PDA

View Full Version : What does Negroponte's move mean?


Buck Laser
01-06-2007, 10:42 PM
In light of the wager ECW and I have about whether Cheney will be staying around, I thought this piece had some interesting speculations.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4466

The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the back rooms of the White House Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten were doing what any world-class chess player does when facing defeat -- plot a series of aggressive moves to throw their opponent off balance in the hopes of regaining the initiative.

How do I know this? Well, since God only talks to Rev. Pat Robertson – and, when He can't get through to Pat, George W. Bush – I didn't get it from Him. No it came to me in this news flash late yesterday:

Washington, D.C. - As President Bush prepares a new statement and stance on the war in Iraq, his cabinet is once again in the midst of transition. In the latest change, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte will resign to become deputy secretary of state, according to a government official....The shift, while seemingly abrupt, will allow Negroponte to return to his former career path as a diplomat. Negroponte will serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

It was that last line that gives away the strategy. “Negroponte will serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”

Never! Negroponte quits as head of one of the most important and powerful posts in government, a job that puts him face to face with the President of the United States every morning, of everyday of the week, to accept a position as Rice's assistant?

Fat chance.

So what's up? Here's what I think is up -- and if I were Bush I would be itching to get on with the game.

Move 1: Announce what the administration knows will be a very unpopular decision to send more troops to Iraq.

Move 2: Let the Democrat-controlled Congress throw a fit and hold hearings the administration knows will stir up additional opposition and shake loose new damning information on the administrations march to war and mismanagement of that war.

Move 3: Just when all the above is hitting the fan, Dick Cheney announces he is retiring from office early due to “health concerns," and because he does not want to be "a distraction" when he is called to testify in purjury trial of his former No. 2. Scooter Libby.

Move 4: The next day Bush announces he will nominate Condoleezza Rice to replace Cheney.

Move 5: At the same time Bush announces he is nominating Negroponte to replace Rice as Secretary of State.

The above series of moves makes political sense on so many levels that I consider it inevitable. Think about it:

For Cheney: By all reports, Cheney has been sidelined within the administration. No longer being a major player – actually the major player -- is so NOT Dick Cheney. If he can't run the show, he's not interested. Also, leaving before the end of Bush's final term would put some daylight between Cheney and the shoddy Bush legacy -- not a lot of daylight, but a lot more than if Cheney stays until January 2009.

For Bush: Appointing the first woman and the first African American to the vice presidency, Bush knows, would put him in the history books for something besides the mess his war has made out of the Middle East. By appointing Rice VP he would lock in for all history his place as the first US President to have a female and black as his No. 2 -- an historical “two-fer.”

For Rice: As an academic by vocation Rice knows better than Bush how historians rank the achievements – and failures -- of public figures. If appointed VP she would no longer go down in history as simply the White House National Security Advisor who signed off on Bush's fictional Iraqi WMD. Instead her bio would lead with the fact that she became America's first woman and first black to hold this high office. So, whether Rice leaves government service in 2009, or decides to run for President, departing as a sitting Vice President would be a personal, professional, poilitical and financial asset of immeasurable value.

For Negroponte: This man is the quintessential Machiavellian. His entire career juggling international hot potatoes working his way towards one day becoming Secretary of State:

Ambassador to Honduras (1981 - 1985)
Ambassador to the UN (2001 - 2004)
Ambassador to Iraq (2004 - 2005)

And, at this point in his long career he sure as hell isn't interested in serving as anyone's No. 2. Negroponte's appointment as the first Director of National Intelligence was an aberration in a career otherwise entirely dedicated to diplomacy. Being appointed Secretary of State would be his crowning moment. Though he'd hold the job for just two years, it promises to be a very eventful two years. And, when he leaves office, for the rest of his life, and even in death, he will be “Mr. Secretary.”

But wait – there's more. There are the huge macro-political benefits that would accrue to the administration from this series of chess moves.

* First, when the public turns against an administration, as it has against this one, there's nothing like a high-profile personnel shake up to kindle hope – false or otherwise.
* Cheney's departure would be met by an enormous sigh of relief by all but a handful of die-hard neocons and brain-dead Red State voters.
* Negorponte's long career as a diplomat would also be a relief since, for the first time since Bush took office an actually diplomat is in charge at State – a guy who knows how to wheel and deal with other wheeler-dealers – a guy who, instead of shooting first and talking later, actually prefers to talk first.
* The appointment of Rice to VP would give the GOP bragging rights in 2008, inevitably sapping some number of African American and women voters away from Democrats to the GOP.
* Finally, Cheney's history of heart trouble may have been a risk worth taking when an untimely departure had Dennis Hassert two heart beats away from the Presidency, but not now that it's Democrat Nancy Pelosi. A VP with a good ticker is now a must.

Now let's look back at Move 1, because it's the key to all that would follow.

