![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdI'm posting this because it's much too much like what I've been picking up as how the Bush administration - and how President Bush in particular - works.
-----
Without a Doubt
By RON SUSKIND
October 17, 2004
TinyURL here: http://tinyurl.com/5nb83
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
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.)
Much, much more at the web site.
-----
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
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.''
Without a Doubt
By RON SUSKIND
October 17, 2004
TinyURL here: http://tinyurl.com/5nb83
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them...
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
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.)
Much, much more at the web site.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 12:49 am (UTC)I mean, honestly. Is he legally entitled to hold the office of President? Is he a purple lemur in a mask? Does he like to go home and have mad sex with shoggoths?
It doesn't have anything to do with Bush.
So, about Bush. Look. Proof is a bad standard. No one here has the primary sources to make a good proof either way.
Even if we had them, the longer you make an argument, and the stricter the requirements on each argument, the easier it is to pick holes in it.
Bush quacks like a duck.
That's all. It's not an outrageous accusation. It fits what I can see. It doesn't fit what you see. That's fine.
At some level you have to accept that "that's ridiculous" is the message *you* are bringing, to some people who think that the article is plausible.
And that makes you the one who needs to start with basic justification.
Because two people saying, "No, you're ridiculous" to one another is bad. And that's the standard you're setting.
At some level the demand for proof can kill discourse.
It's just as easy/hard to nag round earth scientists into inanity as it is to do the same to the flat earth society.
Why shouldn't I think Bush ignores reality?
He certainly doesn't see the things in reality that I see. I look at his abortion policy and see coathangers. I look at his Iraq policy and see endless preventable, unpunished evil. I look at the Patriot Act and see fear.
He sees the hand of God. Is this your God? Is this your reality?
What kind of proof are you even asking for?
Because there isn't much distance between 'you have to prove that he's been a bad President or you can't say it' and 'shut up'.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:01 am (UTC)We were attacked in the worse surprise attack in history. We know that more are to come. We know that if they get nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons they WILL use them. Thinking otherwise is foolish.
He's brought the war to -them-, he's cut down their support network, and now he's doing something about the place that breeds such rampant disrepest of life and the beliefs of others, agianst people who worship death.
Kerry is important because so many people hold him up as a better alternative. Kerry is nothing but a giggalo with an anti-american past. His voting record shows he won't do anything to protect us. His words tell us he'll cut and run.
Will Bush's attempt to bring freedom and democracy to the middle east work? I don't know, but I think it's worth a try, and sure beats the hell out of turning all of it into a radioactive glass heap.
Afganistan is free and had elections. Iraq is free and has been having elections. Terrorism has fallen dramatically. Libyia gave up it's nuclear weapons program. This is progress, and Bush brought it about. There are even large collitions of nations working to blockadge North Korea and Iran to stop them from getting any more nuclear technology.
My life is a lot freer than say my parents' was during WWII, I am not seeing any limitations put on my personal liberty. I am not seeing John Ashcroft conducting inquisitions. I have not seen duie process go out the window.
We were attacked. Thousands died. Playing nice isn't going to work. Neither is sticking one's head in the sand.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:05 am (UTC)Actually... it kind of hasn't. The numbers were revised upwards after the initial report, and instead of down, they were actually quite a lot up.
Also, the State Department seems to think that al Queda's membership has tripled since the invasion of Iraq.
I do think that we've been pretty good at cutting back their financial backing, though.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:17 am (UTC)Personally, I think he's dead, and the administration is concealing the death to prevent him from becoming a martyr.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:24 am (UTC)I agree that speculation about Bin Laden capture being an "October surprise" is uncalled for. Unless it can be shown that a capture was delayed for political effect, of course, but I don't believe that.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:12 am (UTC)I don't know if I'd agree with that analysis at all. Though I will agree that there has been a large influx of untrained people into area's like Iraq. However untrained people are not anywhere near as dangerous as the many trained members who have been killed. As an organisation it is becoming more ineffectual every day. Another year of this and it will cease to exist.
Don't forget that we took away their training grounds as well.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:40 am (UTC)Hello, is there a brain in there?
Date: 2004-10-17 06:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:30 am (UTC)I meant that he sees the hand and will of God in the policies I mentioned.
There are a lot of good reasons to have invaded Iraq. And he sees them. And a lot of good that came out of it. And he sees that. I know that because he's mentioned just about all of the good reasons and outcomes on TV. And rightly so.
I just don't know if he sees the evil that happened too.
I don't believe that the invasion was solidly founded on the will of good men to do good. I'm sorry :(
The invasion is a tree planted from desire, arrogance, anger, greed, hatred; and also the love for liberty, and freedom, and our fellow people of the world.
Its fruit is . . . suitable to its genesis.
I don't know if he sees that. He seems to think . . . that he did so *well*.
You dismissed the idea that torture is becoming legitimate somewhere in this thread. I know that the push to legitimize extraordinary rendition didn't come from Bush, but I'm curious if you know about that whole affair.
Rebecca
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:40 am (UTC)As for torture, it is a terrible way to gather information, and rarely works. All trained interrogators, Military and Civilian abhor its use because it rarely gains you anything. More often then not you get bad information because the subject will say whatever you want to hear, and if he is at all determined, he won't tell you what you want to know.
Yes there are people who at times resort to it. And they are always punished as soon as it is discovered.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:51 am (UTC)My own first exposure to the extraordinary rendition issue:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/005573.html
Have you seen this? (The general issue, not the post.)
Rebecca
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:57 am (UTC)If the country has a valid claim, and we have an extradiction treaty with them, well we have to honor that. But doing it to get information out of them? I think it's a bad idea. The threat is good, but the actual practice isn't. Because again, torture does not guarentee you good information.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 02:23 am (UTC)Christmas in Cambodia anyone?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 02:28 am (UTC)Good nite.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 02:31 am (UTC)Or do you suddenly go silent when you realize you have no point?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:39 am (UTC)Source? You do realize that the State Department had to recall its report on terrorism (the one that claimed terrorism had fallen dramatically) after it became clear they had fudged the numbers.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 01:44 am (UTC)I want a president who’s actually going to fight terrorism, not just use it as an excuse for invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack. John Kerry was fighting international terrorism and unravelling complicated networks of terrorist financial backers 16 years ago, when George W Bush was taking their money.
Al Qaeda is growing. North Korea has stepped up its nuclear weapons program. Iran has done likewise. In Iraq, high-precision equipment that could be used to make nukes, equipment that the IAEA inspectors had been visiting regularly and keeping an eye on before the war, and that they’ve been unable to check up on because of the war, that equipment has disappeared. All of these things have made us much less safe.