In with the old guard
Comments (12)
Friday, November 10, 2006 | 01:11 PM ET
By Henry Champ
There are many in Washington, this writer among them, who believe President George W. Bush when he says the decision to let Donald Rumsfeld go was made before the election results came in. And that those results — the "thumpin'" the Republicans took — did not affect that call.
The president knows and has known for sometime that he has lost the American people on the Iraq war. He didn't need Tuesday's vote for confirmation.
How he became influenced to embrace new advisers is a matter for the foreign policy wonks to write about in upcoming months. But embrace them he has.
Bush is now facing the blackest hole any political leader can serve in — two years of irrelevance, the proverbial "lame-duck session."
The first sign he was open to changing course was his embrace of the Iraq Study Group, which was created by Congress back in the spring. Headed be former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, this group is to release its first report in December.
Its job is to find a way, with honour if possible, out of the Iraq quagmire. But its other function has been to allow voices to be heard in the Oval Office that were shutout by Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and that cadre of neo-conservatives who controlled the key gatekeeping offices at the Pentagon and State Department.
Among these new voices: Baker, one of the country's more successful secretaries of state; Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser; and Robert Gates, the newly-nominated defence secretary. All served the president's father, George H. Bush when he ran the White House. All are now back.
A different political mind
As Tom Donnelly, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Washington Post: "Bush's mind works differently from the normal political mind. He seems motivated by faith and ideals, and is willing to take risks politically. Maybe these Baker guys can talk him off the ledge. But nobody's done it yet."
Scowcroft's return is a sign Bush is at least listening.
A former admiral, Scowcroft broke with the Bush White House over the Iraq War and the Mideast peace process. Lately, he has been seen dining with Condoleezza Rice and talking with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and is considered to have been a mentor to both in their early careers.
Scowcroft's role at this point will be in the background. That won't be the case with Gates, who takes over from Rumsfeld at defence.
Clearly distraught
Gates is a member of the Iraq Study group and has just returned from Baghdad. The New York Times, quoting a close friend of Gates, described the incoming secretary as "clearly distraught over the incompetence of how the Iraq operation is being run."
Gates apparently expressed disbelief at the slow U.S. response to the rapid deterioration of security in Iraq, and the slow response of the president to overhaul the management of the war.
Administration officials say Bush is aware of the Gates' critique and understands there will be a housecleaning of the Rumsfeld appointees at the Pentagon.
How far will this housecleaning go? What about Vice-President Cheney, one of the most powerful vice-presidents in U.S. history? Is Bush fully on board with a full-scale overhaul?
The word in some Washington circles is that what is being attempted here is an elegant retreat, to be seen as a political victory. We'll see.
Women on a roll
On a different front: When it comes to change there were seventy women elected to the House of Representatives on Tuesday. Sixteen women are in the Senate. Nine women were elected as governors.
These are record highs.
San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi will be the Speaker of the House and therefore third in line to the presidency. That makes her the most senior elected woman in U.S. history.
Not bad! But why such a good showing now?
Exit polls showed that political corruption was the second biggest issue of concern for voters, following the Iraq war. And voters told the pollsters that they considered women candidates "an antidote to corruption."
Change at the UN
Bi-partisanship? That's the buzz phrase of the moment anyway. But before anyone gets carried away, remember this phrase: "I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee because it is going nowhere."
Those words from incoming committee chairman Joseph Biden means by the end of the year the White House's often controversial UN Ambassador John Bolton is toast.
Bolton was the subject of a huge fight between Democrats and Republicans in 2005. Democrats felt he was unsuitable for the job.
The Democrats defeated Bolton's nomination in the Senate. The President then waited until the Senators adjourned and made a "recess" appointment, which allowed Bolton to go to New York.
That recess appointment has to be confirmed, however, before this current Senate leaves office by the end of the year, which means Bolton will be coming home in January. Senators don't forget.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Closed. View the Comments.
