It’s been a staple of political journalism for several years now — despite Bush’s intransigence, rigidity, and stubbornness, reporters insist on telling us intermittently that the president is “reassessing” his agenda.
The latest is the WaPo’s Peter Baker.
As he addresses a conference on climate change this morning, President Bush will face not only a crowd of skeptics but the press of time. For nearly seven years, he invested little personal energy in the challenge of global warming. Now, with the end in sight, he has called the biggest nations of the world together to press for a plan by the end of next year.
I’m tempted to describe this as an “overly-generous take” on Bush’s approach, but Barker’s description is worse than that; it’s just wrong. For one thing, the president hasn’t just “invested little personal energy” in global warming; he has, as Matt Yglesias noted, “invested plenty of energy in undermining efforts to respond to the challenge of global warming and continues to do so by continuing to oppose mandatory emissions reductions.”
For that matter, Baker’s piece seems to credit Bush for hosting a climate change meeting. The truth is, the president boycotted the real meeting about climate change (at the U.N., with over 100 countries participating in a policy dialog), and established a parallel meeting in which the planet’s biggest polluters could talk about talking about what to do, at some point, maybe. Baker characterizes this as a president who’s finally getting to work on a climate crisis; in reality, it’s a president running out the clock and leaving a mess for his successor.
On Iraq, it’s the same situation.
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that “a new president who comes in in January of ’09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, ‘I’m persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It’s important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I’ll leave Iraq alone.’ And so that a new president coming in doesn’t have a first crisis about ‘let’s pull the troops out of Iraq.’ ”
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, “The Evangelical President,” by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has “been urging candidates, ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,’ ” White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
But this isn’t Bush “reassessing” his legacy; this is Bush hoping to see his successor stay the course.
In other words, this is a president who believes all of his decisions have been the right ones, believes his legacy will be a positive one, and wants his policies to be kept in place, even after he’s left the Oval Office.
Where’s the reassessment? Nothing’s changed at all.
For some reason, political reporters seem convinced that, one of these days, Bush will recognize the position he’s in and adopt a new way of governing and new policy agenda. It’s not going to happen.