Thursday, May 27, 2004
Re-up. . . or else
Military numbers are dwindling, so recruiters have come up with a novel plan to bolster the ranks. Inactive members of the military are being informed that if they volunteer to join a Guard unit now they can choose one with little chance of being deployed to Iraq. But if they don't and are called up involuntarily. . .they will be likely to face Iraq duty.
Although the above article was written about Florida only, similar reports are cropping up in Washington, Wisconsin and likely elsewhere.
At issue is whether there is really such an imminent threat, or if recruiters are just using this moment in history to bolster their own numbers and, like salespeople in the outside world as well, their status, rank, and income.
"It's a compete for numbers like anything else," said Master Sgt. Allen R. Swindell, 53, who supervises National Guard recruiters in the Panhandle. "It's an opportunity to put different people in different parts of the military. We're calling everyone in our area. A lot of them think it's a game. A lot of them think it's not true. But it's absolutely not a game."
Civilian military leadership utterly rejects the notion of an imminent call-up, especially during an election year with a war in Iraq that is growing increasingly unpopular across America.
Local tavern scuttlebutt holds that we need a draft to 'keep our country safe.' Of course, if our current troops hadn't been deployed in such a poorly planned operation, to quote Raging Bull, "Then you and me and everybody else wouldn't be havin' this conversation!"
But alas, that is a red vs. blue argument that'll be settled on November 2.
Military numbers are dwindling, so recruiters have come up with a novel plan to bolster the ranks. Inactive members of the military are being informed that if they volunteer to join a Guard unit now they can choose one with little chance of being deployed to Iraq. But if they don't and are called up involuntarily. . .they will be likely to face Iraq duty.
Although the above article was written about Florida only, similar reports are cropping up in Washington, Wisconsin and likely elsewhere.
At issue is whether there is really such an imminent threat, or if recruiters are just using this moment in history to bolster their own numbers and, like salespeople in the outside world as well, their status, rank, and income.
"It's a compete for numbers like anything else," said Master Sgt. Allen R. Swindell, 53, who supervises National Guard recruiters in the Panhandle. "It's an opportunity to put different people in different parts of the military. We're calling everyone in our area. A lot of them think it's a game. A lot of them think it's not true. But it's absolutely not a game."
Civilian military leadership utterly rejects the notion of an imminent call-up, especially during an election year with a war in Iraq that is growing increasingly unpopular across America.
Local tavern scuttlebutt holds that we need a draft to 'keep our country safe.' Of course, if our current troops hadn't been deployed in such a poorly planned operation, to quote Raging Bull, "Then you and me and everybody else wouldn't be havin' this conversation!"
But alas, that is a red vs. blue argument that'll be settled on November 2.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Say What?!: Dyslexic Bush's Speech fails to pass test at Army War College
TeamBush is scared. You can tell by the need they saw to hype Bush's policy offensive on the Iraq War, which began two nights ago with a speech at the Army War College in nearby Carlisle, PA. In the past, the well-oiled TeamBush machine made every effort to dampen expectations about his public pronouncements mainly because they knew he had some English language problems, about which more will shortly follow.
I'd say it's fair to admit that this 'major policy speech' went down like the proverbial lead balloon. The once-solid right is starting to attack itself with increasing frequency, bitterness and divisiveness. As this article from the SF Chronicle indicates, most still favor the idea of the war, but they are very divided over what to do now that our nation is sitting in a mess of its own creation.
The local Inquirer is in line with most of America in thinking that TeamBush is just floundering. Today's editorial states:
"If you missed it, his speech can be boiled down to nine words: Bush does not know what to do in Iraq.
Oh, he surely knows what he'd like to have happen. But not how to do it.
The President's address at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., was brimming with stirring prose about worthy concepts. Bush has strong speechwriters, even if he can't pronounce all the words they've written, including Abu Ghraib."
