The Belgravia Dispatch: Card Steps Down

March 28, 2006

Card Steps Down

Particularly if this is a harbinger of more staffing changes to come, it's certainly a positive development. Regular readers doubtless know very well another key Administration player I think is ripe for a similar step-down. It's the one who recently appears to have given Karen Hughes, albeit indirectly, a D to D plus on her job performance. Even if he's right, I'd take the criticism much more seriously if he had provided a few shreds of plausible constructive suggestions as alternative approach. After all, aside from repeatedly telling us that al-Qaeda has a media committee and such, he hasn't mustered up much. Quite the contrary. He is partly responsible, via many of the policies he has personally cheer-led these past years, for why we are faring so badly in the ideological struggle against terrorism.

P.S. I was pushing for Bush to consider appointing a new Chief of Staff way back in October in the pages of this blog. This is nothing personal to Andrew Card, who strikes me as a very decent man who served his country now some five and a half years in what is doubtless one of the half dozen or so most demanding jobs in Washington. But this is an exceedingly long time period for this exhausting post, particularly in the crushing constant media cycles and ginned up 'crises' modern White Houses are subjected to it seems weekly, and so today's decision (albeit a belated one) should be welcomed. Especially, as I said, if it leads to further staffing changes.

Posted by Gregory at March 28, 2006 01:47 PM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Maybe it's a good move. But, Bush is still promoting from within the ranks. Condi. Hadley. The Boltons.

I'm not thrilled with this. Card's been in trade rumors for most of the season, too.

Posted by: Chris at March 28, 2006 08:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,
When will you join the reality-based community?
As long as Bush is President, you cannot expect significant changes in policy direction, nor can you expect increased competence.
Bush is not Reagan, who was already senile and lacking in energy during his second term. Bush is apparently quite determined to remain involved, and will balk at attempts to direct him towards more sensible decisions. This is particularly clear in regards to Iraq, as we can see from his recent statement that troops will remain in Iraq until the next President takes office. To anyone who has watched Bush closely, it is no surprise that he will not draw down troops, regardless of developments on the ground. No different Chief of Staff will change his mind on this point.
The other problem is that aside from being personally decisive (bullheaded), Bush is a weak leader. He refuses to reign in those who are not team players, or arbitrate disputes. Most importantly, he lacks the intelligence, temperament or wisdom to choose among alternative policies. This is not a trivial matter.
As I see it, Bush's poor management of his cabint was a prime reason that Iraq turned out so badly. The turf wars over goals, strategy, troop levels, etc., ensured that the war would be fought without a clear top-level strategy.
It is quite evident from reading the accounts of the major players in the Iraq war that different agents considered the war to have different meanings, and these meanings had decidedly different imports as far as troop levels, etc. For example, Bremer and his ilk thought that Iraq was a chance to implement Chicago School policies and show their effectiveness. He claimed that instituting the flat tax in Iraq was among his most impressive accomplishments. One of the very significant decisions he made was to cancel early local elections in Iraq, and the reason was so that he could have a free hand to enact the flat tax, privatize, etc.
Obviously his values did not include a quick transition of Iraq into a free state.

Bremer is only one case of many, but I am sure that when the history of the Iraq war is written, the abysmal managerial skills of Bush will be a prime topic.

It is quite sad to see such a smart person not acknowledge the reality of Bush's monumental incompetence, and the need to remove him from office.
By the way, what is your take on the "signing statement" he appended to the latest version of the Patriot Act?

Posted by: marky at March 29, 2006 07:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

Trent Lott this morning said he wants a lot more than just this one "move".

Posted by: Chris at March 29, 2006 03:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

why do the words "deck chairs" and "Titanic" keep popping into my consciousness whenever I think about this announcement....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 29, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

why do the words "deck chairs" and "Titanic" keep popping into my consciousness whenever I think about this announcement....

Perhaps because that was Chuck Schumer's reaction to the news.

Frankly I feel much better knowing that the guy in charge of "managing" our 9 billion dollar debt (increased by 50% in just five years) is now in charge of reading news stories to Bush.

Posted by: Davebo at March 29, 2006 07:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« More Fukuyama \| Main \| Population Transfers Growing.... » March 28, 2006 Card Steps Down Particularly if this is a harbinger of more staffing changes to come, it's certainly a positive development. Regular readers doubtless know very well another key Administration player I think is ripe for a similar step-down. It's the one who recently appears to have given Karen Hughes, albeit indirectly, a D to D plus on her job performance. Even if he's right, I'd take the criticism much more seriously if he had provided a few shreds of plausible constructive suggestions as alternative approach. After all, aside from repeatedly telling us that al-Qaeda has a media committee and such, he hasn't mustered up much. Quite the contrary. He is partly responsible, via many of the policies he has personally cheer-led these past years, for why we are faring so badly in the ideological struggle against terrorism. P.S. I was pushing for Bush to consider appointing a new Chief of Staff way back in October in the pages of this blog. This is nothing personal to Andrew Card, who strikes me as a very decent man who served his country now some five and a half years in what is doubtless one of the half dozen or so most demanding jobs in Washington. But this is an exceedingly long time period for this exhausting post, particularly in the crushing constant media cycles and ginned up 'crises' modern White Houses are subjected to it seems weekly, and so today's decision (albeit a belated one) should be welcomed. Especially, as I said, if it leads to further staffing changes. Posted by Gregory at March 28, 2006 01:47 PM \| TrackBack (0) Comments Maybe it's a good move. But, Bush is still promoting from within the ranks. Condi. Hadley. The Boltons. I'm not thrilled with this. Card's been in trade rumors for most of the season, too. Posted by: Chris at March 28, 2006 08:24 PM \| Permalink to this comment Greg, When will you join the reality-based community? As long as Bush is President, you cannot expect significant changes in policy direction, nor can you expect increased competence. Bush is not Reagan, who was already senile and lacking in energy during his second term. Bush is apparently quite determined to remain involved, and will balk at attempts to direct him towards more sensible decisions. This is particularly clear in regards to Iraq, as we can see from his recent statement that troops will remain in Iraq until the next President takes office. To anyone who has watched Bush closely, it is no surprise that he will not draw down troops, regardless of developments on the ground. No different Chief of Staff will change his mind on this point. The other problem is that aside from being personally decisive (bullheaded), Bush is a weak leader. He refuses to reign in those who are not team players, or arbitrate disputes. Most importantly, he lacks the intelligence, temperament or wisdom to choose among alternative policies. This is not a trivial matter. As I see it, Bush's poor management of his cabint was a prime reason that Iraq turned out so badly. The turf wars over goals, strategy, troop levels, etc., ensured that the war would be fought without a clear top-level strategy. It is quite evident from reading the accounts of the major players in the Iraq war that different agents considered the war to have different meanings, and these meanings had decidedly different imports as far as troop levels, etc. For example, Bremer and his ilk thought that Iraq was a chance to implement Chicago School policies and show their effectiveness. He claimed that instituting the flat tax in Iraq was among his most impressive accomplishments. One of the very significant decisions he made was to cancel early local elections in Iraq, and the reason was so that he could have a free hand to enact the flat tax, privatize, etc. Obviously his values did not include a quick transition of Iraq into a free state. Bremer is only one case of many, but I am sure that when the history of the Iraq war is written, the abysmal managerial skills of Bush will be a prime topic. It is quite sad to see such a smart person not acknowledge the reality of Bush's monumental incompetence, and the need to remove him from office. By the way, what is your take on the "signing statement" he appended to the latest version of the Patriot Act? Posted by: marky at March 29, 2006 07:02 AM \| Permalink to this comment Trent Lott this morning said he wants a lot more than just this one "move". Posted by: Chris at March 29, 2006 03:31 PM \| Permalink to this comment why do the words "deck chairs" and "Titanic" keep popping into my consciousness whenever I think about this announcement.... Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 29, 2006 05:24 PM \| Permalink to this comment why do the words "deck chairs" and "Titanic" keep popping into my consciousness whenever I think about this announcement.... Perhaps because that was Chuck Schumer's reaction to the news. Frankly I feel much better knowing that the guy in charge of "managing" our 9 billion dollar debt (increased by 50% in just five years) is now in charge of reading news stories to Bush. Posted by: Davebo at March 29, 2006 07:38 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt Recent Entries Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again... Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That" Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Columnists Anne Applebaum Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Archives September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch