The Bush-Is-An-Idiot Camp

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01A7_01C85873.3B8849D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The other day I crossed paths with a conservative talk show host. We
chatted about current events. He noted that he was quite pissed off
at the neocons for suggesting that American blood should be spilled
to benefit the Iraqis. Let the Iraqis take care of themselves, he
huffed. I asked, "Are you in the Bush-is-an-idiot camp?"

This was a reference to a recent segment on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC
show during which Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from
Florida, posed the question, "Is our president an idiot?" After
playing a montage of video clips showing Bush at his tongue-tied
worst ("Fool me once, shame on you -- fool me -- you can't get fooled
again"), Scarborough said that an former close aide to President Bush
had recently told him that Bush is "intellectually shallow and one of
the most incurious public figures this man has ever met." Scarborough
claimed that Bush is "getting worse instead of better" and that when
it comes to presidential stupidity Bush is "in a league by himself."
He added, "I don't think he has the intellectual depth."
My conservative interlocutor fidgeted, as he considered how to
respond. After a moment or so, he said softly, "Well, he can be
moronic."

I have long thought it was not politically wise for Democrats to
deride Bush as dumb. And I believed it was wrong to assume -- as did
many Bush-bashers -- that W. was not intelligent. After all, he
managed to become president -- which is not an easy task (even if
Karl Rove is your master strategist). He also managed, against the
odds, to change the tax code to benefit folks like him. How stupid is
that? But watching Bush grapple with the mess in Iraq -- a problem
entirely of his own making -- it's hard to sidestep the conclusion
that his own, let's say, information-processing abilities are
profoundly affecting national security, and not for the better.

I am haunted by an exchange that occurred at Bush's press conference
last week. ABC News' Martha Raddatz asked Bush if it was time for "a
new strategy in Iraq." That's a reasonable question. The recent surge
of violence there -- about 10,000 civilian deaths over the course of
three months -- should give anyone pause, especially the
decider-in-chief who thought invading Iraq was a fine idea in the
first place. Replying to Raddatz, Bush said, "The strategy is to help
the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is
a democratic society. That's the strategy."

Forgive me, if you've heard or read me making this point previously,
but that's not a strategy. That's a goal. A strategy is a game plan
for achieving a goal.

Bush went on to note that he has changed tactics on the ground -- by
moving troops from one area to another. This has led to less violence
in one area but more in another. This was not responsive to Raddatz's
query. Tactics are what you use to make a strategy happen. Bush
didn't seem to know the difference between the two.

Raddatz pressed him and said that Bush had not answered her question
about his strategy. "Sounded like the question to me," he said.

If the commander in chief cannot talk more articulately about his
strategy for winning an elective war he initiated, the problem is
serious. It's become a truism tossed about by partisan Democrats
looking to score political points, but it actually is true: Bush has
little to offer but stay-the-course-ism. And he shows no signs of
considering other options. His plan once was rather simply stated:
The United States would train Iraqi security forces and when the
Iraqis can take over the United States would leave. But as sectarian
violence spreads -- and the security forces become part of the
conflict -- that basic plan becomes thinner by the day.

Let's compare Bush with Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat. A
few days after Bush's press conference, Biden published an op-ed
article in The Washington Post that reiterated a plan for Iraq that
he had previously developed with Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of
the Council on Foreign Relations. I am not endorsing the plan, but
here's what was refreshing about it: It was a plan. It had five
points. It was internally consistent. It was an effort to deal with
the dilemmas at hand. The Biden-Gelb plan calls for a unified but
decentralized Iraq with Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis essentially
controlling their own regions. A central government would be in
charge of the really important national responsibilities: protecting
the country and divvying up the oil revenue. (The Sunnis, who
generally live in areas not loaded with oil, would be guaranteed a
share of the pot.) The plan has a reconstruction component, which
includes a massive jobs program, and calls for withdrawing most U.S.
troops by the end of 2007.

It may or may not be the right plan, but it's a plan. After reading
the op-ed, I could not help but wonder, why can't Bush describe a
plan of his own in such concrete terms?

Bush's partner in his plan-less Iraq project -- Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki -- doesn't inspire great confidence either, at least
not when he's granting an interview to an American cable network
through an interpreter. Speaking with CNN's Wolf Blitzer a few days
ago , Maliki said, "The violence is not increasing ... We're not in a
civil war. In Iraq, we'll never be in a civil war."

It's understandable that the leader of a nation near (or in) civil
war would not want to acknowledge in public that his country is on
the brink. But to say the violence is not increasing? Americans ought
to hope Maliki is not imitating Bush's previous practice of insisting
progress is under way whatever the reality may be.

But Bush is the problem -- at least, our problem -- not Maliki. I
sense that more and more conservatives are unnerved by Bush's
stewardship of the war they wanted. On a television show this past
weekend, I asked conservative commentator Linda Chavez and the Weekly
Standard's Matthew Continetti if the absence of any meaty Bush plan
for Iraq discomforted them. "It does worry me, David," Chavez
responded. "As a supporter of the war in Iraq, it does worry me. I
think it worries Matthew, too. I mean, I think everybody recognizes
we do not have enough troops. The question isn't pulling troops out.
We need more troops, not fewer."

Continetti predicted that more Republicans in Congress might start
calling for the same -- after the elections and if they retain
control of the House. That would be a true profile in courage.
Continetti was essentially accusing GOPers of playing political games
at the expense of American and Iraqi lives.

In the meantime, the plan-free war continues, and the Bush-backers
mainly duck that uncomfortable issue: whether this war is too much
for the man who launched it. That does appear to be the big elephant
in the room. And it seems that even conservatives and Republicans are
finding it difficult to ignore its smell.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-232-0791
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>

------=_NextPart_000_01A7_01C85873.3B8849D0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard;
	name="Robert L Bass.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="Robert L Bass.vcf"

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Bass;Robert L
FN:Robert L Bass
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx
REV:20080117T000852Z
END:VCARD

------=_NextPart_000_01A7_01C85873.3B8849D0--