Note the jab there at the end. I mean, sure I likely couldn't have pronounced Abu Ghraib correctly either two months ago, but this is a story, and a name, that's been plastered on every media outlet in the world for almost a month, and Bush couldn't get it down for his 'major policy speech.' What gives?
My astute wife has maintained since the 2000 election season that Bush has a learning/reading problem. One that has gone untreated his whole life, and it affects the leadership of our country.
Before the emails start pouring in from parents of ADHD, or ADD, or dyslexic folks across the nation, let me say that I do not believe that these conditions per se disqualify someone from high office or fiscal/material/political success. The critical part of it for Bush is that he's never acknowledged or dealt with his issue. Being born with that silver spoon well in hand he simply didn't need to if he didn't want to--and it looks like he didn't.
This theory also has real explanatory power.
As the folks at MSNBC have noted, Bush and his compatriots have a fondness for the great leaders of World War II. Bush fancies himself cut from the same cloth as Winston Churchill. However, there are a few discrepancies:
"Bush eschews complexity; FDR and Churchill embraced it. Bush prefers to decide, not go into details or revisit issues; FDR and Churchill were constantly examining their own assumptions and immersing themselves in postwar planning. Bush is largely incurious about the world; FDR and Churchill wanted to know everything."
The dyslexia tie-in is this: my layman's perspective maintains that lower reading comprehension is reflected in lower analytical and abstract reasoning. Reading not only imparts knowledge but, when accompanied by rigorous analysis, stretches the mind. Reading is a grey matter workout. FDR and Churchill, while not 'A students', were voracious readers and the learning they got from what they read informed their thoughts and both challenged and enhanced their decision-making abilities. They had a nuanced, big-picture view of the gravity of the impact their choices would have on the entire world. Bush, by contrast, "likes his decisions quick and clean. "Let me tell you, in life you've just got to do what you think is right," he told foreign journalists in the Oval Office in the fall of 2001. "That's what a leader does. Leaders take a position not because of some poll or focus group; they should take a position on what they think is right and suffer the consequences. That's what a good leader does."
Judged against the Roosevelt-Churchill standard, this definition is only half the story. Taking a stand is not all a good leader does. FDR could be too tied to polls—Churchill once said as much—but their joint leadership was a complex cocktail of certitude and second-guessing, grand decision making and gritty detail."
TeamBush is scared. You can tell by the need they saw to hype Bush's policy offensive on the Iraq War, which began two nights ago with a speech at the Army War College in nearby Carlisle, PA. In the past, the well-oiled TeamBush machine made every effort to dampen expectations about his public pronouncements mainly because they knew he had some English language problems, about which more will shortly follow.
I'd say it's fair to admit that this 'major policy speech' went down like the proverbial lead balloon. The once-solid right is starting to attack itself with increasing frequency, bitterness and divisiveness. As this article from the SF Chronicle indicates, most still favor the idea of the war, but they are very divided over what to do now that our nation is sitting in a mess of its own creation.
The local Inquirer is in line with most of America in thinking that TeamBush is just floundering. Today's editorial states:
"If you missed it, his speech can be boiled down to nine words: Bush does not know what to do in Iraq.
Oh, he surely knows what he'd like to have happen. But not how to do it.
The President's address at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., was brimming with stirring prose about worthy concepts. Bush has strong speechwriters, even if he can't pronounce all the words they've written, including Abu Ghraib."
Note the jab there at the end. I mean, sure I likely couldn't have pronounced Abu Ghraib correctly either two months ago, but this is a story, and a name, that's been plastered on every media outlet in the world for almost a month, and Bush couldn't get it down for his 'major policy speech.' What gives?
My astute wife has maintained since the 2000 election season that Bush has a learning/reading problem. One that has gone untreated his whole life, and it affects the leadership of our country.
