— Hamlet, William Shakespeare
Give us shelter.
In an important and clarifying article that appears this month in The New York Review of Books, author Mark Danner contends that there has really been two wars going on in Iraq.
An imaginary war — the one which the administrations touts, full of “turning points’ and “dead-enders” in their “last throes” — and the actual war on the ground, the one that reporters report, the one exploding nightly outside the 4-mile-square perimeter known as the Green Zone, a vast bunker, redundantly fortified, with no windows looking out.
So invested is the administration in its own imaginary narrative, Danner argues, that our government is unable to figure out not only when or how possibly this war could end, but where it began:
“For as the war’s presumed ending — constructed from carefully crafted images of triumph, of dictators’ statues cast down and presidents striding forcefully across aircraft carrier decks — has flickered and vanished, receding into the just-out-of-grasp future (’a decision for the next president,’ the pre-election President Bush had said), the war’s beginning has likewise melted away, the original rationale obscured in a darkening welter of shifting intelligence, ideological controversy, and conflicting claims, all of it hemmed in now on all sides by the mounting dead.”
More from Iraq: the War of the Imagination by Mark Danner:
Irresistible as Donald Rumsfeld is, however, the story of the Iraq war disaster springs less from his brow than from that of an inexperienced and rigidly self-assured president who managed to fashion, with the help of a powerful vice-president, a strikingly disfigured process of governing….
[Advice from the National Security Council] is precisely what the President didn’t want, particularly after September 11; deeply distrustful of the bureaucracy, desirous of quick, decisive action, impatient with bureaucrats and policy intellectuals, the President wanted to act. Ron Suskind [in his book The One Percent Doctrine] writes:
For George W. Bush, there had been an evolution on such matters — from the early, pre-9/11 President, who had little grasp of foreign affairs and made few major decisions in that realm; to the post-9/11 President, who met America’s foreign challenges with decisiveness born of a brand of preternatural, faith-based, self-generated certainty.The policy process, in fact, never changed much. Issues argued, often vociferously, at the level of deputies and principals rarely seemed to go upstream in their fullest form to the President’s desk; and, if they did, it was often after Bush seemed to have already made up his mind based on what was so often cited as his “instinct” or “gut.”
Bob Woodward [in his book State of Denial] tends to blame “the broken policy process” on the relative strength of personalities gathered around the cabinet table: the power and ruthlessness of Rumsfeld, the legendary “bureaucratic infighter”; the weakness of Condi Rice, the very function and purpose of whose job, to let the President both benefit from and control the bureaucracy, was in effect eviscerated.
Suskind, more convincingly, argues that Bush and Dick Cheney constructed precisely the government they wanted: centralized, highly secretive, its clean, direct lines of decision unencumbered by information or consultation. [In other words, the president was in "a bubble", right -- ed.]
“There was never any policy process to break, by Condi or anyone else,” Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, remarks to Suskind. “There was never one from the start. Bush didn’t want one, for whatever reason.” Suskind suggests why in an acute analysis of personality and leadership:
Of the many reasons the President moved in this direction, the most telling may stem from George Bush’s belief in his own certainty and, especially after 9/11, his need to protect the capacity to will such certainty in the face of daunting complexity. His view of right and wrong, and of righteous actions — such as attacking evil or spreading “God’s gift” of democracy — were undercut by the kind of traditional, shades-of-gray analysis that has been a staple of most presidents’ diets.This President’s traditional day began with Bible reading at dawn, a workout, breakfast, and the briefings of foreign and domestic threats…. The hard, complex analysis, in this model, would often be a thin offering, passed through the filters of Cheney or Rice, or not presented at all.
…This granted certain unique advantages to Bush. With fewer people privy to actual decisions, tighter confidentiality could be preserved, reducing leaks. Swift decisions — either preempting detailed deliberation or ignoring it — could move immediately to implementation, speeding the pace of execution and emphasizing the hows rather than the more complex whys.
What Bush knew before, or during, a key decision remained largely a mystery. Only a tiny group — Cheney, Rice, Andy Card, Karl Rove, Mark Tenet, Rumsfeld — could break this seal.
None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who was paying close attention to the Presidential campaign of 2000. The cards were all out on the table:
- The lack of verbal or intellectual precision in the man
- The air of the happy-go-lucky preppy proud of his anti-intellectualism (to be smart, we were told, was “elitist”)
- The fact that, of the two candidates, George W. Bush was judged by the press to be the one “the voters most wanted to have a beer with” — that such a criterion was thought even remotely consequential
- The ever-present smirk, registering rich-boy impatience, when confronted with difficulty
- Finally: The faith-based certitude of a man who when asked who his favorite philosopher was — a question that one might expect would prompt the name of some important political thinker — replied “Jesus.” (Reason: “He changed my heart.”)
Six years and counting, two wars in progress, and still the legacy is not complete. Give us shelter.
I think there’s yes and no with that overview. I agree with a lot of that, but at the same time we give him too much credit for decision-making and policy-making. Remember when things were getting rough a while back and all he could think about was fishing?
This is a rigid, simplistic person, but also a failure and an avoider. He’s underachieved his whole life. He was put into that office by kingmakers and architects. In a sense, he does their bidding. Only they make it seem as if he’s making the decisions. Have you ever gotten a child to do something by making him/her believe it was what he wanted all along?
It’s hard to remember back, but pre-911 showed us a president who was uneasy, uncomfortable, smallish in stature, easily confused, uninformed and directionless. Nothing was going particularly well. Then after 911 the country was galvanized, and Rove provided a message and a direction. After that, the rest was easy. Cut off access to the president, control the message, and provide a strong dose of religion and nationalism. After 911 George was simply not alone anymore, the wheels of power politics took over, and he went along for the ride.
One thing people don’t seem to comprehend is that, unlike Bill Clinton, who is obsessed with improving his legacy (and why not, as the only IMPEACHED U. S. President of modern times, his legacy is in a lot of trouble), George W. Bush couldn’t care less about what the press or people like those here at ‘nightcharm’ think about him. History will duly record his presidency as much superior to Clinton’s. I think it’s safe to say history will record ANYONE’S Presidency as superior to Clinton’s–except perhaps Jimmie Carter’s.
I still don’t understand how perpetual Bush-bashing is supposed to enhance a porn site. All it does is give us an idea of the sick minds at work behind such a porn site.
Speaking as a foregner I’m British, it is obviously very diffficult for Republicans when they have a President who has done so much to damage their own Party. President Clinton did more for promoting peace in the world and especially in Northern Island than President Bush, of that I am sure.
A faith based President, like a faith based Prime Minister ultimately invites nothing but potential disaster to the people they are sworn to lead.
frankblack,
As far as “sick minds” working on this site: we notice you’re here too.
As we’ve said before, you can easily avoid the political pieces that seem to be destroying your experience on our “sick” site.
Why do conservatives want to reform the tastes and opinions of others? Why must their “moral outrage” always seek public redress? When all they have to do is not turn on the show or not go to the movie or not read the article or simply avoid the distasteful website? Instead, it seems they feel entitled to police the tastes and opinions of their fellow citizens. This is presumptuous. It would be futile with children, let alone grown men and women.
Why can’t conservatives simply have their opinions, state them forcefully, and leave it at that? Instead, conservatives have to get on very high horses to express outrage that anyone would think differently, call them “traitors” and “commies” and “sick.”
Is authority supposed to be worshiped in our country now? Is authority that fragile that it must be propped up with strong-arm attempts to cut out other people’s tongues? Aren’t conservatives suppose to be the “liberty” people, the “self-reliance” crowd, the “free-market” cheerleaders. Right, except no “free market” for dissenting opinions. (Old joke: Republican slogan — Socialism for the corporations; “free market” for everybody else.)
It’s one thing to have a contrary opinion, it’s another when you seek to stifle the opinions of others. Particularly, as at the current time, when conservatives need to wrap themselves up in the flag and the cross to do it.
Let ideas dissent and clash, fall or stand on their own — without the theatrics. The best answer to a bad idea is a good one. To quote Susan Sontage, “The only interesting answer is one that destroys the question.”
So rock on, frankblack. But don’t tread on us.
Yo, Frank Blackkkkkkk,
Let’s say in 2008, the Congress decides presidents can have a 3rd term. So your boy George W. goes up against our fabulous Bill Clinton. Who do you think the American people would run, stampede and leap hurdles to go out and vote for?
Even Barney and Miz Beadsley know the answer to that one.
The impeachment of President Clinton was a Republican “stunt,” perpetrated by the Republican House of Representatives, never ratified by the Senate — and never supported by the American people. If you recall, Clinton’s positive poll numbers soared after the impeachment. Also no soldiers or Iraqis were harmed, or died, or lost their limbs when Bill Clinton got a blowjob.
BUSH IS AN INTERNATIONAL JOKE AND AN AMERICAN EMBARRASSMENT.
Amen to Nightcharm, brother.
…”Is authority that fragile that it must be propped up with strong-arm attempts to cut out other people’s tongues?”
There are always compelling comments here on nightcharm. This site is a blessing. I appreciate the thoughtful observations on this topic, and this sentence is interesting as well. IS authority that fragile? It must be, because there are always brown shirts around to continually prop it up and identify the dissenters.
I hope my own comments were not simplisticly seen as “bashing.” Because I could care less about the man, really. But the profound effect he has had on our country and my own liberties are undeniable, and therefore are what is of interest to me. A discussion of that is inevitable and necessary in the interest of the democracy. If someone opposes that, they really protest too loudly, I think, because it reveals exactly what their goals are in regards to where they want this nation headed.
Frankblack,
Only superior minds know tha W is an idiot- and the worst president ever. How anyone cannot see that is beyond me.But maybe that’s because y’all can’t see cause you’re all stuck up each other’s ass.
I WAS gonna say something in response to Frank Black (?!), but Nightcharm and Nick took the words right out of my mouth.
Consider the following question: what political ideology combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-liberalism? Do you recognize these above verbs as they have manifested themselves in the Bush administrations policies?
These are the encyclopedic parameters of one radial ideology in particular. It is know more commonly as Fascism.
If you doubt my word, look it up for yourself.
We should all be leary of anything this administration has done, or will do.
One of my favorite things about this site is how diehard Bushies and Conservatives seem to love trolling all this gay-themed content.