Bush Administration Hostility to Planning

[RickSp]

What is it about planning that is such an anathema to the Bush administration? They seem either not to plan and to be hostile to realistic planning. Two different yet related articles:

Bush Is Said to Have No Plan if GOP Loses

Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7–a concern aggravated by the president's news conference this week. "They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. If Democrats win control of the House, as many analysts expect, Republicans predict that Bush's final two years in office will be marked by multiple congressional investigations and gridlock. "The Bush White House has had no relationship with Congress," said a Bush ally. "Beyond the Democrats, wait till they see how the Republicans–the ones that survive–treat them if they lose next month." GOP insiders are upset by Bush's seeming inability to come up with new ideas or fresh approaches. There is even a heightened sensitivity to the way Bush talks about advisers who served his father.

There was a plan for Iraq - but it was torn up

When, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the retired US Army General Jay Garner was asked to take over the post-war humanitarian mission, he certainly possessed the credentials for the job. In 1991 he had headed Operation Provide Comfort, rescuing thousands of ethnic Kurds in northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. Who better, then, for the American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to appoint to the job second time round. Garner drew up detailed plans and, at his first briefing with President Bush, outlined three essential "musts" that would, he asserted, ensure a smooth transition after the war. The first "must", he said, was that the Iraqi military should not be disbanded. The second "must" was that the 50,000-strong Ba'ath party machine that ran government services should not be broken up or its members proscribed. If either were to happen, he warned, there would be chaos compounded by thousands of unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. And the third "must", he insisted, was that an interim Iraqi leadership group, eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term, should be kept on-side. Initially, no one disagreed, according to State of Denial, the new book by the veteran Washington reporter, Bob Woodward. But within weeks of the invasion, Garner's tenure as head of the post-war planning office was over: he was replaced by Paul Bremer, a terrorism expert and protégé of Henry Kissinger. Bremer immediately countermanded all three of Garner's "musts".

[bishop]

what kind of plan is bush expected to have? i didn't completely understand the first article's point..

bush is just running on autopilot without a charted course - as he has since the beginning of his presidency. he just meanders about when it comes to issues he doesn't care about (which is virtually everything other than tax cuts, torture, domestic spying and war). plus, he didn't have any new ideas last year, or the year before that or the year before that... now the dipshits who've been his rubber stamp for the past 6 years, focused solely on getting re-elected, are finally seeing the light - that the lights are on, but nobody's home in their dear leader's empty dome.

i think criticism that bush doesn't have a plan is one of those "no shit sherlock" types of comments. and we all know that if the republicans lose control, the democrats are going to make the remainder of his term a total nightmare. in the process, they'll get the public so thoroughly disguisted with bush's and the republicans' 8-year legacy that they just beg for change - ala voting in democrats.

[RickSp]

Karl Rove, "Bush's brain", is known for his planning and implementation. Just because the king is clueless doesn't mean that he wouldn't necessarily have contingencies laid out.

[bishop]

maybe some have, but i never considered rove to be much of a policy wonk. his specialty is running campaigns and his mastery of rhetoric..

virtually all of "bush's" ideas came from conservative intellectuals. be it from tax cuts, to iraq, to social security, etc... i subscribe to foreign affairs, largely considered to be a conservative/establishment journal - and i've definitely noticed that conservative intellectuals across the board have little new ideas left in them. instead, it's more of a continuous defense of bush's decisions - rather than forward-looking ideas (or plans).

politicians are nothing if they don't have the support of the intellectuals. that's always been the case in this country and in all other countries. intellectuals give birth to ideas and plans, not politicians.

and as far as rove goes, i think the plame scandal effectively sapped whatever energy he had left.

[bishop]

here's a solid follow-up article to the first one posted here..

White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects - washingtonpost.com

the confidence of rove in maintaining control this time around is worrisome - because he's been successful several times in the past.

[underbear1]

Bush may not be in on the plan, but Cheney, the Christian Reich, NeoCons, and War contractors, Energy CEOs, and Pharmacuetical companies are real good planners.

[Autolykos]

He has a plan, he's just reserving the right to withhold information from the American public. Imperial politics as usual... :rolleyes:

- Rob

[bishop]

Rove foresees GOP victory - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

White House political strategist Karl Rove yesterday confidently predicted that the Republican Party would hold the House and the Senate in next month's elections, dismissing fallout from the sex scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley. At a luncheon with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, Mr. Rove -- who is widely credited as the architect of the party's historic 2002 midterm election gains -- said Republicans are beginning to make significant headway in defining their party's differences from congressional Democrats, especially on national security. "I'm confident we're going to keep the Senate; I'm confident we're going to keep the House. The Foley matter has impact in some limited districts, but the research we have shows that people are differentiating between a vote for their congressman and a member from Florida," Mr. Rove said, referring to the Republican who resigned last month after his sexually explicit online messages to former congressional pages were discovered.

the only reason why they could be so upbeat, despite the littany of failures and scandals is because the public doesn't see the democrats as being an appealing alternative...

if only there was a bit more competence amongst the third parties.