Inside The Bush White House: Aggression And Apology In Equal Measure

Friday, December 30, 2005

In the face of sinking poll numbers and dwindling support from even it’s most ardent followers, the White House finds itself in a quandary: should President George W. Bush continue as he’s done in his first term and remain steadfastly unapologetic about any misstep his government may or may not have made regarding Iraq, 9/11, intelligence gathering and analysis, Social Security, fuel prices and supplies, disaster readiness, domestic spying on American citizens, the economy, global warming and a host of others peccadilloes both large and small, or should he admit that his Administration has had it’s share of failures, apologize, promise to try to do better and move on? The answer seems to be- do both.

Washington insiders have identified two distinct factions in the Bush Administration. On the one hand is the Old Guard, those who favor keeping the status quo: ‘George W. Bush is the President of the United States, so whatever he does should be good enough for both the country and the world in general and anyone who disagrees is just another Heathen, Terrorist Loving Liberal and not even worthy of contempt’. The other faction is the younger Mea Culpa Cadre, those who advocate getting past any mistakes by just admitting them and learning from them. The logic on their side is simple: ‘the President’s approval ratings are in the toilet, so obviously naked aggression and the blithe dismissal of his detractors in the face of demonstrable errors in judgment and deeds isn’t cutting it anymore, so it’s time to try something else. Faced with conflicting advice, it seems that Mr. Bush has adopted the somewhat schizophrenic solution of doing both.

Unnamed White House Source Wegman (Pudgy) Waterhouse, speaking on the condition of anonymity said, “We were off to a rocky start, but I think we’re finally getting some of the bugs ironed out. You just have to be careful; it takes practice saying things like ‘Yes, the intelligence that we used to justify the Invasion of Iraq was faulty, so it really was the intelligent thing to invade Iraq, or ‘This nation would never go to war for the purpose of nation building which is why it’s vital that we build the nation of Iraq in a shining example Democracy in the Middle East. Another one I had trouble getting my head around was, ‘In order to help the poor minorities who were disenfranchised during Katrina it’s important that we cut existing social programs for the poor and make permanent the tax cuts we’ve given to the richest five or so percent of the country so that they’ll give the poor jobs some day, so many jobs in fact that every poor person can work at two or three of them seven days a week in order to make up a livable paycheck’.”

Continuing to speak anonymously Waterhouse