March 1, 2002

3:01 AM

There is no Cabal.For those of us worried about Big Dick's health, fear not. He's been busy installing a shadow government of his closest friends! Some people never get over high school rejection.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh (38 comments total)

The question! Who is in your secret society? Are super special hero decoder rings needed? And will they be able to defeat the Yankees?

I think this finally puts a nail in the Bush v. Cheney presidential argument. How ridiculed do you have to get when you're not important enough to be part of a club you theoretically run? It's like being voted out of your own treehouse.

For more laughs, look at the picture in the article.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 3:08 AM on March 1, 2002

Uh oh.

Um...

Oh yeah, Bush is Bad, I almost forgot.

I mean, this is Metafilter, isn't it? We haven't had a poorly worded 'Bushtard' thread in so long.

Sigh.

Nothing to see here, etc.
posted by evanizer at 3:37 AM on March 1, 2002

At first, I was angry over my exclusion into the super secret society. Then I explained the exclusion with a myriad of "problems" in my character. However, I realize that I don't have time in my life for the super secret society anyway.

Soon, evanizer, you too will learn to lie to escape the unique pain of rejection from a loved one. But your misdirected anger is getting us nowhere.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 4:10 AM on March 1, 2002

they asked me to be in the shadow government, but i was too busy with my duties as cardinal in petto to the northern california extraterrestrial community, so i turned 'em down. dick cried, but i was firm. the little green men need bringin' to jesus, i said...
posted by hob at 5:31 AM on March 1, 2002

Oh yeah, Bush is Bad, I almost forgot.
I mean, this is Metafilter, isn't it? We haven't had a poorly worded 'Bushtard' thread in so long.
Sigh.
Nothing to see here, etc.

Yes. 2nd this motion. I am happy that at least the people running this country take the threats to it, and their responsibilities, seriously. While I realize it apparently isn't hip around here to be anything other than petty and cynical about anything the Bush administration does, and it is probably a useless reminder that will naturally only invoke further clever little jabs, the fact is that

1) "Portable Nuclear Weapons" is not a concept, it is a technology - and an almost inconceivably horrifying one.

2) There are people on this planet that are trying to get their hands on them.

3) Some of these people also would very much like to use them against the United States, very likely in Washington DC.

4) As September 11 showed, these people will eagerly do the unthinkable - and are only limited by their abilities to organize and execute.

5) It is the duty of our government - and a not inconsiderable burden - to have to understand and prepare for possibilities that approach levels of real terror. Should any of these possibilities come about, having a group of senior people ready, and capable of maintaining order, looking after US water supplies & etc., and coordinating responses is not just a "nice to have", it is essential.

Nice to see their efforts are so appreciated. Then again, I suspect a few people here wouldn't give a shit if DC was bombed, and the US invaded. Be a chance for "the people" to take over from the "special interests".
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:54 AM on March 1, 2002

I have to agree with evanizer. How far do you have to stretch this story to turn it into a Bush joke? According to the article, this is just an extension of the plan that has been in place since Eisenhower, but was discontinued after the cold war. Supposedly it was followed by Kennedy, Carter, and Johnson, along with the Republican presidents.

In addition, you're way off base with your "Cheney's friends" argument. Again, the article says that most of the people being rotated through this assignment are high-level career staffers of the agencies. In other words, these are the men and women who have worked in the agencies over many years, and aren't replaced every time there's a new administration.
posted by pardonyou? at 5:54 AM on March 1, 2002

I hate the Bush administration and all it stands for, but this is exactly the kind of thread that people complain about when they say MetaFilter is going down the tubes: Yahoo! News link, tendentious Bush (/Cheney) bashing, junior-high caliber sarcasm (ho! "Big Dick"! that's clever!)... if we created lameness in a test tube, it would look like this.
posted by rodii at 6:00 AM on March 1, 2002

As long as our "precious bodily fluids" are protected, I don't give a shit.
posted by ColdChef at 6:01 AM on March 1, 2002

You know, I agree, there is a lot of Bush Bashing here, but how is it suddenly not OK to criticize the government. I mean, suddenly, every time the Bush administration does something we don't like, you can all just write it off as "that Bush Bashing again!" I mean, shit, we put up with you stupid Clinton Bashing for years and years, so I think ya'll can just suck it up!
posted by bob bisquick at 6:09 AM on March 1, 2002

I'm not sure MeFi'ers were the ones doing the Clinton bashing, is the thing. Maybe y'all should take it to the freepers.

having said that, bush is still an idiot.

Seriously, I think the people who would dismiss a valid point as 'just bush bashing' are a small minority. But silly stuff like this ends up weakening the argument against Bush. There's plenty of real stuff to make fun of this administration for, that might spark off some, y'know, interesting discussion.
posted by ook at 6:16 AM on March 1, 2002

(uh... clarification: the people here who would dismiss etc. I know in the US at large there are probably a lot more of them.)
posted by ook at 6:18 AM on March 1, 2002

bob bisquick. I don't like Bush and didn't vote for him (in fact I've never voted for a Republican). I wasn't criticizing the post because I like Bush -- I was criticizing it because it had to contort itself to make a very tired point.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:34 AM on March 1, 2002

but how is it suddenly not OK to criticize the government?...
To criticize the administration for legitimately disagreeable policy decisions is one thing. Criticize away in that case as far as I'm concerned. You don't like that they want to drill for oil in Alaska? then bash away my friend. When Dubya says he barely knew someone he has been known to refer to as 'Kennyboy', fire at will good soldier (verbally speaking, don't want to end up on an FBI list). But the issue at hand is them deciding that, given the fact that terrorists were able to fly planes into our buildings(remember when that happenned?), coupled with the existence of portable nuclear weapons that can be unsed in any number fo ways, imagined or unimagined, it might be a good idea to do the shadow government thing again (this isn't new policy, as noted above). To me that's a responsible government saying that "There's no way to prepare for everything. we better have a backup plan just in case". Not to mention that Homeskillets opening includes unfounded statements like Cheney appointing friends and yapping about a secret society. There are many things to disagree with and heckle bush on. This is not political, but rather the government sustaining its self
posted by srw12 at 6:40 AM on March 1, 2002

This is not political, but rather the government sustaining its self

And it remains to be seen if this is, in fact, a good thing.
posted by shagoth at 7:14 AM on March 1, 2002

Here is a question that is perhaps more on topic, although maybe not. Does anyone have any information on what kind of destruction we are really looking at here? Is there any hard research into what amount of yield could be built by terrorist-types into a portable device, and what effect a downtown DC detonation would really have? How far would the destruction, and the radiation, extend? What about the environmental impact on the Chesapeake Bay? How severely would the country be shut down after such an event, and who is in charge of aplnning all the coping strategies, which I hope will be in place beforehand?
posted by donkeymon at 7:20 AM on March 1, 2002

donkeymon, try this page.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:33 AM on March 1, 2002

donkeymon, the best unclassified source for answers to those questions is probably the Hart-Rudman Commission Report on terrorism and fourth-generation, asymmetric warfare threats in the 21st century.

Of course, the most honest answer is that we just don't know. Maybe they could build one on their own, and maybe that would be very small by modern standards -- but it could just as easily be as destructive as the Hiroshima bomb, which would, if detonated near the Washington Monument, obliterate the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and likely cause 9/11-type damage all along the eastern side of the Pentagon. "Portable" could be a suitcase nuke stolen from the Soviet arsenal (there are claims they've lost track of as many as a hundred, but who's counting?), or it could just mean "built in the back of a Ryder truck" in which case yield would only be limited by materials.

I'm sure in the event of the destruction of our national government that the EPA will be getting right on that Chesapeake Bay concern of yours, by the way.

Coping strategies are nominally under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, whose plans for (e.g.) keeping the postal service running after a nuclear holocaust, at gunpoint if necessary, have had all sorts of militia types freaking out for years on end now. We actually developed quite a few useful things during the Cold War such as a place to evacuate leaders and run the government from up in Maryland -- Daschle, Hastert, and Lott were taken there on 9/11, although it turned out to have too few phone lines for three senators during a crisis.
posted by dhartung at 7:41 AM on March 1, 2002

shagoth: there's a difference in being anti-government and merely anti-bush. In the case of the former, I could see your beef with this. but in the latter case, the government is more than just the party that happens to be in power.
posted by srw12 at 7:59 AM on March 1, 2002

"You know, I agree, there is a lot of Bush Bashing here, but how is it suddenly not OK to criticize the government."

I don't think anyone said it was suddenly not ok to critisize the government. But, I mean, c'mon, is ...

For those of us worried about Big Dick's health, fear not. He's been busy installing a shadow government of his closest friends! Some people never get over high school rejection.

