Process Questions
Will calling for 7,000 NATO troops to go to Darfur actually have a beneficial impact on the situation over there, or is this just an effort to be seen as "doing something" without really facing up to what one would have to do to achieve anything worthwhile? I'm far from certain, but this doesn't reassure me: "But Bush brushed aside the resistance of some senior policymakers and sided with White House adviser Michael J. Gerson and others who have been lobbying for more assistance to Darfur." Gerson, of course, is a speechwriter. I hope the "others" who agree with him included some people with relevant policy expertise, but the administration's record on that score hasn't been encouraging.
Advertisement
For what it is worth, Gerson was recently named Assistant to the President for Policy and Strategic Planning. Of course, the fact remains that all of his past experience was in speechwriting.
February 19, 2006 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it. Bush listens only to people who agree with him, which, of course, is like listening to yourself. And he is definitely suspicious of people smarter and more informed than he is, so he doesn't even begin listening to them. Also, it is unlikely even unthinkable that Bush has ever lost an argument with himself. Besides which he never argues with himself for more than 59 minutes because he has an attention span of 60 minutes. Chances are he's never hear of Darfur, doesn't know where Darfur is, and really doesn't care. I wonder if he knows that there are presently 40 dictatorships in the world which means he's got to get really busy turning them all into democracies before 2008....Gerson must have investments in Darfur.
February 19, 2006 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that Bush is agreeing to send 7000 of someone else's troops to Darfur. And, of course, that is just about enough so they have a fighting chance to defend themselves in Darfur and, possibly, return home in one piece. So, I would have to conclude that this is intended to demonstrate that he really is compassionate about the people being raped and slaughtered in Darfur. He probably doesn't want history to record that he never heard of Darfur.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 19, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what its worth, political persuasion aside, Gerson sounds like a bright guy. See this profile in the New Yorker
February 19, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds me of the following paragraphs from the NYTimes article today about Bush meeting with Michael Crichton regarding global warming:
- "This shows the president is more interested in science fiction than science," Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said after learning of the White House meeting. Mr. O'Donnell's group monitors environmental policy.
"This administration has put no limit on global warming pollution and has consistently rebuffed any suggestion to do so," he said.
Not so, according to the White House, which said Mr. Barnes's book left a false impression of Mr. Bush's views on global warming.
Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality, a White House advisory agency, pointed to several speeches in which Mr. Bush had acknowledged the impact of global warming and the need to confront it, even if he questioned the degree to which humans contribute to it. -
So, to rebut accusations that the Bush administration has put no limit on global warming pollution, WH spokesperson claims that Bush has mentioned it in many speeches. Evidently words now count as actions.
February 19, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Bush gives a speech he follows through on every word he utters. The 7000 troops will be en route to Darfur any day now, by way of Mars.
February 19, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words don't just now count as actions, they always have for Bush. Remember how we contributed $15 billion to the Africa AIDS fight? Remember us ever actually doing so? I don't either. And, the one skill Rove has is to manipulate language so that people always believe you are doing what they want, even though you are doing the exact opposite. Bush is only about words - which may be a good thing. When he does actually act he orders an invasion having no justification, authorizes torture, authorizes indefinite jailing with no access to legal help and no charges, authorizes illegal wire tapping of US citizens, and on and on. I prefer he just talk.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 19, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, in other words, inaction counts as action. Seems about right for American politics these days.
February 19, 2006 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, inaction counts as action. If you have two choices - do something or do nothing, then deciding and doing nothing is an action. Inaction is not an action only when it is not a choice. For example Bush's inaction on the subject of Universe Aging is not an action. But, Bush's inaction on the subject of reducing US CO2 emissions is an action. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it really isn't.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 19, 2006 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush shows no real concern for Darfur. He has painted the UN as corrupt and ineffectual and not to be trusted with important tasks, like disarming Iraq (though they achieved this goal before Bush got to town).
So when he trusts a task, like Darfur, to the UN, you can fairly assume he doesn't find it that important.
February 19, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth here is Mr. Gerson's biography.
It would appear that Mr. Gerson's formal qualifications are theological. Of course, we can all learn. In theory.
February 19, 2006 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theological qualifications aren't always the worst (I say this as an athiest) to rely on, at least at the start - after all, given that the policy folks think in analytical policy terms, sometimes it takes an outsider with some gravitas to point out when the government has a moral obligation to do something (MLK, after all, had a doctorate in theology).
Having said that, it does sound of a piece with how all policy decisions are made and implemented in this White House - who needs planning when you have moral clarity?
February 20, 2006 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the same way that history will record Clinton and Rwanda? I remember an interview with Madeline Albright as she traveled to Rwanda a few years back. She stated they really dropped the ball and she really regrets not pushing harder. I was only a Frosh in high school at the time, so I don't really remember the forces at will. But with the luxury of hindsight, I'll have to agree with her.
I don't care how Bush sees it. I'll take something over nothing in Darfur right now.
February 20, 2006 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton and Albright did drop the ball in Rwanda, and yes, history will note that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 20, 2006 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The profile of Gerson in the Feb. 13 & 20 New Yorker recounts that Gerson had a heart attack in December, 2004, and changed positions thereafter, into a role in which he still does speechwriter, but also has Africa policy in his portfolio:
Jeffrey Goldberg, "Letter From Washington," The New Yorker 58 (Feb. 13 & 20, 2006).
The subtler indictment of the Admininistration is that the path to becoming a senior policy advisor is to be a speechwriter or political operative.
February 23, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink