Thursday, July 14, 2005
Department of Doctrine (3)
What a week -- what with all this stuff about Karl Rove, continued speculation and hand-wringing about Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement, and of course the London bombings. But the machinery of government creaks on anyway, largely impervious to outside influences.
So it was that I sought out some face time with the Weasel's newest appointee. I've posted before (here and here) about the new Cabinet-level Department of Doctrine and its Secretary, Alfredo de Darque. But those posts were based on published news stories, and consisted almost entirely of word-for-word quotations from same. Heck, I thought, anybody could have done as much. Maybe I could actually offer a scoop for WLIR readers, as a sort of thank-you bouquet for stopping by...
A face-to-face interview wasn't possible, de Darque's staff informed me; the Secretary is simply too busy, on too many fronts, with the process of getting all the misAdministration's ducks in a row.
But I lucked out. De Darque, they informed me, is very comfortable with e-mail, and grabs minutes online numerous times throughout a given day. Perhaps if I could prepare some questions in advance...? "Not good enough," I insisted, "I need to be able to ask follow-up questions." They assured me that would be no problem.
So, after extensive assembly from various e-mail messages, I present herewith de Darque's first Web-only interview -- and WLIR's first exclusive.
WLIR: Mr. Secretary, thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I'd like to start with a "softball" :) -- to wit, how have these first couple of weeks gone for you?
AdD: It's been a whirlwind, I can tell you that. You have no idea how hard it is to get some of these bureaucrats to stay on message. You'd think they were doing their own business so to speak instead of the people's.
WLIR: What projects is your Department working on now?
AdD: My staff tells me you already covered the first two biggies, the final mission report for the Moses Mars rover and the National Symbols Sanctification Act of 2005.
WLIR: The National Symbols Sanctification Act -- is that what you decided to call it?
AdD: LOL, I didn't decide myself. That was a staff decision. They worked in concert with the White House staff and various legislative aides too. My staff works very well with their counterparts in other organizations. In fact, and I wouldn't want you to quote me on this, I think they came up with that name in a joint Executive-Legislative prayer-and-pizza session.
WLIR: Are you or your department in general working on anything else at the moment? Anything big on the horizon?
AdD: Well it's too early to say where it's going yet let alone when, but this is going to big I can tell you. We're just starting to outline the mission and structure of a new Federal Office of Consistent Deniability or OCD. Again this is very tentative but the impetus (sp.?) is there, right here and right now. Frankly when the idea first came up we all kind of looked around at each other and wondered how the h--- come nobody had thought of it before, pardon my French. Anyway the OCD mission as we see it now is: (1) to foster freedom of speech among official spokespeople; (2) to minimize confusion of messages; (3) to reassure the citizens of the United States of America that their elected and appointed representatives are "on the ball" (still working on the wording of that one); and (4) to take the battle of public opinion directly to the terrorists who hate our freedoms.
WLIR: That's an ambitious agenda, if I understand it correctly. Actually, though, I'm not sure I do understand it, correctly or at all. :) Can you elaborate on items (1) and (4)?
AdD: Right, first about item (1) " to foster freedom of speech among official spokespeople" (thank heavens for copy-and-paste LOL). Freedom of speech as you know is among our most cherished freedoms, in fact it's in one of the amendments to the Constitution. The problem, you know, is that freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities. And if you look at the way official spokesmen or spokespeople in general handle themselves in tough situations you can clearly see they're not living up to those responsibilities. They keep improvising. This is embarrassing for them, for their agency whatever it is, and for the public, who must constantly deal with jokes on TV talk shows and overseas about American inconsistency, and it also serves none of our purposes very well if at all. So what we'd like to do with this first objective is we would for example e.g. publish guidelines of catch-all replies which can suit any situation. You saw an early draft of these guidelines in action just the other day when Scotty McClellan was hit with all those impatient questions about the whole Karl Rove, did he or didn't he and President Bush, will he or won't he thing. All those different ways of saying "I'm not going to answer the question," see how that worked?
WLIR: Yes, I can see how that kicked in. Good job on that. What about mission #4?
AdD: Oh right, item (4) "to take the battle of public opinion directly to the terrorists who hate our freedoms." The President himself insisted on this one, not in those words exactly but that was the gist of it the way the Vice-President put it. Think about it, think about what kind of people we're dealing with here. These are people who thrive on among other things any official American statement which indicates (a) uncertainty, (b) hypocrisy, and/or (c) internal conflict among the policies of US agencies and/or branches of government. (cut-and-paste again!) Again, think about it, how much any mixed messages must encourage them and embolden them. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that if we can't focus on and solve this problem NOW, TODAY or tomorrow or whenever the whole thing finally gets set up then there's no telling where they might strike next. It would probably be here on our own shores though. At least that's what Mike Chertoff told me the other day while we were washing our hands in the lav and who am I to judge, he's the expert.
WLIR: Is there anything else you'd like to say to our readers?
AdD: Just this. First, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your questions. They were very encisive (?). The second thing is just, well, sometimes common citizens don't really understand how hard it is for their government to function smoothly from one day to the next. In fact I don't really understand that myself ROFL ROFL ROFL. Because of this lack of understanding, they need to understand how important it is that their government present one face to them and the same face to everybody else, at all times and in all places and on all issues. That's the essence of a smooth working government. Otherwise it would be like I don't know, like a diesel engine trying to run on pineapple juice. That's a metaphor which means it would not run smoothly at all and it would smoke and finally grind to a halt. We can't afford to let that happen, unless I mean we're completely crazy and want the terrorists to win. I've got to run now but thank you again. And I just want to say like we always say around the office, "There's no business like consistent government business!" We've got that printed up on posters, would you like one?