Before the emails start pouring in from parents of ADHD, or ADD, or dyslexic folks across the nation, let me say that I do not believe that these conditions per se disqualify someone from high office or fiscal/material/political success. The critical part of it for Bush is that he's never acknowledged or dealt with his issue. Being born with that silver spoon well in hand he simply didn't need to if he didn't want to--and it looks like he didn't.
This theory also has real explanatory power.
As the folks at MSNBC have noted, Bush and his compatriots have a fondness for the great leaders of World War II. Bush fancies himself cut from the same cloth as Winston Churchill. However, there are a few discrepancies:
"Bush eschews complexity; FDR and Churchill embraced it. Bush prefers to decide, not go into details or revisit issues; FDR and Churchill were constantly examining their own assumptions and immersing themselves in postwar planning. Bush is largely incurious about the world; FDR and Churchill wanted to know everything."
The dyslexia tie-in is this: my layman's perspective maintains that lower reading comprehension is reflected in lower analytical and abstract reasoning. Reading not only imparts knowledge but, when accompanied by rigorous analysis, stretches the mind. Reading is a grey matter workout. FDR and Churchill, while not 'A students', were voracious readers and the learning they got from what they read informed their thoughts and both challenged and enhanced their decision-making abilities. They had a nuanced, big-picture view of the gravity of the impact their choices would have on the entire world. Bush, by contrast, "likes his decisions quick and clean. "Let me tell you, in life you've just got to do what you think is right," he told foreign journalists in the Oval Office in the fall of 2001. "That's what a leader does. Leaders take a position not because of some poll or focus group; they should take a position on what they think is right and suffer the consequences. That's what a good leader does."
Judged against the Roosevelt-Churchill standard, this definition is only half the story. Taking a stand is not all a good leader does. FDR could be too tied to polls—Churchill once said as much—but their joint leadership was a complex cocktail of certitude and second-guessing, grand decision making and gritty detail."
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
History's Mysteries--GOP style
Josh Marshall just posted a fine response to Mitch McConnell's silly (read desperate) historical analogy in which he mused about how well the Iraq adventure is going in light of our own nation's early development.
Marshall noted that:
"No analogies are perfect, certainly. But if there is anything from the late eighteenth century comparable to the current situation in Iraq it is not the American Revolution but the French Revolution, with legitimacy and the sinews of society in a losing battle with a widening gyre of violence."
Not to be outdone in bad references to history by his fellow GOP traveller, Chris Shays claimed that:
""President Bush is like Lincoln before Gettysburg," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District."
The article went on to fill out Shays analogy, noting:
"Lincoln was convinced that his cause was just, but seemed to be teetering. Gettysburg became a turning point in the Civil War, and 17 months after the historic battle, Lincoln - running against George B. McClellan, the general he had fired in 1863 - won re-election easily."
Let's recap: Lincoln had a war forced on him by a group of states that forcibly removed themselves from our own nation, and even then he didn't pursue a military option until months after the fact when Confederate troops blockaded and then attacked a Federal army installation in South Carolina. His failure would have effectively ended our nation's federal republican experiment less than one hundred years into it.
George Bush pursued a war of choice with a tin-horn dictator who was nothing more than a minor irritant to anyone in our country except for the handful of radicals who controlled Bush's foreign and military policy. He leaned heavily on what was known to be dubious intelligence to scare Americans, traumatized by the horrors of 9-11, that Saddam was involved in that heinous act (false) and that he had the means to imminently harm our allies and our own nation (also false). His closest, most senior advisors promised him, and us, that we would be greeted with flowers and candy as liberators.
Instead he's put many brave Americans into harms way and has mortally wounded our nation's once vaunted credibility with his arrogance, bad choices and worse policy execution.
Analogize that, Chris.
Josh Marshall just posted a fine response to Mitch McConnell's silly (read desperate) historical analogy in which he mused about how well the Iraq adventure is going in light of our own nation's early development.
Marshall noted that:
"No analogies are perfect, certainly. But if there is anything from the late eighteenth century comparable to the current situation in Iraq it is not the American Revolution but the French Revolution, with legitimacy and the sinews of society in a losing battle with a widening gyre of violence."
