July 19, 2006
President Doofus Bush : please let me be president, please, pretty please, pleeeeaaaasssse
Ron Suskind's new book, "The One Percent Solution" is chock full
of episodes depicting the flim-flam artists currently running our
government. Amidst a number of alarming scenarios, President Bush, our
nominal leader, is not so delicately cut out of the loop and therefore
denied critical information at times by Vice President Dick Cheney and
others. Bush chooses not to correct the situation nor accept the
responsibility that comes with his position. 'Plausible deniability' is
not just the phrase du jour but each and every day. My commentary will
follow these book review excerpts.
Michiko Kakutani
New York Times
June 20, 2006
In "The One Percent Doctrine," he (Suskind) writes that Mr. Cheney's
nickname inside the C.I.A. was Edgar (as in Edgar Bergen), casting Mr.
Bush in the puppet role of Charlie McCarthy, and cites one instance
after another in which the president was not fully briefed (or had
failed to read the basic paperwork) about a crucial situation.
During a November 2001 session with the president, Mr. Suskind
recounts, a C.I.A. briefer realized that the Pentagon had not told Mr.
Bush of the C.I.A.'s urgent concern that Osama bin Laden might escape
from the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan if United States reinforcements
were not promptly sent in. And several months later, he says, attendees
at a meeting between Mr. Bush and the Saudis discovered after the fact
that an important packet laying out the Saudis' views about the
Israeli-Palestinian situation had been diverted to the vice president's
office and never reached the president.
Keeping information away from the president, Mr. Suskind argues, was a
calculated White House strategy that gave Mr. Bush "plausible
deniability" from Mr. Cheney's point of view, and that perfectly meshed
with the commander in chief's own impatience with policy details.
Suggesting that Mr. Bush deliberately did not read the full National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was delivered to the White House
in the fall of 2002, Mr. Suskind writes: "Keeping certain knowledge
from Bush — much of it shrouded, as well, by classification — meant
that the president, whose each word circles the globe, could advance
various strategies by saying whatever was needed. He could essentially
be 'deniable' about his own statements."
"Whether Cheney's innovations were tailored to match Bush's
inclinations, or vice versa, is almost immaterial," Mr. Suskind
continues. "It was a firm fit. Under this strategic model, reading the
entire N.I.E. would be problematic for Bush: it could hem in the
president's rhetoric, a key weapon in the march to war. He would know
too much."
Barton Gellman
Washington Post
June 20, 2006
...This "Cheney Doctrine" let Bush evade analytic debate, Suskind
writes, and "rely on impulse and improvisation to a degree that was
without precedent for a modern president." But that approach
constricted the mission of the intelligence and counterterrorism
professionals whose point of view dominates this book. Many of them
came to believe, Suskind reports, that "their jobs were not to help
shape policy, but to affirm it."
...Three months later, with bin Laden holed up in the Afghan mountain
redoubt of Tora Bora, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan
campaign, Henry A. Crumpton (now the State Department's
counterterrorism chief), brought a detailed map to Bush and Cheney.
White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to
believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden
cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S.
troops to get him. But Crumpton's message in the Oval Office, as told
through Suskind, was blunt: The surrogate forces were "definitely not"
up to the job, and "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful."
...Suskind's portrait of Tenet, respectful but far from adulatory,
depicts a man compromised by "insecurity and gratitude" to a president
who chose not to fire him after 9/11. "At that point, George Tenet
would do anything his President asked," Suskind writes.
...Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,"
Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh
methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind
reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces
the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They
withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh
lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of
plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets,
water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn
Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of
uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so,
Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed
man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."
Oh, where to start. Let's try the business model approach:
*** Name a successful and respected company that employs a CEO
who decides not to base policies and actions on facts and other
information because such might limit possibilities?
*** Name a successful and respected CEO who would allow a VP to dictate what information does and doesn't reach him?
*** Name a successful and respected CEO whose modus operandi is
'knowledge complicates matters so I make decisions using my gut and looking into the souls of people' ?
*** Name a successful and respected CEO who primarily relies on impulse
and improvisation, who dictates outcomes and then order his staff to
create the 'facts' around the desired outcome?
*** Name a successful and respected CEO who, on the cusp of taking out
a pathological opponent (Bin Laden) refuses to send his own top staff
in to close the
deal. despite the warning that such is necessary.
As for George Tenet, any head of international intelligence for this
country should have the fortitude and morality to resign before
compromising the agency he leads. A name for Tenet to recall: former
U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson, who resigned in 1973 rather
than obey President Nixon's order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald
Cox.
Regarding the torture of Abu Zubaydah and the Keystone Cops-style
ensemble that followed, the President of the United States elects to
implement torture on his watch bereft of the knowledge if such actually
works. A simple call to the prime minister of Israel would have quickly
answered that question.
President Bush's actions are of someone absent basic core values or
beliefs. He displays a lack of even the most rudimentary curiosity
about the world and exhibits a brazen laziness regarding the 'knowledge
intake' an effective and responsible president must continually
undergo. The shirking of his position's foremost charge--to serve and
protect is a dereliction of his ultimate duty. Agreeable to being a prop rather than
someone engaging the full responsibilities of leading the most important
country on this earth is so inconceivable even fiction writers couldn't top this.
Ultimately, we are paying the price for another George Bush absence of duty, our military most of all. But it's
not like such is a new pattern of behavior for him.
top
RSS feed
|