I'd quit to

Promoter of U.S. Image Quits for Wall St. Job

WASHINGTON, April 29 - Margaret D. Tutwiler, the State Department veteran who was summoned from abroad to overhaul the public diplomacy effort, said Thursday that she was resigning to take a position at the New York Stock Exchange.

The move was a blow to the Bush administration's hopes to improve America's image and better articulate its policy goals as the country faces growing opposition to the war in Iraq and to its support of Israel's plan to redraw its boundaries.

It also highlighted the administration's difficulty in retaining managers of public diplomacy. Ms. Tutwiler's predecessor in the job was Charlotte Beers, a former New York advertising executive, who resigned in March of last year. At the White House, another official responsible for the administration's international message, Tucker Eskew, quit after about a year.

You know what I think?

I think that if they believed in the mission in Iraq and they believed in all the rhetoric they spout about the strong will of the American people then they wouldn't be so afraid to expose said American people to images of the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.

They argue that its just anti-American forces who want to run this stuff in the hope that it will demoralize the American people. But, if they honestly believe that the American people are strong enough to deal with the price that has to be paid for the goals in Iraq then why should they be afraid what some people want to do with those images?

Unless, that is, even they have lost confidence in their mission and believe the only way to keep the house of cards from collapsing is if no one gets a chance to see what is really going on.

That's what I think.

Image is everything

Regarding Abu Ghraib: there is going to be the temptation for some on one side of the debate to use this heinous story to show that America is morally corrupt. Similarly, there is going to be the temptation for some on the other side of the debate to use those comments to paint all who get upset about this story as being of the same opinion with regard to the morality of the Americans in Iraq.

Here's a clue: the problem here is not whether or not the Americans in Iraq approve or disapprove of what happened in Abu Ghraib.

The problem is that a lot of the people we need to help get us out of this mess will believe we do even if we deny it.

America has a HUGE image problem. Complaining that the image does not match reality is a waste of time. We are fast approaching the time when then world will no longer listen to our protestations of innocence.

More on the problem

In reference to the previous post, read the latest from Paul Krugman. He is similarly flummoxed about how to get ourselves out of this mess without disastrous results.

I used to say that, while I want Bush out, I didn't envy the clean up job that will be left for the guy who will replace him (back then I hoped it would be Dean, now Kerry). Now I'm even more concerned. If my gut feeling is right that there is no solution to this problem that doesn't result in humiliation on our part, then I find myself conflicted about Kerry becoming president.

Why?

Because the situation, while it might get bad enough before November to result in Bush's ouster, it may not go into total meltdown until Kerry takes the oath.

And the GOP will be ready the next day with the talking points about how it is Kerry who is responsible for the mess.

And in 2008 they will to use that argument to replace Kerry with Jeb.

And then the whole bloody cycle will repeat itself all over again!

Ugh!

Note: I am not saying we shouldn't replace Bush with Kerry. I just don't have much faith that he will make the situation better. At best my  hope is that he can stop it from getting worse, which it will if we have another four years of Bush. But you can bet the right-wing will be prepared on the day after the election to blame everything that goes wrong from that point on on

We are the problem, not the solution

I opposed the war in Iraq. But I have always argued since then that, despite my opposition, having invaded the country, we now have the lion's share of the responsibility for fixing the mess and thus it would be irresponsible of us to pull out before things are stabilized.

Stories like this have me reconsidering that position.

It is still our responsibility to clean up the mess we have made, but it may no longer be possible for the U.S. to do so while continuing to remain directly involved in the primary task of rebuilding the country. We may very well have become the single greatest impediment to Iraq achieving that democratic future that Bush talks so much about. It may be that the only way we can meet our obligations would be to bow out and let someone else take charge.

Who?

Hell if I know.

Kerry 6, Bush 3

Smackdown, week 9

No bullet point list this week. I've been to busy on work to gather the links over the last week.

This week was pretty easy to score. It wasn't bad for Bush in the way that it has been a couple of weeks back. But the continuing drag on his presidency by the news out of Iraq hasn't helped either. The latest CBS/NY Times poll showing, for the first time, that a plurality of voters now think the Iraq war was a mistake cannot be good news for Bush. As long as the majority of people believed it was justified that support could translate into a few points in Bush's favor regardless of how bad things are going (in fact, when things go bad, Bush's alleged national security strength boosts his ratings). But, when the people start to turn against the war, they start to rate the negative news against the President.

And Kerry has a relatively good week. He has come out strong against the GOP in their attacks on his military record and has made a good showing of turning the dialog into a question of Bush and Cheney's military record. It's the strongest performance by Kerry since the first couple of weeks of the general campaign.

Combine that with the news that Kerry has already reached his fundraising goal of $80 million and this week comes down in Kerry's favor pretty easily.

(Last week's smackdown)

D'oh!

Liberal Oasis cracks the mystery behind the joint appearance of Bush and Cheney before the 9/11 commission (actually, since they came to the Oval Office, it was more like they were appearing before them).

Perhaps (and this is just speculation) the whole idea of the joint appearance was not to protect Bush.

But to protect Cheney.

Perhaps they reasoned the president, especially in the Oval Office setting, would be a magnet for questions.

Which would steer questions away from Cheney, and leave unexplored his inactive terror task force, and his actions on 9/11 itself.

What a subtly brilliant idea. Cheney really is the more interesting character in this whole dynamic. But by having them appear jointly, naturally the commission members are going to focus the majority of their questions towards Bush.

Still here

I'm just in the middle of a very intense project and haven't the time to follow the news enough to blog about it.

I will return.