... really a critisism of the government, or simply a cheap gratuitous shot that doesn't even get the most basic facts right?
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:02 AM on March 1, 2002

thinking about the actual link....

as someone who actually likes this as a strategic planning exercises , would this shadow government be the most strategic move? It seems that the strategic move at that point be for a small contingent of the federal government to remain active in assessing and dealing with any new external threats while allowing much of the coping with emergencies to devolve to the state governments
posted by ajayb at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2002

Yes. 2nd this motion. I am happy that at least the people running this country take the threats to it, and their responsibilities, seriously.

I am always grateful when someone cares enough about me to set up a SHADOW GOVERNMENT. Perhaps for my birthday they can remove an amendment at random from the Bill of Rights.

It is not necessary to bash George Bush in order to say that this is a big fucking scary deal. If Clinton had done it, I would have been equally shocked. It's a shadow government, for chrissakes! Even the name is scary. Not only are they not elected for their positions by the people, not only are they not accountable to the people, but they don't even SEE the people, because they are detached from society in an armored bunker at all times.
posted by Hildago at 8:17 AM on March 1, 2002

When are the shadow government elections?
posted by srboisvert at 8:23 AM on March 1, 2002

The "shadow government" doesn't mean shit unless everyone else is dead. At that point, the last thing we'll be worried about is whether they are "elected by the people." The alternative is not to have this in place, in which case there would be no government. "Shadow" better than "no" in this case? I think so.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:36 AM on March 1, 2002

I have to say that it is a pretty poor choice of names though, from a PR perspective. Why not call it the "backup government" or "contingency planning board" or "spare oligarchs" or whatever? I can't think of anything more menacing to call it than "shadow government," except maybe "your illuminati masters."
posted by donkeymon at 8:54 AM on March 1, 2002

Same time as the rest of the elections. The majority of people installed in the Shadow Government are elected officials (such as the Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc.,) or military personnel. We've had this not-secret, but not particularly well known program for fifty years now- if you'd like to go to White Sulphur Springs, you can actually get a look at one of the decommissioned bunkers.

The theory, and the goal, is to maintain a centralized government in case of a catastrophic event, it's not active at all times. (Though there are certainly people who maintain the bunkers, etc..) The program's actual name is something dry like Contingency Government Maintenance Program or something like that. Shadow Government is jargon.

What I wonder about is what the government knows that we don't- there is an everpresent nuclear threat, and the Shadow Government doesn't run 24/7. They activated for a reason on 9/11- why are they still running it now? Scully? Scully??
posted by headspace at 8:57 AM on March 1, 2002

Well, I think the fault lies squarely in the lap of the Washington Post, since the government itself refers to the whole thing as "Continuity of Government". But it does lend itself to some evil-sounding headlines, doesn't it?

I really don't think there's anything wrong at all with the idea of a well-maintained and up-to-date center for the feds to keep the government running in event of any kind of national emergency. It's the knee-jerk reaction to the headline that's the only problem.

My one knock, though, is that it just seems like the Bushistas absolutely love all this Cold War "the world could end at any moment" stuff that they've been playing with since 9/11. Secret bunkers and rattling nuclear sabers and portentious speeches about evildoers and all that. It's like they're getting to play with the greatest power-trip fantasy that they all wanted back in the Reagan days but could never have.

Everybody put their knee down and pay attention to more important things than Bush & Co. playing Dr. Strangelove.
posted by briank at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2002

DJ Shadow activated.
posted by Stretch at 9:16 AM on March 1, 2002

Hey, I found this cool chart on cnn.com about how prepared the 30 largest US cities are for Terrorist attacks. Also interesting because it lists the cities in order of most police officers per 10,000 residents.
posted by donkeymon at 9:25 AM on March 1, 2002

"You men can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

I think the term Shadow Government (bumBumBUM!) was used as hook for the story, and it's a bit misleading. Usually the term Shadow Government (bumBumBUM!) is used to denote the secret group of industrialists, militarists, and pro-athletes who we all know run everything. In this case, the term refers to (thanks, briank)

a well-maintained and up-to-date center for the feds to keep the government running in event of any kind of national emergency.

from the article:
The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.

If it happens to be staffed with mostly Republicans, that's only because we currently have a Republican administration, and it's our fault for electing them. Oh, wait...
posted by Ty Webb at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2002

"God Bless Amerika!"

"Land of the..."
posted by jkaczor at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2002

Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.

