‘No one will talk to each other’

Yesterday, the NYT had an interesting look at a new book, “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush,” by journalist Robert Draper, a former writer for Texas Monthly who spent hours with the president and other White House officials, getting them to open up on a variety of subjects. The most notable revelation in the Times piece was that Bush didn’t intend to disband the Iraqi military after the fall of Saddam, but it happened anyway. Asked why and how he felt about this, Bush said, “Yeah, I can’t remember…. Hadley’s got notes on all of this stuff.”

Today, the WaPo’s Michael Abramowitz follows up with more insights from Draper’s book, most notably the bitter behind-the-scenes conflicts that divided the White House. As Abramowitz said, the book “offers an intimate portrait of a White House racked by more internal dissent and infighting than is commonly portrayed.”

[Draper] also makes new disclosures about the behind-the-scenes infighting at the White House that helped prompt the change from Card to Bolten in the spring of 2006. By that point, he reports, some close to the president had concluded that “the White House management structure had collapsed,” with senior aides Rove and Dan Bartlett “constantly at war.”

He quotes Gillespie as telling one Republican while running interference for Alito’s Supreme Court nomination: “I’m going crazy over here. I feel like a shuttle diplomat, going from office to office. No one will talk to each other.”

This isn’t entirely surprising. In Bush’s first term, the conventional wisdom was that the Bush gang was so disciplined, so ideologically in sync, and so loyal to their boss, we’d never hear about the kind of back-biting conflicts that caused occasional strife in the Clinton administration. But even before Draper’s book, this was always more about p.r. than reality — we’ve heard for years about a variety of internal conflicts, including those between Hughes and Rove, and Rumsfeld and Rice.

But Draper’s book apparently highlights just how deep these divisions were.

There was also this gem:

In the CIA leak scandal, Rove assured Bush, Draper reports, that he had known nothing about Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose covert status was revealed by administration officials to reporters after Plame’s husband criticized the administration’s case for war in Iraq. “When Bush learned otherwise,” he said, “he hit the roof.”

Really? Frankly, I’ve heard this before, from a couple of different writers, and each time, it strikes me as implausible. Indeed, it sounds like butt-covering of the highest order. Bush’s roof-hitting didn’t include firing Rove as he’d publicly vowed to do, didn’t involve stripping Rove of his security clearance as White House regs mandated, and didn’t appear to adversely affect their relationship at all.

Indeed, by appearances, Bush didn’t care that Rove helped leak the identity of a covert CIA agent during a war at all.

Among some of the other more notable revelations:

* Rove didn’t want to see Bush invite Cheney onto the 2000 ticket: “Selecting Daddy’s top foreign-policy guru ran counter to message. It was worse than a safe pick — it was needy.”

* When weighing firing Rumsfeld in April 2006, Bush polled his top advisors at a private White House dinner. Seven voted to dump Rumsfeld, including Rice, Bolten, Card, and Gillespie. Three voted to keep Rumsfeld, including Bush. (It’s not clear why the president bothered to conduct the poll in the first place.)

* Draper’s book says that John Roberts Jr., now the chief justice, was the one who recommended Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Roberts’ office told the Post, “The account is not true.” (I can’t think of a reason why Roberts would recommend Miers, so I find the denial fairly compelling.)

* Rove reportedly expressed concerns about Miers’ nomination, but he was “shouted down.”

* The day before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Bush was quiet during a video briefing from FEMA, in part because he was tired after an 80-minute bike ride.

* Secret Service agents have taken on the task of going to areas where Bush intends to visit, so they can find bike trails the president might find challenging. As Draper puts it, officials have “devoted inordinate energy to satisfying Bush’s need for biking trails.”

* Bolten stripped Rove of his policy role at the White House, because he’d noticed that other staffers were “intimidated” by Rove, and Rove was seen as doing too much, “freelancing, insinuating himself into the message world … parachuting into Capitol Hill whenever it suited him.”

Sounds like there are some interesting insights in all of this, some more believable than others.

Color me suspicious. It all seems a bit too much like a legacy set up: “The bubble was a liberal myth! See how much dissent there was! I heard a broad range of views! I was almost Clintonesque in my wonkiness!”

If a Presidency fell in the forest and no one cared to listen would it make a sound?

  • * Rove didn’t want to see Bush invite Cheney onto the 2000 ticket: “Selecting Daddy’s top foreign-policy guru ran counter to message. It was worse than a safe pick — it was needy.”

    So if only they had listened to Rove, we wouldn’t be in Iraq??? Combined with the Harriet Meirs shoutdown and Rove being stripped of power by Bolten, it sounds like there is some serious Rove reputation building going on in the background.

    I don’t imagine Draper is a Bush syncophant, but after Woodward’s advetures in Bush acess, how can we begin to believe anything any of them say about anything?

  • I’m with Zeitgeist on this one – except I think it backfires. I think the next step after “but see, there was dissent and people were allowed to disagree,” is that Bush still did what he wanted to do – inlcuding putting his own need for exercise before issues and events that might require his full – and not depleted – attention.

    If ever there was an example of “The Selfish President,” this is it.

  • I agree with Martin. If some of the stuff in the book is implausible on its face, how do we credit the rest? Besides, anyone who got voluntary access to this nest of criminals may well be tainted. The notion that a couple of disastrous decisions were supposedly being loudly opposed by Rove suggests the stories are a classic ass-covering plant, especially as they involve media manipulator Rove.

    I don’t think we’ll have any sort of reliable picture of the internal machinations of this White House till all their data storage hardware has undergone forensic analysis.

  • Bush would have to have Hadley check his notes to know if he hit the roof or not. All these revelations sound like this group of pretenders are as unexperienced in governing as they are in war. Wonkinhawks?

    Rice might see herself as Dagney Taggart but she ain’t. Her boots were not made for walking the talk.

  • In the end, it will all be about deflecting blame from little George. His subordinates let him down: they gave him bad advice and they fought with each other. How was he to know that the Iraqi army had been disbanded? That was someone else’s fault.

    Bush was just a victim of bad advisers and of his own noble trust in them. The failures were not caused by his arrogance, ignorance and grandiosity, the failures were the result of inferior subordinates who failed to carry out his perfect vision.

    Yeah, that’s how we’ll play it and the chumps will lap it up..

  • CB you said that you found Roberts denial fairly compelling but with these traitors & liars you must always translate from legal BS to English. The full quote was: “The account is not true,” said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg, after consulting with Roberts. “The chief justice did not suggest Harriet Miers to the President.”
    Note the language “…suggest…to the President”. The follow up questions that need to be asked are: #1 Did the proven liar Roberts in anyway think or want the moron Miers to be on SCOUS with him? #2 Did Roberts “suggest” Miers to anyone in the executive branch for SCOUS?
    All of these Reich wing psychopaths are traitorous scum who can’t ever tell the truth, which is why I don’t believe Roberts denial for a second.

  • The fact of division and conflict is not particularly important. Every administration, every human organization, has that.

    What is remarkable is that we are beginning to see how Bush’s personal incompetence as a leader and manager plays out into organizational palsy and policy disaster.

    From the beginning, we’ve heard about the poverty of the policy process. “Policy process” makes for a pretty bloodless narrative for most people, but it is the heart and soul of effective governance.

  • All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put (fill in the blank) back together again.

    Possible “blank” fillings:

    1) Iraq.

    2) Iran, if any bombs drop on it.

    3) The U.S. Constitution.

    4) The “rule of law” in America.

    5) Checks and balances.

    6) The wall separating church and state.

    7) International treaties.

    8) Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

    9) The U.S. military.

    10) Women’s and minority rights in America.

    (I’m certain that there are many more Bush-generated “blanks” that have resulted from his Shermanesque march through our nation’s executive branch, but these 10 are off the top of my head).

  • It could be that Roberts wanted Miers precisely because she was a sycophantic, pliable Bush-loyalist who could be counted on always to do what her worshipful boss directed. In other words, given her total lack of judicial experience, Roberts could mold her into a clone of himself.

    I never take Bush Administration denials — or denials of any Republican these days — at face value. 99 times out of 100, they’re lying.

  • Comments are closed.