Not to be outdone in bad references to history by his fellow GOP traveller, Chris Shays claimed that:
""President Bush is like Lincoln before Gettysburg," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District."
The article went on to fill out Shays analogy, noting:
"Lincoln was convinced that his cause was just, but seemed to be teetering. Gettysburg became a turning point in the Civil War, and 17 months after the historic battle, Lincoln - running against George B. McClellan, the general he had fired in 1863 - won re-election easily."
Let's recap: Lincoln had a war forced on him by a group of states that forcibly removed themselves from our own nation, and even then he didn't pursue a military option until months after the fact when Confederate troops blockaded and then attacked a Federal army installation in South Carolina. His failure would have effectively ended our nation's federal republican experiment less than one hundred years into it.
George Bush pursued a war of choice with a tin-horn dictator who was nothing more than a minor irritant to anyone in our country except for the handful of radicals who controlled Bush's foreign and military policy. He leaned heavily on what was known to be dubious intelligence to scare Americans, traumatized by the horrors of 9-11, that Saddam was involved in that heinous act (false) and that he had the means to imminently harm our allies and our own nation (also false). His closest, most senior advisors promised him, and us, that we would be greeted with flowers and candy as liberators.
Instead he's put many brave Americans into harms way and has mortally wounded our nation's once vaunted credibility with his arrogance, bad choices and worse policy execution.
Analogize that, Chris.
Friday, May 14, 2004
Now it's official--It's Over
Maureen Dowd led her column in yesterday's New York Times with this unbelievably little reported quote:
"Testifying before the Senate yesterday, General Richard Myers admitted that we're checkmated in Iraq.
"There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq," he said, describing the generals' consensus. "There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq.""
Is there anything really left to debate? Anything left to mince or parse when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, our combined head of all military branches, makes such a statement under oath to Congress?
From the very beginning every aspect of TeamBush's plan had to fall into line like clockwork, all of its rosy assumptions had to be right on target for this adventure in Iraq to be deemed a success for the United States. That they didn't in the first few months had some military and political analysts concerned, but not overly so. Now some fourteen months into our nation's first war of choice we've reached the end.
Unfortunately, however, many more Americans and Iraqis will likely die before it's all really over. But the scorecard has been filled out by the people whose job it is to keep such scores, and the best we can expect is apparently a draw.
Just too depressing for words.
Maureen Dowd led her column in yesterday's New York Times with this unbelievably little reported quote:
"Testifying before the Senate yesterday, General Richard Myers admitted that we're checkmated in Iraq.
"There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq," he said, describing the generals' consensus. "There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq.""
Is there anything really left to debate? Anything left to mince or parse when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, our combined head of all military branches, makes such a statement under oath to Congress?
From the very beginning every aspect of TeamBush's plan had to fall into line like clockwork, all of its rosy assumptions had to be right on target for this adventure in Iraq to be deemed a success for the United States. That they didn't in the first few months had some military and political analysts concerned, but not overly so. Now some fourteen months into our nation's first war of choice we've reached the end.
Unfortunately, however, many more Americans and Iraqis will likely die before it's all really over. But the scorecard has been filled out by the people whose job it is to keep such scores, and the best we can expect is apparently a draw.
Just too depressing for words.
War really is hell--just ask the Soldiers
The slogan 'Support our Troops, Bring them Home' has been a litmus test of patriotism for decades. Anti-war proponents maintain that the best thing we can do for our soldiers is to keep them out of harms way unless absolutely necessary, while John Wayne-styled patriots assert that any public dissent about war ends and means stabs our troops in the back.
Military opinion with regard to these opposing views usually ebbs and flows depending on circumstances, and right now it would appear to be shifting ever more so toward the 'bring them home' camp.
Witness this week's unprecedented editorial that appeared simulaneously in all four-branches' semi-official newspapers that called for the resignation of top officials in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Myers.
