No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

New War - White House vs. CIA

Have you wondered why the ordinarily so adroit white House has seemed so flat-footed when trying to handle the African yellow-cake uranium flap? Here is an exerpt of one view from todays' Washington Post .


For all the purported discipline and unity within the Bush administration, disputes among members of the national security team have been common, particularly in the run-up to the war with Iraq. Those disputes, however, generally pitted the State and Defense departments against one another, but once Bush made a decision, the combatants generally accepted that and moved on.

What is unusual about this episode is that the combatants are officials at the White House and the CIA -- and that the White House has tried without success to resolve the controversy. The biggest lesson learned so far, said one administration official, is that "you don't pick a bureaucratic fight with the CIA." To which a White House official replied, "That wasn't our intention, but that certainly has been the perception."

White House allies outside the government have expressed surprise at the administration's repeated missteps over the past two weeks, using phrases such as "stumbled," "caught flat-footed" and "can't get their story straight." Said one senior administration official, "These stories get legs when they're mishandled and this story has been badly mishandled."

Joe Lockhart, who was press secretary to President Bill Clinton, said he has been equally surprised by the way this White House has dealt with the controversy. "Their every move has resulted in people being more interested in the story rather than less interested," he said.

Mary Matalin, a former Bush White House adviser, said, "It's impossible to have a consistent message when the facts keep changing. We forsook consistency for honesty, in an effort to be as forthcoming as possible in putting out new facts as they became available."

A senior White House official said there are mitigating circumstances, beginning with the fact that the president was traveling in Africa when the controversy took root, while Tenet was also traveling. The unstable environment in postwar Iraq and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found provided a foundation for more questions over Bush's State of the Union claims. "And you learn it's difficult to control unnamed sources on both sides, including in the White House," he added.

Mary Matalin is, of course, a superb Spin Miester. She will always say what sounds positive rather then what is most explanatory, although if both are the same she will certainly use it. I do suspect the fact that Bush was in Africa when this blew up really is a part of it. Considering how adroitly the leaks have been coming out against the white House, I suspect that the leakers may have waited until bush was out of the Country.

Then, there is the fact that the White House has often gotten past political rough patches by covering up bad news with good news - but August is coming up, normally the most dead time in the news year. They may find that tactic very difficult to apply this year. So this may well continue.

And as it continues, the digging at the African uranium story is also likely to bring to light other things where the White House has been, shall we say, less than candid with the public.

We'll see.
posted by Richard at 8:15 AM