Consulting the Broken Clock
Posted by Daren Jaques on June 25, 2008
David Brooks of the New York Times is doing some apologetic work on Bush’s foreign policy decisions in Iraq. He correctly points out that few believed in the “surge,” including some notable U.S. Generals, and even (allegedly) Condi Rice. Brooks’ main idea is that Bush’s “outrageous” self-confidence and arrogance led him to ignore the media, and his generals and make the right call on the surge. I guess we conclude then that Bush isn’t as bad as most of us seem to think he is. But is Brooks right?
Finding other significant decisions where the president made the right call on an important topic under pressure is a sisyphean task. The minute you think you’ve got something - the rock rolls back down the hill. He failed us on social security reform, he tried to appoint one of the least qualified candidates in history to the U.S. Supreme Court (Harriet Miers), and he has failed to put enough resources into Pakistan and Afghanistan to bring us Bin Laden. If you believe Scott McClellan (and I largely do) then he flippantly and non chalantly admitted to knowing about the outing of Valerie Plame - which was nothing more than a game of gotcha to her husband. If a Democrat had outed one of our CIA operatives, you could expect the whole of right wing America to call it “treason.”
Brooks insists that Bush had both the gall and fortitude to stand up to “his generals.” Wait a minute; what Brooks doesn’t mention is that David Petraeus was behind the surge strategy, and that Petraeus was the top U.S. Commander in the theater. Not to mention that Petraeus, up to now, has been the only general whose name will likely be rememberd for time to come (notably for his creative, flexible and prescient command of the 82nd Airborne when many other commands in Iraq were floundering in impasse and violence). So, it’s not like Bush didn’t have someone who really knew the battlefield advising him. He did, and he happened to listen to the best general we have. I don’t think he deserves a gold star for that. Cheney was also for the surge, so I don’t think it’s such an OMG that Bush went with it.
Here’s the bottom line - as I’ve heard my friend EW quip before, “even a broken clock is right twice a day.” So, perhaps Bush did make the right call… by my count that’s one. The score? Bush - 1; Broken Clock - 2.
June 25, 2008 at 9:17 am
A broken military clock is only right once a day, however.
June 25, 2008 at 9:25 am
Even over a thousand miles away, EW, your influence on my writing is still notably extant, eh?
June 25, 2008 at 9:42 am
The Bush presidency is a wasted opportunity and an eye opening realization that most of the Republicans in this country have forsaken their core values in a lust to keep power. When Bush and the Republican controlled congress had the power to shape this country they deferred. Choosing to bloat the government, questionably attack some our rights, and wage a war based on public opinion.
I would give Bush credit on Justices Roberts and Alito. September 11th was a defining moment where Bush showed the world he could be a great leader under dire circumstances. However instead of climbing to better heights, Bush peaked. I would also point out that the response to 9/11 would also be a greater reflection on Giuliani than Bush; at least when it comes to Ground Zero and NYC. So, I tend to also differ some to Katrina blame to Nagin. While there is plenty of blame to go around, it’s always been my belief that a large portion of it falls on the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, it’s elected officials and it’s citizens.
As I have said before, I might be the last person in the country defending Bush. It’s not some much that I defend Bush, but that I think too many people in this country want to blame the man for everything it is wrong while taking no blame themselves. He was elected twice. Congress voted through a lot of legislation. The man isn’t a dictator. People could have stopped him, but they also deferred. They supported Bush when public opinion said they should and they denounce him now when the winds have shifted.
That said, I do agree with what you wrote Jaques. So don’t take my comments as a counterargument because that wasn’t my intent. Just my rant.
June 25, 2008 at 10:13 am
I voted for the man twice - so I own up to my own share. If you think I would go back in time and vote for either Gore or Kerry, you’re sorely mistaken. I’d take Bush over either of those two twits (though I might vote Libertarian instead of Republican). Anyway, I do not attack Bush because it is expedient, rather it is because he let me down so badly.
I agree that Roberts and Alito were good picks… but don’t forget that he wanted his personal attorney Harriet Miers before Alito. Yikes.
June 25, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Anyway, I do not attack Bush because it is expedient, rather it is because he let me down so badly.”
Word.
June 26, 2008 at 7:33 am
I think it is funny how there are a number of people who think Bush is the biggest idiot ever yet they they also believe that he planned 9/11.
June 26, 2008 at 10:00 am
Not only did he plan 9/11, the Clinton administration also was in on it. 9/11 took years to plan, so a democratic administration started the planning and then handed the reigns over to a republican administration… all in total secrecy.
Now, Clinton can’t bag a fat chick without the world finding out, but our government can pull that off?
No no no…. I’ve said all along it was the Jews….
Just kidding.
June 26, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I do thank you for the compliment, Daren. However, the broken clock bon mot is not mine.
Bush lost me when he landed on that aircraft carrier in 2003. He had to bask in wearing a military uniform in a moment of triumph. Presidents don’t wear uniforms; dictators do.
Saying that he had to wear a flight suit is a no-go. He could have worn a business suit and flown on a helicopter. I knew at that moment that he would never show appropriate restraint or good judgment in his role as President.
As I grow older, I think that real conservatives vote for divided government — not a single political party. I grew up in the 90s, and I think that they were a pretty sweet time. I like divided government. I like Democrats controlling one branch (say the Presidency), and Republicans controlling another (like Congress). Fewer chances for harm and out-of-control governance.
June 27, 2008 at 7:56 am
That sounds very Burke-ian, EW. I thought you werent’ a huge fan… hmm.
June 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m not anti-Burke. I just feel that his repution is more esteemed by Americans than his fellow Britons. He supported the American Revolution (a very radical position for a member of Parliament; he was not a conservative for his time). I’m suspicious that if he supported George III, he would be no more admired than D’Israeli or Macaulay.
In my experience, Burke is to conservatives as James Joyce is to literary folk. Present on bookshelves; rarely read.
July 19, 2008 at 10:42 am
Further proof of the prescience of CBB (and its readers). On June 27, I made reference to the somewhat obscure British politician Benjamin Disraeli (misspelling his name in the process).
On July 19, Atlantic writer Matthew Yglesias comments about the surge of Disraeli references amongst conservative writers:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/everythings_coming_up_disraeli.php
Just as Wikipedia Intellectualism made the cover of the Atlantic…has name-dropping Disraeli become the new hot trend?
Which intellectual trend liked by the CBB will be the next big thing?
MarioKart? http://cornbeltwayboys.net/2008/04/18/its-on-like-donkey-kong-bi-otches/
Making fun of Extreme? http://cornbeltwayboys.net/2008/03/06/extreme-announces-new-album-to-great-apathy/
Dogfishhead beer? http://cornbeltwayboys.net/2008/01/19/one-beers-total-radness/
July 21, 2008 at 9:49 am
Well, once modern conservatives come to grips with the rumors of Disraeli’s ambiguous sexual orientation, they’ll return to old standbys like Burke and Adam Smith.
As for the next great trend, why not returning American Conservatism to Goldwater-esque philosophy?… a deliverance from the Ted Haggard-ization and spend-crazy neoconservatism of my party.
July 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Whatever it is, I hope it isn’t imitating Ross Douthat. He has this holier-than-thou attitude. He lacks earthiness. His observations are banal and wordy — but he lacks self-deprecation.