Bush-Style Managment

An aside David Ignatius'  WP column today:

In 2004 the CIA station chief in Baghdad was sending warnings every 60 days, in special messages known as "AARDWOLF" cables, about the deteriorating situation. This candid and largely correct reporting is said to have angered White House officials, who complained that the Baghdad chief was defeatist and not a team player. At the end of his tour, he was punished with a poor assignment.

As Jonathan Alter puts it on Bloggindheads, "The guy is a bad president. I'm not talking ideologically. I'm just talk talking about getting stuff done competently." My guess: It all emanates from our president's insecurities. But, you know, the source doesn't really matter.

The results do.

Comments

[Zathras]

"Insecurities" is a little glib as an explanation here. Nixon had insecurities; what they produced was tragedy because Nixon also had formidable talents as a President. Bush's insecurities are based on a fairly realistic appreciation of him own limitations.

Bush is a talented politician, and a skilled campaigner. The talents and skills required of a President are very different; even Clinton's time in the White House should have taught us that much. Bush is woefully out of his depth where almost any substantive policy issue is involved; he dislikes negotiating with Congress and is uncomfortable with most foreign leaders because he recognizes this.

Mainstream media mostly have not, because mainstream media has come to think of itself as a division of the entertainment industry (indeed, major broadcast networks are precisely that). They cover the most entertaining stories about public life, which are election campaigns and disasters. Recognizing Bush's skill at election campaigns, American media have been slow to acknowledge is inadequacies as head of state and head of government. These are not present because he is insecure; they are present because he just isn't very good, something I'm afraid George Bush has in common with a lot of politicians in Washington today, including most of the politicians who would like to replace him in January 2009.

By the way, Eric, the header on this blog promises pondering and reporting about the Lakers. I want to hear about the Lakers! I want truth in advertising!

[Eric Umansky]

I preparing a barrage of Lakers triumphalist posts. Then, ahem, tragedy struck.

[Eric Umansky]

P.S. Like a said, the source of the president's "baddness" doesn't much matter. But fwiw, I think you're at most partly right. After all, what "skills" does it to encourage aides to give you a full picture? And what "skill" does it show the president lacks when he creates an administration that *discourages* bad, realistic news?

[Zathras]

Well, you're less afraid of bad news if you feel yourself able to deal with it. If you are President, your subordinates may limit the amount of bad news you are exposed to if they have their own doubts about your ability to handle it.

Now, I think a lot of the way Bush has conducted himself as President is reflective of his really ferocious sense of personal entitlement. If he doesn't want to hear bad news, for whatever reason, then by Godfrey he won't hear it. A sense of entitlement, and a fairly profound one at that, is unfortunately not unique to George Bush among politicians in Washington.

[coach outlet]

Can share the pain of others, is a human; to share the happiness of others, is God.