"I Thought The Iraqis Were Muslims!"

by hilzoy

From Raw Story, via Billmon:

"Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. (...)

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”"

Remember: there must have been people in the Republican Party who knew how clueless Bush was, and with what a breathtaking lack of responsibility he would approach being President, during the period before the 2000 election when he was raising the money that would cement his aura of inevitability and win him the primary. None of them lifted a finger to try to prevent him from becoming President. They cared more about winning than about their country.

Likewise, there must have been people in the media who had enough access to him to know this, but who were too busy claiming that Al Gore had told lies he never told to let the country in on what they knew.

And altogether too many ordinary citizens cared more about whether he'd be a good person to have a beer with than whether he'd be a competent President.

I only pray that we all learn something from this. Bush certainly won't.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

My reaction when I read the Raw Story thing earlier today is: why are you reporting this as if it was news? The meeting with Kanan Makiya, and the attendees saying that Bush was unaware of a Shia/Sunni split was reported time and again, years ago, in several books, as well as many articles. This is a famous incident.

[Gary Farber]

For instance, here is a mention of the famous meeting in 2004, on Political Animal.

Doesn't everyone else remember how much of a meal was made out of this incident?

[dagnabit dang doohickey]

[Upon walking out of an elevator]

Chauncey Gardner: That was a very small room.

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, I do, but I'm beginning to think that you have to rinse and repeat (and rinse and repeat) to get the story across. Possibly related is Delong's upset (anger seems too strong, and disgust doesn't quite match) with Tom Ricks (several posts, scroll down) in which he wonders why Ricks did not note some of these things when they would have made more of a difference.

[Phil]

What was the country, during or just prior to the 2000 debates, of which Bush didn't know the capital, and all of his supporters spent countless words describing why that kind of information wasn't important for a Presidential candidate to know?

[DonBoy]

Phil: horribly, I believe it was Pakistan.

[Donald Johnson]

I thought this story was in the Packer book--I haven't read the Packer book, but I think I've seen it referenced in connection with this.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, I do, but I'm beginning to think that you have to rinse and repeat (and rinse and repeat) to get the story across."

I have utterly no objection to the story being reiterated a thousand and one times, of course. I just hate things that make me feel like I've switched to an alternate world, in which I'm the only one who remembers an event that was previously reported.

So my only objection is to Raw Story presenting this as if it's gasp, brand-new information! A scoop! A revelation! No one ever knew this!

Because that leaves me wondering if I'm hallucinating, or switched worlds, or what-have-you. I hate that. I prefer to have read Phil Dick in my youth, not live in his world.

I wish I could recall which of the major Iraq books from a couple of years ago (the meeting was in either 2002 or 2003, I forget which; when I mentioned 2004 above, I meant that that's when the cite from Washington Monthly I gave was from) did the anecdote, but I don't recall just now, and quick googling didn't turn it up. But I know I read it in countless book reviews of whichever major book it was.

[liberal japonicus]

Not one, Phil, three out of four

[sglover]

I don't mean this as an apologia, in any sense, for Bush and his handlers and fixers. But remember the time when the Idiot Prince attained the GOP nomination. It was a period when supposedly serious, informed, influential people would say, with a straight face, that politics was over, public life a mirage -- the really important action was this corporate merger or that IPO. City landscapes were going to be transformed by -- no shit -- the goddam Segway. W is the product of a delusional time. If Osama hadn't revived his already plummeting fortunes, he would have been a one-term wonder, just like his old man.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, that quiz wasn't about capitals, it was about leaders.

[Gary Farber]

Aha! Aha! Found a link to Matt Yglesias citing:

George Packer in the March 2, 2003, edition of The New York Times Magazine:

Bush is a man who has never shown much curiosity about the world. When he met with Makiya and two other Iraqis in January, I was told by someone not present, the exiles spent a good portion of the time explaining to the president that there are two kinds of Arabs in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites.

I knew I wasn't mad!

Um, Hilzoy, were you unaware of this? Jeepers, I had to spend an hour of digging to make sure I wasn't crazy. Not fun.

[Gary Farber]

Hour and twenty minutes, actually.

[Jon h]

"Um, Hilzoy, were you unaware of this? Jeepers, I had to spend an hour of digging to make sure I wasn't crazy. Not fun."

I think outrages like this are often quickly submerged under following outrages.

That's for people receptive to such messages. For others it just bounces off, until their resistance has been worn down by continued exposure to evidence of radical incompetence.

[dmbeaster]

Likewise, there must have been people in the media who had enough access to him to know this, but who were too busy claiming that Al Gore had told lies he never told to let the country in on what they knew.

And altogether too many ordinary citizens cared more about whether he'd be a good person to have a beer with than whether he'd be a competent President.

I admit to being clueless about it at the time, but in hindsight, it reflects a profound media bias that works in favor of Republicans. Its more a matter of not crossing the Republicans and reprinting their spin without criticism, than it is about blatant favortism. Its about working the refs to get the calls in your favor -- a more insidious type of bias.

It still exists now -- one of the worst and oafish Presidents of the last 100 years largely gets a pass.

[John Thullen]

As a diversion, I would be happy to take him out for a beer, if the rest of you take the White House out for some sanity and just a little on the ball.

George Bush is America. This is what the other guys mean when they say we're the ones who are anti-American.

Think about it. But not for too long; that would be unAmerican.

[John Lopresti]

The events that succeeded after Bush-II's first election fit with the way the election itself happened. The Democratic Party website, too, now is mentioning some of the people and situations in 2000 as if viewed the first time. The US political system has produced minority presidents rarely. Bush-II has afforded a long difficult look at minority party rule; it is a recipe for behind the scenes cliques' having disproportionate influence, carpe diem, and all that.
The exit now six years later has a overlay of legitimacy. US people support their leader in time of conflict. I think Bush-II has matured with his six years of serving as president. But there has been a struggle to redifine the administration in a context of laws on Capitol Hill these past six weeks since the Hamdan decision at the Supreme Court forced that moment of reflection, and, interestingly, even driven by the way LULAC v Perry is resolving (TX court very recently having completed its own remap very unlike DeLay's dream redistrict or the TX legislature's); the Supreme Court took a gentle hand in fostering the TX redistrict remake, as well this past term.

On the south central Asia politics and metaphysics, it would be nice if we elected history aficionados president in the US more than other folks; we test the experiential gamut; in this era of made for television national political conventions.

Fortunately the internet is adding some journalism to the mix.

[matttbastard]

Phil: - Bob Somerby has an extensive account of how Beltway pundits glossed over the so-called 'pop quiz' flap:

[TV Report Andy] Hiller was widely attacked for his quiz. On the November 5 Today show, NBC’s David Bloom quoted Larry Sabato, the ubiquitous insider media critic. Sabato said, of the pop quiz, “It really is pure, unadulterated, gotcha journalism. We’re electing a president, not a Jeopardy! champ.” Elsewhere, Sabato called the quiz “the cheapest of cheap shots”—and his views were widely echoed on the weekend talk programs. On the November 5 NewsHour, for example, Paul Gigot, Mark Shields, and Jim Lehrer all agreed—there was an “ambush, gotcha quality” to Hiller’s “ankle-biting” questions, which “gave journalism another black eye.” Lehrer referred to Hiller’s “Jeopardy! questions,” and Mark Shields voiced “a sense of relief that I wasn’t asked” them. “Well, you join millions with that one,” Lehrer said—and indeed, all over Washington, pundits were saying that they would have failed the quiz too. On PBS’ Washington Week, Jeff Birnbaum accused Hiller of “gotcha” journalism, and Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal said he couldn’t have answered the questions. On the November 6 Capital Gang, Robert Novak called Hiller a “wise guy reporter” engaged in “gotcha journalism.” “The real problem,” Novak said, “is that winning Jeopardy! games and leading the nation require different skills.” Margaret Carlson called it “gotcha” too. On Meet the Press the following day, William Safire also said “gotcha.” The quiz was “fun and games,” but was “phony.”

As usual, pundits All Said The Same Thing in a textbook display of Group Thinking. On Sunday, November 7, for example, a range of journalists rushed to say that they would have failed the quiz too. Steve Roberts expressed the point on Late Edition. Ditto for his wife, Cokie Roberts, who was hosting This Week. David Maraniss did the honors on Meet the Press. Meanwhile, over at Fox News Sunday, all the pundits professed total ignorance. Indeed, Hiller’s questions had been so fiendish, the scribes couldn’t answer them still:

TONY SNOW: And now, it’s panel time…Let’s begin with a pop quiz. First, can anybody here at this moment name the prime minister of Chechnya?
BRIT HUME: No.
MARA LIASSON: No.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Absolutely not.
SNOW: I’m clueless, too.
HUME: I heard it the other day, I read the name, I still can’t say it!

Hiller’s questions were simply unanswerable! For the record, the quiz was called “gotcha” journalism by Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, Deborah Orin, Al Hunt, Andrea Mitchell and Martin Schram, joining Lehrer, Sabato, Birnbaum, Novak and Carlson in that pleasing group assessment. Jeopardy! comparisons were also widespread, voiced by Morton Kondracke, Clarence Page, Michael Barone and Howard Kurtz, along with Lehrer, Sabato, Mitchell and Novak. Your pundits routinely speak with one voice; this time, though, that voice spoke for Bush. To state the obvious, such episodes are quite hard to square with the iconic theory of “liberal bias.”

[John Thullen]

"gotcha journalism"???

I thought it was called No Child Left Behind.
Just teach the facts.

Hey, listen, who cares if they are Shiites or Sunnis? Democractize them. Or kill them.
Or subdue them. Do something with them.

Midge Dector and I just need to fill her up.

[matttbastard]

Ok, here's the proper link for the Somerby quote.

Apologies for my ineptitude.

Blame the alcohol.

(At least I refrained from uttering despicable remarks.)

[Gary Farber]

"it would be nice if we elected history aficionados president in the US more than other folks"

I don't know about "more than other folks," but we've had history buff Presidents. This century, among those who spring to mind include Teddy Roosevelt and Harry S Truman. And even -- and this is evidence that while it is useful, it is not sufficient -- Richard Nixon.

Eisenhower, on the other hand, famously liked to read Zane Grey (the famous writer of Westerns, for those unfamiliar). Of course, while in his day he was derided by Democrats as an ignorant non-thinker, a) turns out he was actually very canny and smart, and put on a front; and b) his Presidency, for all that I can list a long set of terribly wrong decisions, and flaws (I've ranted here before about John Foster Dulles, and getting us started on Vietnam, and the Bay of Pigs, but there's loads more), he looks like a genuis when compared against the G. W. Bush Presidency.

Let's also not forget that Warren G. Harding remains up there in the top five Stupidest Presidents Ever. Good lord, was he an idiot.

Oh, and Woodrow Wilson was, of course, President of Princeton. He gets, let's say, mixed reviews at best. (Among other things, one of the most racist Presidents ever, setting aside the pros and cons of his foreign policy.)

[John Lopresti]

Actually, the link I showed is to someone's blog whose site name makes it look like it is the DNC.
Yet, the content was what Hilzoy's story recalled to mind. In this week when we just witnessed the continued hearings to define exactly what the Geneva Common Article Three says, all the old news induces some ennui.
Raw Story has had its brilliant times; it is cited in high places these days; though I gather my news elsewhere. Hilzoy has a good handle on humanity's developments.

The link I provided above in the post two steps before this footnote contains the photo hilzoy's comments brought to mind, the image of the Brooks Brothers Riot outside the recount room in FL in 2000 republished to the web on the day of the news in 2006 tht Joel Kaplan, a 2000 'BBRiot'er, had received an appointment to one of Karl Rove's posts.

[Gary Farber]

I was curious to remind myself what the actual questions were, again; I recall the whole thing very well, but not the precise questions.

It was name the "leaders" of the following countries: Pakistan, India, Chechnya and Taiwan.

Off the top of my head -- obviously, you'll have to trust me that I'm not googling -- that's, today, Pervez Musharraf, Prime Minister Singh (no, don't recall his precise first name; "M" something), I definitely don't recall the Chechnyan guy's name without checking, and Taiwan's is Chen -- I don't recall the exact spelling, Shiu-ban (I'm sure that's close), who has been immersed in a ton of corruption scandals of late.

But, then, I do read a lot of international news most every day. And it's fair to say that Musharaff's profile is higher post-September 11th, 2001, than previously, to some degree.

And remembering "Singh" isn't exactly hard.

I'd actually say that being able to name some important current or very recent events in a given important country is more important than precisely remembering the name of leader, though.

I'd care more about a candidate's awareness, for instance, of the French riots over changing the job law to allow for greater ease at firing certain types of new workers, and being forced to back down, and of the riots in the Muslim slums, than being to name President Chirac and PM de Villepin and Nicholas Sarkozy, and so on. Some people just have a bad memory for names, after all.

[Gary Farber]

"the Brooks Brothers Riot"

Yes, that was a charming moment, wasn't it?

[liberal japonicus]

Just for the record, Gary, the quiz was in 2000 so Singh and Chen would have been marked wrong if Bush had uttered them. No snark intended.

Of course, they probably asked for Taiwan to avoid this scenario

[Gary Farber]

"Just for the record, Gary, the quiz was in 2000 so Singh and Chen would have been marked wrong if Bush had uttered them."

I'm perfectly well aware of that, of course. Kinda missed the point.

I already mentioned that "I recall the whole thing very well," LJ. Then I specified "that's, today...." Do you think I'm Vonnegut's character from Slaughterhouse Five, unstuck in time, unable to remember when the campaign to elect Bush the first time was?

My point was to test how I'd do on the quiz today.

[liberal japonicus]

Well, since you said that it was easiy to remember Singh, especially after pointing out "Musharaff's profile is higher post-September 11th, 2001" might lead some to think that Bush was really stupid for not being able to remember such a simple name. Hence, the 'just for the record'.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, since you said that it was easiy to remember Singh, especially after pointing out 'Musharaff's profile is higher post-September 11th, 2001' might lead some to think that Bush was really stupid for not being able to remember such a simple name."

Whereas I thought I was clearly pointing out why taking the test would be arguably easier today.

You know, by pointing out the differences between today and then. Having noted that I was taking it today. Not then.

Mock despair (that was "mock"? Shall I repeat it, so you don't miss it? "Mock."): Why do I bother, lord?

Did I mention that the despair was, you know, mock?

Maybe I'll mention again that Kevin Drum just linked to me. :-) (And a really obscure link by Glenn Greenwald early today, too, although really buried in a post.)

Thus I try to avoid the despair.

Which I probably didn't mention was mock, so you might have missed it.

Oh, and my mocking of you? Mock.

[Jon h]

"On the south central Asia politics and metaphysics, it would be nice if we elected history aficionados president in the US more than other folks;"

Wasn't Bush a History major at Yale?

[novakant]

Whereas I thought I was clearly pointing out why taking the test would be arguably easier today.

well, in 1999 nuclear powers Pakistan and India got to the brink of war and the second Chechnyan war had just begun

[Travis]

The thing that gets me about the oft-repeated "guy you'd rather have a beer with" test is the obvious difficulty of sharing a beer with a supposedly recovering alcoholic. Does this not bother anyone else?

[Jesurgislac]

Travis, presumably these people who would like to share a beer with Bush either do not believe he's really sworn off booze - or else they do, and they think "Hey! All the more beer for me!"

I wonder who supports Bush because he's the kind of guy you'd like to do a line of coke with?

[CharleyCarp]

Travis it bothered me then and bothers me now. Like how the supporters of a guy who goes mountain biking whenever he can made a public deal about a challenger who went wind surfing.

The most benign explanation I can think of is the jounalists are so intent on proving that they are not infected with liberal bias that they're willing to let slip all manner of trivialities -- and everything in the have-a-beer scenario is a triviality -- and focus on the real issues. Trouble is, a vast number of voters aren't paying any attention at all to the substantive issues, but are deciding which guy they like better. And so the framing of trivialities becomes the most significant thing.

On the IPO stuff, remember we also had a whole bunch of whiny self-absorbed left types who bought into a narrative even stupider than the have-a-beer story: there's no diff between Gore & Bush, or between Dem and Rep. It's not only with hindsight that this thinking is clearly and totally delusional -- it was perfectly clear that a Bush nomination to the S Ct. was going to be Roberts/Alito while a Gore nomination was going to be Ginsburg/Breyer, and one can run down a whole long list of issues where the difference is just as clear. Tens of thousands of people in Florida bought into this foolishness fully enough to vote Nader. Say what you will about media bias, or shenanigans in Florida, the thing was really lost on the whiny left.

[Jesurgislac]

CharleyCarp, I probably sympathise more than you do with left-wing voters who wish their choices weren't a right-wing candidate and a raving right-wing candidate. Obviously, I think that voters should have picked the candidate who was only moderately right-wing, and the majority of voters did. True, if every single voter who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, and their vote had been counted, Gore wins.

But, as we now know, if every single vote cast in the Florida election had been counted, Gore wins: Bush "won" because an incomplete count gave him a tiny majority, and Republicans who wanted the count to stop there prevented a full count from taking place to establish the real winner.

In a democracy, you can't legally do anything about voters ("whiny", "left-wing", or not) who choose to cast their vote for the candidate they prefer, whether or not that candidate has a chance of winning.

However, in a democracy, it's your moral responsibility to ensure that all votes cast are counted, so that the candidate the majority of voters choose is declared the winner. In 2000, that was Al Gore: in 2004, it was probably John Kerry - the fact that we can't say for sure who got most votes in 2004 is a tribute to Diebold (whose spokesman says, of how easily Diebold machines can be hacked, "For there to be a problem here, you’re basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software… I don’t believe these evil elections people exist.") but not to American elections.

Electoral reform, not lambasting whiny left-wing voters, is the answer.

[Di a bold]

Galbraith another legacy like Plame and Wilson wanting some cash.

Kerry, deomcrats no term limits........

[CharleyCarp]

Jes, look at the numbers. The impact of all the various misconduct in Florida 2000 is totally swamped by the effect of the Nader thing. And say what you want about people in the US thinking that Al Gore is too far to the right -- I'm saying that this shows a level of maturity and a grip on reality exactly equivalent to thinking that Bush is the guy you'd rather have a beer with, and voting for him for that reason.

You don't get better choices by throwing your vote away on delusional vanity quests. You get world wars. (To be fair, maybe people wouldn't have known that, but they absolutely knew they were empowering the religious right. And didn't care.)

[CharleyCarp]

Jes, we can't get reform without winning first, and we can't win without people on the left growing the f*ck up. And the first step has to be recognizing their mistake -- not admitting it to me, I don't expect that -- just owning up to it themselves.

[hilzoy]

Gary: no, I didn't remember it.

[Andrew]

They cared more about winning than about their country.

I am curious if you think this is unique to Republicans. I see little evidence that either party places the value of electing the better candidate to the value of electing the candidate they believe has a better chance of victory. I seem to recall that being part of Senator Kerry's draw in 2004, for example; he was supposed to be the guy who could beat President Bush, therefore he ought to be the nominee. I am sure that there were many Democrats who voted for Kerry for many reasons, but I do not think it unreasonable to note that the electability argument was one of Kerry's selling points.

Political parties exist for one reason: to get candidates elected. While I'm sure people on either side would like to see the best of their party elevated to office, when push comes to shove the ability to win outweighs the ability of the candidate once in office. This is one reason the founders were so distrustful of factions, as they called them, and why people like Jefferson were so careful to keep their involvement with parties out of the public eye. Unfortunately, organizations dedicated to winning elections are far more likely to do so than organizations dedicated to putting forward the best candidate.

The problem is systemic. Unless we see a civic awakening among the average voter, it is unlikely to change regardless of the outputs it produces. Success breeds imitation, after all. It will be interesting to see which candidates the parties settle on in 2008.

[OCSteve]

First of all the word “claim” appears 4 times in the article. But we should take a former state department official’s claim (who just happens to be pimping a book) at face value. Galbraith thinks that Iraq should be broken up into 3 entities and he is particularly tied to the Kurds. That may be the best plan and it may end up being the de-facto reality.

With that said, I don’t have a hard time believing that the gist of it is true. It is obvious to anyone that we had no solid post-war plan. This little factoid would have played heavily in any such plan. I don’t expect Bush to have known this – I didn’t know a damned thing about Islam prior to 01 and would have been content taking that ignorance to my grave. But I do expect his advisors to have known it, and to have briefed him on it in detail. My biggest problem with W is the cronyism. Surrounding himself with cronies rather than competent advisors has been his biggest single mistake IMO.

Likewise, there must have been people in the media who had enough access to him to know this, but who were too busy claiming that Al Gore had told lies he never told to let the country in on what they knew.

Rinse and repeat indeed. The MSM is a Republican propaganda machine. Even after a senior editor admits that the media is in the tank for Kerry and good for 15 points. Even after the ombudsman of the NYT admits the paper has a liberal bias, that the editorial page is “thoroughly saturated in liberal theology” and even Arts & Leisure, Fashion, Sunday Style, Metro, Science, and yes even the News sections are all heavily infected with liberal bias. Even though poll after poll going back over 40 years has shown that the vast majority of the people staffing our news organizations are on the left – these lefties supposedly knowingly spin for the right.

But, as we now know, if every single vote cast in the Florida election had been counted, Gore wins: Bush "won" because an incomplete count gave him a tiny majority, and Republicans who wanted the count to stop there prevented a full count from taking place to establish the real winner.

Rinse and repeat. The fact that people still believe this almost 6 years later is proof enough that the concept is effective. Even after news organizations did their recounts using the various proposed methods (including the method Gore was pushing) there are diehard believers.

They cared more about winning than about their country.

Well that shoe is certainly on the other foot now, isn’t it? We should have national unity on at least a few important things – but that would detract from the reflexive opposition to BushCo.

[OCSteve]

I see little evidence that either party places the value of electing the better candidate to the value of electing the candidate they believe has a better chance of victory.

Assuming “better candidate” means the candidate whose beliefs are closest to mine, the netroots are kind of disproving that right now. They would rather risk losing a Senate seat than not see their guy as the candidate.

[Andrew]

Assuming “better candidate” means the candidate whose beliefs are closest to mine, the netroots are kind of disproving that right now. They would rather risk losing a Senate seat than not see their guy as the candidate.

An excellent point. Although I don't think many, if any, of the netroots believe Lamont isn't a credible candidate in the general election as well, (nor am I aware of any evidence that he is not), so while they are taking some risk, it is not a huge one.

[KCinDC]

OCSteve, I think you're confusing Lamont supporters with Laffey supporters.

[lily]

I think the people who preferred winning to being wise were the pundits--they sucked up to the right because they thought the right was invincible and they wanted to sit with the cool kids. Thre was some of that among the Democrats too (think Lieberman), but I agree with Hilzoy, the real offenders are the Republicans who keep voting for outright nutcases and criminals like Santorum and DeLay because anyone with their brand name was better in their minds than anyone if the other brand name. That failure to think and make distinctions really is something to be ashamed of.
Also while reporters ( the people who acquaint themsleves with information) tend to be liberal the editors and other managers ( who care more about sales and safety than the good of their country ) tend to be Republican. So the leftwing media is a myth--the final decsions about coverage are made by rightists.

[Phil]

Rinse and repeat indeed. The MSM is a Republican propaganda machine. Even after a senior editor admits that the media is in the tank for Kerry and good for 15 points. Even after the ombudsman of the NYT admits the paper has a liberal bias, that the editorial page is “thoroughly saturated in liberal theology” and even Arts & Leisure, Fashion, Sunday Style, Metro, Science, and yes even the News sections are all heavily infected with liberal bias. Even though poll after poll going back over 40 years has shown that the vast majority of the people staffing our news organizations are on the left – these lefties supposedly knowingly spin for the right.

As Roy Edroso so drily notes: "The general trend of our media criticism, online and off, is and has been for some time neither technological nor futuristic but political -- a concerted attack on the famed 'liberal media,' a hydra-headed beast so insidiously powerful that it has managed to deliver the White House to its Democratic overlords in all but seven of the past ten Presidential elections."

[dmbeaster]

OCSteve:

But I do expect his advisors to have known it, and to have briefed him on it in detail. My biggest problem with W is the cronyism. Surrounding himself with cronies rather than competent advisors has been his biggest single mistake IMO.

The fact that he surrounds himself with cronies is a symptom of a greater weakness in Bush himself -- not a cause of his weak leadership (though cronies then re-emphasize his own failings). Weak cowardly people chose syncophants for subordinates, and then retain them even after their incompetence has been publically displayed. The cronyism speaks volumes about the weakness of Bush's character.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: Even after news organizations did their recounts using the various proposed methods (including the method Gore was pushing) there are diehard believers.

Well, yeah: the facts are the facts. Any recount that counted all votes cast came up with the same conclusion: more people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush. I'm indeed a diehard believer in sticking to the facts, regardless of media spin.

[Andrew]

Any recount that counted all votes cast came up with the same conclusion: more people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush.

Any recount that counted all overvotes and undervotes came up for Gore. That is not quite the same as all the votes. Or do voters not have any responsibility to ensure they have properly marked their ballot prior to casting it?

[bob mcmanus]

"The fact that he surrounds himself with cronies is a symptom of a greater weakness in Bush himself"

Cheney was Ford's CoS and CEO of Halliburton.
The "surrounded himself with cronies & sycophants" simply does not fly, especially combined with "the ignorant manipulated puppet". Andrew Card, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice...these were not Bush's drinking buddies from the Ranger days. Any Republicn administration would have been proud to have them.

So what happened? I have been avoiding this blog since Andrew's anecdote in comments about leaders only being as good as the information given them. This is the "Let Reagan be Reagan, it's all Sununu's or Regan's fault" Republican method of protecting their symbols. The "weak manipulated puppet" line.

Fact is, the wrong guy got into the WH. A very very strong stubborn guy, who was going to invade Iraq, and would have fired Rumsfeld if Rumsfeld had tried to stop him. Read "1 percent". Bush is calling the shots, based on ignorance and prejudice. The man is so incredibly arrogant that he would tell Colin Powell to take a flying leap if Powell got in his way on National Security matters.

GWB is one of the strongest most confidant Presidents in American history. Just arrogant and despicable and crazy. GWB himself mentioned dictators, so it is fair to compare GWB with Saddam or Stalin or Hitler, who were not exactly misused or misinformed by their surbordinates. Ribbentrop or his Soviet equivalent just had to be very careful about what he tried to tell his boss.

[bob mcmanus]

The evidence is in, and has been obvious for years. Paul O'Neill wasn't kept from telling the bad news to Bush by the crafty manipulative subordinates. Bush wasn't being protected, O'Neill was being protected. If the CEO of ALCOA had tried to tell Bush his numbers didn't add up, the CEO of ALCOA was gone. This is not Card or Rove or Cheney.

This is George Bush. Just cause he is clueless doesn't mean he can't be the Decider. The American people have, like, spoken.

[Andrew]

This is the "Let Reagan be Reagan, it's all Sununu's or Regan's fault" Republican method of protecting their symbols. The "weak manipulated puppet" line.

Wow...I am beginning to wonder why I bother to post here at all, when what I say it ignored in favor of what people want to hear anyhow.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary: no, I didn't remember it."

Hokay, that explains that. Thanks.

[J. Michael Neal]

"As God is my witness, I thought Muslims could fly!"

[CharleyCarp]

Two points Andrew. First, an overvote isn't necessarily improperly marked -- the legal standard isn't whether a ballot is machine readable, but whether the intent of the voter can be ascertained. Someone who checks the Gore box, and then checks the write in box, writing in Gore, has expressed an ascertainable intent. It's not convenient, and God knows it's now how I wish that voter had done it, but the state acted improperly when it refused to count that voter's vote.

Second, on the senior appointments: I agree with you that a leader can only be as good as the information he/she acts upon, but this merely creates a floor. I don't think the failures of Bush's Iraq or Afghan policy are based on bad information from Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice, but are endemic. Even a leader with good subordinates has to have good judgment, and has to weigh the actual situation, and stick with reality when looking at likely outcomes. In my view, the current policy has been suffused with magical thinking from the start, and while there may have been plenty of people who shared in it, the fact that the President seems to be one of them means that he owns the whole ugly mess.

I do not blame the President for the failure to capture or kill UBL before February 1, 2002. Failure to do so by August 5, 2006? That's his, lock, stock, and barrel.

[Prodigal]

OCSteve chimed in with this:

Rinse and repeat. The fact that people still believe this almost 6 years later is proof enough that the concept is effective.

That's because by the standard that the Bush team initially demanded for a Florida recount, Gore would have won the state in 2000. As for the rest of the talking points you posted, I'll refer you to your own statement of "Rinse and repeat."

[Andrew]

Charley,

My question regarding the voting is: what responsibility does the voter have to make sure his vote is marked properly? I understand the concept of overvotes and undervotes, but when people fail to take the time to mark their ballot properly, I'm curious how much care they spent on determining who they planned to vote for.

As for the leadership, I'm with President Truman: the buck stops in the Oval Office. President Bush is responsible for selecting the advisors who surround him, so even if the proximate cause of the error is bad data from a subordinate, the ultimate responsibility rests with the President.

[KCinDC]

If a significant number of the people intended to use a system use it wrongly, that indicates a problem with the design of the system. I think Don Norman's thoughts apply to paper ballots as well as systems involving computers:

The behavior of an information processing system is not a product of the design specifications: it is a product of the interaction between the human and the system. The designer must consider the properties of all the system components -- including the humans -- as well as their interactions. The various technical publications of the field attest to a concern with software and hardware, but emphasis on human functionality and capability is lacking. Many failures of information systems are attributed to human error rather than to the design. We are going to suffer continued failures until we learn to change our approach.

One of the first things needed is a change in attitude. The behavior we call human error is just as predictable as system noise, perhaps more so: therefore, instead of blaming the human who happens to be involved, it would be better to try to identify the system characteristics that led to the incident and then to modify the design, either to eliminate the situation or at least to minimize the impact for future events. One major step would be to remove the term "human error" from our vocabulary and to re-evaluate the need to blame individuals. A second major step would be to develop design specifications that consider the functionality of the human with the same degree of care that has been given to the rest of the system.

[Andrew]

KC,

I have no objection to reforms designed to make ballot entry simpler. However, after 15 years in the Army, there's one thing I've learned: you can't idiot-proof anything. There's always a better idiot out there somewhere. (And I say this as a firm believer in the theory that we are all, from time-to-time, idiots, in that we all do dumb things more often than we'd like to admit.)

[Gary Farber]

"I understand the concept of overvotes and undervotes, but when people fail to take the time to mark their ballot properly, I'm curious how much care they spent on determining who they planned to vote for."

Those seem like entirely disconnected skills to me.

Someone could be a genius political scientist for seventy years, and still have cerebal palsy, or multiple sclerois, or just plain be bad with their hands. What's one got to do with the other?

Moreover, our system doesn't allow, and rightly so, for tests of how much a citizen studies for an election. That, too, is not relevant. And shouldn't be. (Much as I admit I have prejudices that run in the opposite direction; but I recognize that my prejudices are anti-democratic.)

[CharleyCarp]

Andrew, if you'll throw out all the votes of people who picked the guy they fantasized they'd rather have a beer with, I'd be willing to throw out the votes who didn't spend enough time to mark a ballot so that it would be machine readable.

[Andrew]

Charley,

I'd make that deal, but I'm curious how you propose to ascertain the former.

[CharleyCarp]

Trust me, I'll take care of it. ;- )

[Andrew]

Gary,

You're kidding, right? I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to take the time to check your ballot before you submit it to make sure it is filled out properly.

Again, I would be pleased to see reforms that would reduce the number of errors. I'm a big fan of paper ballots, myself. When I lived in Massachusetts, our ballots had broken arrows pointing to the candidates. You filled in the open space in the arrow of the candidate you preferred, so you ended up with a complete arrow pointing to the candidates you selected. Simple, easy to check after the fact if a recount is required, and no worries about hanging chads, dimpled chads, etc. And as long as we make sure people have the option to get a new ballot if they do err, then there's no reason people shouldn't be able to fill theirs out properly.

[Andrew]

Charley,

You're such a handy guy. ;)

Just to be a smarta**, wasn't it President Clinton who asked the famous question, who would you trust to order you a pizza, in the 1996 election? :)

[hilzoy]

Andrew: see why I had that little 'oh no!' (the one I thought better of) the first time the 2000 election came up? This has been mild so far.

[Andrew]

hilzoy,

At least I haven't been accused of wanting anyone dead yet. I'll take what I can get.

[hilzoy]

yep -- and much of the day has gone by without me being called a feminazi. Admittedly, I have been at home, painting, by myself, so it's not clear that I would have noticed. Still, the fact that the furniture hasn't accused me of anything is a start.

[Andrew]

o.O

Does the furniture speak to you often? I'm just asking.

Enquiring minds want to know: were Eva Braun and Leni Riefenstahl feminazis? Or am I not understanding the whole feminazi concept? (And I feel very much left out by that letter, I should note.)

[dutchmarbel]

Andrew: if I doubleclick on the word my browser Opera takes me here.

[matttbastard]

Andrew: I had similar thoughts when I first heard the term feminazi.

Although it wasn't Braun and Riefenstahl who initially came to mind...

hey, I was only 14 (and enamoured with Joe Bob Briggs) at the time.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: I don't understand it much myself, other than its origin in Rush Limbaugh's fevered brain. I mean: I will go to my grave a feminist (unless I'm wildly wrong about the future), and I don't think I have many Nazi-like traits, besides the blond hair and blue eyes. Still, I'm pretty sure I'm the sort of person Limbaugh had in mind.

Are you sure you can't qualify under 'fag sympathizer'?

[LizardBreath]

My question regarding the voting is: what responsibility does the voter have to make sure his vote is marked properly? I understand the concept of overvotes and undervotes, but when people fail to take the time to mark their ballot properly, I'm curious how much care they spent on determining who they planned to vote for.

I'm curious here, because you seem like a reasonable guy generally. What do you mean by 'responsibility' here? When I think of responsibility, I generally think of something like an obligation to bear costs, or to repair damage, when those costs or damages are caused by one's own actions.

Here, you seem to be characterizing a decision not to count votes despite the fact that the intention of the voter was unambiguous (say, someone who filled in the Gore optiscan bubble, and also wrote in 'Gore' as a write-in candidate) as asking them to bear 'responsibility' for not following directions. What cost, or damage, to any other person or entity was caused by their error, that not counting their vote transfers back to them? I don't see any cost (beyond the de minimus cost of taking a second look at the ballot -- that administrative cost can't possibly be what you're thinking of) of counting those votes, given that they're unambiguous.

So what do you mean by asking about responsibility? I don't understand how you're framing the question.

[Andrew]

Actually, I was being sarcastic re: feminazi. I am sadly familiar with the term. I was trying (unsuccessfully, it would seem) to poke fun at those who use it seriously.

And yes, I qualify as 'fag sympathizer,' but I think that's true of all of us. I mean, come on: I'm looking to kill 18,000 people a year. I think that deserves a little recognition.

[Andrew]

Liz,

I guess I'm just anal retentive, but it seems to me people ought to take a little time to make sure they've done the job right, whether it's voting or any other task. I'm less concerned with the kind of situation you describe than the ridiculous permutations we saw in Florida in 2000, with dimpled chads, chads hanging by one corner, two corners, three corners, etc. While in Florida we also had the butterfly ballot, which I'm reasonably certain threw the state to Bush, if we set that aside the outcome was effectively a tie. And in that case, trying to ascertain the intent of the voter tends to depend to no small degree on the preference of the person checking the ballot. That places a degree of subjectivity into the process that I think undermines its value.

