An example of DHS SOP being a systemic feature of the Bush administration

First, let's review some of my observations of the Bush administration Standard Operating Procedure from the previous post.

• Any criticism or bad news is not tolerated.
  
• Those sorts of things could make the administration look bad, and that above all else will not be tolerated.
• In the Bush administration, dedication to service, dedication to the public good, and loyalty to the public rank far behind loyalty to the administration.
• As a result, the objective of the Bush administration is NOT to effectively govern, NOT to serve the American people, but rather to stay in power and bullshit everyone.
• Running the government is nothing more than one big marketing and PR project--or, more to the point, one perpetual piece of propaganda.

On May 18, 2006, Harper's Magazine posted an article by Ken Silverstein entitled "Fairy Tales" which gives just a few of the many other examples of the above observations manifesting throughout the Bush administration.

A number of current and former intelligence officials have told me that the administration's war on internal dissent has crippled the CIA's ability to provide realistic assessments from Iraq. “The system of reporting is shut down,” said one person familiar with the situation. “You can't write anything honest, only fairy tales.”

The New York Times and others have reported that in 2003, the CIA station chief in Baghdad authored several special field reports that offered extremely negative assessments of the situation on the ground in Iraq—assessments that later proved to be accurate. The field reports, known as “Aardwolfs,” were angrily rejected by the White House. Their author—who I'm told was a highly regarded agency veteran named Gerry Meyer—was soon pushed out of the CIA, in part because his reporting angered the See No Evil crowd within the Bush administration. “He was a good guy,” one recently retired CIA official said of Meyer, “well-wired in Baghdad, and he wrote a good report. But any time this administration gets bad news, they say the critics are assholes and defeatists, and off we go down the same path with more pressure on the accelerator.”

In 2004 Meyer was replaced with a new CIA station chief in Baghdad, who that year filed six Aardwolfs, which, sources told me, were collectively as pessimistic about the situation in Iraq as the ones sent by his predecessor. The station chief finished his assignment in December 2004; he was not fired, but according to one source is now “a pariah within the system.” Three other former intelligence officials gave me virtually identical accounts, with one saying the ex–station chief was “treated like shit” and “farmed out.” (I was given the former station chief's name and current position, but I am not publishing the information because he is still employed by the CIA.)

Thus, while freedom may be on the march, it is trying to grind truth under its heel. This is very much like Clark Kent Ervin's story about how, after he filed a series of reports that were very critical of DHS, Tom Ridge asked if Ervin was his (Ridge's) Inspector General. In other words, screw the truth. Screw trying to find and correct problems. And if you insist on trying to do a good job and do what is needed to truly serve the public interest, you will be silenced.

In the comments to the previous post, I agreed with that putting a high priority on image is typically common in politicians, but added that "the Bush administration has taken it to an insane extreme and has tossed in a measure of delusion and vindictiveness." "Pettiness" should be added, and Silverstein described an action by Bush administration officials which showed pettiness and vindictiveness.

As has been the case with other people deemed to be insufficiently loyal, the White House went fishing for dirt on the two station chiefs, including information on their political affiliations. “I spent 30 years at the CIA,” said one former official, “and no one was ever interested in knowing whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. That changed with this administration. Now you have loyalty tests.”

Ah, yes...loyalty to the administration above all else...Fail the test and you will get crapped on. Pass the test--by filing only good, happy reports--and get rewarded:

In 2005, I'm told, the Baghdad station chief filed but a single Aardwolf. The report, which one person told me was widely derided within the CIA as “a joke,” asserted that the United States was winning the war despite all evidence to the contrary. It was garbage, but garbage that the Bush administration wanted to hear; at the end of his tour, that Station Chief was given a plum assignment. “This is a time of war,” said one former intelligence official. “Every day American kids are getting killed over there. We need steady, focused reporting [from Baghdad] but no one is willing to speak out since they know they'll get shot down.”

This is no way to run a government--especially when this is how things are done across the board. And yet this is how the Bush administration handles all aspects of governance.

In keeping with the title of Silverstein's article, I will close with a quick fairy tale. Once upon a time there was a boy named George who became a decider (but not a leader), and he decided that no one in the land could say anything but happy things, even if they were lies, and now we are all hosed.