Book Tells Of Dissent In Bush’s Inner Circle
In “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush,” journalist Robert Draper writes that Rove told Bush he should not tap Cheney for the Republican ticket: “Selecting Daddy’s top foreign-policy guru ran counter to message. It was worse than a safe pick — it was needy.” But Bush did not care — he was comfortable with Cheney and “saw no harm in giving his VP unprecedented run of the place.”
[…]
When Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, expressed concerns about the Miers selection, he was “shouted down” and subsequently muted his objections, Draper writes, while other advisers did not realize the outcry the nomination would cause within the president’s conservative political base.
In recounting the Miers nomination and other controversies of the Bush presidency, Draper offers an intimate portrait of a White House racked by more internal dissent and infighting than is commonly portrayed and of a president who would, alternately, intensely review speeches line by line or act strangely disengaged from big issues.
He also makes new disclosures about the behind-the-scenes infighting at the White House that helped prompt the change from Card to Bolten in the spring of 2006. By that point, he reports, some close to the president had concluded that “the White House management structure had collapsed,” with senior aides Rove and Dan Bartlett “constantly at war.”
Then there’s this book about Condi Rice and her failures to fix the problems she herself created.
“She was one of the weakest national security advisors in US history. Her inexperience and her mistakes in that job have shaped the world and colored the choices she must handle as secretary of state,” writes Kessler, who covers US diplomacy for The Washington Post.
“The invasion of Iraq, the missed opportunity with Iran, the breach in relations with Europe, the Arab anger at a perceived bias against the Palestinians — all of these problems were the direct result of decisions she helped make in the White House,” he writes.
And on and on. Story after story of why Bush & Co. make up the worst presidency this country has ever had. How can you run a country when you can’t even get your staff to work effectively? And then there’s the part about one of the big reasons Bush wanted to go to war. The line up of presidential hopefuls looks weak at best, but any one of them has got to be better than this one and his incompetent Munchkins.
If only Bush would stay on vacation.
Where’s the story on North Korea’s pledged actions to dismantle the rouge regime’s nuclear weapons program, followed by international inspections (http://tinyurl.com/2qsrfc). Certainly that seems more interesting than another anti-Bush Administration book written by an “ex-senior correspondent to GQ.” Besides if you want good anti-Bush material read Woodward’s trilogy.
#1. the N. Korean initiative represents the triumph of the ‘dove’ faction within the administration who finally – after the unmitigated fiasco that the hawks gave us in Iraq – have been asserting themselves. and even now, pinheads like John Bolton denounce the effort to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear situation.
Had the doves been able to override Cheney et al from the begining, we would not be in the mess we are now.
Can’t get your staff to work effectively? All this shows is infighting common to every administration.
I just have to say that I love the image of the nesting Russian dolls. That’s great. And of course, after everyone crawls up Cheney’s ass in proper order, he then climbs up W’s. Wonderful.
I don’t know if I could stomach reading a full length book on the subject of the current administration, even from a leftist viewpoint.
This sounds pretty strange. All I ever read on this blog is how Bush surrounded himself with “yes men” and Rove ran the show. Let’s get your bitchin’ straight, folks.
#5. For all the important decisions, and, seemingly, almost all other decisions, the members of and supporters of the Bush Admin. have always supported Bush/Cheney. There might be some disagreements along the way – we are all human – but in the end it has always been yes, yes, YES!
I have never seen anything said where Rove was always pulling the strings or over-ruling Bush/Cheney. He has been the idea man, the trickster, Bush’s brain – coming up with many dishonorable and unethical strategies that, while helping Bush & Co., have hurt the country.
#5 All I ever read on this blog is how Bush surrounded himself with “yes men” and Rove ran the show.
And all I have ever read is how Rove was the political strategist, Bush was the “Decider”, but Cheney was the “Gate-Keeper” who controlled what the Decider was allowed to see and hear.
From what I remember of reading The Price of Loyalty, it was Cheney who was the power-behind-the-throne for policy issues. Cheney who undercut any policy which did not fit his personal agenda.
Rove has never retreated to “undisclosed locations”.
Rove’s residence isn’t blurred in satellite photos, for “national security” reasons.
http://tinyurl.com/37shqt
The Constitution clearly delineates the order of succession, but Cheney has clearly intended to ensure his hand stays on the tiller.
I can’t wait to see what you dweebs will be posting three-and-a-half years into the upcoming misanthropic administration of Ms. Klinton. My advice to Travel Office Workers, US Attorneys and close personal friends of, ahem, “the family”: Resign and/or shoot yourself in the head, now.
While we’re on the subject of Cheney the Gate-Keeper, how many people remember that Dick Cheney was asked by soon-to-be nominee George W. Bush in 2000 to compile a list of potential vice-presidential running mates? Cheney literally chose himself to be GWB’s running mate, and Bush merely affirmed Cheney’s choice.
I happen to think that Cheney saw an opportunity to take advantage of Bush’s complete lack of foreign policy experience and generally lower intelligence to create a shadow presidency. However, he has always taken great pains to appear extremely deferential to President Bush in his public statements and debates, so as not to upset the natural balance.
#8. Boy, dredging up the Travel Office. If that’s the best you got, this will be a cakewalk.
And “shoot yourself in the head” is better advice for friends of Cheney who want to save the VP the trouble …
>generally lower intelligence
If you want to take the Bush family’s genetic inability to speak as a sign of stupidity, that’s your prerogative, but the reality is that Bush is at about the 90th percentile based on IQ tests. Nowhere near the top of presidents, but still very good.
#5, well those posts are irrelevant. And of course if there were no such infighting in the Administration, we would have media articles about books reveling the administration to be in rigid lockstep.
#11, I didn’t suggest that Bush is actually stupid, but what I did suggest is that compared to Cheney, he is less intelligent and much less experienced, making it relatively easy for Cheney to dominate him (disturbing mental image alert). Cheney has had the consolidation of power in the Executive branch as part of his agenda for many years, especially regarding the conduct of foreign policy. He wrote an opinion at the time of the Iran-Contra investigation, dissenting from the official Congressional findings that the Reagan Administration broke binding law. He especially disagreed with the “binding” part. Cheney isn’t fond of restrictions.
BDS lives!
Lots of criticism of the Bush 43’s cabinet officials on this site.
Does anyone want to speculate about the cabinet appointments of a President Gore or a President Kerry?
For example, would anyone care to speculate about an Attorney General under either? The ‘smartest politician in recent memory’ appointed that ‘outstanding’ AG Janet Reno. Now that was a cabinet appointment we all can applaud.
No wait … How about SG Joycelyn Elders?
#13…Gaary Marks….Foreign policy happens to be an Executive branch perogetive. Always has been and is laid out in the Constitution as such. Congress has an advise and consent role in the area, only so far as the approval of those chosen to handle the foreign policy agencies. The founding Fathers purposely set it up this way to avoid 435 seperate Sec. of State. Cheney may be over-reaching, but he dosen’ty need to consolidate that power in the Executive, it’s already there.
Of course, that dosen’t say the Executive branch is actually CAPABLE of doing the job.
Remember how Bush promised to be our first “CEO President”?
I’ve always real CEO would have been canned, years ago, for hemorrhaging this many billions, for making so many boneheaded appointments and for such disasterous inaction.
But could I be wrong? Maybe all CEOs are snarky, self-absorbed, responsibility dodgers. Is Bush just a typical CEO in that regard?
The reality is that the Bush Regime was a “Bait & Switch Presidency”. During the 2000 campaign his neoconservative taskmasters portrayed him as a semi-clintonian republican. Not a war hawk, not a dove, just a plain good old boy moderate like his dad but even milder. At the time thats what America wanted it seems.
The moment he took power, he angered europe, he angered Russia, and began a death spiral of foreign policy mistakes hat started LONG before 9/11. He was absolutely the WORST kind of president you want during a terrorist crisis as we have found out.
He is as bad as Osama Bin Laden. Both are rich playboys who found religion and got into leadership positions. Both have attacked their percieved enemies and missed, killing thousands of innocents. Both believe they are doing God’s will, and both are utter idiots in reality. Lastly, the world would have been better off if both had just stayed drunk. Bin Laden was a known party boy in Beirut in the 1980s, and we all know about Bush’s liquor-infused youth so I won’t get into that one..
There amazingly are still diehard supporters. I attribute that to the fact that now matter how psychotic you are, you will have followers. Hitler still had quite a few followers when the Russians had surrounded Berlin and were pounding it with artillery. There’s just some sort of siege mentality ingrained in certain people with their refusal to admit that their leader is…..well incompetent.
Correction guys: Bin Laden was getting drunk and banging western chicks in Beirut the 1970’s, not the 1980’s.
#16 joshua… You seem to subscribe to the notion of nearly exclusive presidential power in foreign policy, even though the Constitution clearly states that various items of foreign policy are not at all within the sole purview of the Executive. Congressional involvement goes well beyond Senate ratification of appointments and treaties, and even declarations of war. The Constitution explicitly places the regulation of commerce with foreign nations under the control of Congress, not the Executive. It should be especially clear from this that the founding fathers saw a significant role in foreign policy for Congress, since facilitating foreign trade was one of the major goals of foreign policy at the time the Constitution was written (it’s a pre-9/11 document), and trade issues often underlie or exacerbate international conflicts.
The Constitution also grants Congress the power… “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” That last phrase sounds like something our current Administration could be guilty of violating, particularly regarding secret foreign prisons and renditions (with unlawful abductions). The explicitly granted constitutional power to define and punish such violations is vested in Congress, not the Executive.
The Congress has foreign policy prerogatives that go well beyond shutting up and funding the President’s war. It’s funny how people like Bush, Cheney, and their right-wing codependents often proudly proclaim that they’re constitutional strict constructionists, right up until the discussion of their own powers. At that point, they tend to take a much more expansive view, using terms like “implied” and “inherent.” They’d like very much to have it both ways.
#18 Steve Savage, “Bait & Switch Presidency” hits the nail on the head. Who knew?
Steve I’m not sure what Clintonian Republican means. The bait and switch was with a promise to be anti-Clinton. Troops stretched too thin, too many invasions, etc. Yet no withdrawals from Bosnia, Kosovo, or other places, while adding on Iraq and Afghanistan. At least he stayed out of Sudan.