While this editorial was written specifically about the failure of high-ranking leadership with regard to the Abu Gharaib prison scandal, many see that as just one further, albeit glaring, failure of how the entire war has been conducted to date.
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for The Guardian, wondered quite openly about the possibility of a military coup in the making. I think such an event is highly, highly improbable (it would certainly mark the end of the republican experiment called the United States were it to occur), clearly some folks are thinking about such a possibility. The prize winning essay of 1992's National Defense University was entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." It posited a scenario whereby an incompetent civilian government put its military into a position so difficult that the commanders removed that government. Blumenthal closed his piece by noting that recently unearthed copies of "(t)he Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists."
Of far more immediate interest is the following passage:
"William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."
And lest one think that such ideas are circulating only among the upper ranks of our military and its theorists, note the story Sgt. Seth Cole told Florida elementary students. He told them that, "In the beginning, I was keen to go. I couldn't wait to do my part," Cole said. "But then my philosophy changed. I thought what we were doing was just, but I didn't like the way the military was treating its soldiers."
He detailled supply shortages, bad equipment, and short-sighted, meaningless missions in which he was involved. While proud of his service, as well he should be, he was obviously disillusioned by his experience. He made his remarks to the school in which his mother taught, who said:
"He put everything into context, the reality of violence," she said. "And I said to him later, this is one of those things from elementary school they will probably remember forever."
He closed with the following comments:
"Cole asked the students not to be impressed with his stories about guns and bombs but to go home and give their parents a hug."
"Life is short and life is very precious," said Cole, a salesman who lives in Boston. "If you remember anything I've told you, please remember that."
Amen.
The slogan 'Support our Troops, Bring them Home' has been a litmus test of patriotism for decades. Anti-war proponents maintain that the best thing we can do for our soldiers is to keep them out of harms way unless absolutely necessary, while John Wayne-styled patriots assert that any public dissent about war ends and means stabs our troops in the back.
Military opinion with regard to these opposing views usually ebbs and flows depending on circumstances, and right now it would appear to be shifting ever more so toward the 'bring them home' camp.
Witness this week's unprecedented editorial that appeared simulaneously in all four-branches' semi-official newspapers that called for the resignation of top officials in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Myers.
While this editorial was written specifically about the failure of high-ranking leadership with regard to the Abu Gharaib prison scandal, many see that as just one further, albeit glaring, failure of how the entire war has been conducted to date.
Sidney Blumenthal, writing for The Guardian, wondered quite openly about the possibility of a military coup in the making. I think such an event is highly, highly improbable (it would certainly mark the end of the republican experiment called the United States were it to occur), clearly some folks are thinking about such a possibility. The prize winning essay of 1992's National Defense University was entitled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." It posited a scenario whereby an incompetent civilian government put its military into a position so difficult that the commanders removed that government. Blumenthal closed his piece by noting that recently unearthed copies of "(t)he Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists."
Of far more immediate interest is the following passage:
"William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phoney"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."
And lest one think that such ideas are circulating only among the upper ranks of our military and its theorists, note the story Sgt. Seth Cole told Florida elementary students. He told them that, "In the beginning, I was keen to go. I couldn't wait to do my part," Cole said. "But then my philosophy changed. I thought what we were doing was just, but I didn't like the way the military was treating its soldiers."
He detailled supply shortages, bad equipment, and short-sighted, meaningless missions in which he was involved. While proud of his service, as well he should be, he was obviously disillusioned by his experience. He made his remarks to the school in which his mother taught, who said:
"He put everything into context, the reality of violence," she said. "And I said to him later, this is one of those things from elementary school they will probably remember forever."
He closed with the following comments:
"Cole asked the students not to be impressed with his stories about guns and bombs but to go home and give their parents a hug."
"Life is short and life is very precious," said Cole, a salesman who lives in Boston. "If you remember anything I've told you, please remember that."
