 |
April 15, 2006Saving the Presidency?From a recent WaPo editorial: Can this Presidency be saved? President Bush's approval rating has plummeted to a dismal 38 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC News poll. Democrats will rejoice at their improving prospects of recovering a majority in Congress. But a damaged president governing for nearly three more years in a dangerous world is no cause for rejoicing. With that in mind, we offer Mr. Bush, at no charge, some advice on a fresh start. One piece of advice they give: Or imagine the positive shock he could deliver by announcing that he would no longer tolerate the scandal of U.S. abuse of detainees, eight of whom have been tortured to death and at least 98 of whom have died in custody. Acknowledging the long-term damage done to the nation by the mistreatment, and by the refusal to punish any but the lowest-level servicemen, Mr. Bush could promise to reform the system, allow the Red Cross into his secret prisons, and work with Congress to provide a legal framework for detention, interrogation and trials. Yeah, wouldn't that be swell? But witness this pitiable recent exchange (thanks to AE for the link): Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's an honor to have you here. I'm a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions. Interactions like these too often reveal the President as a profoundly unserious man, one who apparently lacks the intelligence, dignity or moral integrity to pursue real reform of detainee policy along the lines the WaPo editorial sketches out. So as POTUS giggles away in blessed ignorance, we continue to fritter away our national prestige, moral authority, and international image regarding such matters. With no real opposition party to speak of worth its salt, and a somnolent Congress that provides little real oversight function, it's all a rather depressing spectacle. How can this veritable crisis of leadership across Washington be improved? I used to think some Wise Men style intervention might be possible. But there aren't any left, it seems.
Comments
I saw that exchange live on Bloomberg TV. It was broadcast into trading rooms around the world. You should find the video and watch it for the full effect it had on people. Needless to say, that young girl, a student, put the lie to Bush as a competent MBA type leader. It was an embarrassing moment to actually watch. Posted by: ken at April 15, 2006 02:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
Replace Rumsfeld: Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low. David Brooks: So Rumsfeld has diminished support just all around Washington. And then the final thing is that it's -- domestically, the president does not have credibility on Iraq until somebody pays the price, and the somebody who deserves to pay the price is Donald Rumsfeld. So just as a domestic matter, I think it's important that Rumsfeld leave. Posted by: post pc at April 15, 2006 04:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
So? This has been apparent for years: an incompetent led by ideologues. All empirical reason has been disregarded. Not easy to think of a worse combination at the head of a superpower. Regardless of the ideology in question. Posted by: llwyd at April 15, 2006 06:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
But this "profoundly unserious man" is still a better choice for POTUS than John Kerry, right? Sorry, couldn't resist. For the life of me I can't understand how it took you six years to figure out what was obvious to many of us from day one. At any rate, based on your posts of late, you've definitely been born again hard. Thanks for all the thoughtful posts. And please do keep calling' em as you see 'em. Posted by: avedis at April 15, 2006 09:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
At the very lest, Bush has the wisdom to recognize what has been obvious to me since the day I lived in Moscow, Russia in 1991 (my ex owned Pravda) that the Russian mafia was selling under the table all sorts of arms and state secrets (like how to effectively hide things) to Iran, Iraq, Syria etc, that Americans lived under a utopian news black-out bubble and that indeed not everyone around the world was on board the progressive's collective 'peace, love and understanding Magic bus' tour.
For the life of me I can't understand how it took you six years to figure out what was obvious to many of us from day one. Avedis, the old psychological theory of "cognitive dissonance" would explain it. This is something that could happen to anybody. This is a psychological theory that's easy to understand. The basic idea is that when you believe something, and then you get evidence that it's wrong, that's uncomfortable. Instead of holding both beliefs at the same tgime, the usual approach is to reduce the discomfort by throwing out either the older belief (backed up with whatever previous data supported it) or the new data. And if it keeps happening, the usual approach is to make up your mind so you can avoid the repeated discomfort. So for example, people who have great jobs and get new job offers that might look even greater, might look reasonably at which choice looks best. But people who have bad jobs and no particular prospects for anything better, tend to develop loyalty to their rotten employers. The job can get gradually worse and they rationalise away each new development. They convince themselves it isn't so bad. They're likely not to think it out until they get fired, or until some particular event is too hard to swallow. Again, it isn't just Greg, this is normal. It can happen to anybody. I think the turning point for a lot of retirees and people who were close to retirement was the social security mess. Bush insisted that reforming SS was immediately necessary, a crisis, even though there's no problem until long after he's gone. The Medicare issue is far more pressing. But SS has a whole lot of money that Bush wanted to get his hands on now, and Medicare has nothing. Bush didn't have a plan to reform SS, he promised he was going to make a plan, so when people tried to criticise his plan he could say they didn't know what his plan was. And it was too big a lump for retirees to swallow. They weren't willing to give him that much trust with their retirement money that they'd spent decades paying for. It's hard to decide you were wrong. The more you cling to your belief in the face of mounting evidence, the harder it gets to give it up -- because it feels even stupider to admit how very wrong you've been. Our last seven years in vietnam were like that. Probably our last three years in iraq will be like that too.
Right. Sure. There is nothing, zero, nada to indicate that Bush isn't a reasonably intelligent man. Actually, in life accomplishments there is everything to prove otherwise. I wonder who has the cognitive dissidence? This, 'The Man is a Idiot' meme, is a pillar of the left. Regan, G. H. Bush, G. W. Bush, Ford, all framed as idiots, and Nixon as a psycho. Right. Sure. I just wish you guys were honest and admit that what really bothers you is that he, and they, weren’t stylish, as in ‘style over function.’ 6 Generals out of hundreds give confusing and contradictory statements and this proves what? One General striped of a rank, the other not promoted, another viewing the world from rock lyrics and admitting timidity ….. What was that about using what you want to see again?
Paul, are you saying you seriously believe that Nixon was sane? Ahhhhh....
Right. Sure. There is nothing, zero, nada to indicate that Bush isn't a reasonably intelligent man. Actually, in life accomplishments there is everything to prove otherwise. I wonder who has the cognitive dissidence? calling Bush an idiot is actually generous -- the idea that someone intelligent could act as he has done would mean that Bush was the epitome of craveness, corruption, and evil. Posted by: p.lukasiak at April 15, 2006 03:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
I saw the video. It was sad how Bush stuttered, giggled, and panted, as though he was on drugs, or drunk. But putting that aside, what was far sadder, is how he apparently knew nothing about the issue of torture in Iraq. It suggests that he simply doesn't pay much attention to Iraq, or what happens there, and that perhaps news and criticisms are kept from him, so that he won't be worried by what is happening. That is somewhat frightening. Posted by: delta at April 15, 2006 03:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
Paul, I want to stress that cognitive dissonance can happen to anybody. So for example, I voted for Kerry. He didn't seem like anything special to me, but I'd seen what Bush did and I figured pretty much anybody would be better. Now as it happened, there were people who decided that Kerry would be a disaster based on his war record. That doesn't make a lot of sense -- Kerry's military record is so bad you vote for *Bush*? Who's military records somehow got lost.... So that's two sets of voters deciding who to vote for based on the idea that the other guy is so bad they have to vote for this one. But there were some people who convinced themselves that Kerry was marvelous and perfect. Now, suppose Kerry had won the election, and then suppose that he'd gotten the approval of congress and then did exactly what Bush has done. I expect that I'd feel pretty bad about that, but I'd be 100% sure that Bush would have been much worse. (Even though in reality Bush has done just what I'm pretending Kerry would have done.) So I'd feel like I hadn't made a mistake after all. And the people who thought Kerry was great before would be coming up with excuses for each new disaster. They'd be explaining why Kerry was doing a great job, and things weren't as bad as they looked. They'd blame the republicans for pointing out every little problem in iraq, and when Kerry was attacking SS they'd be talking about what a crisis SS was in, and they'd be saying we need the tax cuts to drive the economy, and so on. Meanwhile you guys would be telling us what a total disaster it all was. It can happen to anybody. But you need to see your beliefs fail before it can happen to you. I didn't get the chance this time because Bush won and he's lived down to my expectations of him. If I'm real hopeful about the winner in 2008 then it might be my turn.
> it isn't that ridiculous to think of Kerry following Bush's policies But, isn't it is less likely that the Republican controlled corruption machine would have gone along with a Democratic administration full of lies, corruption, and war-profiteering, in the way they've supported a Republican administration full of lies, corruption, and war-profiteering? That is to say, splitting control is one way to fight the rampant corruption we see now in the administration, the RNC, and the K-street Congressional vote selling operation. In other words, do you buy the argument of party split to prevent widespread corruption as we have now?
Delta, I don't think splitting it between two parties solves the problem. We'd still get a whole lot of corruption. But putting it all into one party is clearly awful. I'd rather see more of a multiparty nation. I think we could get there if we did Instant Runoff Voting. You vote first for the candidate you like best, and next for the candidate you like next-best, down to -- perhaps -- last for the second-worst candidate. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes then your vote counts for the second choice, and down the line. So you could afford to vote for a third-party guy you like, you wouldn't be throwing your vote away. And also multiple republicans could run for the same office. They aren't splitting the vote, you can vote for as many of them as you want. I like this approach much better than multiple party lists, where you vote for the party and the number of votes determines how many representatives from the list get in. That way, the party is everything. But with IRV you can vote for the candidates you like. It might be easier to catch corruption when it isn't just one opposition party you have to persuade to keep it quiet. In economics, we don't expect good competition when there are only two sellers -- that's oligopoly. Posted by: J Thomas at April 15, 2006 04:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
As I figured. Not only is Bush stupid, he is evil, drunk and on drugs, and isolated. Good. Sharp. Impressive. Posted by: Paul at April 15, 2006 04:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
-- Not only is Bush stupid, he is evil, drunk and on drugs, and isolated. I disagree, I genuinely believe that Bush is a sober man of moderate intelligence with millions of zealous supporters. There is evidence to support this. It is, however, also my belief that he has not competendly managed the war in Iraq. There is evidence to support this also. I think it is therefore reasonable to conclude based on the evidence, that Bush is a sober man of moderate intelligence who has millions of ardent supporters despite his imcompetent handling of the war. This leads us in search of the evidence to answer one question, after all that has happened, are the hordes of unquestioning Bushites stupid, evil, drunk or on drugs? Posted by: Bob at April 15, 2006 08:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
"At the very lest, Bush has the wisdom to recognize what has been obvious to me since the day I lived in Moscow, Russia in 1991 (my ex owned Pravda) that the Russian mafia was selling under the table all sorts of arms and state secrets (like how to effectively hide things) to Iran, Iraq, Syria etc, that Americans lived under a utopian news black-out bubble and that indeed not everyone around the world was on board the progressive's collective 'peace, love and understanding Magic bus' tour." This is disjointed and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, I never rode that bus, personally. Nor did a host of retired senoir military officers; Zinni, etc. "Right. Sure. There is nothing, zero, nada to indicate that Bush isn't a reasonably intelligent man. Actually, in life accomplishments there is everything to prove otherwise. I wonder who has the cognitive dissidence?" Really now. Care to share some examples of Bush's high degree of intelligence and competence? I guess the baseball stadium scheme shows an ability to successfully manipulate a below board insider deal within local politics, but is there anything else? Posted by: avedis at April 15, 2006 08:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
I still think this profoundly unserious man was a better choice than the feckless and even more unserious Kerry, but I have to admit it's a competition I hope our nation never has to revisit. How the Republican Party allows it's latter day Mark Hanna's to put a man this unworthy in power is a disgrace, and the best argument for abandoning the party system I can imagine. Kerry floated to the top of the bowl out of ignorance and exhaustion on the Dem side, not out of any strategery. Still, if we ever have to pick between the evil of two lessers like this again, I would consider moving my kids to Australia. Posted by: wks at April 15, 2006 09:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think is not stuipid or untalented---except in those areas relevant to carrying out his duties as Potus.
excuse me for not being appropriately upset. In three years we have committed such grave atrocities that we have nearly matched a single day's effort amoung the typical arab state. For shame. Posted by: moron99 at April 16, 2006 01:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
> I'd rather see more of a multiparty nation. But, isn't this rather pie-in-the-sky? That is, can you imagine the Democrats or the Republicans going along with getting rid of the electoral college? I cannot -- getting rid of it (of the winner-take-all system) would weaken the two-party stranglehold, and I cannot imagine either party doing that voluntarily. re: moron's justification that we're not as bad as "typical arab state" This type of talking point, that even if we torture people in the same torture facilities as Saddam Hussein, at least we don't torture as many people, or even if we use as torture techniques the torture techniques which were used on our soldiers by the Viet Cong, at least we don't torture as many people -- this type of talking point does not impress me as being very morally respectable, much less very useful to combatting the propaganda being put out by many Imams now, that the US is the great Satan which likes to kill and torture Moslems... Posted by: delta at April 16, 2006 09:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
But, isn't this rather pie-in-the-sky? Yes. But our electoral system is systemicly broken. Not just the presidential part, the legislators too. We aren't going to get an adequate result without fundamental changes, and so we'll hve to put up with the problems. Getting executive and legislature split between parties will help some, when they happen to be split. We have IRV for local elections in San Francisco, and Burlington, VT. If we can keep putting it in for local elections, and state elections, and keep pointing out the problems until 80% of the public agrees, eventually we will get results even at the federal level. In 50 years or even less we might get a degree of actual reform.
You silly, unserious people. The question Bush was asked dealt with current legal issues regarding, in essence, the powers in Article II of the Constitution. Bush was thinking about what he could say, without "commenting on a pending legal matter," in which case he couldn't comment. The fact this hasn't been addressed yet shows this blog, its readers, and it's ideology, is proufoundly ignorant and unserious. Easyliving Posted by: Easyliving at April 16, 2006 11:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Easyliving, which do you expect Bush will be in the pending trial, plaintiff or defendant?
Bush will play the president who nominated and got two justices who see things the way he does. Soon, it will be three justices. Be afraid. Posted by: easyliving at April 17, 2006 06:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
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
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
Non-English Language Press
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
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
Books
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:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
