It was an extraordinary meeting Thursday for a famously go-it-alone president — George W. Bush consulting on Iraq with a bipartisan host of former secretaries of state and defense dating back to the Vietnam War. But like so much in the Bush presidency, it was largely an empty photo opportunity, a simulacrum of dialogue.
One invited official who asked not to be named said, “It would be a stretch to say he was really interested in many thoughts from around the table.” In fact, as The New York Times’ article notes, the president actually engaged with the group for only about five or 10 minutes, then left.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
46 Comments
It’s typical of his style. From the town hall meetings on social security to the Iraq war.
He invites people to listen to his plan. He’s not even interested or willing to listen to another viewpoint.
In his mind he is right and everyone else is just delusional.
According to Paul Bremer’s new book, they didnt’ even expect there would be an insurgency.
If he’s been wrong since the invasion, why does he believe he’s right now?
Is anyone surprised? His attention span is five minutes.
He’s just so arrogant, it would be a threat to his ego to actually consider anyone else’s opinion, even the experts.That’s probably why he had a mass exodus from his cabinet midterm. He’s a fool, and according to many historians, will possibly go down as one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen.
The measure being held up to Bush assumes him to be in his right mind. Then when failing that test, his reactions are referred to as faults in reasoning, when actually that reasoning is consistent with his mental state. George W. Bush was not elected President of the United States, he was only “propped-up” to be president, by some very clever and devious men. Therein lies a very special difference. You won’t read about that in the editorial page of Wall Street Journal because it’s true, which is why you won’t read that in editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Think back: When reporters first interviewed Bush, they had fun naming countries and leaders which did not exist in order to watch him stumble around for an answer. A native American reporter asked Bush about “sovereignty,” and do you recall his answer caused the back of that room-full of reporters to start to giggle?
I think that Bush knew the job of being the President of the United States was away over his head as soon as he arrived in Washington, but trying to be his “own man,” he would not take advice from his father. As a recovering alcoholic W. had something to prove. Bush found in Ariel Sharon a confidante he felt he could trust, while Ariel Sharon found something dropped into his lap too good to be true; being the defacto President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of its Military.
After a several trips to the White House, Sharon went back to Israel, violated Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, setting-off the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and conveniently, with no instructions from Sharon or his Israeli Mossad, 9/11 just happened and “terrorism” had found its way out of just being what the Palestinians were called to an entire Israel War on Terrorism and global conquest. Hello Iraq.
Dubya is nothing more than an incompetent twit. Daddy has bought everything for him and when he screwed everything up, daddy bailed him out. Dubya has never had to take responsibility for anything and doesn’t believe he has ever done anything wrong. I believe he probably doesn’t believe he could do anything wrong. He is just too damn stupid.
I noticed in the Time’s picture that Bush is standing next to Rice, which may be the only real friend he has left. Bush and Rice are both incompetent Israeli tag-alongs, need to resign and let this country right its listing ship.
Without Sharon to keep the lid on the Middle East, Bush and Rice, things could go sour real fast with those two attemping to run things.
Sharon kept a tight rein on the Israeli Likuds. They are the equivalent of our Pat Robertson bunch here.
I wonder how long he listens to God when God talks to him . . .
Or how he goes about separating all of the voices?
Heh, funny, Ed! He’s just doing what the little voices tell him to . . .
The United States controls Israel. Yet we are lead to believe that Israeli politics is somehow independent. It is not. Peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians are only a matter of choice for the United States to make, as we control both Israeli finances and protection. The Palestinians are easy to satisfy, but have been denied our help. We are lead to believe that Israel lives under a constant threat, but that threat is only against their unrelenting retaliating provoking violence. We have the Power and the force, if necessary, to stop that. We don’t, so the Israelis run amuck.
It’s that simple.
While I was impressed that Randy used the word ’simulacrum,’ he seemed to have meant it as identical with ‘copy.’ The logic of the simulacra, however, is that of a copy without an original. That is, the simulacra is an image that doesn’t resemble an original, but instead has a dynamic of its own.
Seen in that light, Randy’s statement becomes even more charged. By saying that this meeting was a simulacra of a real dialogue, what this means is that Bush has NEVER had a real dialogue. There is no original to which a ‘meeting with Bush’ would refer.
Instead, to ‘meet’ with Bush means something other than to interact and to exchange ideas in a dialogue. Sum1 correctly noted this point above.
