The Bush Legacy: Lessons

In the Post, Bob Woodward, author of four books on President Bush -- "Bush at War," "Plan of Attack," "State of Denial" and "The War Within," provides 10 lessons that Obama and his team should take away from the Bush experience.

1. Presidents set the tone. Don't be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.

Instead of a team of rivals, Bush wound up with a team of back-stabbers with long-running, poisonous disagreements about foreign policy fundamentals.

2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even -- or especially -- when there are vehement disagreements.

Powell was right that to conclude that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did not work together. But Cheney and Powell did not have this crucial debate in front of the president -- even though such a discussion might have undermined one key reason for war. Cheney provided private advice to the president, but he was rarely asked to argue with others and test his case… This sort of derision undermined the administration's unity of purpose -- and suggests the nasty tone that can emerge when open debate is stifled by long-running feuds and personal hostility.

3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.

The president should not micromanage, but understanding the ramifications of his positions cannot be outsourced to anyone.

4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure bad news makes it to the Oval Office.

Bush sometimes assumed he knew his aides' private views without asking them one-on-one. He made probably the most important decision of his presidency -- whether to invade Iraq -- without directly asking Powell, Rumsfeld or CIA Director George J. Tenet for their bottom-line recommendation. (Instead of consulting his own father, former president George H.W. Bush, who had gone to war in 1991 to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, the younger Bush told me that he had appealed to a "higher father" for strength.)

5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt.

Presidents and generals don't have to live on doubt. But they should learn to love it. "You should not be the parrot on the secretary's shoulder," said Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama's incoming national security adviser, to his old friend Gen. Peter Pace, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- a group Jones thought had been "systematically emasculated by Rumsfeld." Doubt is not the enemy of good policy; it can help leaders evaluate alternatives, handle big decisions and later make course corrections if necessary.

6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.

In 2004-06, the CIA was reporting that Iraq was getting more violent and less stable. By mid-2006, Bush's own NSC deputy for Iraq, Meghan O'Sullivan, had a blunt assessment of conditions in Baghdad: "It's hell, Mr. President." But the Pentagon remained optimistic and reported that a strategy of drawing down U.S. troops and turning security over to the Iraqis would end in "self-reliance" in 2009. As best I could discover, the president never insisted that the contradiction between "hell" and "self-reliance" be resolved.

7. Presidents must tell the hard truth to the public, even if that means delivering very bad news.

For years after the Iraq invasion, Bush consistently offered upbeat public assessments. That went well beyond the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner that he admitted last Monday had been a mistake. "Absolutely, we're winning," the president said during an October 2006 news conference. "We're winning." His confident remarks came during one of the lowest points of the war, at a time when anyone with a TV screen knew that the war was going badly. On Feb. 5, 2005, as he was moving up from his first-term role as Rice's deputy to become national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley had offered a private, confidential assessment of the problems of Bush's Iraq-dominated first term. "I give us a B-minus for policy development," he said, "and a D-minus for policy execution." The president later told me that he knew that the Iraq "strategy wasn't working." So how could the United States be winning a war with a failing strategy?

8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.

"I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told me in late 2003. I believe he truly wanted to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. In preparing his second inaugural address in 2005, for example, Bush told his chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, "The future of America and the security of America depends on the spread of liberty." That got the idealistic Gerson so pumped that he set out to produce the foreign policy equivalent to Albert Einstein's unified field theory of the universe -- a 17-minute inaugural address in which the president said his goal was nothing less than "the ending of tyranny in our world."

But this high purpose often blinded Bush and his aides to the consequences of this mad dash to democracy. In 2005, for example, Bush and his war cabinet spent much of their time promoting free elections in Iraq -- which wound up highlighting the isolation of the minority Sunnis and setting the stage for the raging sectarian violence of 2006.

9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking.

Only the president (and perhaps the national security adviser) can prod a reactive bureaucracy to think about where the administration should be in one, two or four years. Then detailed, step-by-step tactical plans must be devised to try to get there. It's easy for an administration to become consumed with putting out brush fires, which often requires presidential involvement. (Ask Obama how much time he's been spending on the Gaza war.) But a president will probably be judged by the success of his long-range plans, not his daily crisis management.

10. The president should embrace transparency. Some version of the behind-the-scenes story of what happened in his White House will always make it out to the public -- and everyone will be better off if that version is as accurate as possible.

On March 8, 2008, Hadley made an extraordinary remark about how difficult it has proven to understand the real way Bush made decisions. "He will talk with great authority and assertiveness," Hadley said. " 'This is what we're going to do.' And he won't mean it. Because he will not have gone through the considered process where he finally is prepared to say, 'I've decided.' And if you write all those things down and historians get them, [they] say, 'Well, he decided on this day to do such and such.' It's not true. It's not history. It's a fact, but it's a misleading fact."

Presidents should beware of such "misleading facts." They should run an internal, candid process of debate and discussion with key advisers that will make sense when it surfaces later. This sort of inside account will be told, at least in part, during the presidency. But the best obtainable version will emerge more slowly, over time, and become history.

Powell on the GOP

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

-- Colin Powell, on the problems of the Republican party.

On Tolerance

The Washington Post offers some thoughts on Colin Powell's "Meet the Press" appearance this weekend. "His comments on Muslims in America bear repeating -- and repeating."

Naturally, what garnered the most attention on the day after former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama was its political significance. But we hope that another message that Mr. Powell tucked into his endorsement isn't forgotten. Like many people before him, Mr. Powell rebuked those who have spread or fed the rumor that Mr. Obama is Muslim, and like many before him Mr. Powell reiterated that the story is false -- that Mr. Obama is and always has been a Christian.

Mr. Powell then took the issue an important step further. "But the really right answer," Mr. Powell continued on NBC's "Meet the Press," "is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

When a supporter at a rally told Sen. John McCain that his opponent couldn't be trusted because he is an "Arab," Mr. McCain responded, "No, ma'am, he's a decent family man, a citizen, who I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." A good answer as far as it went, but incomplete; what was missing was, "And what if he were Arab American? Is there any reason an Arab American shouldn't be president of this country?" Nor has it been easy for the Obama campaign to knock down the rumors without seeming to give credence to the idea that the rumors, if true, would be somehow disqualifying.

That's why Mr. Powell, unhindered by such calculations, deserves thanks for the lesson on tolerance. This is not, by its Constitution, a Christian country, or a Judeo-Christian country, or even a God-fearing country. It is a democracy where any "natural born Citizen" who has "attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" can be president. We need all the talent we can attract to government, and we hope every 7-year-old girl or boy keeps that in mind, along with Mr. Powell's words.

A Closer Look at the Powell Endorsement

The Powell Endorsement

"I watched (Obama) during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate."

First Read reports on the Powell endorsement:

One of the consequences of Powell’s endorsement was to launch the first
shot in the battle for the soul of the Republican Party. The Wall Street Journal gets into this a bit. "The endorsement comes after a series of events that have pointed to the fraying of a Republican umbrella that has relied in the past on both moderates and conservatives to bulk up its governing majority. Late last week, conservative radio talk-show host Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Obama, as did conservative columnist Christopher Buckley, the son of National Review founder William F. Buckley. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Sen. Obama last week, the first time the paper has endorsed a Democrat in its 161-year history.”

Powell also took issue yesterday with McCain's efforts to draw a parallel between Obama's economic policies and those of Socialist leaders in Europe, NBC's Ashley Codianni reports. Speaking to reporters outside NBC's studios after his Meet the Press appearance, Powell defended Obama's tax agenda and called Republican efforts to tie the Democratic nominee to leftist economics "unfortunate."

"Mr. Obama is now a socialist," Powell remarked ironically, "because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have." Asked yesterday on FOX whether Obama can be characterized as a socialist, McCain quoted Obama's promise to "spread the wealth around," calling that phrase "one of the tenets of socialism." Powell, though, disagreed. "Taxes are always a redistribution of money," he said yesterday. "Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay it, in roads, and airports, and hospitals and schools. Taxes are necessary for the common good."

The Fix offers some reasons why the Powell endorsement could matter:

1. Turnabout is Fair Play. Powell is best known for his most recent job in government -- as the secretary of State for President George W. Bush. The idea that a high-ranking cabinet official in a Republican administration would come out for the Democrat is simply too juicy a story for the media to ignore. That it would be someone as high profile as Powell would only add to the titillation.

2. The Most Popular Man in America? Powell, unlike almost no other official with ties to the Bush Administration, has retained remarkable popularity ratings. In an August Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, more than three-quarters (76 percent) of voters viewed Powell favorably while just 13 percent saw him in an unfavorable light. A large part of Powell's appeal is his perceived bipartisanship -- a direct result of his decision to repeatedly turn down overtures to run for president in his own right. For a certain (not insubstantial) portion of the electorate, when Powell speaks, they listen. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reinforces that fact; more than one in three voters said a Powell endorsement of Obama would make them more likely to vote for the Democrat.

3. Iraq, All Wrong. Powell, thanks to his immense popularity, was the Bush Administration's choice to make the case in front of the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq. Powell has since called that incident a "blot" on his record, and made clear his disappointment with the prosecution of the war. An endorsement of Obama, who built his candidacy on his early opposition to the conflict, would mark a clean break with the Bush Administration on the war and would add significant heft to Obama's argument that he alone possesses the judgment to lead the U.S. in a dangerous world.

4. The Final Straw. With polling -- both in the key battleground states and nationally -- showing that voters trust Obama more than John McCain to handle the current economic morass, one of McCain's last hopes is that the the election turns back somehow to a foreign policy focus. If Powell does endorse Obama, it would shore up the Illinois senator even if that eventuality occurred; it would be hard for McCain to slam Obama's approach on the war if the Democrat had a Powell endorsement sitting in his back pocket.

Rise of the Obamacons

Robert Novak discusses the rise of the "Obamacons", and a couple who may very well join their ranks – Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel.

Their ranks, though growing, feature few famous people. But looming on the horizon are two big potential Obamacons: Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel. Neither Powell, first-term secretary of state for George W. Bush, nor Hagel, retiring after two terms as a U.S. senator from Nebraska, has endorsed Obama. Hagel probably never will. Powell probably will enter Obama's camp at a time of his own choosing. The best bet is that neither of the two, both of whom supported President Bush in 2000 and 2004, will back John McCain in 2008…

The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

While he never would use such language, Colin Powell is said by friends to share Hunter's analysis of the GOP. His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.

While Powell may not be a legitimate Obamacon because he never was much of a conservative, that cannot be said for his close Senate friend Hagel. He has built a solidly conservative record as a senator, but mutual friends see no difference between him and the general on Iraq, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the Republican Party. In a speech today at the Brookings Institution, Hagel is expected to urge Obama and McCain to reach out to each other. At the least, Hagel is not ready to strap on armor for his longtime political ally and office neighbor, John McCain.

The Daily Dish dives a little deeper:

I think Novak is right when he notes that Obama's appeal among some conservatives has much to do with a reaction against the direction of the Republican Party. By exclusively relating it to this, however, he misses a key aspect of Barack's appeal for some conservatives, which is that Obama's story confirms what conservatives have always believed about America.

He is the black son of an immigrant, raised by a modest single mother and yet despite the obstacles inherent in this background he is approaching the pinnacle of American success. Isn't he the poster boy for what conservatives have always assured us is possible here in America? Conservative perseverance, not liberal victimization explains Obama's rise. He is a black Horatio Alger whose life adds to the long list of American success stories that began with Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. He personifies the American exceptionalism which is at the heart of American conservatism. If he wins conservatives, even those that vote against him, can justifiable take pride in their nation and say, "Only in America."

The Green Light

A fascinating article in this month’s Vanity Fair explores the following question:

The abuse, rising to the level of torture, of those captured and detained in the war on terror is a defining feature of the presidency of George W. Bush. Its military beginnings, however, lie not in Abu Ghraib, as is commonly thought, or in the “rendition” of prisoners to other countries for questioning, but in the treatment of the very first prisoners at Guantánamo. Starting in late 2002 a detainee bearing the number 063 was tortured over a period of more than seven weeks. In his story lies the answer to a crucial question: How was the decision made to let the U.S. military start using coercive interrogations at Guantánamo?

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Senator Ted Kennedy: "Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture? Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

Veepstakes Continued...

The Financial Times provides an interesting run-down of potential running-mates for John McCain and the positives and negatives for each.

Charlie Crist, 51: (+) Popular first term Florida governor; Credited with helping McCain win the Florida primary and would probably deliver the Sunshine State again in November if chosen as VP. (-) Too moderate for many conservatives; At 51, his bachelor lifestyle is a source of intrigue – rumour mongers cannot decide whether he is a playboy or gay.

Mark Sanford, 47: (+) Second-term governor of South Carolina; Crusader against government waste – once brought live pigs into the state legislature to protest against “pork-barrel” spending. (-) Did not endorse McCain (or any other candidate) before the South Carolina primary.

Tim Pawlenty, 47: (+) Second-term governor of Minnesota – a key Republican target state; One of McCain’s staunchest supporters and a conservative rising star. (-) Failed to deliver his home state for McCain in the Republican primary.

