I didnÂ’t understand or approve of studentsÂ’ striking any more than my father had liked teachersÂ’ striking, and I especially resented the sons and daughters of the wealthy, of whom there were many, telling me that I was supposed to, in effect, forfeit my scholarship. I had an education to get, and the protesters could damn well get out of my way as I walked to class.

While not exactly scintillating to outsiders, surviving and flourishing in a federal bureaucracy is often the difference between failure and success, which I define as implementing the president’s policies. [What an eccentric.] Since the bureaucracy defines success differently — who sat where at the daily morning staff meeting, whose name appeared first on the “from” line of a memo to the secretary, who went on what trip, and other such weighty questions — I often got what I wanted by giving the bureaucracy what they wanted. This approach was also consistent with Baker’s general rule to yield on process issues in order to hold the line on substantive questions. I thought it was like buying Manhattan for beads and shells.

After some additional desultory chatter, Bush went to the nearby office of General Assembly president Eliasson, for yet another annual courtesy call. Bush reiterated what he’d said to Annan about the lack of American public support for the UN, which prompted Eliasson, Swede extraordinaire, to explain American public opinion back to Bush. Bush just looked at him and said patiently, “If there were a referendum today, I don’t think the UN would win,” which pretty much ended that discussion, other than for Bush to say, “That’s why we sent Bolton up here, to get things fixed.” Bush visibly lost interest in further conversation with Eliasson . . .