So it was that I sought out some face time with the Weasel's newest appointee. I've posted before (here and here) about the new Cabinet-level Department of Doctrine and its Secretary, Alfredo de Darque. But those posts were based on published news stories, and consisted almost entirely of word-for-word quotations from same. Heck, I thought, anybody could have done as much. Maybe I could actually offer a scoop for WLIR readers, as a sort of thank-you bouquet for stopping by...
A face-to-face interview wasn't possible, de Darque's staff informed me; the Secretary is simply too busy, on too many fronts, with the process of getting all the misAdministration's ducks in a row.
But I lucked out. De Darque, they informed me, is very comfortable with e-mail, and grabs minutes online numerous times throughout a given day. Perhaps if I could prepare some questions in advance...? "Not good enough," I insisted, "I need to be able to ask follow-up questions." They assured me that would be no problem.
So, after extensive assembly from various e-mail messages, I present herewith de Darque's first Web-only interview -- and WLIR's first exclusive.
WLIR: Mr. Secretary, thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I'd like to start with a "softball" :) -- to wit, how have these first couple of weeks gone for you?AdD: It's been a whirlwind, I can tell you that. You have no idea how hard it is to get some of these bureaucrats to stay on message. You'd think they were doing their own business so to speak instead of the people's.
WLIR: What projects is your Department working on now?
AdD: My staff tells me you already covered the first two biggies, the final mission report for the Moses Mars rover and the National Symbols Sanctification Act of 2005.
WLIR: The National Symbols Sanctification Act -- is that what you decided to call it?
AdD: LOL, I didn't decide myself. That was a staff decision. They worked in concert with the White House staff and various legislative aides too. My staff works very well with their counterparts in other organizations. In fact, and I wouldn't want you to quote me on this, I think they came up with that name in a joint Executive-Legislative prayer-and-pizza session.
WLIR: Are you or your department in general working on anything else at the moment? Anything big on the horizon?
AdD: Well it's too early to say where it's going yet let alone when, but this is going to big I can tell you. We're just starting to outline the mission and structure of a new Federal Office of Consistent Deniability or OCD. Again this is very tentative but the impetus (sp.?) is there, right here and right now. Frankly when the idea first came up we all kind of looked around at each other and wondered how the h--- come nobody had thought of it before, pardon my French. Anyway the OCD mission as we see it now is: (1) to foster freedom of speech among official spokespeople; (2) to minimize confusion of messages; (3) to reassure the citizens of the United States of America that their elected and appointed representatives are "on the ball" (still working on the wording of that one); and (4) to take the battle of public opinion directly to the terrorists who hate our freedoms.
WLIR: That's an ambitious agenda, if I understand it correctly. Actually, though, I'm not sure I do understand it, correctly or at all. :) Can you elaborate on items (1) and (4)?
AdD: Right, first about item (1) " to foster freedom of speech among official spokespeople" (thank heavens for copy-and-paste LOL). Freedom of speech as you know is among our most cherished freedoms, in fact it's in one of the amendments to the Constitution. The problem, you know, is that freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities. And if you look at the way official spokesmen or spokespeople in general handle themselves in tough situations you can clearly see they're not living up to those responsibilities. They keep improvising. This is embarrassing for them, for their agency whatever it is, and for the public, who must constantly deal with jokes on TV talk shows and overseas about American inconsistency, and it also serves none of our purposes very well if at all. So what we'd like to do with this first objective is we would for example e.g. publish guidelines of catch-all replies which can suit any situation. You saw an early draft of these guidelines in action just the other day when Scotty McClellan was hit with all those impatient questions about the whole Karl Rove, did he or didn't he and President Bush, will he or won't he thing. All those different ways of saying "I'm not going to answer the question," see how that worked?
WLIR: Yes, I can see how that kicked in. Good job on that. What about mission #4?
AdD: Oh right, item (4) "to take the battle of public opinion directly to the terrorists who hate our freedoms." The President himself insisted on this one, not in those words exactly but that was the gist of it the way the Vice-President put it. Think about it, think about what kind of people we're dealing with here. These are people who thrive on among other things any official American statement which indicates (a) uncertainty, (b) hypocrisy, and/or (c) internal conflict among the policies of US agencies and/or branches of government. (cut-and-paste again!) Again, think about it, how much any mixed messages must encourage them and embolden them. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that if we can't focus on and solve this problem NOW, TODAY or tomorrow or whenever the whole thing finally gets set up then there's no telling where they might strike next. It would probably be here on our own shores though. At least that's what Mike Chertoff told me the other day while we were washing our hands in the lav and who am I to judge, he's the expert.
WLIR: Is there anything else you'd like to say to our readers?
AdD: Just this. First, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your questions. They were very encisive (?). The second thing is just, well, sometimes common citizens don't really understand how hard it is for their government to function smoothly from one day to the next. In fact I don't really understand that myself ROFL ROFL ROFL. Because of this lack of understanding, they need to understand how important it is that their government present one face to them and the same face to everybody else, at all times and in all places and on all issues. That's the essence of a smooth working government. Otherwise it would be like I don't know, like a diesel engine trying to run on pineapple juice. That's a metaphor which means it would not run smoothly at all and it would smoke and finally grind to a halt. We can't afford to let that happen, unless I mean we're completely crazy and want the terrorists to win. I've got to run now but thank you again. And I just want to say like we always say around the office, "There's no business like consistent government business!" We've got that printed up on posters, would you like one?
