Be realistic about the Bush team
Be realistic about the Bush team
By Jurek Martin
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: November 22 2006 16:54 | Last updated: November 22 2006 16:54
As every journalist knows but never admits in public, there are some stories that are simply too good to check. Here is a lovely one picked up on the Washington circuit.
It is the Sunday before the midterm elections earlier this month at George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. A small delegation confronts the president of the US. It consists of his wife, Laura, his mother, Barbara, and his father’s consigliere, James Baker. They have a two part message to convey.
First the president must tell Donald Rumsfeld it is time to leave the Pentagon. Second – and this is the delicious part – he must do so without telling his own vice president, Dick Cheney. Three days later the secretary of defence announces his resignation.
I don’t have the sources in the Bush team to confirm this. We do know that the president was in Crawford that Sunday because he told the world his final interview with Robert Gates to succeed Mr Rumsfeld was held that day (Baker probably had him hidden away in a barn). And we do know Mr Cheney was duck hunting many miles away on election day and has not been heard from since.
But mostly the story compels – and sounds plausible – because it fits the generally held perception that the elections meant the demise of the foreign policy hardliners who have held sway since the early days of this presidency and the return to power of the “realist” school so associated with father Bush and so alienated from the son (hence the mother’s presence in the delegation).
After all, it is Mr Baker’s Iraq Study Group that is supposed to come up with a plan soon to pull the American chestnuts out of the Iraqi fire – or at least give the president some face-saving cover for a moderation of policies. In a Wall Street Journal column last week, Reuel Marc Gerecht, an adviser to the group, warned not to expect miracles but, in its current mood, Washington expects rabbits out of the hat.
The trouble with conventional wisdom, though, is that it is sometimes wrong. For all the popular talk of new realism, bipartisanship and moderation, there is not a lot of evidence that it is taking hold at all in the mindset of the administration.
For a start the president himself, on his Asian travels and at home, has not publicly deviated one whit from the “stay the course” policy in Iraq he officially abandoned before the elections. Meeting the Iraqi prime minister in Jordan next week implies greater personal engagement on his part, but Nouri al-Maliki has seemed increasingly impervious to American pressure.
And, whatever else he may be, Mr Bush is stubborn. He also does not easily admit to mistakes. It was one thing for Richard Nixon to change spots and go off to China, but it may be another for this president to make a comparable quantum leap.
Second, the known Iraq options under consideration by the US military brass – in shorthand, “Go Big”, “Go Long” or “Go Home” – have been on the table for months now. And the third of these has already been rejected.
Next, there have been no concessions from the administration in assorted disparate actions reflecting the supposed post-election reality. The president still wants the arch neo-conservative John Bolton permanently confirmed by the outgoing lame duck Congress to the UN ambassadorship he will have to vacate when the new Democratic majority Congress convenes in January. There has even been talk of extra-curricula methods of keeping Mr Bolton in the post.
Unless the Democrats are collectively asleep at the wheel, there is no chance of this happening. Nor is there of Congress, lame duck or otherwise, confirming the long-stalled nominations of four conservative judges to the federal bench – but this did not prevent the administration from putting their names forward again as soon as the last votes were counted.
Finally, Mr Cheney may be lying low but it requires a big stretch of the imagination to conclude that has folded his tent and will, in future, devote himself to duck hunting in undisclosed locations. Power is addictive and he has enjoyed so much of for so long that the better bet is surely that he’ll be back manipulating those levers of power, mostly out of sight but never out of the presidential ear (on John Bolton, for example).
His relationship with Mr Rumsfeld was so close that it is difficult to know how he’ll get on with Mr Gates, though they go back a long time together. One early indication will be whether two influential, and controversial, aides of Mr Rumsfeld, Steve Cambone and General Jerry Boykin, stay or go. If the former, the vice president will have won another one.
He is also a serious poker player. It is worth thinking back to the first nine months of the Bush presidency when he orchestrated some brilliant bluffs, turning an almost non-existent electoral mandate into major changes in policy (tax cuts, unilateralism in foreign policy etc). The calamity of 9/11 merely gave him more cards to play with. Having fewer now does not mean he has folded.
How the Democrats play their hand is the great imponderable. Large questions still hang over the effectiveness of their leadership, not lessened by the clumsy way Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker-elect, has handled two important party leadership positions.
As Barney Frank, the smartest Democrat in the House, has noted, it is not easy to make foreign policy from the legislative branch. It can be influenced, through the budgetary process and by holding hearings, but not directed from Capitol Hill. Thus the emerging Democratic consensus in favour of redeployment of US troops from Iraq, which is what the electorate voted for, cannot be translated into immediate action if the administration baulks.
All of which suggests that the delicious Crawford story, even if true, is not the end of the game by a long chalk. Indeed, the only good option on the American table this week is the Thanksgiving turkey – and it can cause indigestion.
onohana@aol.com
By Jurek Martin
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: November 22 2006 16:54 | Last updated: November 22 2006 16:54
As every journalist knows but never admits in public, there are some stories that are simply too good to check. Here is a lovely one picked up on the Washington circuit.
It is the Sunday before the midterm elections earlier this month at George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. A small delegation confronts the president of the US. It consists of his wife, Laura, his mother, Barbara, and his father’s consigliere, James Baker. They have a two part message to convey.
First the president must tell Donald Rumsfeld it is time to leave the Pentagon. Second – and this is the delicious part – he must do so without telling his own vice president, Dick Cheney. Three days later the secretary of defence announces his resignation.
I don’t have the sources in the Bush team to confirm this. We do know that the president was in Crawford that Sunday because he told the world his final interview with Robert Gates to succeed Mr Rumsfeld was held that day (Baker probably had him hidden away in a barn). And we do know Mr Cheney was duck hunting many miles away on election day and has not been heard from since.
But mostly the story compels – and sounds plausible – because it fits the generally held perception that the elections meant the demise of the foreign policy hardliners who have held sway since the early days of this presidency and the return to power of the “realist” school so associated with father Bush and so alienated from the son (hence the mother’s presence in the delegation).
After all, it is Mr Baker’s Iraq Study Group that is supposed to come up with a plan soon to pull the American chestnuts out of the Iraqi fire – or at least give the president some face-saving cover for a moderation of policies. In a Wall Street Journal column last week, Reuel Marc Gerecht, an adviser to the group, warned not to expect miracles but, in its current mood, Washington expects rabbits out of the hat.
The trouble with conventional wisdom, though, is that it is sometimes wrong. For all the popular talk of new realism, bipartisanship and moderation, there is not a lot of evidence that it is taking hold at all in the mindset of the administration.
For a start the president himself, on his Asian travels and at home, has not publicly deviated one whit from the “stay the course” policy in Iraq he officially abandoned before the elections. Meeting the Iraqi prime minister in Jordan next week implies greater personal engagement on his part, but Nouri al-Maliki has seemed increasingly impervious to American pressure.
And, whatever else he may be, Mr Bush is stubborn. He also does not easily admit to mistakes. It was one thing for Richard Nixon to change spots and go off to China, but it may be another for this president to make a comparable quantum leap.
Second, the known Iraq options under consideration by the US military brass – in shorthand, “Go Big”, “Go Long” or “Go Home” – have been on the table for months now. And the third of these has already been rejected.
Next, there have been no concessions from the administration in assorted disparate actions reflecting the supposed post-election reality. The president still wants the arch neo-conservative John Bolton permanently confirmed by the outgoing lame duck Congress to the UN ambassadorship he will have to vacate when the new Democratic majority Congress convenes in January. There has even been talk of extra-curricula methods of keeping Mr Bolton in the post.
Unless the Democrats are collectively asleep at the wheel, there is no chance of this happening. Nor is there of Congress, lame duck or otherwise, confirming the long-stalled nominations of four conservative judges to the federal bench – but this did not prevent the administration from putting their names forward again as soon as the last votes were counted.
Finally, Mr Cheney may be lying low but it requires a big stretch of the imagination to conclude that has folded his tent and will, in future, devote himself to duck hunting in undisclosed locations. Power is addictive and he has enjoyed so much of for so long that the better bet is surely that he’ll be back manipulating those levers of power, mostly out of sight but never out of the presidential ear (on John Bolton, for example).
His relationship with Mr Rumsfeld was so close that it is difficult to know how he’ll get on with Mr Gates, though they go back a long time together. One early indication will be whether two influential, and controversial, aides of Mr Rumsfeld, Steve Cambone and General Jerry Boykin, stay or go. If the former, the vice president will have won another one.
He is also a serious poker player. It is worth thinking back to the first nine months of the Bush presidency when he orchestrated some brilliant bluffs, turning an almost non-existent electoral mandate into major changes in policy (tax cuts, unilateralism in foreign policy etc). The calamity of 9/11 merely gave him more cards to play with. Having fewer now does not mean he has folded.
How the Democrats play their hand is the great imponderable. Large questions still hang over the effectiveness of their leadership, not lessened by the clumsy way Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker-elect, has handled two important party leadership positions.
As Barney Frank, the smartest Democrat in the House, has noted, it is not easy to make foreign policy from the legislative branch. It can be influenced, through the budgetary process and by holding hearings, but not directed from Capitol Hill. Thus the emerging Democratic consensus in favour of redeployment of US troops from Iraq, which is what the electorate voted for, cannot be translated into immediate action if the administration baulks.
All of which suggests that the delicious Crawford story, even if true, is not the end of the game by a long chalk. Indeed, the only good option on the American table this week is the Thanksgiving turkey – and it can cause indigestion.
onohana@aol.com
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 8:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home