As an academic philosopher, I want to point out just how far this Administration has departed from generally accepted concepts of politics and truth. They’re operating in a totally unhinged, free-floating conceptual space. There’s no objective referent of truth in their universe. Rather, only the naked will to power justifies their actions and decisions.
Bush and Rice must be embarrassed and made to feel uncomfortable around all that mature high-class intelligent talent. Bush and Rice must know by now they’re being made fun of by just about everybody. Jay Leno takes Bush down really hard and cartoons showing Rice are not very kind. That dynamic duo has been given pat answers for just about all questions by the powers running the government, and about the only place they’re made to feel welcome is AIPAC. It’s no wonder Rice cancelled her trips while Ariel Sharon is in the hospital and Bush said he was praying for a complete recovery for Sharon. It’s doubtful either of them would do that for just any foreign leader.
Ed said:”The United States controls Israel. Yet we are lead to believe that Israeli politics is somehow independent. It is not. Peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians are only a matter of choice for the United States to make, as we control both Israeli finances and protection.”.
Ed you can not have it both ways, you have been say ever since I came to this blog. That Israel has be controling our every move in Iraq. The order the invasion, they have set a time line for the U.S. to follow. Now you say that we control Israel? For the most part I have agreed that Israel has been getting over the top support from the United States. Mostly for the wrong reasons.
I’m the fricken soviegrn KING of Amerika! Don’t ever forgive it!
You all realize all the power I have. Good! Now you can fear me the way you fear God! We are all God fearin Amerikans!
We don’t have a plan to get of Iraq …. and we are going to STICK TO IT!
We will Get “R” ( iraq) done!
Dubya (W) (UU) (666)
WD, We do control Israel, but the wrong way. The same way a drunk cotrols his car, the wrong way.
We’re in agreement, better wording from me would be better, but you get the picture.
WD, Crude hit $64
WD, The biggest misconception is that Israel is just one house. There are more competing forces, interests, plans, all vying for power than you can count. Even Sharon had trouble removing “settlers” from Gaza, as some offered death threats. A Zionist killed Rabin, of all things.
They cannot be left to make their own decisions.
Imagine if Pat Robertson had Atomic weapons?
CF: I don’t believe I’d pop a blood vessel trying to figure out what Scholfield meant when he used a big word. I’ve read a lot of his stuff, and Randy is about as deep as the Arkansas in August.
No, I think it would suffice to say that ol’ Randy wanted to throw another fat slow one down the middle so his liberal blog squad could hit it hard without straining their brains. (Even Ed and PL) This is evidenced in that he made no mention of the positive comments made by some in attendance, or how Madeline Albright set the tone with her strident comments.
Outlander,
And what positive comments were those? Those of Lawrence Eagleburger, who was critical and resigned to the Administration’s refusal to listen to anyone outside the coterie of insiders? Those of Colin Powell, who didn’t even say a word? Do tell, Outlander. Moreover, Laird, Eagleburger, and others have published their own criticisms of the Bush Administration’s disastrous policies without prompting from Madeline Albright. I rather doubt they would have been complementary had she held her criticisms.
As for the discussion of ’simulacrum,’ my point was precisely that Randy was far more correct than he might have realized. The logic of the simulacra, the copy without an original, is a convenient shorthand for the appearances put forth by the Administration that correspond to no actually existing state of affairs in objective reality. WMD in Iraq, the Social Security ‘crisis’, terror alerts and other invented entities all serve the function of confronting the electorate with some simulated reality that either serves as a distraction or as a phony crisis demanding immediate action.
This Administration lies imaginary entities into media existence in order to serve its own ends. They’re such postmodernists, such unregenerate relativists with no anchor in anything resembling objectivity, that as of yet, I haven’t seen anything about which they won’t lie. But give them credit: they’ve sucked in all the truth junkie, literalist Christian fundamentalists, who embrace this President as if he were someone who actually possessed a shred of respect for facts or for the truth.
I feel bad for all you true believers, when you finally wake up and realize that the whole thing was a mirage, a media figment. Can George really always be utterly correct and faultless, while everyone arrayed against him is a liar or out of their minds? Doesn’t this strike you as, at least, mildly implausible?
When you come to your senses, I promise not to hold it against you. Hopefully, that won’t be too late for all of us.
Typical Bush “meeting” – a photo op and nothing else. I especially liked seeing McNamara there – architect of another failed war of hostile occupation.
Scholfields word was appropriate – an illusion of a meeting that illustrates Bush’s illusion of an occupation plan.