Amen.
Monday, May 10, 2004
The Recoveryless Recovery
There appears to be little joy in financial speculationville today, as the Dow sinks under 10K with a daily drop currently at 160+. So what caused the markets to go so gloomy? Good economic news, oddly enough.
In an almost kafkaesque bit of timing, Alan Greenspan's prognosticating last week finally saw a lending rate increase in the near future. For several months certain economic indicators were showing renewed, albeit sometimes anemic and confusing, vigor--something that should be generally favorable. It would appear that for biz news types the great awakening occurred last Friday when a healthy 308,000 jobs were added to the economy. Even bearing in mind that we need 150K increase just to keep pace with an expanding workforce, those are still mighty respectable numbers. This increase, however, sent stocks tumbling Friday in the US. The dumpoff continued this morning in Asia and at press we're in pretty negative territory.
So just when we we're getting out of the tunnel, world markets react negatively--showing once again that market indicators are a really bad measurement of any economy. Speculators fear that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates for the first time in many, many months. Since rates are practically at zero and couldn't get any lower, one would think this would not have come as much of a shock. Nevertheless, the spectre of a rate raise in the future linked with turmoil in the Chinese economy (the world's real engine of output), rising commodity prices (especially oil), and ongoing bad news coming out of Iraq and the collective 'Stans has burst this bubble just as it was starting to expand.
One can almost hear Bush and his editorial minions at the Wall Street Journal screaming at the financial news reports, "But jobs are up! Jobs are Up!!!"
But, alas, the market remains a fickle and volatile place. Which is why our nation's cummulative wealth should not be tied up in it lock, stock, and barrel as conservatives have long advised. Sometimes it just does irrational things, and when the money's gone (as any investor from 1929, or oops 2000) the money's gone.
Oh well, I'm sure TeamBush will just send in the clowns. . . they always do.
There appears to be little joy in financial speculationville today, as the Dow sinks under 10K with a daily drop currently at 160+. So what caused the markets to go so gloomy? Good economic news, oddly enough.
In an almost kafkaesque bit of timing, Alan Greenspan's prognosticating last week finally saw a lending rate increase in the near future. For several months certain economic indicators were showing renewed, albeit sometimes anemic and confusing, vigor--something that should be generally favorable. It would appear that for biz news types the great awakening occurred last Friday when a healthy 308,000 jobs were added to the economy. Even bearing in mind that we need 150K increase just to keep pace with an expanding workforce, those are still mighty respectable numbers. This increase, however, sent stocks tumbling Friday in the US. The dumpoff continued this morning in Asia and at press we're in pretty negative territory.
So just when we we're getting out of the tunnel, world markets react negatively--showing once again that market indicators are a really bad measurement of any economy. Speculators fear that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates for the first time in many, many months. Since rates are practically at zero and couldn't get any lower, one would think this would not have come as much of a shock. Nevertheless, the spectre of a rate raise in the future linked with turmoil in the Chinese economy (the world's real engine of output), rising commodity prices (especially oil), and ongoing bad news coming out of Iraq and the collective 'Stans has burst this bubble just as it was starting to expand.
One can almost hear Bush and his editorial minions at the Wall Street Journal screaming at the financial news reports, "But jobs are up! Jobs are Up!!!"
But, alas, the market remains a fickle and volatile place. Which is why our nation's cummulative wealth should not be tied up in it lock, stock, and barrel as conservatives have long advised. Sometimes it just does irrational things, and when the money's gone (as any investor from 1929, or oops 2000) the money's gone.
Oh well, I'm sure TeamBush will just send in the clowns. . . they always do.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Does the "C" in CEO President stand for Clueless?
George W. Bush and his sycophantic supporters have long maintained that he is the first CEO President (as if de facto that's a good thing). But as any reading of the Business pages in the past two or three years would indicate, there are in fact a lot of very wealthy, very well connected, and very powerful CEOs who are in fact very bad leaders.
It would seem that W. stands amongst their ranks. As the news out of Iraq gets worse and worse he increasingly seems even more clueless and more out of touch than he did previously. As Kevin Drum pointed out of even conservatives are dismayed at his handling of unfolding events. Bob Kagan, neocon extraordinnaire had this to say:
"Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain."
Even George Will (conservative shill with the mostest) is challenging the "All Is Well" line coming from TeamBush. He noted:
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."
And therein lies the rub. Bush has consistently spoken 'On-message' about Iraq (and the economy and everything else) without ever acknowledging the shifting circumstances on the ground. It would seem that to make any public reassessment would undermine Karl Rove's well-polled notion that Bush should above all appear steadfast.
Which brings us back to Drum's original piece (which is short and really worth a read). The crux of it is this:
"(T)he world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them but then consider the job done anyway because they've "delegated" it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they're unwilling to do the hard work of creating one. . . George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right."
One obvious example of his delegation-gets-the-job-done mania--when asked about the report on Iraqi prisoner abuse issued in February that Joint Chief Chairman Myers had admitted not reading, Bush said, "Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out."
Here is a three-month old report identiying the kind of PR bombshell that could be the straw that broke the Iraqi camel's patience about our presence and purpose in Iraq (Bush's self-proclaimed legacy achievement) and he doesn't even know about it. The man is just unbelievably uncurious. Say what you will about Clinton, but the guy was smart. He read everything coming out of the executive branch (often working until very late at night) and called authors of papers and reports and grilled them about specific details.
Like he promised his supporters in 2000, he has indeed proven to be the anti-Clinton, at least in that regard.
George W. Bush and his sycophantic supporters have long maintained that he is the first CEO President (as if de facto that's a good thing). But as any reading of the Business pages in the past two or three years would indicate, there are in fact a lot of very wealthy, very well connected, and very powerful CEOs who are in fact very bad leaders.
It would seem that W. stands amongst their ranks. As the news out of Iraq gets worse and worse he increasingly seems even more clueless and more out of touch than he did previously. As Kevin Drum pointed out of even conservatives are dismayed at his handling of unfolding events. Bob Kagan, neocon extraordinnaire had this to say:
"Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain."
Even George Will (conservative shill with the mostest) is challenging the "All Is Well" line coming from TeamBush. He noted:
"Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice."
And therein lies the rub. Bush has consistently spoken 'On-message' about Iraq (and the economy and everything else) without ever acknowledging the shifting circumstances on the ground. It would seem that to make any public reassessment would undermine Karl Rove's well-polled notion that Bush should above all appear steadfast.
Which brings us back to Drum's original piece (which is short and really worth a read). The crux of it is this:
"(T)he world is full to bursting with CEOs who have goals they would dearly love to attain but who lack either the skill or the fortitude to make them happen. They assign tasks to subordinates without making sure the subordinates are capable of doing them but then consider the job done anyway because they've "delegated" it. They insist they want a realistic plan, but they're unwilling to do the hard work of creating one. . . George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right."
One obvious example of his delegation-gets-the-job-done mania--when asked about the report on Iraqi prisoner abuse issued in February that Joint Chief Chairman Myers had admitted not reading, Bush said, "Well, if Myers didn't know about it, I didn't know about it. In other words, he's part of the chain -- actually, he's not in the chain of command, but he's a high ranking official. We'll find out."
Here is a three-month old report identiying the kind of PR bombshell that could be the straw that broke the Iraqi camel's patience about our presence and purpose in Iraq (Bush's self-proclaimed legacy achievement) and he doesn't even know about it. The man is just unbelievably uncurious. Say what you will about Clinton, but the guy was smart. He read everything coming out of the executive branch (often working until very late at night) and called authors of papers and reports and grilled them about specific details.
Like he promised his supporters in 2000, he has indeed proven to be the anti-Clinton, at least in that regard.