Just add water and stir!
posted by briank at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2002

I'm disappointed. No one's made a gratuitous Matthew Broderick "War Games" reference here.
posted by Sqwerty at 9:52 AM on March 1, 2002

I'm still waiting for the Shadow Puppet Government. Then the real entertainment begins!
posted by Outlawyr at 10:09 AM on March 1, 2002

I am waiting for the movie, in which a well-intentioned COG (let's use the right term rather than Shadow Gov.) led by an ambitious Senior Government Official manages to gain enough influence over military and government operations and finances to threaten the stability of the real, elected government.

What nobody is saying is, what are these 70 to 150 people doing in the bunkers all day long? I doubt they are watching TV, playing pinochle and washing the firetrucks, just waiting for the big one to drop. They must be, in effect, pretending to be the government, so that if something happens there can be a seamless transition. If so, what dangers exist that they will begin to influence actual decisionmaking at some point?

It is perfectly fine that they are operating at a secret location. But we are entitled to know what they are doing, and what safeguards exist against actual government operations being carried out in secret by this backup group.
posted by beagle at 10:30 AM on March 1, 2002

It is perfectly fine that they are operating at a secret location. But we are entitled to know what they are doing, and what safeguards exist against actual government operations being carried out in secret by this backup group.

Point taken, but as I understand it, this is the last line of defense in case shit really gets fucked up. I think some secrecy is called for.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:50 AM on March 1, 2002

"I doubt they are watching TV, playing pinochle and washing the firetrucks, just waiting for the big one to drop."

Actually, that's a typical day for for your average federal employee. Kidding aside, I suspect that they're doing their normal jobs, just from an "unidentified, secure location." But, as Ty notes, we'll never know...
posted by pardonyou? at 11:06 AM on March 1, 2002

Aside: In Britain, of course, the opposition chooses party leaders to take specific roles mirroring the various ministers (who are, of course, simply elected members of parliament there by dint of being in the party or coalition who formed the government). These positions are called "Shadow Ministers", and there's one for each office. The underlying assumption is that in a pinch they could waltz right in to the real office should the government fall, but in practice they perform a more specific role of critique and oversight.

This isn't surprising; Cheney's actually been interested in Continuity of Government issues for some time. The worry since 9/11 is of a different character than during the Cold War, though. In those days, we could make the assumption that our enemies were rational and predictable within bounds, and that any attack on the United States would not be a matter of complete surprise, but more likely a result of an escalation involving a diplomatic or military confrontation lasting at least days if not weeks or months. The only time I've really feared a Soviet attack was during the 1991 coup -- and although I knew it would fail when the junta showed up on TV and Gorbachev's V.P.'s hands were very literally trembling, that didn't ease my mind about the threat posed to us. A nervous, desperate, and confused government is more dangerous. Bottom line being that there was always a feeling that they could roughly predict when these facilities would be needed, e.g. as we moved up the DEFCON ladder.

The terror threat is a different problem altogehter, and as 9/11 showed, the danger may be unrelated in any easily measured way to geopolitical instability. Now we must assume that an attack is intended, and is only delayed by logistical factors. In short, we have virtually no way of predicting in advance when an attack might come. We naturally have no relationship with non-state actors that will allow us to judge the "threat level" with confidence.

The Cold War assumption was that the major task of a post-attack government would be a) military retaliation, and b) rebuilding the nation. The new assumption is that we could have a "clean decapitation" that is directed only at our government. It may look the same in some ways, but it's very different in terms of how it needs to respond.

Fortunately, a proactive policy can be of great help. We're not going to wait for them to attack us; we're going to disrupt the network aggressively so that they never get the chance to constitute a force capable of a nuclear or other WMD attack. Meanwhile, the threat remains real and it would be foolish to act otherwise.
posted by dhartung at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2002

I prefer a government that consists of elected officials. I don't like a government that consists of officials appointed by elected officials who then become figureheads and targets for the bad guys. That way leads to mad, spooky, carnival death. Not that it really matters one way or the other. I mean I don't ever actually vote these people in personally. I vote. But my vote doesn't count. So we might as well have a mad spooky carnival dictator running things for all the difference it makes to me.

This crappy contingency government idea has been in existence since Eisenhower. Some believe since before even that. Conspiracy theorists have been talking about "MJ12" since the whole Roswell thing. Not the tv show but the flying saucer turned weather balloon thing. Admittedly, that's all a bit too ..uhm, conspiracy theoristy for my blood, but it's a theory that's been tossed about for awhile now. Good to see the gov't's finally owning up to it.

Now, if they'd just tell us who the hell actually killed Kennedy.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:00 AM on March 2, 2002