Movie Report: W

I seem to be a little obsessed with politics lately (I can't think why) and when the new Oliver Stone movie, W, opened in town today, I had to go see it.

I'm not a big Oliver Stone fan, at least not of the paranoid conspiracy fantasies he has been making the last 20 years. I enjoyed Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July and Talk Radio, the last of which came out in 1989, but not much since then. W is not a paranoid delusional fantasy, it might be more interesting if it were.

"Is this movie supposed to be a comedy or what?" The Wife asked half way through. I usually don't like to be interrupted during movies, but a little conversation was a welcome diversion as I kept looking at my watch and wondering how much longer this was going to last. One of the problems of the movie is that it couldn't decide if it was a comedy or what. I think Stone intended it to be tragic, as W lands in a job for which he is not qualified and thousands of people wind up getting killed as a result, but there are also comedic aspects. Michael Moore would have done a much better job of using comedy to leaven the tragedy of W's career.

Another problem (besides a director whose best work was 20 years ago) is that the story it is trying to tell happened too recently. Most of us have seen the story on television as it unfolded and there are no new insights that Stone brings to us. Give it another few years; let our memories get fuzzy about what actually happened and then do a creative retelling of it.

Josh Brolin does a credible job of playing W, but it is Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney who steals the show. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to see Dreyfuss get an Academy nomination as Best Supporting Actor. On the other hand, Thandie Newton is made up to look like a twin of Condolezza Rice, but as The Wife said, "She can't act." She sounded like she was reading a script.

Other reviewers have commented that Stone avoids the temptation of demonizing W, and even makes him into a somewhat sympathetic character. I didn't find the W of the movie anymore sympathetic than the real W, whose job in office has three-fourths of the country disapproving.

It is odd that the movie has come out three weeks before the election, and although John McCain (or an actor playing him) is shown briefly in several crowd shots, I do not think there is anything in the movie that would sway anyone's vote, one way or the other. Senator McCain rightly pointed out at the debate the other night that he is not George W. Bush, and he is not, but he did support Bush's policies 95 percent of the time, and it is the policies that have hurt this country so badly.

I wound up giving the movie my average rating of three out of five stars because although it is not as good as I had hoped, it is not as bad as I had feared.

Bush Report: Two Grave Mistakes

Here is the final excerpt from the former Bush loyalist and chief spokesman Scott McClellan in his book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. This is from page 210:

The first grave mistake of Bush's presidency was rushing toward military confrontation with Iraq. It took his presidency off course and greatly damaged his standing with the public. His second grave mistake was his virtual blindness about his first mistake, and his unwillingness to sustain a bipartisan spirit during a time of war and change course when events demanded it.

At page 301 of the book, McClellan describes the scene when he talked to Bush in the Oval Office about the fact that he was leaving as his press spokesman. He says that tears were streaming down Bush's cheeks as they talked. I wonder if that is because he forsaw that his old friend was about to write a book about what really happened in the White House.

Weather Report: What A Perfect Day

This is a perfect day in Central Illinois. The temperature is 72 degrees, with a high of 82 predicted; the humidity is a relatively low 68; there is not a cloud in the sky. I don't know how we could get so lucky in mid-July, but I decided to thank God for such a day by staying home from church and enjoying the weather. So, I'm on the back patio, drinking coffee, reading the Sunday newspaper, listening to healthy radio, Whole Wheat Radio, out of Talkeetna, Alaska, and enjoying the beautiful yard, The Wife (and God) are solely responsible for providing. In a few minutes, I'm going to ride my new bicycle (new to me; it's a classic Raleigh built 35 years ago, and built to last another 35, my bicycle supplier tells me) to the Great Harvest bakery to replenish our bread supply. What could be better?


(Oh, and to keep from completely blissing out, go read Frank Rich's column in the New York Times (subscription may be required, but it's free) this morning. The stuff I've been posting from former Bush staffers is just scratching the surface of the ugliness that is going on in our nation's capitol. If you don't want to face any unpleasantness, just look at my backyard, listen to some music, drink some coffee and enjoy the perfect weather.)

Bush Report: He Just Didn't Understand

Today's meditation on the mendacity of the Bush Administration, another excerpt from Scott McClellan's book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and the Washington Culture of Deception. This is from pages 145 - 146:

"When Bush was making up his mind to pursue regime change in Iraq, it is clear that his national security team did little to slow him down, to help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening and the potential risks in doing so. I know the president pretty well. I believe that if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war -- more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens dead -- he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today.

* * *

"In the end, of course, President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. He made the decision to invade, and he signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest. An issue as grave as war must be dealt with openly, forthrightly, and honestly. The American people, and especially our troops and their families, deserve nothing less."

Bush Report: Political Manipulation; Plain and Simple

Today's meditation on the perfidy of the Bush Administration comes from page 117 of Scott McClellan's confessions, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception:

"(N)o political operative before Rove arguably had so much influence within a White House. As senior adviser overseeing political affairs and strategy, Rove controlled an inordinately influential power center in the White House. There were other influential power centers, but none had as much impact on White House governing, policy and operations. Unlike Karen Hughes, whose goal was to help the President shape his message in ways that would appeal to ordinary Americans, particularly those in the vital center, and unlike Andy Card, the chief of staff who served as an honest broker among various political points of view, Rove was a central player who was anything but neutral in his political and ideological views.

"Rove's role was political manipulation, plain and simple, which explains the machinations within the White House and their consequences, whether beneficial or detrimental."

And this from page 125:

"In the fall of 2002, Bush and his White House were engaging in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage. We'd done much the same on other issues -- tax cuts and education -- to great sucess. But war with Iraq was different. Beyond the irreversible human costs and the substantial financial price, the decision to go to war and the way we went about selling it would ultimately lead to increased polarization and intensified partisan warfare. Our lack of candor and honesty in making the case for war would later provoke a partisan response from our opponents, that, in its own way, further distorted and obscured a more nuanced reality. Another cycle of deception would cloud the public's ability to see larger underlying truths that are critical to understand in order to avoid the same problems in the future.

"And through it all the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it. The White House knew the national media would cover its arguments for war even if the underlying evidence was a little shaky. Questions might be raised, but the administration had the biggest platform, especially when something as dramatic and controversial as war was at stake. And the public is generally inclined to believe what the White House says, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt until the watchdog media proves it is unreliable.

"But in this case, the media would neglect their watchdog role."

Want more of the same? Vote McCain

Bush Report: He Just Can't Remember the Truth

Here is the latest nugget from Scott McClellan's memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. McClellan is describing an incident in August, 1999, when rumors of Bush's cocaine use were surfacing again. Bush is in his hotel suite, on the phone to a supporter:

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'

"The overheard comments struck me and stayed with me to this day -- not for what it revealed or concealed about the young George W. Bush, but for what it said about Bush as an older man and political leader, especially as revealed through my later experiences working for him.

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be? How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense.

"I compared Bush's memory, or lack of it to my own experience. When I was young, I had my moments of excessive drinking at parties or out on the town with friends. There was also a time or two when I was around others who smoked marijuana. But I always drew the line at illegal drugs. The closest I ever came was holding a smoldering joint in my hand at a friend's home, gazing at it for a second as if tempted -- more to tease my friends than anything else -- and then passing it along to the person next to me, saying something like, 'Thanks but no thanks.' After that happened a couple of times, my buddies knew better than to even tempt me.

"Whether or not I smoked pot isn't that important. The point is, I know what happened. And I found it hard to understand how George Bush could say he simply had no idea about what happened in his own past.

"I know Bush, and I know he genuinely believes what he says. He isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie, particularly when speaking in private to a supporter or a friend. So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious: political convenience. He is certainly not the only politician to embrace the hazy memory defense, especially in our ever-more transparent political culture where voters are exposed to more outlets for news than ever before and just about everything is considered fair game to some.

"In the years to come, as I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment. It is not unlike a witness in court who does not want to implicate himself in wrongdoing, but is also concerned about perjuring himself. So he says, 'I do not recall.' The witness knows no one can get into his head and prove it is not true, so this seems like a much safer course than actually lying. Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory defense to protect himself from potential political embarrassment. Bush rationalizes it as being acceptable because he is not stating unequivocally anything that could be proven false. If something later is uncovered to show what he knew, then he can deny lying in his own mind.

"In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind. The former is acceptable, but the latter is not. I've seen it happen during other private moments, around people he trusted, as well as at times during press availabilities and news conferences."

So, what do you call someone who convinces himself to believe something that deep down he knows is not true? "Pathological liar" is a term I would use, although McConnell is too nice to call GWB by that name. But McConnell admits that he saw Bush repeatedly say things in private moments and news conferences that simply were not true. I think it's an astounding admission from a press secretary about a sitting president. Impeachment anyone?

Want more of the same? Vote McCain.

Bush Report: McClellan Tells What Happened

When I was a young man in my first year at Flint Community Junior College, confused about all the new things I was learning that did not jibe with my religious indoctrination, I started praying a prayer that I continued for many years. It was, "Lord, show me the truth. Even if the truth is that you don't exist and I'm just talking to myself." I realized then the paradox of praying such a prayer, although I didn't comprehend the naivete that would make me think that I could ever know "THE TRUTH." But I'm happy for the idealism that made me try and continue to try to know "THE TRUTH."

Scott McClellan, who was George W. Bush's main spokesman for three years and before that was deputy press secretary from the beginning of his administration, had a similar naive belief in the truth. I finally got my hands on McClellan's book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. A graduate of the University of Texas, McClellan says he was very familiar with the inscription carved in stone above the south entrance to the University of Texas Tower, from the Gospel of John: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

McClellan now admits that as Bush's spokesman he didn't always tell the truth, although he claims he didn't intentionally lie. He says in the Preface, page x:

"My own story, however, is of small importance in the broad historical picture. More significant is the larger story in which I played a minor role -- the story of how the presidency of George W. Bush veered terribly off course.

"As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided. In these pages, I've tried to come to grips with some of the truths that life inside the White House bubble obscured."

He goes on to say that while he has friends and former colleagues in the Bush Administration who remain convinced that the administration was fundamentally correct in its most controversial judgments, he has become "genuinely convinced otherwise."

The universal criticism of McClellan, both from Republicans who are still drinking the kool-aid and Democrats is why is McClellan speaking out now. That doesn't worry me. At least he's doing it. Colin Powell, Bush's Secretary of State, has hinted at similar concerns, but he has let his surrogates do the talking. I think it takes particular courage for someone like McClellan, who still professes to like Bush as a person and who has deep roots in the Texas Republican Party, to speak out at any time. I wish he would have seen the light and come clean earlier, but that would not have stopped the Bush White House. When McClellan resigned, we got a new liar in chief, Tony Snow, even more glib than McClellan.

Elections count. Want more of the same? Then vote McCain.

Bush Report: A Web of Lies

This is the final installment from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's book, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story. Sanchez was commander of the coalition forces in Iraq from June 14, 2003 to July 1, 2004. This is from pages 453-454:

"On March 20, 2003, U.S.-led coalition forces invaded Iraq. Six months earlier, the Bush administration had begun a national media campaign to persuade the American people that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the United States. In September, 2002, Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other key officials announced that Iraq had long-standing ties to al-Qaeda and by inference, was partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States. They also stated that Saddam was capable of inflicting death on a massive scale through its pursuit and/or possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Believing these statements to be true, on October 10, 2002, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions authorizing President Bush to use U.S. armed forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and enforce UN Security Council resolutions.

"In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush asserted that Saddam was in possession of 'the material to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard (gas) and VX nerve agent.. ., more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.' He also stated that Iraq had attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production, and had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. A week later, in February, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke before the UN Security Councl, reasserted the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and presented satellite photos and illustrations that he said showed chemical weapons bunkers and mobile biological weapons factories. Secretary Powell also stated that Iraq's persistent denials of these U.S. charges were 'all a web of lies.'

"None of it was true. Iraq had no links to al-Qaeda, no nuclear weapons program, and no stashes of chemical or biological weapons. I was on the ground in Iraq and I know. We never found anything. And there was no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, or a major presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, until after the aborted battle of Fallujah. These facts were verified (in part or in whole) by three independent government study groups: the U.S. Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq (July 9,2004); a British study, the Butler Review (July 14, 2004); and Iraq Survey Group (September 30, 2004), which was initially led by David Kay before he resigned. To use Colin Powell's phrase, then, which was really the 'web of lies' -- Iraq's denials or the Bush administration's assertions?

Bush Report: A Calculated Political Decision

More from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez's memoir, Wiser in Battle, about serving as the head of the Iraq occupation forces from June, 2003 to July, 2004. This is from page 288:

"I realized that the decision to transfer sovereignty to Iraq by July 1, 2004, amounted to a calculated political decision. The Bush administration knew that things were going poorly in Iraq and were sure to get worse. And with the Wolfowitz, Armitage, and Blackwill assessments now confirming that fact, the administration knew something had to be done immediately so that the November 2004 presidential election would not be impacted. Giving Iraq sovereignty by the first of July would create the illusion that significant progress was being made. It would also provide a full four months for voters to be convinced through the media that America's mission in Iraq had been a success. If things got worse in the interim, the administration could simply blame it on the Iraqis and a bit of bumpy transitioning. The politics of a presidential year were beginning to unfold. It was all about winning the presidential election and maintaining power. And as John Abizaid said that summer, "We just don't know how ugly it's going to get."

The question now is what will the Republicans do to hang onto power this fall. We know, from the insiders who have spoken, that the gang in office now will do anything and say anything to hang onto power. Hang onto your hats, folks. As November approaches, if it looks like Obama is going to win and the Democrats will expand their lead in the Senate and capture the House, there will be an October surprise. As Abizaid said five years ago, "We just don't know how ugly it's going to get."

Bush Report: No Interest in Asking

This is from Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, from which I have previously quoted (June 14th.) This is from Chapter 22. David Kay, who was put in charge of finding the WMD in Iraq after General James "Spider" Marks couldn't find anything, had a meeting at the White House in which he told Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice that he hadn't been able to find any evidence of WMD either. Bush told him to keep looking.

"Kay left the meeting shocked at Bush's lack of inquisitiveness. Kay had a PhD, had taught at high levels and was used to being asked challenging, aggressive questions. A lot of the trauma in getting a graduate degree is surviving the environment of doubt, skepticism and challenge.

"'He (Bush) trusted me more than I trusted me,'Kay later recalled. 'If the positions had been reversed and this is primarily personality, I think I would have probed. I would have said, 'What have you done? What haven't you done? Why haven't you done it? ' You know, 'Are you getting the support of the Department of Defense?' The soft spots. He didn't do it.'"

Interestingly, this is exactly the reaction Paul O'Neill, the first treasury secretary had after his first meeting with Bush.

Bush Report: Tempting Faith

David Kuo is a conservative Christian who has worked for a number of right wing icons, such as the author and pundit,William Bennett, former Senator and Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and as a
speechwriter for the president, George W. Bush. After Bush was elected in 2000, Kuo worked in the White House as a special assistant and as deputy director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. Kuo's boss in the White House was John Dilulio, who spilled the beans about the crass politics of the top Bush people (he called them "Mayberry Machiavellis") in an October, 2002 letter to an Esquire Magazine writer.

Kuo's 2006 book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, is yet another of the books I have been reading from Bush insiders whose consciences have forced them to tell the truth, while I'm waiting for Scott McClellan's book to become available. In fairness, Kuo continues to admire Bush as a person; he just thinks his administration was a failure. Here is what he has to say from pgs. 227-229:

"During the 2000 campaign, a communications guy had come up with the idea to have short slogans placed on a screen behind the president at every appearance. It continued once he took office. For faith-based speeches, for instance, there was typically a blue screen with light blue letters spelling 'Compassion in Action.' Even someone with the news on mute understood what the speech was about. There was also the visual. Concern about the scenery or setting behind the president was hardly new to our press shop. What was new were the former TV news and entertainment producers who worked tirelessly on the lighting and setting to appeal equally to those who glanced at the TV and those really watching.

"Keeping the media busy was easier. They were fed a constant barrage of little announcements with big ones sprinkled in. The big ones were then quickly followed by more little announcements. There wasn't any letup. Also, because the communications shop kept reporters at arms length, the reporters didn't get the inside information or tips to give them a heads up for what was coming next. Already struggling reporters were always behind.

"The approach allowed the White House to make grand announcements and then do nothing to implement them with impunity. Nowhere was this clearer than in compassion announcements. In May, 2001, for instance, the president announced a new $3 billion drug treatment initiative. By December 2003 not a dime had been spent. The 2003 State of the Union address announced our three programs -- but they promptly disappeared. Two years later, the president announced yet another new program to help prevent teen violence. It was touted as a $100 million program. That "$100 million," however, was to be pulled out of the already dramatically underfunded Compassion Capital Fund. It was a mirage. (And one that continues: Whatever became of President Bush's three enormous promises after Hurricane Katrina? It is easy to remember his speech, in short sleeves in New Orleans, with that old building lit up behind him .. . . but anything else?)

"I had been around politics long enough not to be shocked. The announcements were smart politics because absolutely no one called them on anything (with the exception of the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' banner when the president declared the Iraq War essentially over.) As a Christian, however, what appalled me was that this was occuring under the aegis of both the president's faith and his heartfelt plea to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House. It wasn't about honor or dignity, it was raw politics of the sort that old-time political bosses would applaud. Even sadder, the Christian community that elected George W. Bush didn't see any of this. They couldn't; they trusted their Christian brother too much.

"Christians trust their Christian president. This is true of their evangelical political leadership. But of greater consequence, for Christian moms who home-school their kids and Christian dads coaching soccer and everyone who follows the Dobsons and Robertsons and Falwells, George W. Bush can really do no wrong. They assume that since he professes Jesus that he won't do the kinds of things other politicians have done -- break promises, cover up mistakes, parse words, say half truths, be a politician. They figure he has surrounded himself with a staff full of other evangelicals, to provide him with fellowship and accountability. That, after all, is the image carefully conveyed to them through religious surrogates.

"They would be wrong on all fronts. George W. Bush loves Jesus. He is a good man. But he is a politician, a very smart and shrewd politician. And if the faith-based initiative was teaching me anything, it was about the president's capacity to care about perception more than reality. He wanted it to look good. He cared less about it being good."

Bush Report: "They haven't thought this through"

More from Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's treasury secretary, close personal friends of Cheney and Rumsfeld before he joined the Bush administration and became disillusioned at their way of governing. This is O'Neill talking about the run up to the Iraq invasion, (from pages 327-328):

"O'Neill who had sat through scores of NSC meetings was deeply fearful about the United States 'grabbing a python by the tail, by dropping a hundred thousand troops into the middle of twenty-four million Iraqis and an Arab world of one billion Muslims. Trust me, they haven't thought this through,' he said. He was still hoping there would be 'a real evidentiary hearing and a genuine debate' before troops were committed. He knew that it wasn't likely."

Experience anyone? If you want more of the same, vote McCain.

Bush Report: The Price of Loyalty

You may recall that while waiting for the library's copy of Scott McClellan's astonishing mea culpa about his lies as George W. Bush's press secretary, I have been reading accounts by other Bush Administration insiders about what has really been going on for the last eight years. Today's excerpt is from Ron Suskind's biography of Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary. The book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill, was written with the cooperation and approval of O'Neill, a life-long Republican, an old friend of Dick Cheney; hardly a left-wing liberal looking to take potshots at the Bush Administration.

At pages 57-58 of the book, O'Neill tells about a meeting he had with Bush on the afternoon of Wednesday, January 24, 2001, the third day of the Bush Administration. He had prepared a memo about economic policy and sent it to the White House in advance of the meeting. O'Neill thought they would talk about the memo and then discuss whatever came up. He started out with a 15-minute overview on the state of the economy; Bush didn't say anything, so he talked about proposed tax cuts. O'Neill expected about a dozen questions and was ready with the answers, but, "Bush didn't ask anything. He looked at O'Neill, not changing his expression, not letting on that he had any reactions -- either positive or negative."

So, O'Neill moved on to related matters: tariffs and free trade. "The President said nothing. No change in expression. Next subject."

"I wondered, from the first, if the President didn't know the questions to ask," O'Neill recalled, "or did he know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information, and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange."

Not until O'Neill started talking about Bush's "No Child Left Behind," program, did Bush say anything. When O'Neill said, "There's nothing more important than nurturing our human potential as a nation -- our future depends on it," Bush shifted in his wing-back chair and said, "Right, that's the concept of disaggregation. I have that covered." O'Neill wondered whether he should point out that the president was misusing that term, but decided not to.

One has to wonder: what are the 26 percent of the American public that still approves of Bush's job performance thinking? Aren't they paying any attention? Maybe they're waiting for the expose from Laura.

Bush Report: Against All Enemies

Here is another excerpt from the Richard A. Clarke book that I describe below in my May 31 report. This is from Chapter 9:

"When Clinton left ofice, many people, including the incoming Bush Administration leadership thought he (Clinton) and his administration were overly obsessed with Al Queda. After all, Al Queda had killed only a few Americans, nothing like the hundreds of Marines who died at the hand of the Beirut terrorists during the Reagan Administration or the hundreds of Americans on Pam Am 103 killed by the Libyans in the first Bush Administration. Those two acts had not provoked retaliation. Why was Clinton so worked up about Al Queda? In January, 2001, the new administration thought Clinton's recommendation that their highest priority be the elimination of Al Queda was, well, rather odd, like so many of the Clinton actions."

The argument against Obama is that he has insufficient experience in the national government. Bush was being advised by two of the most experienced Washington hands in history -- Cheney and Rumsfeld. Maybe experience isn't all it's cracked up to be.