An audio tape of Lyndon Johnson speaking to aides in the Oval Office in early 1966 has Johnson admitting that the Vietnam war was unwinnable and that he'd love to figure how to get out. But, he quickly added that there would be no American military defeat on his watch.

A look at the casualties on the day of that early 1966 conversation is instructive; the US had lost just a over 3000 troops in Vietnam. But, instead of ending a war he knew could not be won, Johnson “surged.” (Actually they used the right term in those days, “escalation.”)

In that same conversation Johnson worried out loud that, "if Congress knew what I know, they'd cut off funding," for the war.

By the end of 1966 killed in action casualties were over 5000. The next year over 14,000 more died. Ten years after that conversaton 57,000 additional US soldiers were dead, and it was left to Gerald Ford to accept reality and bring all remaining US troops home.

Bush, like Johnson, now knows he can't “win” in Iraq. But, like Johnson, Bush is ready to sacrifice more American soldiers to insure history does not record a US military defeat on his watch. Which is why, like Johnson and then Nixon after him -- Bush will buy time by escalating – (or a “surging,” as he prefers to call it.)

Lyndon Johnson was in his first elected term and could have run for reelection. Instead he decided to bail out and leave the mess in Vietnam to his successors. Bush, in his second term, can't run again any that makes his task a bit more dicy than Johnson's. Bush needs to buy time -- 24 months to be precise -- in order to pass the burn onto his successor.

But simply escalating by sending more troops won't guarantee him that extra time. Congress is no longer in GOP hands, so there are uncertainties. Bush knows he is going to be under intense political fire to get out of Iraq before he leaves office. And, as a former fighter jet pilot, Bush knows how to divert fire by dispensing chaff. And what better chaff than tossing Dick Cheney to waiting sharks, annoiting Condoleezza Rice Vice President and putting Negroponte, a career diplomat and consummate inside player, at the helm of State.

All this is just a guess, mind you. But keep a keen eye on the players on the board, because checkmate is still avoidable. The strategy begins with that first move – pushing more pawns – US soldiers – into harms way. Then sacrificing the Queen to relief pressure on the King. Finally moving the Rook into a blocking position.

In chess it's called “castling” And it's all about protecting the King when all else has failed.

In this administration it's called the politics of distraction. And it's worked remarkably well for them up to this point.
_______

lily
01-06-2007, 11:01 PM
Buck, due to the source and this pretty much is speculation, also to be fair to Kos, I'm moving this to**Government Conspiracy Theories. I did find it interesting though......but I'll leave that discussion to you and ECW. If there wasn't such a big shakeup going on right now in the White House, with Everybody leaving, right on down to Miers so that they can batten up the hatches, I'd agree with you that Cheney might just have "health problems", but I don't think or at least hope the Americanpublic wouldn't see through it.

Making Rice the first black AND woman as vice-president, though just might save his legacy, since he does I believe hold the record for hiring the most minorities. That would seal it........lord knows he needs it.

Buck Laser
01-07-2007, 12:01 AM
Moving it's OK by me, since I always browse by new posts rather than category. I don't think it's a conspiracy topic though--it's more a speculation that fits the facts we know so far.

My wager with ECW is that Cheney will resign soon--I originally speculated by the end of '06, but we shifted by more or less mutual consent to the end of March.

In my opinion, the ONLY thing that could really rescue Dubya's legacy would be a sudden turn toward peace and democracy in Iraq and discovery of the alleged WMD cache. Since neither of those things is likely to happen, I don't think naming Rice as his VP will do much good. But it would sure sow confusion for the democrats.

lily
01-07-2007, 12:55 AM
My wager with ECW is that Cheney will resign soon--I originally speculated by the end of '06, but we shifted by more or less mutual consent to the end of March.


I had completely forgotten about that, until I saw this post. ECW though is an honorable man, he would have remembered.

I don't think naming Rice as his VP will do much good.**But it would sure sow confusion for the democrats.

You think it would confuse the Democrats......can you imagine what it would do to the Republican candidates if he did it around March? Man, that would be worth it, just to see the reaction! It would throw them for a loop.

Labrocca
01-07-2007, 01:16 AM
Not exactly a "conspiracy" but definitely a theory. We can leave it here for now. I don't see where else it would fit very well. It's really a great analyis (hmm....should I start a political analysis forum?)

Buck Laser
01-07-2007, 01:59 AM
Not exactly a "conspiracy" but definitely a theory. We can leave it here for now. I don't see where else it would fit very well. It's really a great analyis (hmm....should I start a political analysis forum?)


If you mean a forum to discuss op-ed pieces like the one I posted, then I'd vote yes. Or you could completely revamp the forum structure with fewer and broader categories. I've been here nearly six months, and it's still not obvious what is the obvious category for any particular post that I might want to make.

