Gentle Reader -- You are welcome to peruse my web-based journal. I assure you that my contributions to this medium will be both infrequent and inconsequential. Read on!

FOOLS DO WHAT WE ASK

It's a bit late to psychoanalyze the current administration, but here's another shot at it. This is probably more descriptive than analytical, exactly, but it's something I've noticed a couple of times in recent news items, and it seems to go back a ways.

Readers may remember a recent post about the Dulles-DC Metro link project -- how state and local planners had undergone a lengthy revision process at the behest of the administration, changing the plan, reducing the budget, increasing the percentage of local participation. After doing everything that the Federal Transit Administration asked, checking all the boxes, etc., the administration finally shrugs its shoulders and says that they don't really like public transit after all. The demands were just a smokescreen.

That resonated with something I saw at uber-blogger Glenn Greenwald's site . The underlying story is about Sen. Dodd's attempt to block passage of legislation giving telecom companies retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration's (probably illegal) wiretapping programs:

As always, the significance of what has occurred here shouldn't be overstated. The only reason Senate Democrats became angry on Thursday is because Republicans actually refused to allow Democrats to capitulate, as they were ready and eager to do. Senate Republicans blocked Democrats from caving in completely to Bush because they didn't want this issue resolved. They wantto ensure that Bush, in Monday's State of the Union address, can accuse Senate Democrats of failing to act on FISA, and thus attack and mock them as being weak on national security and causing the Terrorists to be able to Slaughter Us All.

And, rather pitifully, some Democrats are shocked -- so very upset -- that, yet again, their demonstrated willingness to give the Republicans everything they demanded has not prompted a Good, Nice, Courteous Response. "We did everything you told us to do. Why are you being so mean and unfair?" That sad posture is what led even Jay Rockefeller apparently to announce that he will vote against cloture on his own bill.

And let's not forget this golden oldie, from March of 2003 (which is exactly what I thought of when I saw what Greenwald had written). Remember, before we invaded Iraq, how we insisted that we had to invade Iraq because they wouldn't disarm, specifically that they had all these awesome missiles that were such a big threat?

Iraq today resumed destroying its short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles. . .

President Bush, in his weekly radio address today, took a far harder line
than the United Nations weapons inspectors, declaring that Iraq ''is still
violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm.''

Mr. Bush dismissed the destruction of the Samoud missiles as ''a public
show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles,'' and argued anew
that American intelligence -- which the administration has declined to release
-- ''shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the
continued production of the very same type of missiles.''

In Iraq, the government destroyed 6 of the short-range Samoud missiles
after a one-day hiatus, bringing the total destroyed under United Nations
supervision in the last week to 40 -- approximately one-third of Iraq's known
stock of the missiles.

The Iraqis knew what was up, though, even if no one on our side could puzzle it out:

''We are all afraid because we expect we could be attacked at any minute,'' said
Raghad Majid, a 23-year-old art student. ''They want to attack no matter what.''

The administration's goals do not change. They do not compromise. They do not tell the truth. They enter into negotiations only as a pretense, to delay or in order to demand concessions that are (hopefully) impossible for their adversaries to provide. This bad faith comes to light most glaringly when they actually get what they say they want, and have to 1) insist that, as much as it may appear that you did what they asked, you didn't, or 2) completely reverse position without explanation, leaving those across the table to realize that we were chumps even to talk to them. In every case, if pressed, they will accuse the opposition of dishonesty.

They are not affected by changes in facts or circumstances. They do not get embarassed. They have no concept of good faith. In fact, if you aren't One of Them, they will go out of their way to rip you off, waste your time, ruin your good name.

It's fascinating, really. Pathological. posted by Carlton at 4:00 PM