Of course it was just another photo-op. This is the photo-op “president” That is what he was meant to be and that is what he is. Sad for th rest of us Americans and the world to be so badly governed and represented.
“throw another fat slow one down the middle so his liberal blog squad could hit it hard without straining their brains. (Even Ed and PL)”
Thanks for the ad hominem, Outlander.
That’s the Republican credo, when you can’t beat them, smear them.
Nice work, PL, nice work!
Bush’s murdering spree needs to stop now. Congress needs to act immediately.http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/08/iraq.main/index.html
I agree Ed. This war is shooting ourselves in the foot. At this time we are teaching people to hate democracy.
For everyone who says this will further democracy in the middle east think about these things.
If the war lasts 10 years (as has been suggested as a possibility) you will have an entire generation of youth that will grow up only knowing war.
People in Iraq lived in fear, but they had electricity, water, jobs. Today they still live in fear, have limited electricity, water and jobs.
They are being told it will take maybe another 5-10 years to bring them democracy? when they didn’t ask for it in the first place. When will they decide the price tag was too high? Or is that what the insurgency is about? How many times will the headlines read “today was one of the bloodiest days in Iraq” before people think.
The current strategy of holding on isn’t working.
CL: It is not negative to point out when the viewpoint of the editorial staff is skewed left and purposely omits content from an article. In fact, someone needs to add a little balance to this left leaning blog.
“Can George really always be utterly correct and faultless, while everyone arrayed against him is a liar or out of their minds? Doesn’t this strike you as, at least, mildly implausible?”
OK, when was the last time that you said anything positive about the Bush administration? You mean you think that they are always wrong? Is that plausible?
PL: I was just kidding about you and Ed. (I don’t draw the smiley faces.)
The above should have been to CF and PL.
That’s a good question, Outlander. Has Bush done anything right?
9-11 . . . ignored warnings like “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,” Cheney’s anti terrorism committee never met, concern at the time was entirely on Star Wars missile defense
economy . . . historic high budget deficit, historic high peacetime national debt (twice as high as LBJ during “the Great Society” and Vietnam War)
Iraq . . . guaranteed that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US. After three years of war, the proof is that Saddam posed absolutely no threat to America. 2200 US soldiers have died, 11 died yesterday.
Economy . . . job growth is still slower than under Clinton, the Dow Jones average has not returned to its high of 11,800 when Clinton was in office. China continues to eat our lunch loaning money to the government so we can buy its manufactured goods–they make money on us at both ends. The Feds continue to aid and abet American corporations to offshore operations.
Katrina disaster . . . you tell me.
So what has Bush done well?
He was brilliant in playing on American’s fears in getting re-elected. Fear is the most powerful motivating emotion. Fear is why people buy a 40,000 dollar SUV instead of a 20,000 dollar Accord (fear of crashes). Fear is why people spend billions of dollars a year on bottled water that is no more pure than what comes out of the tap.
Bush’s claim that “the Democrats will let you die but I will protect you” was a masterstroke, I gotta give him that . . .
Outlander,
The Bush Administration indeed has been right about something: the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Prosecutor.
Beyond that, every Bush Administration decision, appointment, and policy has been at best a wash, at worst a failure. Demonstrably so.
CF: I note that you indicated upthread that you are an academic philosopher. One of the problems with academia, in my opinion, is that academics start thinking that the somewhat closed world in which they operate is representative of the real world. I have a brother who is academic and I have told him the same thing. Thus, you get impressions such as you have expressed here. And then you read this leftist blog and your beliefs are validated even further because those outside of your world agree. However, it would be a much different world if the majority agreed with you.
I assure you that most of us on the right are not blindly following anyone. In fact, Bush pisses me off sometimes. But, you know, I never see a liberal on this blog ever defending him. Thus you guys usually got the “crucify Bush” angle covered.
As I indicated above, I try to add a little balance by pointing out the anti-Bush misrepresentations, hypocrisy, and prejudice when it appears here, which is often.
Outlander, not all liberals are out to crucify bush. Most of us look at the facts first. If there was something that I felt bush did right (and there are a few, not many) then I, as well as most liberals on this blog, will defend him. He just screws up too much.
Out, This has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It has to do with pure stupidity and nobody has a patent on that. You keep trying to politicize things when they don’t need to be.
Outlander,
That’s some tired, anti-academic crap you’re shovelling. The ‘real world’? Give me a break.
On a daily basis, I deal with a much wider demographic and socio-economic random sample, inside and outside of the academy, than non-academics can image. I interact with kids from all over the planet, from different religious, socio-economic, and geographical backgrounds, as well as with their parents, and with non-traditional students whose life stories would curl your hair. I also work with faculty and staff from within my own institution, and from others within and without academia–from the maintenance folks who clean my building to academic deans and university presidents. I live in a neighborhood full of folks who don’t share my views, and I attend a church peopled by Republicans who span the spectrum from moderate to extreme.
Who do CEO’s talk to? Their underlings and their peers. Who does George Bush talk to? His wife and Condoleeza Rice.
No comparison, Outlander: I’m way, way, way more in touch with the little folks of America than are the miscreants currently running this country.
I have no illusions that my views are popular in Kansas. They aren’t. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. My arguments on this blog and elsewhere are meant to skewer the conventional wisdom by showing that it’s been created and promulgated to serve a set of interests that run counter to those of the majority.
The day this Administration does something that isn’t bent at screwing over little folks like me, while benefitting the powerful folks like him, it’ll be my pleasure to acknowledge it. That day hasn’t come.
As for you, Outlander, I’m presuming you weren’t a fan of Bill Clinton. Care to do what what you’re asking of me, by giving him some props for doing something well?
CF, you just asked Outlander the question I planned to ask, so instead I’ll ask him to post the things HE believes GW and Rove have done well. And, please, Outlander, don’t use the worn out reasoning that there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. Until we have proof that attempts have been made, that doesn’t wash.
The problem with Outlander and others is that if it doesn’t affect them personally, it doesn’t matter. High unemployment? Who cares? He/They have jobs. Medical costs skyrocketing? Who cares? He/They have medical insurance paid for by their employers. High budget deficit? Who cares? It’s just numbers on paper. Iraqis with limited electricity, water, and few jobs? Who cares? All he/they have to do is flip a switch or turn a tap when returning from work. Compassionate Conservatives they’re not. And if we ask these same questions of Bush, Congress, and cronies such as Abramahof… No, I won’t even go there.
My Pharmacist is a drug-dealer. And he uses his money to launder his white coat. Is he in trouble?
Is Halloween a terrorist holiday?
Outlander – when Bush went into Afghanistan I saluted the effort. (However, I think he has subsequently dropped the ball) I also saluted his response to the Tsunami a year ago. If he does a good job on something I will happily say so.
Gosh, where to start? This has turned into quite a general piling on session. Again, I don’t think that Bush has done everything well. But, like I said before, y’all got my back on that.
OK, off the top of my head, here are a few positive things during Bush terms;
Historically low unemployment rate. (RD you had that wrong)
Education bill.
Prosecution of the war on terror and prevention of further “terrorist” (”angry man”, for Ed)attacks on our homeland.
Strong economic recovery from the recession that began in Clinton term.
Nomination of two highly qualified Supreme Court nominees. (and one not so qualified)
Medicare drug program.
Tax cuts.
Didn’t sell us out on Kyoto.
CF: Clinton was a decent president, but not an admirable man. He and the DLC held the line on taking the Dems too far left. He went along with the “welfare to work” program. To his credit he mostly stayed out of the way of the economy. And by gosh, the UN liked him.
BTW, if the academic world is in touch, why is it so liberal in its views? Real world? Have you read your posts? I don’t think they were written with the ordinary person in mind.And finally Ed, sad to say, but everything is politics.
Bush Quotes:”If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”
“Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.”
“I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun.”
And this jerk is the President of The United States?
Outlander,
Most of those things you cite were measures that Bill Clinton took in order to meet those who disagreed with him–namely, conservatives–halfway. They weren’t measures that I or my compadres on the left supported. Bill realized that he’d have to give some things up to get some things.
By contrast, Bush has done NOTHING to reach out to those who disagree with him. Nothing. Instead, he has used the left as his whipping boy, and denounced us-calling us traitors and the like-in order to consolidate his base.
Bill Clinton’s genius was that he actually listened, and actually tried to govern. I certainly didn’t agree with all his policies, and neither did you. But at the end of the day, everybody got something, and no one was left out completely in the cold. This is absolutely not the case with George Bush. He wants everything and will give nothing. None of his appointments or policies represent my views in the slightest.
This actually brings us back to the start of the thread. Bush doesn’t listen to anyone who disagrees with him, and doesn’t feel the need to build bridges and to govern by consensus. I think there’s a lot of potential good will out there on Capital Hill, from the left, if Bush would be willing to compromise on some of his ideological objectives or to reach consensus. But he isn’t.
And until he is, Outlander, you shouldn’t expect me to endorse any of his measures, since you, yourself, only approve of those measures taken by Bill Clinton that affirm your views. If Bush insists on ruling from the right, it’s hypocritical of you to insist that a leftist like me be ‘fair-minded’ just so I can have something nice to say about George. You yourself didn’t do it for Bill Clinton: why should I do it for George Bush?
Finally, given that the new AP-Ipsos poll has Bush at 40% approval and 59% disapproval, who’s the one here who’s out of touch? You need to get out more, Outlander.
Ben and k; Thank you for posts indicating your willingness to be fair. I appreciate that we all have different viewpoints. But I think that it is important that we don’t sell ourselves out to ideology.
CF: That really doesn’t make sense. Do you mean that I should praise Clinton for doing things I don’t agree with?
Look at the list that I prepared again. The education bill (done with Ted Kennedy), and the Medicare prescription drug bill are not conservative endorsed plans. As a matter of fact, he caught quite a bit of flack from the right for them, as well as his immigration policies. He has appointed more minorities to high office than Bill Clinton ever thought of doing. I think that meets your criteria of meeting others halfway.
If you don’t see that, you’re not looking.
Outlander,
My argument makes perfect sense. You only praised the things Bill Clinton did that conservatives would like.
As for Bush, don’t try to rewrite history. Only one Senate Republican (Sunnunu) voted against it: that makes it a ‘conservative’ bill in my book.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459
With education, I’ll concede part of your claim. Conservatives DID want to disown the Bill. But the fact that they hated it doesn’t mean that Democrats found it any more favorable. To the contrary: I thought they gave away too much at the time, and think so now more than ever.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/21/education/?sid=1031431
The broader point here is that just because something isn’t ‘conservative’ doesn’t make it ‘liberal.’ Moreover, there are ideological conservatives and pro-business conservatives, as the immigration issue demonstrates. Bush appears to have opted for one group of conservatives over another; liberals aren’t involved in those discusssions at all. So why should I approve of either side in a fight which has nothing to do with me? Moreover, don’t you think it’s telling that you have to reach all the way back to 2001 for such an example? That’s four years ago.
The claim about ‘minorities’ is more of the standard fare. I’m a white person and I presume you are as well. But if you want to play the minority identity politics game, OK. Ask this question: to what extent to Bush’s appointees represent the views of the minority communities to which they belong? Answer: very little. Then ask this question: to what extent have Bush’s minority appointees had real power? Answer: Condoleeza Rice would be the only one I’d say has been empowered in any meaningful sense, and . And black folks? They detest her. In fact, ‘detest’ probably isn’t a strong enough word. Don’t believe me? Ask Steve Gilliard. He’s black.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/09/capability-to-act.html
Clinton gave Janet Reno sufficient power that her decision to appoint a special counsel nearly undid his presidency. Madeline Albright had a free hand as well. Rod Paige? Sychophant. Margaret Spellings? Toady. It ain’t all quantity, Outlander: quality counts as well.
CF: I have other things to do, so this will be the last exchange for me. I will keep it short.
Your point regarding bills that conservatives dislike are not necessarily liberal favorites is noted.
The minority issue is a little more substantial. With the left, it was all about appointing minorities, until the President did so. Then all of the sudden, it was about appointing the right kind of minorities.(Liberal)
The black leadership in this country, well, don’t get me started. That is a topic for another occasion. Suffice to say they do not have the best interests of their people at the forefront, in my opinion.
Also, I think that you forgot to mention Collin Powell and Alberto Gonzales in your empowerment comment.
Outlander,
Agreed. We’re both busy, so this will be my last as well.
Since the ghost of Uncle Tom stalks us all, it doesn’t seem untoward for liberals to note this fact. Colin Powell was the ultimate minority figurehead appointment. With Alberto Gonzales, the jury is still out.
And yes, I trust that the black leadership issue will surely come up here again.
I’vebeen away awhie but my sense is still sharp.
This “outlander” is nothing more than yet another all day listener to talk radio. What a mindless drone! Yo “outlander”? if Rush farts it aint Guy Lombardo. If Hannity Fumes it aint the sermon on the mount. Think for yourself fella. Better yet Think BEYOND yourself. It does take a village.