he seems to miss the symbolism emptywheell so concisely laid out: world burning like sparkler -- brush cutting in Crawford; chance of being investigated -- busy on the hustings to keep control of Congress.
"Won't be peaceful" in Iraq is going down seoncd only to "rabid lambs" (or "vampiric llama" or "sclerotic lemurs" or whatever it was) of the Kossacks as worst expressions by journalist/columnist this year.
Posted by: Some Guy | July 24, 2006 at 18:12
The fog is thick alright. Hardly an original thought but I am hard pressed to imagine a greater measure of arrogance and incompetence in the same package than in Bushco. Full blown dissociation takes careful work to explain but Mike Allen can surely do better than that.
I am sure Bush does do a little work during that entire month. The point is he should be working harder (much, much, much harder) and he ought to be in his office sending the message he is serious after f***ing up every single thing he's touched (although thankfully the Merkel-rub was aborted). For a man so evidently obsessed with the primacy of "body language" he seems to miss the symbolism emptywheell so concisely laid out: world burning like sparkler -- brush cutting in Crawford; chance of being investigated -- busy on the hustings to keep control of Congress.
"Won't be peaceful" in Iraq is going down seoncd only to "rabid lambs" (or "vampiric llama" or "sclerotic lemurs" or whatever it was) of the Kossacks as worst expressions by journalist/columnist this year.
Posted by: Some Guy | July 24, 2006 at 18:14
Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Some Guy | July 24, 2006 at 18:16
Making a virtue of necessity, the President's team says it sees the opportunity for a "leadership moment"—and, however counterintuitive, an unexpected new chance to make headway on Bush's grand goal of leaving the Middle East more democratic than he found it.
Yeah right. This article gives a better sense of what Condoleeza Rice's trip is all about:
One senior Israeli official told The Times that Dr Rice’s visit would provide a distraction from the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, while the protracted nature of her tour gave Israel another week to continue its military operations.
Posted by: No Preference | July 24, 2006 at 21:10
I'm waiting for the prime time announcement by King George that the Iraq adventure has turned out not necessarily to our advantage and resigns.
Posted by: Brian Boru | July 25, 2006 at 01:22
President Bush need a break...Give it to him coz he deserves it..
Posted by: Juno888 | May 16, 2007 at 02:01