WASHINGTON (CNN) — The White House expects that President Bush would have to assemble a new foreign policy team, including a secretary of state, if he wins a second term, administration officials said Monday.
- from CNN
INT BUSH’S CRAWFORD OFFICE - DAY
[President Bush is at his desk, contemplating his collection of souvenir snow-globes. Also present are Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.]
RICE: It’s a done deal.
CHENEY: Hrrrrummm. Good riddance.
RUMSFELD: So, Mr. President, who should we tap to replace Secretary Powell?
BUSH: Who? Hey, does it really ever snow in Tehran?
RICE: You can see for yourself in about… [checking her watch] eight months.
[Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice laugh heartily. Rumsfeld high-fives Rice.]
BUSH: I’d rather know now. You know, Condi gave me this one, and I’d just like to know if the intelligence has any accuration.
CHENEY: Hurr hurrr…
RUMSFELD: Oooooh - snap!
RICE [flustered]: Mr. President, that snow globe isn’t what I’d call “intelligence.” And I already said I was sorry -
BUSH: Heh. I’m just ribbin’ you, Cond-a-roni. Forget it. No harm no foul.
RICE: Good one, sir.
RUMSFELD: Back to the issue of Secretary Powell…
BUSH: Who?
RUMSFELD: The Secretary of State? General Colin Powell. [Getting no reaction, he sighs:] “The Colinator.”
BUSH: Oh! Yeah. What a grumpus he turned out to be, huh? “Blah blah blah international community… blah blah blah repercussions… blah blah blah blah -
CHENEY: Hrrrm. Yes, sir. But-
BUSH: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah -
RICE: Sir -
BUSH: -blah blah blah blah -” Hey, it’s snowing in San Juan! Everybody get off the beach!
RUMSFELD: Sir, if we could just get you to focus on the issue of the new Secretary of State…
BUSH: Aw, marshmallows. What’s the diff?
RICE: Well, sir, the office -
BUSH: I mean, with our new model of unilateralist military action coupled with our demonstrations of complete technological supremacy, haven’t we rendered the office of Secretary of State - and indeed the entire diplomatic process - inconsequential? As we’ve taken such great pains to convey the message that diplomacy need be replaced by unquestioned fealty from all who would continue to govern and trade, why now would we pay any particular heed to who, if anyone, should occupy an office which has proved its obsolescence in the wake of our recent actions? I’d expect that the newly-established purely cosmetic nature of the post implies that it could be fruitfully assigned to any number of Republicans who show a disconcerting popularity combined with an independent streak, like, for instance, John McCain.
[A long silence ensues.]
RUMSFELD: Whoa.
[They stare at Bush.]
BUSH: Look out! Looks like a chilly time in ol’ Honolulu! Oh, the weather outside is frightful…
Fanny Roborat
6 comments
Murray
August 4, 2003 at 5:09 pm
1The alternative to binding and hiding a Mc Cain would be to put in a man of real power and real action. Don’t minimize diplomacy, maximize it in the proper direction. No more nuzzling up to the UN, no more panty waist, pinky sticking out diplomatic language.
It’s time to put the Bush stamp on diplomacy!
A pre-emptive attack style.
Newt seems to be lobbying for the post, but is he mad dog enough? Wolfowitz? naw. We need some one who has real blood on his teeth. I can only think of one and we can’t seem to find him at the moment. Perhaps if we changed our reward system to allow him to give himself up, accept the $30 million himself, shave, become Southern Baptist, or Pentecostal or something, shift his accent to Texan, we would have the perfect man for the job. We could just go to the UN and take what ever resolution we want. No more of that messy voting and appeasing pesky countries. This is how diplomacy is supposed to work.
Linkmeister
August 4, 2003 at 6:42 pm
2I’ve figured it out. Adam keeps telling us he “performs” these gigs at clubs, but he’s just blown his cover. When he says he’s doing that, he’s really acting as an adjunct prof in Int’l Studies at Tufts or Hopkins.
Tom in Tacoma
August 4, 2003 at 7:34 pm
3Adam, you’re dead wrong. Shrub isn’t that bright.
Ken, Just Ken...
August 4, 2003 at 9:19 pm
4Uh, Tom…
sat•ire n.
1.a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. [Latin satira, probably alteration (influenced by Greek satur, satyr, and and satyros, burlesque of a mythical episode) of (lanx) satura, fruit (plate) mixture, from feminine of satur, sated, well-fitted..]
Rebecca
August 5, 2003 at 8:00 am
5I will henceforth blame this blog entry for all of my future nightmares.
(Well done.)
Chicory
August 5, 2003 at 11:45 am
6And the shadow of Reagan rears its ugly head…….