Hey guys

"Neither hurried nor delayed" - now that's a Bush-ism that I finally resonate with! I'd like to think most things I do are neither hurried, not delayed - but done pretty much on my own timetable, when it suits me, a time of my choosing. And I guess we can expect the same for the freedom of the Iraqis. They'll get their country back, sure no problem, at a time that is neither hurried nor delayed. So will that be 2004? Or 2008? I hear Hillary Clinton will run for president at a time that is neither hurried nor delayed too. Oh yes, this sure is one piece of politcal double-speak that I think will come in very handy. Thanks George!

As for the rest of his speech to the UN? Well he didn't convince them last fall / winter, and I don't think he did so today either. At least the man is persistant. And he wore a nice tie (Maria made that observation once, and she's right, the man does have good taste in neck ties)

Love,
Terri

I think the working-class translation of that particular Bush-ism is "Neither pissing nor getting off the pot."

Quote:

---

Administration stuck in an infinite loop
Josh Marshall
The Hill
September 24,2003

Indulge me in a pop culture reference.

Remember that big tin robot in those early-'60s sci-fi films? Remember how at the end of every movie there'd come a point where the hero would outwit the robot or set him on some problem he couldn't solve and the robot would slip into a feedback loop and smoke would start coming out of his ears?

The White House is the robot.

How else to explain President Bush's defiant speech to the U.N. General Assembly and all the recent zigs and zags about bringing in the United Nations?

People disagree over how much we should involve our allies or the United Nations in our various military and diplomatic forays abroad. But we're beyond that now. It's no longer a matter of which approach is better. The problem is that the White House seems incapable of choosing one over the other and now oscillates back and forth between the two on an almost weekly basis.

For the past six weeks we've watched the same sobering pattern recur again and again.

First, some major setback occurs in Baghdad. Next, the White House reacts with a newfound desire to broaden its coalition by bringing in the United Nations and our allies.

When the crunch comes, however, the White House can't bring itself to make the hard decisions necessary to change the dynamic in Iraq or the United Nations. So everything falls back to the status quo ante until the next bomb blows up in Baghdad.

Round one began Aug. 19, when that truck bomb ripped apart the U.N. compound in Baghdad. In the aftermath, the White House signaled a desire to build on the tragedy as a moment of unity to bring the world community together to cooperate in rebuilding Iraq. But when Colin Powell came to the United Nations, he brought the same resolution that had been a non-starter a short time before. Soon enough, it was clear nothing would change.

Round two started 10 days later, Aug. 29, when another bomb blew up part of the Imam Ali Mosque, killing the influential Shiite cleric Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al Hakim. Other bad news at home followed quickly on the tragedy in Najaf. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the United States could maintain its current troop commitment in Iraq only through next spring.

The cost of the occupation continued to rise and the president's poll numbers began to slip.

Finally, on Sept. 4, The Washington Post reported that Powell had made common cause with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to persuade a "reluctant White House" that the current plan simply wasn't working and that a new U.N. resolution was essential.

Again the White House signaled a newfound willingness to share the burdens and authority for rebuilding Iraq. But when the president spoke to the nation Sept. 7, his request for $87 billion was accompanied only by a few churlish remarks about U.N. responsibility for picking up the tab for Iraqi reconstruction.

According to all available polling data, the president's speech did not arrest his slide in the polls but accelerated it. And the response from abroad was predictably negative, so the $50 to $75 billion in unfunded reconstruction costs for Iraq, those in addition to the $87 billion, seem destined to come out of American pockets, too.

Last year, many in the administration genuinely did not care what the United Nations or the rest of the world thought about our venture into Iraq. But today, the White House pretty clearly wants some outside infusion of support. And yet the president cannot seem to muster more than insults and threats about U.N. irrelevancy when he speaks to the General Assembly.

Before the speech, when Fox News Channel's Brit Hume asked the president whether he was willing to cede some political control to the United Nations in exchange for foreign assistance, Bush replied, "I'm not so sure we have to, for starters."

What's going on here?

While some see an effort to pick a new fight or simply drive a very hard bargain, the truth isn't as grand or deliberate. This is more basic psychology than clever strategy.

Many of us are familiar with the five stages of grieving identified three decades ago by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler Ross. As individuals face death or any great loss they go through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Those stages apply to the demise of major policy initiatives as well and we're watching that happen now as the White House comes to grips with the collapse of its policy on Iraq.

The administration keeps seeing what the problem is but cannot bring itself to take the cure.

It's stuck. It cannot get past stages one (denial) and two (anger). And the clock is ticking.

Josh Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each Wednesday. Email: jmarshall@thehill.com

Article in TheHill.com

---

All I can say is,
"Klaatu, Barada Nikto."

Love,
Greg