I read that line in the Vanity Fair piece and also thought it was some sexist BS. In fact had to read it again to make sure I read it correctly, it seemed so outrageous on the face of it. Upon re-reading it however I think the issue is not the gender of Bush's advisers but more the fact that they love him. I.E. their love of him causes them to be able to interact with him on a strictly professional level.

This speaks more to Bush's petty and incurious mentality that he would equate people liking him with their cbeing good people. Even though I feel that liking Bush speaks more towards incompetence anyway! :)

Randall

then we can assume that they are in love with Bush as well, and that explains the mess we're all in.

Of course, this pretty much assumes that being attracted to a particular gender means that you're automatically in love with everyone of that gender. Which is just plain dumb.

PS Bush is starting to remind me of Dr. Gaius Baltar circa New Caprica occupation...is elected by a bunch of unrealistic morons, leads everyone into a seemingly good idea, then becomes a recluse in his house once the shit hits the fan. And the mess we're in right now in real life -- it's almost as bad as the mess Baltar led everyone into on TV.

Now, if we could just get the Cylons to kidnap Bush...;)

"But as it stands now, his "most powerful" list looks like a dangerous piece of reverse engineering, suggesting that Bush's female advisors flirted their way into power and blaming them for a disastrous administration's worst failures."

Yeah, let's take a look at that. Specifically, let's take a look at Condi Rice.

She's incompetent. All of her training and background are in foreign policy with respect to Europe and Russia. She has no background at all in the Middle East. And in the five years since she became Bush's National Security Advisor, America's foreign policy has been a complete and total failure. It's a joke. As Secretary of State, she's been a mess as well.

So why isn't she held accountable? Why doesn't she take the same kind of press grillings that Rumsfeld does? Why aren't there long profiles attacking her in magazines?

Because she's a woman. It doesn't matter how she got to be Secretary of State, she's really, truly mucking it up, badly, and nobody, including you, are willing to call her on it. Because she's a woman.

If she was a man, Bush would wake up tomorrow morning and fire her. There would be Congressional hearings. But there never will be.

To the extent that I have understood the limited snippets leaked from the Vanity Fair article, I believed that the thrust of that comment was really NeoCon Revisionism, not sexism.

The context, to the extent that I have understood it is, Why is the Iraq war such a mess? The NeoCon answer is "Because Bush bungled it," and the reason he bungled it is because he surrounded himself not with brilliant neocons who would have understood and adapted and made everything better, but instead with toadies who always agreed with him, and some of whom are actually in love with him.

The issue isn't their gender per se, but their lack of independent objectivity, and their belief that Bush can do no wrong. The underlying problem in their view is Bush's desire to surround himself with such people, rather than independent thinkers.

But for very different reasons. I completely disagree with you about her competence.

"She's incompetent. All of her training and background are in foreign policy with respect to Europe and Russia. She has no background at all in the Middle East. And in the five years since she became Bush's National Security Advisor, America's foreign policy has been a complete and total failure. It's a joke. As Secretary of State, she's been a mess as well."

I would love to know how she's any more incompetent for those reasons than Powell or Rumsfeld. They don't have much Middle East experience either. Neither does Bush or Cheney. But you don't call them incompetent because of that, do you? She's the most-educated person out of all of them, in fact. I think it's your own sexism that's leading you to explain her presence and actions as "incompetent" rather than "ruthless."

I think she's an incredbly smart person, much like Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove are also very smart people.

But i think she gets cut a lot of slack in people's opinions of her and in the press because few people think that a WOMAN could be as cynical, calculating, ruthless, amoral, greedy, deceitful and just plain "evil neo-con" as Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld are suspected and known to be. She benefits from everyone's sexism and perception that women are "more ethical" and "inherently more gentle and conciliatory and loving." Few people want to accept that women can be just as ____ as Cheney. It's too scary.

If she was a man, Bush would wake up tomorrow morning and fire her. There would be Congressional hearings. But there never will be.

No, she's in there because she's no different from the aforementioned Cabal. And she and Bush both know the advantage that everyone's sexism gives her -- because she's a woman, she's beyond suspicion by the press. And she uses it to her benefit.

I think Ledeen's point is that Bush may not be challenged enough in his decision making process by his closest advisors.

He wouldn't fire a guy banging Laura on the Oval Office Desk. Once he's deciderated somethin that's that. Working for Bush is like being a Bishopric Sex offender; the Church will never acknowledge its own glaring poor judgment. I mean other than Brownie, who's been fired?

Surely he loves ole W, too! I agree it's about the love, not the gender... or whatever.

And my guess is that Barney hasn't actually told W, yet, that he also thinks we should get out of Iraq.

After all, W said he'd keep pushing on in Iraq, even if only Barney and Laura were on his side... and I can't believe that Laura really thinks the War is a good thing.