« Paul Krugman Is Bewildered Too! | Main | Snarkalicious! »

June 08, 2007


Too cynical?


If there is a single lesson that we should take away from Bush's tenure as president, it's that you can never be too cynical.

Quoth Teresa Nielsen Hayden: "I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist."

Something would actually have to improve (unlikely IMO) or the Wartsar is raising on a busted flush.

So if they say things are good they're deceiving us, and if they say things are bad, they're just getting ready to deceive us in the future? It's hard out there for a Bush. :)

Or maybe this guy isn't willing to make things sound positive bc of his own situation- if he makes things sound good now he'll look like a failure. If he shades negative he places the blame where it more likely belongs- on the people who managed the situation up to now.

My impression from not paying much attention is that message discipline is breaking down compared to 2001-2005. People have their post-Bush careers to think about now, or post-Bush national trajectories to influence (eg Cheney on Iraq).

What Eric said.

Love that blogosphericalist eloquence.

Forgive me for asking, but is Lute really a creature of the Administration?

Is it possible he's telling it how it is?

I propose we spend the rest of the thread arguing whether it should be "war tsar."

Where's Gary, dammit?

Oops -- that was supposed to be dammite, from the Old Babylonian, meaning "a mild expletive that does not violate the posting rules."

How many czars/tsars/zars/tsatzikis has the US already? Are they getting prepared to take their duties back in Slav Europe? ;-)

I'm with Eric on the general question: can one be too cynical when dealing with this administration?

OTOH, I also think it's conceivable that he's not their creature. Think how hard it was to find someone willing to take this job at all.

Mmmmmm tsatzikis....

I'd say definitely "czar" for the "official in charge of whatever" sense, but "tsar" for the Russian emperor. You can't very well pronounce "drug tsar" with /tsar/ -- at least, not without being laughed at. Though I do like Tim's "Wartsar".

Since Czar/Tsar is a derivation, what about going with the original Caesar?

Mmmmm Caesar....

Only if pronounced "kaiser."

The government is apparently disappearing children. The issue isn't whether we're being cynical or paranoid -- it's whether we're being cynical or paranoid enough.

"War Kaiser." That would be Ludendorff?

Definitely the direction this White House would *like* to go ....

Let me get this straight...
1) There is no Plan B - as stated by the Administration.
2) We are working on Preparation of Plan B-H - as stated in this article.

Mathematically, that means we are on Preparation H?

cz and ts are both standard, alternate transliterations of the Russian letter ц (not sure if that shows up right for you).

But there really should be an apostrophe after the r...

Mathematically, that means we are on Preparation H?

That’s what it feels like anyway… Might even help. Itching and burning make you uncomfortable?

And when Lute introduces his wife does he say this is my lovely tsaritsa?

I don't know if or how this fits into your theory, but this seems like a good place to share it:

WASHINGTON — The man chosen [Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute] by President Bush to become his new "war czar" told Congress on Thursday that national security advisor Stephen Hadley would no longer be responsible for Iraq policy, indicating the administration has quietly engineered a significant change in foreign policy leadership that could directly affect U.S. war strategy.

According to the story, Lute argued against the surge last winter.

Could someone tell me why the Secretary of War Defense isn't doing that job already? It takes a pretty confused notion of Washington not to notice that there's already someone in the Cabinet whose job it is to win the wars we are fighting.

No wonder Bush can't do anything effectively.

"Could someone tell me why the Secretary of War Defense isn't doing that job already?"

Because even the Bush administration has a fair number of clues that there's no military solution to Iraq; insofar as they're still positive, they've tried for years to get more contributions from State, Agriculture, and the other agencies, to Help Win In Iraq.

Which made it the job of the National Security Advisor, and Deputy to coordinate, not that of the DoD; the line is that since the NSA and Deputy have the whole world to pay attention to, it's therefore a good idea to put someone in charge who can focus on Iraq and Afghanistan fulltime.

That's their theory, anyway. Does that answer your question?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad