Posted on 12/04/2002 8:26:02 AM PST by xsysmgr
The flap over former Bush White House adviser John DiIulio's cutting criticisms of his former colleagues, followed by his earnest, near-groveling apology — all stemming from a still-to-be-published article in the January issue of Esquire magazine — has obscured another, perhaps more newsworthy aspect of the story.
In the piece, a preview of which is available on Esquire's website, DiIulio ridicules the "Mayberry Machiavellis" in the White House, whom he defined, in a letter to the writer Ron Suskind, as the "staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible." While that is news — DiIulio is the first Bush veteran to break publicly with the White House — what is more noteworthy in the article are quotes from two unnamed, senior Bush aides who badmouth the White House staff in a way that is rarely, if ever, seen in print.One quote, attributed to a "current senior White House official," says, "Many of us feel it's our duty — our obligation as Americans — to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It's just kids on Big Wheels, who talk politics and know nothing. It's depressing. DPC [Domestic Policy Council] meetings are a farce."
The other quote, attributed to a "senior White House official," says, "Don't you understand? We got into the White House and forfeited the game. You're supposed to stand for something...to generate sound ideas, support them with real evidence, and present them to Congress and the people. We didn't do any of that. We just danced this way and that on minute political calculations and whatever was needed for a few paragraphs of a speech."
The statements — which sound as if they could have been uttered by disgruntled Clinton White House staffers during the worst years of that administration — are remarkable because they are so rare. During the Bush administration's first two years, there have been very, very few anonymous quotes trashing the White House from the inside.
Perhaps the statements in Esquire are an isolated incident. Or perhaps they are misleading. But if they are accurate, they represent a crack in the discipline of an extraordinarily disciplined White House.
The White House is still impressively adept at preventing leaks. In an interview with National Review last year, a White House official spoke proudly of "the fact that you can have a conversation in a room without reading it in a paper or a magazine." But the comments in Esquire aren't really leaks. Rather, they appear to be an expansion of the public airing of internal conflicts that has heretofore been seen mostly in the administration's debate over U.S. action in Iraq. But the Iraq debate has been tightly controlled and has involved many authorized leaks making policy arguments from both sides. The Esquire quotes, in contrast, are pure bile — never a good sign in a White House.
As for DiIulio, the Esquire incident is a profound embarrassment. While his letter to Suskind begins with effusive praise for the president — DiIulio calls Bush "a highly admirable person of enormous personal decency...a godly man and a moral leader...[who] inspires personal trust, loyalty and confidence in those around him" — it goes on to lash some members of the White House staff as fundamentally unqualified to hold their jobs. "Every modern presidency moves on the fly," DiIulio wrote to Suskind, "but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking."
When those comments, along with more specific criticisms of the power of White House political chief Karl Rove, were made public, DiIulio first made a carefully worded non-denial denial. He said the Esquire piece "contained factual errors" and referred to "a conversation that never took place." DiIulio explained that his work schedule was "too fast-paced to permit sit-down interviews," so he had instead answered Suskind's questions in a long e-mail memo. But the reference to "sit-down interviews" sidestepped the question of whether DiIulio had ever talked to Suskind on the telephone. And indeed, it appears that DiIulio did just that, and, according to Suskind, some of the quotations in the Esquire piece came from that conversation.
Shortly afterward, in the face of a deep-freeze reaction from the White House, DiIulio went into full retreat. "My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples," he said in a statement. "I sincerely apologize and I am deeply remorseful. I will not be offering any further comment, or speaking or writing further on any aspect of my limited and unrepresentative White House experience or any matters or persons related thereto. I regret any and all misimpressions. In this season of fellowship and forgiveness, I pray the same."
DiIulio even apologized for statements he maintains he didn't make. The article quotes him taking a shot at White House policy aide Margaret LaMontagne, saying that what she "knows about domestic policy could fit in a thimble." In his apology, DiIulio said that, "I did not write, and I do not recall making, the statement quoted regarding Ms. LaMontagne. I humbly and sincerely apologize to her just the same."
While that is certainly embarrassing, perhaps an even larger problem for DiIulio is that his critique of the administration seem so out of date, serving to underscore the tremendous divide between the pre- and post-September 11 Bush White House. DiIulio joined, served, and left, and administration before September 11, and the events to which he refers sometimes have to be recovered from deep memory.
At one point in his letter to Suskind, DiIulio praises the president because he "let the detainees come home from China and did not jump all over them for media purposes." Many readers will no doubt have forgotten the incident to which DiIulio refers, in which a Navy EP-3 surveillance plane was bumped mid-air by Chinese fighter jets during a reconnaissance flight over the South China Sea on April 1, 2001. It made an emergency landing at Hainan Air Force Base, and China held the crew members for eleven days before releasing them to U.S. officials.
It was an important event, but given the more important events that came later, it seems like quite a long time ago. DiIulio's White House experience was quite a long time ago, too — and that's the problem with his confessions to Esquire.
Perhaps the statements in Esquire are an isolated incident. Or perhaps they are misleading. But if they are accurate, they represent a crack in the discipline of an extraordinarily disciplined White House.
Of course, it's just a coincidence that we are hearing of this a month after the Dems got steamrolled.
As far as I am concerned, while Bush has made mistakes in regards to Domestic Policy, he has been brilliant in regards to Foreign Policy. Unfortunately, I think Bush has concentrated on Foreign Policy at the expense of a real domestic agenda. However, because foreign affairs are of critical importance right now, this is necessarily where the administration has to take care of business.
The reality of things right now is that this country, internally, can survive without much action on items and agendas important to Conservatives. However, we, as a country, literally cannot survive if we allow rogue nations that are our declared enemies to pursue and develop weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who thinks such nations would not employ them against the U.S. or against U.S. interests is being willfully naive. I also know such countries would not bluff about such weapons, and about the only warning the U.S. would get is when such a device was detonated on U.S. soil.
The media is all the left have if they are going to stop Bush from drilling in Alaska, dropping bombs on Saddam, and having private savings accounts for Social Security.
If Bush is successful at these three items, and the economy recovers before 2004, then we will have Republican presidents for the next 12 years.
The media is going to dig up every dirty trick they can play to try to prevent this from happening.
I don't know if those quotes can be considered truthful. After all, DiIulio said that Esquire made up stuff that he was supposed to have said. They could have made the other quotes up as well, extrapolating on what DiIulio supposedly said!
Perhaps they're a complete fabrication, in the best tradition of the Bob Woodward School of Journalism....You mean to tell me that there was no anonymous criticism from the Bush White House for two years, and all of a sudden some writer for Esquire, of all publications, comes up not only with the DiLulio quote, but two more anonymous quotes of the same nature?
You can not trust a democrat. Alive or dead.
The live ones lie, cheat and deceive.
The dead ones used to lie, cheat and deceive.
Both continue to vote.
Why has "Esquire" been choosen to find these delicious little tidbits where others have failed?
Who does their primary readership consist of?
Is this really evidence that another chunk of formerly loyal Democrats is about to be lost to the right wing conspiracy? And are the Democrats just trying to scare them back into the fold?
Maybe DiIulio is an atheist.
I did some checking into our good pal Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal writer and "Pulitzer winner".
Seems as though Ronnie was AWOL during the impeachment wars (he was writing a book on diversity, a wonderfully PC topic during the Clinton era, and one for which he received the Pulitzer), and now suddenly, he's back writing articles about the "red-neck ninnies" in the Bush administration.
I submit that he's either a card-carrying or closet Democrat, brought in from the bench as a new face with which to attack Dubya.
His droolings are just that - drool.
Then you don't understand the process. It merely allows religious groups to compete for contracts that are now currently performed by private entities. Religious groups have been proven to have a higher rate of success in rehabilitation.
Agreed....I've been dreading the liberals picking up on the idea of using something that is popular like "Faith-based charities" to further its socialization of our country. I continue to hope that their aversion to religion, in its Christian form anyway, will keep them from picking up this ball again.
Kind of like venereal disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.