Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I find the O'Neill revelations very important, and it is vital that the partisans of the Left keep these alive for the year. O'Neill's professional performance is relative to so many factors of which we know very little; could you build a sandcastle amongst a herd of swine?
As a pragmatic political person for this particular round, I see value in his book.
The only qualifying question is; is he lying? If he is not, then his views should be taken as those from a man of many meetings, a man who is used to power, and other people of power, making things happen. I did not say whether those things that "happened" are correct, smart or ethical. As I read O'Neill, I don't think he is either. O'neill is talking about decision-making. He's certainly qualified to observe and report on that.

As with any good book (this is a good one, though there are signs it was rushed to press), there are a number of ways to read this one, which is, I think, what RWC is getting at. One way it to look at O'Neill as a Treasury Secretary, and assess his performance, find out about his thought process. Another is to take him as a reporter, take what he (through Suskin) says about the events and people he describes as a form of journalism. O'Neill is gone, so for those not closely associated with Treasury, the more important approach, I think, is to read the book as jounalism. The people he describes are mostly still in place, gunning for another 4 years.

I don't see in Brad's excerpts (may simply have missed it) the point at which O'Neill realizes that his view of the what's important is vastly different from the view of those in Bush's White House circle. O'Neill thinks that digging through the data, thinking things through and dealing as honest brokers are the goal. He recognizes that the inner circle sees the goal as utter loyalty to Bush - thus the title of the book. The price of loyalty is to give up trying to foster the best policies, what is in the interest of the general public. It is Bush himself who insists on this choice of loyalty over good policy, and it catering to the "base" that Bush has identified as the best way to show loyalty.

Of course, since this is largely what the book is about, Brad may not have thought it necessary to point it out (or again, I may have missed it when he did). Still, it is a point that should not be missed.

I am struggling with DeLong's judgment of O'Neill. Suskind does a very good job of presenting the story and creating sympathy for O'Neill. Should he have resigned earlier? Should Powell have resigned? Why isn't he resigning?

Before I answer my questions let me express my surprise about Hubbard's characterization: he appears to have been sufficiently vague in public about the consequences of the policies. I expected him to be more the way Daniels is portrayed.

Anyway, while I think DeLong may be wrong about O'Neill not having tried to get "Rubin's job" (just a hunch), I think he should have resigned earlier: It seems the Bushies would have launched initiatives like the Moon thing earlier. That would have clued in the electorate a little quicker.

It may come down to a question that only O'Neill can answer, and never to anyone's satisfaction but his own. Did he stay because he thought he could do some good, however little, or was it for some reason less in the public interest? If it was just loyalty, then the price was too high. If it was concern that, as a frequent holder of considerable administrative power, he might not be asked back if he quit Bush, I'd bet he miscalculated. If it was because he thought that he and he alone among Bush cabinet members might be able to do something about childhood AIDS in Africa, well it was worth the price, wasn't it?

I just finished reading the book, thought I don't have it in front of me right now.

There is a point where O'Niell realizes that his old friend Dick Cheney may not view honest debate and pursuing policies based on facts the same way O'Niell does. O'Niell is surprised when he realizes this, that since he associates Cheney with the pragmatism of earlier Republican presidents whom he served under.
There is a whole wrap-up chapter where Suskind talks about how O'Niell's loyalty was not to a particular person but do principle. I believe he mentions, "loyalty to inquiry." That you do the inquiry to try and find the facts and you make your decisions based on the facts.
There is a point when he thinks about quitting and discusses it with his wife, but decides it would be better if he stayed and try to inject honest debate into the process.

Well Brad, I read the whole book and must say that it sure is unfair to O'Neill how he is being used by the anti-Bush media.

The quote about Iraq is off. He was not surprised that Iraq was an issue, but how it was dealt with-- summaily defined as the mouse with which the American cat was going to have some fun. To understand that feeling on O'Neill's part, one must first and foremost remember that O'Neill was frustrated by how meaningless and pro forma were the Cabinet meetings. They were, in his word, "scripted" in advance, like skits. So, what's the point of calling together "experts" from the various departments if they play no role in policy? For whom is all that data accumulated but for the Chief Executive, the President?

Then O'Neill discovered that FACTS play no role in policy under the rule of Dubya. The guys who run things are the ideologs and the politicos...so much for an "outsider's" government, free of the "DC interest groups"!

But most striking and discouraging was that O'Neill found Bush "disngaged." To this I can say "amen," for it is Bush's ignoramous delight in being a know-nothing that turned me off to him. He is what he was in college: a dull student who doesn't like effort, concentration and reading, confident that he can "bullshit" through exams-- or, as President, crisis. He likes a light "briefing" instead of "data" and real ideas and all those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hard choises between lessers of evils. So, we elected Bush as the President (the man who traditionally makes all the decisions-- remember: the buck stops here?) and Cheyne as the VP who does little (with a 38% cardiac ejection fraction who can expect more?). But what we got is the President who does nothing-- indeed, knows nothing-- and the VP who decides everything as the representative of the wealthy money boys that fed the Bush Campaign all that cash. Bush was PRESIDENT to prove to "Poppy" that he's not a disappoitment who's good for nothing. But he didn't consider that Poppy considered him a disappointment because he never applied himself, was irresponsible and fried his brains with drugs and booze; and so becoming president is really testament to the skills of tricksters like Hughes and Rove, making George, instead of a disappointing son, a disappointing President. Well, brain damage from booze and drugs is a one-way street. So, we got damaged neurons misfiring and massacring of the English language, thus challenging the diagnosticians for a "where's the focal lesion?" game. Nevertheless, Bush is not dumb when it comes to noting who thinks he's a jerk and becomes viscious towards people who challenge, question or reject him. He thinks that he's entitled to a free pass and anyone that gets in his way he feeds to his White House sharks pool, as he is doing to O'Neill and Wilson's wife.

The neocons offered to pull the big cash boys in Zionist circles around Bush and make him President if he gave Sharon a blank check. As a safety they promised Rumsfeld that if Bush screws up, they'll do for him what they are doing for Bush. It would be Rummy's last chance at the long desired Presidency.

Cheney was the ringmaster for this circus. He delivered to all the interest groups. But as Iraq proved to be a catastrophe, Powell seemed like the only honest broker to Bush. Suddenly the dummy got un-dummied and has cut off the neocons. Bush may not understand Zionism and Arab politics, but, thanks to Carl Rove, he can tell from the beads of sweat on Carl's cheezy face when the election looks iffy. So, with a drop from 86% approval rating around 9/11 to 46% now, Bush declares that he has an "exit strategy" for Iraq. That is very simple: BUG OUT a la Nixon from Vietnam under cover of illusory staged political progress.

With the US exausted in Iraq, the neocon dreams of US becoming Sharon's mad dog in the Mideast evaporated. Old whores like Frum and Perle wrote a book "End to Evil"-- pure anti-semitic crap (considering that the Arabs are also semites) and an IDF and Sharon white wash-- it seeks to threaten Bush with the Zionist extremist control of the right (National Review, Weekly Standard, New Republic, American Enterprise Institute, etc). But with Ceril Black and Arik Sharon facing jail time for embezzlement, Perle has little backing and Bush will turn his wrath towards the disloyal onto the Perle and the neocons when he'll get desperate. The Shwartzneiger victory shows that Republicans do better with Middle America when not the running dogs of the Extreme Christian Right and the Extreme Zionist Right (both very minoritarian in their populations-- Christians and Jews, repectively) and Bush will jetison these necon whores that thought that one could be both ideological and get rich at the same time. Iran will gradually eat up Iraq (what the ayatollahs could never do without dummy George) and Syria will realize that Bush is a blowheart. Lastly, the neocons will overextend their welcome and someone will ask: when did you boys last serve in uniform? In answer to which these civilians "oral warrior chickenhawks will scury back tropistically into the darkness as these cockroaches always have done when things get hot.

So, what's the moral of this sordid circular tale? Simple: THE MORE THING CHANGE, THE MORE THINGS REMAIN THE SAME>>>>Any deviants from the middle of the road will be processed into hambuger meat markded: "Do not consume [politically] may be tainted with Mad Cow Disease prions."

All O'Neil noted is that, unlike highly productive and responsible businessmen Republicans, ideolog Republicans really do not have a brain and are balllanced off by the left Democrats, bringing back the ship of state to the MIDDLE from the ideologs' extreme right. But, ever since I first met him, O'Neill has been asking: why can't government really rev-up in a crisis so that it too can do some good instead of just chassing popularity as if it were its own tail?

I donna .. but think it is not true

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur? - Don't you know then, my son, how little wisdom rules the world?

Do ut des - I give so that you give back

Festina lente - Make haste slowly

Dum vivimus, vivamus - While we live, let us live (Epicurean philosophy)

Inventas vitam iuvat excoluisse per artes - Let us improve life through science and art. (Vergil)

Vestigia terrent - The footprints frighten me. (Horace)

Vis medicatrix naturae - The healing power of nature

Dies felices - Happy Days

Aeternum vale - Farewell forever