July 4, 2007
Dan Froomkin leads the mainstream columnists to water but...
Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin is simply a must-read -- do
visit his column every day for no other journalist cuts through the
daily spin like Froomkin. In the following, he uses material from a
fellow Washington Poster - Peter Baker - in providing a purview into
the inner workings of George W. Bush.
Don't hold your breath for David Broder to ever write a la Froomkin:
"...But to me, it sounds like Bush is looking not for answers -- but for rationalizations for his behavior..."
or
"...In other words,
even while reaching out for advice, he remains firmly in a state of
denial. And it's not just about Iraq..."
or
"...The infamous Bush Bubble seems largely intact..."
It certainly is curious that the WP spends four days leading with a
series on the darkside of Dick Cheney and then follows that up with
Baker's look at what makes Bush tick.
Peering Inside Bush's Head
Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
July 2, 2007
It's open season on psychoanalyzing President Bush.
The Washington Post this morning unfurls a 3,000-word
attempt to figure out what's going on inside Bush's head as his
presidency collapses around him. A particular mystery: How he is able
to remain so calm and resolute amid so many signs of his own failures.
Peter Baker leads his piece with word that Bush has been
summoning authors and philosophers to the White House -- "looking for
answers," it is said, to such questions as: "What is the nature of good
and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world? What lessons does history have for
a president facing the turmoil I'm facing? How will history judge what
we've done? Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America? Or is
it just me they hate?"
But to me, it sounds like Bush is looking not for answers --
but for rationalizations for his behavior. There is no sign of genuine
introspection, no sign of acknowledgment of mistakes, no sign of any
significant change of course. In a pattern familiar to anyone who has
ever had a drinking problem, Bush appears to be engaged in a furious
effort to persuade onlookers that he's fine -- even if he isn't.
In fact, one could even argue that Bush's search for
"answers" from a parade of easily cowed visitors allows him to avoid a
hard look at the one place he is most likely to find an explanation for
his predicament: Within himself.
Here's the link to Froomkin's entire column.
Here's the link to the Peter Baker column Froomkin utilizes.
Here's the beginning paragraphs, followed by the link, to a recent
Washington Post column by former Baltimore Sun White House
correspondent Lynne Olson. In it, she makes the case that George Bush
is more Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill.
Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W
George W. Bush always wanted to be like a wartime British prime minister. He is. But it's not the one he had in mind.
Lynne Olson
The Washington Post
July 1, 2007; Page B01
President Bush's favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston
Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British
prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls "a stern-looking
bust" of Churchill in the Oval Office. "He watches my every move," Bush
jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what
he sees.
I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working
on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of
Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced
Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his
successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War
II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has
been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it,
but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of
Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused,
to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the
Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical
record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and
Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.
Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost
no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with
international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone
could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself
with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him
otherwise.
Go here for the complete article.
top
RSS feed
|