Pretty Scary Stuff

[anatta]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...l&position


Please read the above article in full. The following I cut and pasted from the article:


Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''

Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''


The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.

But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.

The Delaware senator was, in fact, hearing what Bush's top deputies -- from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq -- have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president's decisions, policies that often seemed to collide with accepted facts. The president would say that he relied on his ''gut'' or his ''instinct'' to guide the ship of state, and then he ''prayed over it.'' The old pro Bartlett, a deliberative, fact-based wonk, is finally hearing a tune that has been hummed quietly by evangelicals (so as not to trouble the secular) for years as they gazed upon President George W. Bush. This evangelical group -- the core of the energetic ''base'' that may well usher Bush to victory -- believes that their leader is a messenger from God. And in the first presidential debate, many Americans heard the discursive John Kerry succinctly raise, for the first time, the issue of Bush's certainty -- the issue being, as Kerry put it, that ''you can be certain and be wrong.''

What underlies Bush's certainty? And can it be assessed in the temporal realm of informed consent?

All of this -- the ''gut'' and ''instincts,'' the certainty and religiosity -connects to a single word, ''faith,'' and faith asserts its hold ever more on debates in this country and abroad. That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility -- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House. As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!'' (Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is now a leader of the president's re-election effort in New Jersey.)

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency.

The faith-based presidency is a with-us-or-against-us model that has been enormously effective at, among other things, keeping the workings and temperament of the Bush White House a kind of state secret. The dome of silence cracked a bit in the late winter and spring, with revelations from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and also, in my book, from the former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. When I quoted O'Neill saying that Bush was like ''a blind man in a room full of deaf people,'' this did not endear me to the White House. But my phone did begin to ring, with Democrats and Republicans calling with similar impressions and anecdotes about Bush's faith and certainty. These are among the sources I relied upon for this article. Few were willing to talk on the record. Some were willing to talk because they said they thought George W. Bush might lose; others, out of fear of what might transpire if he wins. In either case, there seems to be a growing silence fatigue -- public servants, some with vast experience, who feel they have spent years being treated like Victorian-era children, seen but not heard, and are tired of it. But silence still reigns in the highest reaches of the White House. After many requests, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said in a letter that the president and those around him would not be cooperating with this article in any way.

Some officials, elected or otherwise, with whom I have spoken with left meetings in the Oval Office concerned that the president was struggling with the demands of the job. Others focused on Bush's substantial interpersonal gifts as a compensation for his perceived lack of broader capabilities. Still others, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a Democrat, are worried about something other than his native intelligence. ''He's plenty smart enough to do the job,'' Levin said. ''It's his lack of curiosity about complex issues which troubles me.'' But more than anything else, I heard expressions of awe at the president's preternatural certainty and wonderment about its source.

There is one story about Bush's particular brand of certainty I am able to piece together and tell for the record.

In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

[wacki]

"Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now."

Or what he'll chop off their head?

Just curious, how many people, and from what political parties/organizations do they have confirming this story. As time goes on I am becomming more and more cautious of the NYT's. During the Iraq invasion the NYT had a front page picture of a woman curled up on a ball on a bridge and a US soldier right next to her aiming a gun off into the distance. The title of the article was "US soldiers endanger lives of Iraqi Woman in crossfire". I couldn't believe it.

Then I looked down and saw the same picture of the woman on the bridge on the front cover of the Indianapolis Star. The title was "US soldiers risk lives to save woman". The Indianpolis Star actually took the time to interview the woman. At that moment I had for the first time in my life serious doubts about my favorite Newspaper, The New York Times. Since then it's only become worse. My dad has developed a habit of highlighting emotionally charged words in their political editorials. Needless to say, he uses alot of ink.

Look I'm not doubting that the story is true or not, I'm just wondering how many sources do they have confiming stories like this. From what it sounds like ("Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president.") most of this article is based off of hearsay. Did they even interview Joe Biden and ask him what he said in his story was true? I know it's not likely he was making up a story, but they could of atleast covered that base. I mean come on, atleast have some level of accountability. They didn't bother to interview the Iraqi woman on the bridge, so I'm guessing no.
Many eyes see many colors. I wonder if the NYT can see more than one.

Or if anything, do they say Bush has stopped listening to his own Administration? They say Cheney is the President, but if Bush is listening to his gut and only his gut how could Cheney be "the real president"?

Where is their follow up? A heavily anti-Bush article from a paper that is saying the government is being controlled by the radical right. Great, the US is being contolled by the Christian version of the Taliban. Ummm, ok. As more and more articles pop up like this I find it harder and harder to call the NYT's a Newspaper.

Oh well, at least they have some good writers like Thomas Friedman. But others, are just pure crap.

[Chris Alger]

Mainstream criticism of the Bush White House, like this one, typically focuses too much on his personality (excessively religious, overconfident in his abilities and judgment, alergic to complexity and ambiguity). The larger question of what kind of system propels a cipher like Bush to the top of the heap seems always to be avoided. One would think this surprising given that the striking similarities between Bush and Reagan regarding domestic and foreign policy (manufactured fiscal crises and gratuitous aggression), their tendency to pander (excessive by U.S. standards), their disdain for facts and details and their laissez-faire approach to daily management.

The better explanation is the more obvious one. Like Reagan, Bush is not in the White House because of his abilities or ideology but because of his electible pedigree and his willingness to take the advice of operatives who are highly esteemed by the GOP elite and its key constituencies (business, especially defense, and the cultural right). He's therefore more of a mouthpiece for his ostensible subordinates than his own person. The same qualities that would be disasterous for someone who truly aspired to personal power are well-suited to a systemt that seeks to carry out the predetermined consensus of elites, not all of whom have the same interests. This is hardly new, although historically we think of it as more frequent on the municipal level, where the mayor is an affable public face for more entrenched powers.

The idea of Bush as ignorant spokesman explains just as well his purported reliance on his "instincts" and "gut." He justifies himself with phrases like those because doesn't have anything else to say. He literally does not understand much about the policies he favors. He can't take a position and defend it, so he's "intolerant" of argument and dissent. None of these quirks bother his key supporters, however, because they understand that it has nothing to do with Bush's actual job.

[andyfox]

I see a big difference between Reagan's and Bush's foreign policies. Reagan was more in keeping with our traditional approaches: surreptitious subversion and infiltration (support for the Contras and the thugs in El Salvador), with an occasional foray into a can't lose situation (the takeover of Grenada, to protect it for tourism). The media sees Reagan as a watershed because he "won" the Cold War, which, of course, is a myth. Democrats were always at the forefront of big spending on Cold War weaponry and aggression. By the time Reagan became president, the USSR was on its last legs, bankrupt in every sense of the word. The guy who took over after the breakup was drunk and asleep as the meeting where Gorbachev disbanded the country.

Bush has truly been a watershed president. If you're not with us your against us means that we continue to assert our right to control events everywhere in the world where they don't please us, but more importantly, that we're going to do something about it. The Vietnam syndrome has now finally been truly banished.

James Bamford has a new book out about Bush and how the neocons have transformed the intgelligence agencies into their personal fiefdom to come up with the information they need.

[PhatTBoll]

This looks like a good discussion.
I just have one quick point to raise. Maybe when Bush told Biden that he relied on his "instincts" to make certain decisions, he wasn't telling the exact truth. Maybe this is just his default answer when some Democratic senator tries to tell him how to do his job.
I don't blame Biden and others for being alarmed, but I think this is something to consider.

[Chris Alger]

I certainly agree with you about the "winning" the Cold War nonsense, but I think the "watershed" of the Bush administration is still more one of timing and historical coincidence than any particular departure in ideology or approach. The blueprints for Bush's foreign policy, for example, have been developing forming for more than a decade, with Wolfowitz penning the rough drafts during Bush I. The only big difference appears to be Bush's open embrace of "big government conservatism." Compare this to the failed efforts of Reagan from about 1981-83 to actually pursue things like medicare and social security cutbacks, terribly unpopular moves that nearly cost him reelection. The lesson learned, if one wants to redistribute wealth from poor to rich, is to concentrate on tax cuts and defense spending, which, together with highly irritating but mostly harmless pandering to the cultural right, have been the pillars of GOP policy and rhetoric ever since.

Everyone should read Chapter 5 of Pretext for War.

[MaxPower]

This is what really disturbs me.

[ QUOTE ]
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush pretends to be anti-elitist, when in fact this notion is extremely elitist. This is an extremely dangerous philosophy, which I don't believe is compatible with democracy.

The 2nd quote just shows a condescending attitude toward the Republican base.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''

Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd put my instincts up against Kerry's any day. Look how his instincts failed him when he figured he could zing Mary Cheney without consequence.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
This looks like a good discussion.
I just have one quick point to raise. Maybe when Bush told Biden that he relied on his "instincts" to make certain decisions, he wasn't telling the exact truth. Maybe this is just his default answer when some Democratic senator tries to tell him how to do his job.
I don't blame Biden and others for being alarmed, but I think this is something to consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I do the exact same thing whenever there is someone that wants to argue with me that I don't have the time to deal with. Except I usually follow it up with "I've spent alot of time preparing and alot of time getting good advice from very capable people."

[wacki]

Maxpower,

I agree I don't like the first quote at all. The second quote is a different matter. One of my dad's partners was being interviewed by a woman from the NYT's for a progect he worked on. She kept on asking him did he get his idea/inspiration from New York's XYZ (person), or New York's XYZ (object). Several questions later, he realized what she was trying to do he simply said in a hillbilly accent: "Awww shucks, I dink we kinda just thunk it up ourselves." There are alot of people that think the best thing that comes out of the midwest is corn. Because of this, I know alot of staunch republicans who feel very similarly to the second quote. They do, however, read the NYT's and Wash Post. I've never seen one of them read the LA times though. But that could just be due to a small sample set.

I personally don't care about his mannerisms. I don't think they really matter when it comes to getting the job done. In fact, in a way I think they are a plus. Bush is so clumsy that it's very easy to tell when he messes up. Kerry is so smooth that he can get away with saying just about anything. I'm always much more cautious of the silver tongue.