[FairfieldLife] The Kid in the White House

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 06:41:20 -0700

I couldn't resist posting this piece by Hendrik Hertzberg from the New Yorker
this week. The first sentence is brilliant, but if you don't want to read it all just
scroll down to the end where he quotes a recent interchange between a
student and Bush after a lecture Bush gave. Even given all we know about
Bush, I still found this shocking. I can't think of any president, not even
Reagan, who would have give such an inept, inappropriate response. Always
with Bush there is this inappropriate humor. He is just a child. Yet  he has the
power to launch a nuclear attack on Iran. How could this have happened to
us?

I am told on reliable authority that Bush's aura is predominantly yellow, which
is "kid energy." The guy just wants to laugh and have fun. Which is fine for
someone on a Texas ranch, but not for the president of the United States.
Nearly three years still to go. How much more damage can The Kid do? 


Rummyache

In the ongoing South Americanization of political culture north of the border—
a drawn-out historical journey whose markers include fiscal recklessness, an
accelerating wealth gap between the rich and the rest, corruption masked by
populist rhetoric, a frank official embrace of the techniques of "dirty war," and,
by way of initiating the present era, a judicial autogolpe installing a dynastic
presidente—what has been dubbed the Revolt of the Generals is one of the
feebler effusions. But it is striking all the same. By last week, the junta had
swelled to six members: General Anthony C. Zinni, of the Marine Corps (four
stars); Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, also of the Marines (three stars);
and Major Generals John Batiste, Paul D. Eaton, John Riggs, and Charles H.
Swannack, Jr., of the Army (two stars). Some reckon that Wesley Clark (Army,
four stars), William E. Odom (ditto, three stars), and Bernard E. Trainor
(Marines, three stars) are entitled to spots as auxiliary members. All these
generals have said devastating things about the job performance of the
current Secretary of Defense, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. Their
critiques vary—some of them see the war as a series of tactical blunders,
others as a strategic disaster doomed from the start—but on one point the
Pentagon Six are unanimous: Please. Bring us the head of Donald Rumsfeld.

This brass band of clarion calls for Rumsfeld's resignation or dismissal has
occasioned a certain amount of hand-wringing about alleged threats to the
constitutional principle of civilian control of the military. But, as military coups
go, this one is pretty weak tea by hemispheric standards. Instead of seizing
the radio stations and the Presidential Palace, our disgruntled generals are
content to overrun the op-ed pages, the bookstore signing tables, and the
greenrooms of the cable-TV news talk shows. Also (and this is not a small
point), the generals in question, however youthful and vigorous some of them
may appear, are retired. They are no longer links in the chain of command;
not being subordinate, they can't be insubordinate. They are civilians. And
they are every bit as entitled to express their views publicly, and to give their
former civilian superiors a hard time in the process, as were Andrew Jackson
in 1824, and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952—not to mention the nine other ex-
generals who became President, beginning with General George Washington
(ret.), in 1789.

There's nothing new, let alone unconstitutional, about the bitching of
pensioned-off generals. What is unusual—unprecedented, apparently—is for
so many to speak out so strongly against a prominent architect of an ongoing
war and to demand his removal. But then it is also unusual (though not, alas,
unprecedented) for the United States to fight a war of choice on the basis of
ideological fervor and faulty or falsified intelligence. And it is not just unusual
but unprecedented for the stated primary aims of such a war (in this case, to
prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction and from aiding
terrorist attacks on the American homeland) to have been achieved before a
shot was fired, forcing the war's advocates to scramble for new ones.

The generals' revolt of 2006 has resonated. One reason, no doubt, is that the
experience of these particular generals suggests that they know what they are
talking about. Three of the six—Batiste, Eaton, and Swannack—held positions
of command in Iraq; a fourth, Zinni, is steeped in the region, having served as
chief of the U.S. Central Command and as President Bush's own special
envoy to the Middle East. A second reason is their relative immunity to
assaults of the kind that right-wing publicists and talk-radio hosts routinely
launch at the patriotism and integrity of Iraq-war critics. One or two
bemedalled warriors can be taken down that way; a dense pack is not so
easily Swift-boated.

If the generals have struck a chord, a third reason, surely, is a widespread
public hunger for some sort of accountability. The White House dimly
understands this; hence last week's highly touted "shake-up," which saw the
departure of the President's hapless press secretary and the lateral transfer of
Karl Rove from deputy chief of staff for policy to just plain deputy chief of staff.
These moves, though, are entirely beside the point. If Bush were serious
about stanching the hemorrhage of public support for any kind of American
role in Iraq, then Rumsfeld's exit—a step that has been suggested not only by
generals and Democrats but also by conservative hawks like George Will,
Max Boot, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol—would be the obvious beginning.
The President's response has been an adamant refusal. "I'm the decider," he
said last Tuesday. "And I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don
Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense."

His reasons for this decision are obscure, a matter for speculation—wild
speculation, as he might phrase it. "We had an accountability moment," Bush
said a few days before his second Inaugural, "and that's called the 2004
election." Perhaps he thinks that that was the last such moment he owes the
country; perhaps dumping Rumsfeld would feel too much like another one.
Perhaps his attachment to Rumsfeld—whom the elder President Bush is
known to dislike—has something to do with the younger's need for substitute
fathers. Perhaps he is simply afraid to lose him, for reasons he understands
no better than the rest of us. A couple of weeks ago, answering a question
from a student after giving a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of
Advanced International Studies, Bush provided a hint of the emotional texture
of his extraordinary dependence on his Secretary of Defense. "My question,"
the young woman said,

is in regards to private military contractors. The Uniform Code of Military
Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of
Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.
 
The President: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter) Help. (Laughter)
 
Q: I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter) Mr.
Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws, which he assumed
applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not
currently capable of enforcing its laws. . . . Mr. President, how do you propose
to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
 
The President : I appreciate that very much. I wasn't kidding. (Laughter ) I was
going to—I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting
question. (Laughter ) This is what delegation—I don't mean to be dodging the
question, although it's kind of convenient in this case, but never— (laughter ).
I really will—I'm going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very
valid question, and what are we doing about it? That's how I work. I'm—
thanks. (Laughter )


Thanks? No. No, thanks. (And no laughter.) He's the decider, and there's the
rub.




— Hendrik Hertzberg










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'



SPONSORED LINKS
Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to