[liberal japonicus]

morning Andrew,
A small point unrelated to anything content wise, but I politely request that you avoid the 'why do I bother to post here' and the 'I must want 18,000 dead' comments. The commentariat was pretty much all contra Jes' reasoning, and Bob has said that he stepped back to give you room here precisely because his views run opposite to yours. I really don't want to go into the 'show me a right wing site that would do the same courtesy' food fight, but it will come up if you use that as a consistent hook, I think.

[LizardBreath]

I'm not talking about ambiguous ballots. I'm asking how you see 'responsibility' as applicable to the question of whether or not to count an unambiguous ballot that isn't machine-readable.

Does counting such a ballot wrongfully impose a cost on anyone that you think the careless voter should bear instead? And do you think that not counting the ballot transfers the cost back to the careless voter? I don't see any such cost, and in the absence of such a cost, I don't see how the voter's 'responsibility' is relevant to the question of whether to count their unambiguous vote.

[Andrew]

lj,

I've never been good at playing defense. But your point is noted, and I shall endeavor to play nice. Although I will point out at least one right-wing site that would do so.

Liz,

It accrues no additional cost assuming the votes are being checked by hand anyhow. I guess I define responsibility differently than you do, however. It seems to me that people have a responsibility to themselves to do the job right; given how long some people stand in line just to vote, to have your vote discarded because you didn't fill it out properly abrogates one's responsibility to oneself. Don't you think we have responsibilities to ourselves as individuals?

To be clear: if the votes are being counted by hand anyhow and the voter's intent is unambiguous, I do not object to counting it.

[Ted]

"None of them lifted a finger to try to prevent him from becoming President. They cared more about winning than about their country."

Well, the people who ran against him in the primary tried to prevent him from becoming president....

[LizardBreath]

Don't you think we have responsibilities to ourselves as individuals?

Sure, I just don't think of accuracy in following the directions for filling out a form as in itself an important responsibility to myself, nor one that a failure in would justify my disenfranchisement -- pride in my work only goes so far.

To be clear: if the votes are being counted by hand anyhow and the voter's intent is unambiguous, I do not object to counting it.

Good to know, and very sane of you. I shouldn't be arguing about this six years later anyway -- the 'responsibility' argument just freaks me out. It always sounds to me as if not counting their votes is thought of as a punishment for the careless (although unambiguous) voter, and that seems entirely weird to me. I'm glad to know you don't feel that way.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I don't see how the voter's 'responsibility' is relevant to the question of whether to count their unambiguous vote.

It isn't relevant, especially since the person bearing the cost of the vote not being counted is the candidate, not the voter.

And are we sure the voting instructions were absolutely clear? Does the fact that there were a lot of these overvotes not suggest that there was a bit of ambiguity there?

[Andrew]

Liz,

As a Red Sox fan, I perfectly understand. You don't stew about the blowouts. You stew about blowing a two-run lead with two outs with one strike between you and your first Championship in 78 years when your closer loses his mind and begins throwing batting practice and his replacement lets the tying run score on a wild pitch and your manager hasn't made his usual defensive replacement of his first baseman...

I'm sorry...what were we talking about?

[Gary Farber]

"I don't think one needs to be a rocket scientist to take the time to check your ballot before you submit it to make sure it is filled out properly."

And the reason you believe most people have good vision -- particularly elderly people in Palm Beach -- and are proficient in English, is?

This is the privilege of youth, good health, good eyesight, and steady hands, speaking, Andrew.

And, for that matter, even complete idiots have a right to vote, which I only mention because you brought up intelligence.

But I, for one, can't read a ballot without reading glasses; it's a blur to me; and I haven't been able to afford a pair of prescription glasses in fifteen years, and I lost my last pair about 4 years ago; the reading glasses let me read decent-sized print, but not with complete comfortability. If it weren't for the ability of computers to let one enlarge fonts, I wouldn't be able to read what you wrote and respond to you.

And I'm only 47. And I don't have trembling hands. And I'm lucky enough to be clever.

[damon]

On the whole faux-populist manufactured PR myth about "having a beer with Bush," the Onion did a good takedown here.

[Andrew]

Ah, but I'm clever enough to be lucky.

Not proficient in English !=stupid or ignorant. And I was under the belief precincts were required to provide ballots in voters' native languages?

As for bad eyesight and shaky hands, how about some large-print ballots? Do they not already offer those?

[Gary Farber]

Hmm, that last comment may have come out sounding sharper than I meant it to, which was not sharp at all. If so, sorry. I also hadn't read the rest of the comments following, yet, to realize that a whole context of 2000 rehashing followed.

Rest assured that I have no interest in rehashing 2000 and Florida; the subject has long long long bored me silly (I mean, I know what I think, but if someone disagrees with me, as a rule, I don't feel a compulsion to make sure they know how and why and that they are wrong).

Also I came back from shopping at the supermarket a bit ago -- almost killing myself carrying too much stuff, as usual, and feeling like someday I'm going to drop of a heart attack from that, but I still have to go back to get more essentials tomorrow, but I digress -- where I used the blood pressure machine, as usual, and it was 215/1**, so I took another blood pressure pill awhile ago, and now, as usual, I'm feeling spacy and wobbly. Which also cuts out my editor.

Feel free to go back to the Red Sox talk, of which I can say nothing but than to inquire as to which stadium has the best hot dogs?

[Andrew]

I didn't notice anything particularly sharp in the response, Gary. No blood, no report.

I'm not sure which stadium has the best hot dogs; I've only been to about half-a-dozen: Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Wrigley, Arlington, Coors, and Cincinnati. Plus two that have been since torn down. I know that my wife is of the opinion that Fenway's hot dogs have declined markedly in quality since our youth, as they no longer wrap them in foil and allow them to marinate in the steam boxes.

[Bruce Baugh]

I was going to make two comments, about physical and social factors that affect voting in ways that I don't think are well described as the voter's fault.

Gary's covered the physical ones, however. So for my first point, go back and re-read his of 6:22 pm, and remember that as he says, he's lucky enough to be clever. He can be articulate about what's wrong and informed about what would help. Nothing in being disabled guarantees that, and indeed, a lot of people with clear-cut physical problems never get the chance to realize that there is something physically wrong with them, and it's not just that they're lazy or slow learners or whatever.

The other point is social. People who are on or near a social margin of many kinds often have good reason not to trust authorities when they say "of course we're listening". They're used to being hung up on, being misrepresented in official tallies, regarded with automatic suspicion when anything goes wrong, and so on. Under those circumstances, punching out the hole for a candidate and then writing them in in the write-on slot can often be simply understood as added emphasis: "yes, you guys, I really mean it with this candidate, so pay attention". It's not following the instructions...but it is responding to a lifetime's demonstration of what it takes to get the authorities' atttention.

[liberal japonicus]

And I was under the belief precincts were required to provide ballots in voters' native languages?

Interesting that you should bring this up. You may wish to take a look at the MLA linguistic census map to get an idea of the linguistic diversity that we are talking about. That the notion of ballots in other languages is seized upon by some on the right can be seen by these links here, here, and here. I'm hoping that you disagree with the sentiments on offer there.

[CharleyCarp]

On the languages question: I took my (incoming 7th grader) son in this morning for his training to be an Election Aide, and in the class, the county elections guy told us what the law was about foreign languages. There's a numerical cut-off, 5% I think, but also a requirement about literacy. In my county, we have Spanish language ballots and instructions. We do not have Chinese ballots/instructions, although there are enough Chinese speakers in the county, because they are, on average, sufficiently literate in English. Only Spanish qualifies for ballots in my county.

Obviously, though, that fact that the average is at a certain level doesn't mean that each individual is at that level.

They asked the kids signing up to be Election Aides to make sure to put down any foreign languages they speak, and told us a story from the last election cycle of a 9th grader helping an elderly Korean-speaking voter with the different ballot entries.

[CharleyCarp]

OT, but FYI:

Election Aides greet voters as they enter the precinct, direct them to the sign-in or sample ballot tables, know where the bathrooms and phones are, pick-up the cards the voters use for the electronic machines, invite elderly voters to sit in the chairs if lines are long while reminding the people behind them in line to let them back in libne when the time comes, and are supposed to be generally helpful.

The Aides work a 4 hour shift, and it counts towards the hours of community service each student must amass to graduate from high school.

[Andrew]

lj,

I am of mixed mind. On the one hand, I am concerned that people who are incapable of following the issues are casting ballots anyhow. On the other hand, most people who speak English don't appeart to be making a considered vote either, so the non-English speaking types are just assimilating. When you look at it that way, it's a good news story.

More seriously, I realize that non-English speakers face significant difficulties in voting, as do those Bruce mentioned. And I'm willing to see them given certain allowances to help them through the process. In particular, I'd like to see ballots similar to those I mentioned upthread used, as those are about as close to idiot-proof as I can imagine. Also, they're a damn sight better than voting machines that provide no physical evidence of how someone intended to vote, which I consider an incredibly bad idea.

Anyhoo, I realize there is no silver bullet in this. The whole responsibility thing is just a touchy subject with me.

[Debbie(aussie)]

Have been wondering, since your 2000/04 elections, something. Why aren't the ballots for President printed exactly the same allover. A simple tick the box (or mark on comp). No confusion. No matter where you live or how you vote you see the same and mark the box of your choice.

[Andrew]

Debbie,

The U.S. Constitution gives the states the authority to determine how they choose their electors. To create a national ballot would, I believe, require an amendment.

[liberal japonicus]

Debbie,
they aren't the same because each state elects a representative to the college of electors who then elect the president, so the system is set up to avoid the situation you describe. There are a lot more wrinkles, but that's the basic idea.

[Debbie(aussie)]

Why would you want to avoid that situation. would it be simpler to have the ballot the same?

[Debbie(aussie)]

sorry would it not be simpler

[Andrew]

Debbie,

It goes back to the origins of the country. In 1787, when the Constitution was written, quite a few states were not interested in a particularly snug union. Therefore many powers were left in the hands of the state governments.

[CharleyCarp]

Debbie, I can tell you that in my county, for the upcoming election, there are 23 different ballots. Within the county. Hilzoy lives in a different Maryland county, and it probably has as many.

Elections are organized and run by counties here, and the ballot that we get has all the races on it: federal offices (only legislative this year), governor, state legislature, county council, judges, state constitutional amendments, county charter amendments, and so on. The county designs and prints the ballot, so mine and Hilzoy's aren't just going to have different races (mostly) and candidates, but they could have very different designs.

I suppose the counties could print two ballots -- a uniform federal ballot and the county ballot appropriate to the particular races -- but that would require a federalization of the process that no one is willing to put enough muscle into to get it passed.

[Gary Farber]

"On the one hand, I am concerned that people who are incapable of following the issues are casting ballots anyhow."

I don't understand where this train of thought goes, though, other than to a station in which we wind up giving people literacy tests, or tests of knowledge of current events, which I know perfectly well is not where you are intending to go, of course.

But since we're not going to those stations, what's the point of going even a single foot down the track?

We don't pass judgment on people's knowledge, or smarts, as a measure of whether they're entitled to vote. They can be raving imbeciles (okay, there is an actual minimum IQ that if you're below you can be legally challenged on, in some areas, I think, but generally speaking), or literal psychotic paranoids, and you can live in a basement, or overseas, for twenty years, and never have once seen a newspaper, and you're entitled to vote.

So what's the relevance of vague murmurings of "concern" about people's -- you didn't use the following term, so when I put it in quotation marks, it's not as a quotation, but as a paraphrase -- "qualifications"?

That's simply antithetical to our basic system of government -- democracy, not meritocracy, or elitism, regardless of its mixed merits and demerits. That's our system, after all.

[CharleyCarp]

I may have misunderstood: 23 sounds way too low. Maybe it was 23 within the Silver Spring portion of the county. Anyway, we have a whoole lot of elections at the same time, and are given a single ballot.

In the states in which I've voted, one has no awareness of the identities of the electors. That is, I've always had only the names of the Presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates on my ballots, although I understand that some states do it differently.