On another forum where I've participated longer, there are only four widely used categories: debate hall, where civil discussion is enforced; No-Holds-Barred, where insults and personal attacks are allowed--only racial and sexual epithets, and calls to violence are banned; a breaking news forum; and a "fun" forum for music, sports, jokes, etc. A simpler category structure could save the mods some work, too.

lily
01-07-2007, 03:36 AM
Not exactly a "conspiracy" but definitely a theory.**We can leave it here for now.**I don't see where else it would fit very well.**It's really a great analyis (hmm....should I start a political analysis forum?)


How about just changing the rules for the Political Editorials and Op-Eds to article like this, instead of written articles by posters? I'm with Buck on this. I get confused as to where to put op-ed pieces too. Would this be easier?

Labrocca
01-07-2007, 05:32 AM
No because eventually we will use the "political editorials and Op-Eds" for this page

http://www.democracyforums.com/portal.php

So it needs to be original content.

I think a political analysis forum sounds perfect though. Tomorrow I will add one. Right now I am doing some work.

slappy
01-07-2007, 03:47 PM
I like this Negroponte theory. On a related note, I wonder if Hillary is waiting out a possible Condoleeza announcement.

Buck Laser
01-07-2007, 05:07 PM
I like this Negroponte theory. On a related note, I wonder if Hillary is waiting out a possible Condoleeza announcement.


I think that's a little far-fetched, Slappy, but only because I haven't ever considered Senator Clinton as a likely democratic nominee. I'm certainly not one of those who hates her, or even dislikes her, but I just don't see her in the equation for 2008. I guess I'll have to think about that one for awhile.

I've just been thinking in terms of the constitutional crisis I see brewing in the current administration: I'm not sure my head is big enough to include a presidential race where the foregone winner is a woman! But it would certainly be an interesting scenario to explore. My first guess is that we'd have an epidemic of exploding heads among the conservatives.

slappy
01-07-2007, 05:19 PM
Whether or not she's the likely nominee, she is a likely candidate. I'm only wondering whether a Condidacy (sorry..couldn't resist) is one of the few developments that might dissuade her from entering the field, should it appear to become more likely in the next few mnonths.

Thirdparty
01-08-2007, 12:50 AM
Moving it's OK by me, since I always browse by new posts rather than category.**I don't think it's a conspiracy topic though--it's more a speculation that fits the facts we know so far.

My wager with ECW is that Cheney will resign soon--I originally speculated by the end of '06, but we shifted by more or less mutual consent to the end of March.

In my opinion, the ONLY thing that could really rescue Dubya's legacy would be a sudden turn toward peace and democracy in Iraq and discovery of the alleged WMD cache.**Since neither of those things is likely to happen, I don't think naming Rice as his VP will do much good.**But it would sure sow confusion for the democrats.


Cheney will not resign. That has been speculated since 2002. Still hasn't happened.

Thirdparty
01-08-2007, 12:52 AM
I like this Negroponte theory.**On a related note, I wonder if Hillary is waiting out a possible Condoleeza announcement.


Anyone in this administratin with two cents worth of common sense will not run in 2008. The Iraq legacy is just too tough. Condi will not run, maybe 2012.

Buck Laser
01-08-2007, 01:11 AM
Cheney will not resign. That has been speculated since 2002. Still hasn't happened.


Do you want to join ECW in my little wager with him? Cheney may not resign voluntarily. But he may get an offer he can't refuse.

Thirdparty
01-08-2007, 01:14 AM
Cheney will not resign. That has been speculated since 2002. Still hasn't happened.


Do you want to join ECW in my little wager with him?**Cheney may not resign voluntarily.**But he may get an offer he can't refuse.


Sure, I am in.

Buck Laser
01-08-2007, 01:30 AM
Cheney will not resign. That has been speculated since 2002. Still hasn't happened.


Do you want to join ECW in my little wager with him? Cheney may not resign voluntarily. But he may get an offer he can't refuse.


Sure, I am in.


The deal is that if Cheney resigns by the end of March, ECW will have to display a signature line of my choosing for a period of time yet undetermined. If he doesn't resign/leave by then, I'll have to display a message of ECW's choice. You want the same? I'm too poor to bet money.

Thirdparty
01-08-2007, 01:35 AM
Cheney will not resign. That has been speculated since 2002. Still hasn't happened.


Do you want to join ECW in my little wager with him?**Cheney may not resign voluntarily.**But he may get an offer he can't refuse.


Sure, I am in.




The deal is that if Cheney resigns by the end of March, ECW will have to display a signature line of my choosing for a period of time yet undetermined.**If he doesn't resign/leave by then, I'll have to display a message of ECW's choice.**You want the same?**I'm too poor to bet money.



Sounds good to me. Count me in

lily
01-23-2007, 07:18 PM
Is it too late to get in on this? In light of what came out today in the Libby trial, I say Cheney will be out by March.

Buck Laser
01-23-2007, 09:44 PM
Is it too late to get in on this? In light of what came out today in the Libby trial, I say Cheney will be out by March.


Sounds like there was more good news today, huh? I think the more attention it gets, the better it is for our country. I don't view Cheney as just an ordinary bad politician, but someone who comes close to being evil incarnate.