W's Dilemma: Father Doesn't Support war

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
W's Dilemma: Father Doesn't Support war
23
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 4:32pm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4685.shtml

Bush Leagues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dubya's Dilemma: Daddy Doesn't Support the Iraq War

By TERESA HAMPTON

Editor, Capitol Hill Blue



The Iraqi war that has so divided Americans is also causing a rift in the family of President George W. Bush.

The President’s father, George H.W. Bush – 41st President of the United States – disagrees with his son’s decisions in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which is why the former President has not commented in public on the war.

“The President and I discuss the war privately,” the elder Bush said in an interview earlier this year. “That is the way it will remain.”

But sources close to the Bush family say the elder Bush thinks his son has mishandled the war in Iraq.

“They disagree on the war,” says a family confidante. “Former President Bush believes the U.S. should have sought more support before invading Iraq and feels his son did not work hard enough to secure the support of allies.”

Former President Bush built an unprecedented coalition of allies, including countries in the Middle East, for Desert Storm, the Gulf War that ended Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. He also enjoyed support from the United Nations. But his son invaded Iraq without UN support or the support of any prominent Middle Eastern nations.

Sources also say the elder Bush, who once headed the Central Intelligence Agency, faults his son for pressuring the CIA to provide hastily-prepared and faulty intelligence to support plans to invade Iraq.

Rumors of a rift between father and son have circulated in Washington for months and White House watchers noted, with interest, the lack of public support from the elder Bush for his son’s military action against Iraq.

“George H.W. Bush is a pro,” says Darlene Atkins, a former campaign worker for the elder Bush. “He makes sure the facts are on his side before he moves. It concerns him that his son did not exercise what he feels was appropriate caution before launching the war with Iraq.”

Bush’s father has told Republican leaders that he fears Iraq will cost his son a second term in the White House, calling the war “his read-my-lips donnybrook,” a reference to the elder Bush’s flip-flop on tax increases that many feel led to his defeat in the 1992 elections.

In addition, the former President has told his son that he “messed up big time” in trying to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks against the United States. The elder Bush points out that a State Department assessment released after the September 11 attacks lists 45 countries (including the United States) where al-Qaeda operated and notes that Iraq was not one of those countries.

John McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the CIA, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Iraq was not on the list. A spokesman for the Deputy Secretary confirmed McLaughlin’s briefing of Wolfowitz.

“The problem President Bush has when it comes to CIA intelligence is that his daddy knows a lot more about what goes on at Langley than he does,” says a former intelligence officer. “He also knows how the White House can drive the outcome of intel assessments.”

Former Congressman Lee Hamilton agrees.

"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence," says Hamilton, who is now with the Woodrow Wilson Institute, a Washington think tank. "This is not a problem unique to George Bush. It's every president I've known, and I've worked with seven or eight of them All, at some time or another, used intelligence to support their political objectives.”

"Information is power, and the temptation to use information to achieve the results you want is almost overwhelming," Hamilton adds. "The whole intelligence community knows exactly what the president wants , and most are in their jobs because of the president – certainly the people at the top – and they will do everything they can to support the policy.”

This misuse of intelligence is at the heart of differences between Bush, the President, and Bush the father and former President.

As public support for the war wanes, political strategists have urged the former President to come out publicly for his son’s war but their arguments have fallen on defiant ears.

“It’s easy to see where President Bush got his stubborn streak,” sighs one White House political operative.

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 4:58pm

>"political strategists have urged the former President to come out publicly for his son’s war but their arguments have fallen on defiant ears."<


Sound decision. Bush snr.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 5:02pm
I tend to agree with Bush Sr myself. The purpose was to show that not all conservatives are in favor of the war in Iraq, including myself.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 6:18pm
<>

I appreciate this, quite frankly I thought all Reps fell in lock-step behink GWB.

Perhaps you can help me, why does Cheney keep linking Iraq with al Qaeda when as the quote below states, it's not so.


<

John McLaughlin, Deputy Director of the CIA, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Iraq was not on the list. A spokesman for the Deputy Secretary confirmed McLaughlin’s briefing of Wolfowitz.>>

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 10:03pm
"Perhaps you can help me, why does Cheney keep linking Iraq with al Qaeda when as the quote below states, it's not so. "

I certainly can't speak for Cheney but during the Reagan adminstration he was against Reagan and his policies toward the Soviet Union. He thought Reagan's diplomatic approach was wrong and that a more aggressive war stance was appropriate. He along with Runsfeld have always tended to be hawkish. Reagan had the good sense to ignore their opinions. He believed we needed a strong military but only to suplement the diplomatic tools.

Under Bush's administration I fear Runsfeld and Cheney aren't quite as restrained.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 11:43am
This article is just a load of steamy smelly stuff. First of all, Capitol Hill Blue isn't a legitimate news source. Secondly, it's more than a bit curious that these anonymous confidants waited until the middle of the election to talk about this. Last, it simply doesn't make sense; 41 disapproved of the invasion because he didn't trust the intelligence which aparently can never be trusted because all presidents get the intelligence they want, and Bush has 'misused' the intelligence because he had the temerity to believe and act on the information all of the intelligence agencies have been reporting for the previous 12 years.

If the president can't trust the intelligence he's given, what the heck is he supposed to base any of his decisions on? I remind you once again that this is the same intelligence Clinton used to change 41's Iraq policy from containment to regime change, and several investigations have concluded that it was not tailored to fit anyone's specific agenda.

<<“The President and I discuss the war privately,” the elder Bush said in an interview earlier this year. “That is the way it will remain.”>>

41 didn't say that because he disapproves of the war. That's his policy in general. Since he left the WH, he has been extremely circumspect about commenting publicly about Clinton or Bush's policies.

<>

It could. 43 has said the same thing, and he has also said that he believes the war was important enough to steak a second term on, and that whether he wins or loses the election, he thinks that it was the right thing to do.

<>

Last weekend 41 said that he doesn't have access to the information that the president has and is not in the business of giving his approval or disapproval for the way the president carries out his job. He said that eventhough he still had his clearance, he doesn't use it because he doesn't have a 'need to know.'

<>

I find that hard to believe.

<

"At some point both of you may want to say, 'Well, I don't agree with my Dad on that point,' or 'Frankly, I think Dad was wrong on that,' " he wrote. "Do it."

"Chart your own course, not just on the issues, but on defining yourselves. No one will ever question your love of family ... nothing can ever be written that will drive a wedge between us -- nothing at all.">>







<>

In an interview last weekend, he said that eventhough he still has his intelligence clearance, he doesn't use it because he doesn't have the 'need to know' anymore.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 11:44am
<>

Do you this is indicative of a weak president? The release of the 9/11 commission report should but a gag on Cheney's. However, it bothers me that so many people think he is right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 11:58am
Not weak no. I think Bush is a man of strong character and beliefs. He will do what he believes is right and that is why I think so highly of the man.

However, I believe that Rumsfeld and Cheney are being allowed more influence then they should. Bush delegates to those he trusts. I just think he trusts their judgements and puts too much weight in their opinions.

To be clear:

I think Bush is a good man, principled and honest.

I think Bush does what he believes is right.

I think Bush believes removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

I think Bush made a mistake.

In contrast I can't say the same for Kerry. He doesn't seem to be honest and principled. However, I am looking from way over here on the right.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 11:59am
Brit Hume interviewed 41 after his birthday sky dive.

Here some relavent passages.

<
And I've got to be very, very careful. That's why you don't see me doing interviews and stuff for the most part, because I don't want to complicate his life. If I say something that might conflict with something that is he working on, they rush over to the guy in the White House and say here is what the old guy said and how do you account for that?

I had my chance. And so it's the president's chance. So it's easy for me to just totally support him, be there for him as a former president, and maybe more important, be there for him as a father who -- who loves him and wants to see him succeed and would do anything I could to help in that.

HUME: I didn't hear you say adviser.

G.H.W. BUSH: No, I'm not an adviser. We talk quietly. We never talk about what we talk about. But you know, I can get an oar in from time to time into the water, but he has got his own people.

I remember something. I don't have the need to know anymore, although I have certain clearances. But I don't have the need to know. And therefore, I don't feel totally informed on a lot of these subjects that people are all giving opinions on.

HUME: He said that one of the key messages he felt the need to communicate to you when he spoke to you was, hey, I'm OK. That he sensed that you were feeling acutely with him as president, the way he felt when you were president. That the criticisms that you get inevitably wounded him more when you were president than they do now and that you are in the same situation he was in.

G.H.W. BUSH: You know that's true now. There's not even a close call. It hurts much more when you find your own son is criticized, than when I myself was. Then back then I could try to do something about it or I could, you know, make a decision.

Now I sit there and I see lot of criticism that I don't think is particularly fair. But I can't -- I can't -- I have no role, except to be there for the president as his dad. And Barbara feels exactly the same way.

And I keep up with events. I watch a lot of news. And I, you know, think I'm reasonably well informed. But Barbara is not. She just doesn't want to hear it anymore. But in doing that, maybe it makes it more difficult to not hurt, not ache for your son. But I see lot of stuff in these papers today, Brit, that just burns me up, and nothing I can do about it.

HUME: Do you think the criticism of your son has been harsher and more unfair than you felt the criticism was of you?

G.H.W. BUSH: Pretty good question. I don't know. But yes, I do. I honestly do.

HUME: How so?

G.H.W. BUSH: It depends what outlet you are talking about. Well, there's a confluence of events. The problems on his shoulders are bigger than the problems I faced. You know, the Taliban. Of course, the biggest is 9/11. Something happened. Something bad happened to our country. And we brought home the fact that we can no longer depend on the Pacific and on the Atlantic to keep us safe. And all of this it fell on the shoulders of the president, having to go and fight against international terror, in way that it hadn't been done before.

So this is a profound difference, but I just think there's a confluence of coming together of more problems on his shoulders. And with that comes a lot of harsh criticism. I've got plenty of it, plenty of my share. But I just think maybe it's just the proud dad, Brit. But I think -- I think George, the president, gets a lot more. And he will be all right though.

HUME: Because I hear it all the time just from people say that they find it hard to watch the news. They're so anxious about Iraq. How anxious -- how much of your day is spent in some preoccupation with the -- with these events?

G.H.W. BUSH: Not so much. I mean I think when the U.N. resolution was passed recently, when Iraq -- two new leaders were picked in Iraq, when the president expressed a determination to pass the whole political handover to the Iraqis, Iraq for the Iraqis, nothing makes things better. And I also think, Brit, very candidly that some outlets have chosen to emphasize only the negative.

I realize that people don't want to talk about all the banks that weren't robbed today. But I think that sometimes the people I've talked to say, hey, there's great progress going on in Iraq. And I don't think the American people sense that. And why don't they sense it? Because lot of the newspapers insists on pointing just the negative, whatever the negative is. And that's, you know -- I'll be accused of press bashing, but I'm too old to give a damn anymore about that. And I just, you know -- that's the way it is, fine.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122731,00.html



Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 12:00pm
<>

Quite frankly, wrhen, I don't know a news source that you would consider legitimate.

May I remind you this is your opinion.

In the post you are responding to, my point was that there is no link between al Qaeda and Saddam. This is corroborated in The New York Times, on many TV stations that are covering the 9/11 commission's report.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't understand your point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 06-16-2004 - 12:01pm
"This article is just a load of steamy smelly stuff."

Could be but it has the ring of truth to it.

If Bush senior supported his decision I would think he would support it publically. If he doesn't support it, he makes no public statements in either direction.

Remember 41 stopped at Saddam's door, 43 kicked it in.

(that does sound cool though doesn't it?)

Pages