Angel & Devil

4 comments October 11th, 2007at 07:54am Posted by Eli

The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin asks a very scary question:

Whose advice does President Bush value the most? Who is the last person to whisper in his ear?

The answer to that question has never been entirely clear, although Vice President Cheney has generally been the most likely suspect — certainly when it comes to foreign policy.

But now Bush appears to be facing an ever-deepening rift among his chief advisers, with Cheney and his loyalists advocating a more confrontational response to international challenges and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice marshalling support for diplomacy. Given how trigger-happy Cheney appears to be, and how little credibility this White House has on the international stage, Bush essentially faces the choice of whether to end his tenure with a bang or a whimper.

The latest backdrop for this struggle appears to be the mysterious Israeli bombing raid on Syria five weeks ago.

Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper write in the New York Times: “A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.

“At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.

“The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.

“By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.”

Am I the only one picturing a little Condi angel perched on one of Dubya’s shoulders, and a little Cheney devil perched on the other? But come on, this is the guy who blew up frogs, challenged his dad to a drunken fight, mocked an executed prisoner, and dropped bon mots like, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out,” “Feels good” (just prior to blowing up Iraq), and “Bring it on!” – who do you think he’s going to listen to? Violence is always the answer in his shriveled little sociopathic brain. Anything else would make him look like one of those sissy Democrats.

Damn, I wish I had me some Photoshop skillz…

Entry Filed under: Bush,Cheney,Iran,Republicans,War


  • 1. spocko  |  October 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    Yes. I do think that violence is always the first thought then. “Okay what kind of diplomatic bull do we have to feed the people to prove that we have done the diplomatic thing?”
    “We should issue a strong disapproval letter.”
    “Okay, do that and then get ready to bomb some more or give israel our blessing to bomb some more.”

  • 2. Eli  |  October 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    I’m pretty sure Dubya regards “diplomacy” as “standing around gum-flapping instead of blowing shit up”, and therefore of no intrinsic value except as show.

  • 3. dan mcenroe  |  October 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Not enough absinthe in the world to make me capable of imagining a “little Condi angel.”

  • 4. Eli  |  October 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Well, yeah, there’s that too. Really, any time you have Condi representing the *angel* side, you know the country’s in trouble.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




October 2007
« Sep   Nov »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *