Tell that to Scooter Libby!

Tell me do you hang around that in that Kos sewer and in Huffington’s little cesspool?

PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON STATE ARE WONDERING.

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008252.html

Perhaps someday someone will explain Bush. I am prepared believe that he is like Reagan (don’t howl yet) in that he focuses on a few key issues and will not be distracted. In Bush’s case it is the “War on Terror” (I hate that innocuous term) and Iraq. It is possible that, also like Reagan. he is just too nice to get in the gutter. Otherwise you have to conclude that he is an extremely slow learner.

But Reagan had his proxies and they would mix it up with the best of them. Cheney is an old Washington hand. He knows how that cut-throat town works, and I never thought of him as a shrinking-violet. He certainly wasn’t as SecDef when he put the screws to Naval Aviation. So, why isn’t he doing more elbowing and punching? Is Bush holding him back? I wish I knew.

It’s hard for Bush to go back on his position once he takes it. The bad thing is, Bush took that position before he got to DC… and like his position with Iraq, once he has a position, he doesn’t want to move away from it. And NOBoDY can make him move away from it. Even the surge is a modification, and a painfully long one in coming at that, rather than a reconfiguration of his position.

Bush is stubborn, and we all know that when a person has a good position, being stubborn is good. But if he is wrong…. being stubborn is bad.

The problem is that Bush is too loyal to his specific notion of loyalty. That specific notion of loyalty is not based upon nepotism. He will not bend the rules to give someone an out, and yet at the same time, he will reward what he sees as good performance with awards. This has a curious tendency to… well, not cover for his loyal people, and not punish disloyal people. I can’t exactly explain his exact motivations. But as we see with Rumsfield, Bush didn’t accept his resignation. Like more than twice, if I recall. That’s cause if Bush thinks you are doing a good job, he has a sort of blindspot.

It almost isn’t about the person. It is more like what Bush’s position on that person is. If he has had that person for a long time and been involved in operations, like Rummy, he will try to keep them on for like forever. Similar to Tenet.

Bush and Rummy will not manipulate the courts, the media, or even in a sense domestic politics in order to deceive their way to their goals. That’s one of the problems. They do not use the tools of statecraft to accomplish the security of their position and the safety of their people. In that sense, I’m talking about how Bush keeps saying “I will not interfere with an official investigation”. They will not play favorites. But how do you defeat favoritism, if you won’t pick favorites? It is not Bush being disloyal to his people, it is Bush telling them that Bush won’t bend the rules for them. When they are facing the Left, who not only bends the rules, but breaks them.

It is the same story of the US vs terrorists. By self-limiting yourself, you think you are good, but that’s not true. You’re just continuing the resistance, and the fight, and the killing.

If Bush was hardcore on the Left and the media, he would get less criticism, more praise, and more political capital/support. It was only when he was killing and overthrowing governments, that people liked and supported him. When he tried to bunker down in Iraq and go on the defense, without harming or killing anyone, then the jackals come, you see. Best defense is a good offense.