Washington File »
About the Author
Henry Champ is CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C., delivering Canadian viewers the latest developments in the U.S. political arena. Recently, he has been a leading Canadian voice on coverage of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the growing concerns over the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Recent Posts
- Vapour ads create successful campaign smokescreens
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 11, 2008
- The parties are over
- Henry Champ
- Friday, September 5, 2008
- The attack dog fights back
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 4, 2008
- The plan for Sarah Palin
- Henry Champ
- Wednesday, September 3, 2008
- Paying a high price for Palin
- Henry Champ
- Tuesday, September 2, 2008
- Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments
- No, my question was not rhetorical. In Canada, we do not...
- In with the old guard
- Gary...your question was rhetorical right? ...
- In with the old guard
- I'm glad to hear that the Bin Laden family has top notch ...
- In with the old guard
- Thanks for that wonderful reminder Gord. Geesh, wasn't S...
- In with the old guard
- Speaking of James Baker. Last I heard, his law firm was d...
- In with the old guard
Archives
- September 2008
- (6 postings)
- August 2008
- (6 postings)
- June 2008
- (3 postings)
- May 2008
- (6 postings)
- April 2008
- (3 postings)
- March 2008
- (4 postings)
- February 2008
- (5 postings)
- January 2008
- (7 postings)
- November 2007
- (2 postings)
- October 2007
- (7 postings)
- September 2007
- (1 postings)
- July 2007
- (6 postings)
- June 2007
- (5 postings)
- May 2007
- (6 postings)
- April 2007
- (6 postings)
- March 2007
- (5 postings)
- February 2007
- (7 postings)
- January 2007
- (8 postings)
- December 2006
- (7 postings)
- November 2006
- (8 postings)
- October 2006
- (10 postings)
- September 2006
- (9 postings)
- August 2006
- (9 postings)
Comments (12)
Gary Dare
No, my question was not rhetorical. In Canada, we do not prosecute nor exact revenge on family members of criminals. The Bernardo and Homolka families may have suffered shame but I haven't heard of their parents, siblings or cousins being pulled in by their arrest and prosecution. Why should the British half-brother or American niece (to a Spanish mother) of OBL be detained?
Posted November 28, 2006 03:28 PM
Steve
Gary...your question was rhetorical right?
Posted November 24, 2006 06:40 AM
Gary Dare
I'm glad to hear that the Bin Laden family has top notch legal representation to fend off the lynch mob. While I wish for a quick capture and horrible death for the monster OBL, exactly what is his London financier British half-brother or US-born documentary film maker niece (Carmen's daughter) liable for? Even the people going after OJ aren't hanging anything on his kids, his first wife, his mother, etc.
Posted November 22, 2006 04:38 PM
Steve
Thanks for that wonderful reminder Gord. Geesh, wasn't Saddam a friend of the US too at one point? Mussharaf better watch out....
Posted November 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Gord Metcalfe
Vancouver
Speaking of James Baker. Last I heard, his law firm was defending the Bin Laden family from lawsuits by the 9-11 families. Suddenly he is a respected elder statesman as portrayed by the media that overlooks his own war crimes such as participating in the false-flag operation, Gulf War 1 and complicity in illegally kidnapping Noriega wherein 10s of thousands of civilians were aerial bombed in their homes and all after an orchestrated media campaign to smear their former CIA agent, Manuel, in order to justify this crime.
Posted November 21, 2006 09:42 AM
Steve
Well said Don...but you forgot about GWB's cocaine use that, for some reason, the US media did not even touch upon during either election. Some folks end up in the slammer, and others become King of the World.
Posted November 17, 2006 07:26 AM
Don
Clearly, gross incompetence or criminal misconduct (depending on your mood) has ruled Washington since this current gang of idiots seized power in 2000. There were numerous warnings during the primaries a full year before the presidential election that governor Bush was simply not up to the task" he was weak on foreign policy, devoid of economic sense or experience, demonstrated a profound and epic incompetent business sense with a string of bankruptcies and missed opportunities behind him, and, as if that weren't enough, was known to be firmly in the pocket of big oil. How much more do you think you would need before taking a pass on a clown like that? Well, obviously, for half of voting Americans, that sort of resume is just the ticket necessary in order to assume the top job. Kind of hard now to feel bad that their choice has been such a dismal failure but "I told you so." We all knew this incompetent would screw things up and he has succeeded in that beyond anyone's expectations: is it any wonder that he's now enlisting his daddy's old friends to pull his fat out of the fire now? Well guess what? It's far too late for that, isn't it? Iraq is done for as a nation and so is Afghanistan, it's really only a matter of time before we all cave in and retreat and leave those fine fellows over there free to kill themselves off in bloody, internecine, butchery. Are they worse off than they were under Saddam? You bet they are, as any quick glance around at the state of things would confirm. Forget history's judgement, use your eyes and open your ears. The failures of the last 6 years can be laid at the door of this president and no other. Too bad congress doesn't have the guts to impeach that scoundrel.
Posted November 14, 2006 01:52 PM
Lloyd Billlard
It should be no surprise that the war in Iraq is not going smoothly.
There is a Commander-in Chief who
is probably still AWOL from his
national guard duties and had almost no training in military
planning or discipline. There is
a vice-president who was an expert
at dodging any kind of military
service in his youthful years. There
are probably many competent, well
trained and experienced senior officers in the US Armed Forces whose advice was either not asked
for or else were ignored if their
advice did jive with what the top
brass had already decided on.
I think that before voting for a
new president it would be advisable
to find out if he or her ever had steady job.
Posted November 12, 2006 09:17 AM
Wally Urff
Having read a lot of the accounts through the internet, I find it fascinating that Mr. Bush has not learned from the lessons of history. A lot of middle east countries have customs and cultures that are not understood by western people. The Sunis and Shiites have fought each other over centuries. New lands were won and lost, without the help of western influence. These countries are very capable of running their own affairs, and must be respected. The Unites States does not see it that way, and interferes in their way of life all in the name of democracy. Those middle east cultures have survived many conflicts and will do so for many more centuries. The United States has unjustly invaded a country that had stability, albeit a ruthless dictator. Are they any better off today? A question only history will answer
Posted November 12, 2006 07:37 AM
stephen kurtz
It won't be easy for George Bush and it is going to be harder for the Democrats. If they want the White House they are going to have to play it very cool. Too much witch-hunting will damage their chances. They will have to find someone other than Hillary Clinton. It will be interesting to see what happens on the domestic front because foreign policy will not decide 2008; it never has and never will.
Posted November 12, 2006 07:29 AM
Anne Acco
Lavak,Quebec
This present Bush administration was lost to the American public very quickly. There are too many rogues to keep our eyes on. The world has become even more dangerous as other governments will now take advantage of any confusion. The ordinary citizen on this continent can thank the American people for speaking their mind in enough numbers to warrant some hope for something better than fences on our borders.
There are coming world naturally occuring problems that will require that all men in places of decision making will have to strive for the getter good in the global sense. There seemed to be no room for discourse as the present administration ran out of good ideas right from the get-go Canadains should pay attention to our elected leaders since they are coming across as Crash
Test Dummies in front of a plate glass window overlooking Lake Superior. Has the Secretary of State Rice gone into hiding? I have not seen or heard her or about her in days?
Posted November 11, 2006 06:26 PM
Gary Dare
It should be noted that prior to the invasion of Iraq, both Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III wrote in the Wall Street Journal and other major publication that the current administration be patient, or not invade at all until it was sure. Baker has sway within the Bush family but Brent Scowcroft would not have published his piece without the approval of the senior President Bush. Maybe Mr. Champ can confirm what my Georgetown contacts tell me, that Bush 41 and 43 do differ over Iraq. (But not the War on Terrorism; like the rest of the world and now a bare majority of Americans, 41 sees them as separate.)
Posted November 10, 2006 01:57 PM