Haley Barbour, 60: (+) Second-term governor of Mississippi; Competent and well-connected operator; One of the few people to win praise for their leadership after Hurricane Katrina. (-) His background as a powerful Washington lobbyist clashes with McCain’s image as a crusader against special interests.

Matt Blunt, 37: (+) Young first-term governor of Missouri -- traditionally an important bellweather state in presidential elections; Won the highest rating of any governor from the libertarian Cato Institute for reducing state spending; Recently announced he would not seek a second term, making him available for the VP job. (-) Backed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination; His youth could raise doubts about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief and undermine Republican attacks against Barack Obama for his inexperience.

Bobby Jindal, 36: (+) Corruption-busting governor of Louisiana and Republican rising star; His youth and Indian-American ethnicity would help neutralise the appeal of Barack Obama. (-) Less than two months into his first term – it would surely be too soon for him to quit.

Sarah Palin, 44: (+) First term governor of Alaska, with an approval rating above 80 per cent; Solid conservative; Considered the brightest female prospect in the Republican party; Mother of four and wife of a commercial fisherman, giving her populist appeal. (-) Relatively inexperienced; Comes from a politically peripheral state.

Rick Perry, 58: (+) Governor of Texas since George W. Bush stepped down in 2000; Would be a popular choice among ”red state” conservatives. (-) Is America ready for another Texas governor on a presidential ticket?

Condoleezza Rice, 53, and Colin Powell, 70: (+) Secretary of State and former Secretary of State, respectively; Would add to McCain’s foreign policy credentials and bring racial diversity to the Republican ticket. (-) Too deeply associated with the failures of the Bush administration; Both say they don’t want the job; Powell is only a year younger than McCain.

Rob Portman, 52: (+) Former US Trade Representative and White House economic adviser; Would bring economic clout to the ticket and could be an asset in his native Ohio – a crucial swing state. (-) Little known outside economic circles. Closely tied to the Bush administration.

Christopher Cox, 55: (+) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former congressman and editor of the Harvard Law Review; Would bring economic and financial experience. (-) Lacks star power.

Joseph Lieberman, 66: (+) Independent senator for Connecticut and running mate to Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket; Quit the Democrats because of his support for the war in Iraq; Would strengthen McCain’s appeal among independents and moderate Democrats. (-) Liberal views would alienate conservatives.

Mike Huckabee, 52: (+) Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor; Popular among evangelical Christians and widely admired for his good-humoured approach to campaigning; Refrained from attacking McCain. (-) Socially conservative views could alienate moderates, while his populist rhetoric alarms economic conservatives.

Mitt Romney, 60: (+) Former presidential candidate, business executive and Massachusetts governor; Emerged as McCain’s fiercest opponent; Would provide executive experience and economic knowledge. (-) Hostile relationship with McCain could be difficult to overcome.

Rudy Giuliani, 63: (+) Former presidential hopeful; Highly-respected for his leadership as New York mayor after the 9/11 attacks. (-) Could overshadow McCain; Too socially liberal for conservatives; Volatile private life.

Michael Bloomberg, 66: (+) Widely respected mayor of New York, philanthropist and billionaire owner of the Bloomberg news organisation; Recently ruled himself out as a third-party candidate; Would bring executive experience, economic clout and bipartisan appeal. (-) Quit the Republican party last year to become an independent; Too moderate and metropolitan for many Conservatives.

Steve Forbes, 60: (+) Member of the Forbes publishing dynasty and twice a Republican presidential contender in 1986 and 2000; Campaigner for lower taxes and small government. (-) Anti-tax views may be too extreme for some; Out of frontline politics for years.

John Thune, 47, Richard Burr, 52: (+) Young and solidly conservative senators for South Dakota and North Carolina, respectively. Frequently named among the Republican party’s brightest rising stars. (-) Conventional wisdom suggests it would be unwise for McCain, a longtime senator, to add another lawmaker to the ticket, given the unpopularity of Congress. The same reasoning could rule out several other senators that have been linked with the job, including Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Kay Bailey-Hutchinson of Texas.

"The War Over the Wonks"

The Washington Post provides an interesting list of the "national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties". While Hillary has garnered support from many of the Democratic establishment figures such as Albright, Holbrooke and Berger, it's interesting how many high-ranking former Administration officials now endorse Obama, including Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and Carter National Security Adbvisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. On the Republican side, the neo-cons have hedged their bets on Giuliani, while McCain has the support of the Republican Party establishment, which includes everyone from moderates like Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell to dubious Nixonites such as Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger.