Thursday, April 20, 2006

Changes in the White House Staff....Is It Just Cosmetic?

So Bush's new chief of staff has "shaken up" some staff positions. You've got McClellan, the press secretary, i.e. the spokesman, gone, and Rove, not gone, not sent to the gallows, but shuffled into a new position with just as much power and influence as before. Are these changes going to actually "shake up" this White House? I agree with American Blog:

Who cares? by John in DC - 4/19/2006 10:15:00 AM Seriously. Bush gets rids of his spokesman? Ooh, big deal. The guy who is ordered to lie for him is going to be replaced by another guy who is ordered to lie for him. And this will significantly change the direction of this disaster of an administration how? Bush also changed the head of the Office of Management and Budget - that would be his accountant, for all intents and purposes. So, we now have a new accountant, and a new mouthpiece who simply parrots what Bush tells him. How is that going to change the situation in Iraq? How is that going to prevent Bush from getting us into a third disastrous war, a nuclear one this time, in Iran? Is the new press secretary or the new accountant going to come up with the war plan for Iran this time instead of Rummy? And how about the budget deficit? If your spokesman setting policy on that one? Is the new accountant going to be vetoing spending bills that Bush wouldn't? Are either of these guys going to order Bush to stop breaking the bank? And which one, the spokesman or the accountant, are going to order Bush to stop lying and stop being incompetent? I'm just trying to understand why these changes in the Bush administration are anything more than cosmetic as it concerns the top concerns of the American people.
Here are the important questions: Why are President Bush's numbers so low? Why is he sitting on 35% approval rating? Would not firing those who led Bush to such low numbers be a real "shake up?" The problem here is that McClellan had nothing to do with policy. Rove, who did have something to do with policy, remains in a very influential position. The problem is that Bush's numbers are so low because of Iraq. Iraq is dragging Bush down. Can Bush fire Rumsfeld? No. Why? Because Rumsfeld has simply been doing what his boss told him to do. You fire Rumsfeld and you send the message that the war in Iraq was executed poorly and wrongly. This shakeup will not accomplish much realistically. It only sends the illusion of change. But that's all this administration has cared for, maintaining an illusion. You cannot bamboozle a nation with the facts; you can only bamboozle with illusions.


Post a Comment

<< Home