Favorite

Hope for Bush? 

The past 10 days have borne out the nation’s lowest suspicions about President Bush — that he is only nominally in charge of his own administration — but they raised a glimmer of hope about him, too.

First the hopeful news. We have been taught that when James A. Baker II speaks, it is the voice of the Bush family, or soon will be. Baker, the Bush family consigliere and lately the Bush-appointed co-chair of an Iraq study group, let it be known Sunday that Bush’s Iraq policy — stay the course — is through. They are looking for a better-sounding name than “cut and run” for arranging a departure from the country that Bush’s war policy has all but obliterated.

This may be a hoax to raise people’s hopes about the president before the election and stave off a disaster for his party but, if it is, it probably will be a hoax on Baker, too. Baker is the ultimate family loyalist — he is more responsible than anyone for the U.S. Supreme Court making Bush president in 2000 — but he was always an honest broker.

A close but unidentified friend of Baker told The New York Times that Baker would not be talking about Iraq policy on TV without the president’s tacit approval although many of Baker’s remarks on ABC were a polite roundhouse attack on the administration’s war and foreign policies: the president’s refusal to engage diplomatically with countries that Bush deems his enemies (he sends men to be tortured in Syria but he will not negotiate with its leaders), and the plan to occupy Iraq until final victory.

Memoirs by both Baker and the president’s father 10 years ago predicted what would happen if the United States toppled Saddam Hussein and occupied the country. We would have to contend with ceaseless strife and civil war between the ethnic and religious sects, and the American occupation would inflame the Arab world and feed extremism. They were talking about the Bush-Baker decision to withdraw from Iraq in 1991 after the liberation of Kuwait.

Yes, Baker acknowledged Sunday, a lot of it did come true under Bush II.

Bush gave tacit approval for this?

Another member of Baker’s bipartisan study group said all its members, Republican and Democratic, realized that time was short for changing course in Iraq to avoid the ultimate cataclysm and that Bush himself was “desperate” for a change and listening to Baker. “But no one in the White House,” he said, “can bring themselves to say so with this election coming.”

That has to pass for hope.

But then you have to factor the essential character of George W. Bush, outlined so starkly in Bob Woodward’s new book on the war and the president, “State of Denial,” which described a far different man than the decisive, commanding leader characterized in the first two Woodward books on the presidency. This time, he talked to Andy Card, George Tenet, Colin Powell and other now-departed insiders, and a portrait emerges of a man presiding over a riven cabinet and staff, glued desperately to a failed course and dependent on his vice president. Ever since Dick Cheney anointed himself Bush’s running mate after leading a phony search for one, there has been a nagging suspicion that this was the Cheney presidency.

Woodward recounts all the worries about the war, before and after Bush declared it (his father lay sleepless over fears that the son would order the invasion), and the near unanimous view afterward that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s strategies had wasted the American effort and were destroying the presidency. Even First Lady Laura Bush went to Card, the president’s chief of staff, and wondered why her husband was so intent on keeping Rumsfeld. Card tried twice to persuade Bush to replace Rumsfeld with Jim Baker. Finally, Bush went to Rumsfeld’s sponsor, Dick Cheney, about replacing the defense secretary.

Absolutely not, Cheney said. And that was that.

Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with conservative editor William Kristol, were the fathers of the Project for the New American Century, which organized in 1997 to promote a Middle Eastern invasion that would help establish a “benevolent global hegemony” for the United States. The Washington Post reported this summer that the organization had closed its offices this year, its goals having been accomplished. Actually, many of the hawks in the organization had already fallen out with Rumsfeld because they thought he had run the war disastrously by refusing to deploy enough soldiers.

So we now are to understand that Bush wants out of the war if Baker and Co. can find a face-saving way to do it (simple: just declare victory). If the Republicans maintain control of Congress next month, Cheney will say, “See, people want us to stay the course.” And we still have no evidence that Bush can stand up to Cheney.


Favorite

Sign up for the Daily Update email

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Week That Was

    After the wildest week of the wildest presidency in history, the clouded future suddenly unfolds more clearly and, yes, nearer. That includes the end of the Trump presidency.
    • Apr 19, 2018
  • The pathetic fallacy

    What do you call an idea that grows in popularity the more it is proven wrong? Let's steal John Ruskin's literary term, "the pathetic fallacy," because it is more descriptive than his use of it.
    • Apr 12, 2018
  • Teachers and tax cuts

    In a year of odd phenomena, none is odder than this: Across the nation's midsection, schoolteachers are suddenly fed up with their government's treatment of education and educators, and Republican governors and legislatures are capitulating right and left, even raising taxes to mollify them.
    • Apr 5, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Week That Was

    After the wildest week of the wildest presidency in history, the clouded future suddenly unfolds more clearly and, yes, nearer. That includes the end of the Trump presidency.
    • Apr 19, 2018
  • The pathetic fallacy

    What do you call an idea that grows in popularity the more it is proven wrong? Let's steal John Ruskin's literary term, "the pathetic fallacy," because it is more descriptive than his use of it.
    • Apr 12, 2018
  • Teachers and tax cuts

    In a year of odd phenomena, none is odder than this: Across the nation's midsection, schoolteachers are suddenly fed up with their government's treatment of education and educators, and Republican governors and legislatures are capitulating right and left, even raising taxes to mollify them.
    • Apr 5, 2018
  • More »

Most Viewed

  • Redefining candidate quality

    Despite what national party organizations like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Campaign Committee say, conventional definitions of candidate quality are not leading to progressive wins in 2018.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Trump and Comey

    • Oh, so now it was the Comey release of the e-mails before the election to…

    • on April 19, 2018
  • Re: Stormy shaming

    • Ms. Daniels is a female version of Trump. Someone with a valuable talent for making…

    • on April 19, 2018
  • Re: Stormy shaming

    • I do not automatically have contempt for women who have careers built around selling sex…

    • on April 19, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation