03
Mar
Slate’s John Dickerson is alarmed by Bush’s Katrina catalepsy
UPDATE: While I appreciate John’s attention, I would like to note that there is more to the site than the two items linked in his colum.
As he weighed in yesterday on the now-infamous video of Silent George Bush attending a pre-Katrina video conference, John Dickerson unleashed a burst of inadvertent clarity that perfectly encapsulates what’s wrong with Bush, the administration and the reporters who cover both.
Dickerson, the former Time Magazine Washington correspondent who now holds down the Ruminant desk at Slate, is shocked and alarmed by the president’s lack of engagement with the briefing from National Hurricane Center officials and then-FEMA chief Michael Brown (who is, terrifyingly, beginning to look like the most competent administration official involved in the response to Katrina). “I don’t know what question the president should have asked,” Dickerson plaintively writes toward the end of his column, “but shouldn’t he have asked something?”
Hmmm, yes; probably so. “What in the hell am I doing here” would be a good place to start. But that little cri de coeur pales next to something Dickerson wrote earlier in the piece.
We see the president all the time in public settings, giving speeches, shaking hands, looking concerned. But this footage is fascinating because it is the first video I can recall of the president at work in private. It’s our chance to see how the image of the president painted by his allies compares with the actual man. And the result is somewhat alarming. Based on what I’d been told by White House aides over the years, I expected to see the president asking piercing questions that punctured the fog of the moment and inspired bold action. Bush’s question-asking talents are a central tenet of the president’s hagiography. He may not be much for details, say aides, but he can zero in on a weak spot in a briefing and ask out-of-the-box questions. I have been repeatedly told over the years that he once interrupted a briefing on national defense to pose a 30,000-foot stumper: What is the function of the Department of Defense?
I don’t know what’s most distressing about those 163 words: that Dickerson believed what Bush allies told him about the president, that the president would interrupt a defense briefing to ask what the Pentagon is for, that the best and brightest of the 21st century were stumped by the question, that Bush aides thought the anecdote was so flattering to Bush that they told it repeatedly or that a veteran reporter can reference “the view from 30,000 feet” without the slightest hint of embarrassment or irony.
It seems wholly unlikely that anyone who actually witnessed the administration’s response to Katrina would have any expectation at all of seeing “the president asking piercing questions that punctured the fog of the moment and inspired bold action.” I mean, we saw what happened, and the boldest action taken by the administration came when Michael Chertoff was inspired to blame everything on Kathleen Blanco.
It’s tempting to think, or hope, that Dickerson is writing tongue in cheek, but he makes clear a bit later that no, he really did buy the bridge.
Perhaps the Katrina briefing was an aberration. But I worry that it isn’t. Those in the room with him during other briefings also say he didn’t ask very sharp questions then, either. Former anti-terrorism official Richard Clarke and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill both wrote about Bush’s lack of curiosity. L. Paul Bremer’s account of his 14 months in Iraq as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority inadvertently paints a similar picture. In briefings, Bush offered a pep talk—”pace yourself, Jerry”—and questions about tangential issues like whether the new Iraqi leaders would thank the Americans for their sacrifice.
So. Okay. What we have here is an experienced Washington hand who has presumably been conscious during at least some of the past five years, and is only now — and only because he saw the frickin’ video — beginning to worry that Bush may not be quite as competent as those responsible for covering his ass say he is. Didn’t it ever occur to Dickerson that executives who consistently ask good questions eventually get good answers that lead to at least an occasional good outcome? Have there been any good outcomes?
That was a rhetorical question. I don’t expect a good outcome. Dickerson, though, against all odds, against all reason, still has hope:
Wednesday night, [Bush] responded to ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas’ questions about the slow federal response to Katrina by pointing out that the administration had learned the lessons of its failures. But learning lessons depends on asking questions—the right ones and a lot of them. Let’s hope one of the questions the president asked after the catastrophe was whether he had asked the right questions before it.
We’re not dealing with stupidity here; you can’t be that stupid and spit out that many at least superficially coherent sentences at one sitting. Maybe it’s just stress. Maybe it’s a spatial orientation problem that causes Dickerson to confuse “out of the box” and “off the wall.” Whatever the genesis, it also led him to join many of his colleagues in overlooking what some people would describe as a more critical aspect of the video: it proves Bush was lying when he said, days after Katrina hit, that no one anticipated the levees would fail.
Or maybe that lapse arises from a different problem. I don’t know. Reading his stuff is like crawling through a tunnel filled with disturbing, wriggly things. You should thank me for my sacrifice.
==============================
UPDATE: I’ve come to think this is an eleoquent but inaccurate take on Dickerson’s column.
If you like the site, please considering donating a few dollars through the PayPal link at the head of the page. Mahalo …
![[Furl]](http://www.furl.net/images/logo-favicon.ico){kind=logo}
![[Newsvine]](http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/identity/button_seednewsvine.gif){kind=small}
![[Email]](http://www.feedburner.com/fb/feed-styles/images/email.gif){kind=small}
Dickerson could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had heard the whole exchange–
Bush: “What is the function of the Department of Defense?”
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:19 amRumsfeld: “It runs the Army and Navy and stuff like that.”
Bush: “I knew that. No, really, I did. I was just testing you guys.”
Have some mercy on Dickerson. He may be in some kind of shock after seeing a tape showing the leader of the free world promising he would be at the helm of responding to a mammoth hurricane and flood, and then going on vacation.
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:28 amNice catch. I didn’t think anyone else would have been as pissed as I was when I read that. I almost passed out when I came across it yesterday.
This, for my money is the prize quote:
Based on what I’d been told by White House aides over the years, I expected to see the president asking piercing questions that punctured the fog of the moment and inspired bold action.
Shit, he was only the White House correpsondent for Time thoughout the Bush presidency and has written for Slate for about a year, but even after all that “access”, he admits to being absolutely spun by White House aides who sold him a Bush that most sentient Americans see through. Our press corps!
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 amJ. Brida: “Books for people who like to drink while they read..” Heh. I like that.
Every time I read one of his columns I find myself thinking, “This has to be a parody.” But he really seems serious. And I can feel my mind physically boggling. It’s like throwing a rod or something.
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:38 amThe fact that this really rather sophisticated person could be this naive for so long is stunning. Someone give him some money so he can buy a clue. I have no access to the administration, yet I was able to use my powers of observation and reasoning to figure out five years ago that this is a very deceptive administration. Since then, there has been a quite formidable accumulation of evidence that they lie, cheat, and steal as a way of life. For one thing, listen to the words and then look at the deeds. That was only the first clue, and it required no special access!
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:41 amDoes anyone think this will diminish Franken’s love-fest for the boy’s deceased mother?
me neither…
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:51 am.
Dickerson’s mother was a big-time journalist, wasn’t she?
Hothouse flowers.
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:55 amPress CORPS[E].
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:58 amI can only presume that Bush knew exactly what was coming in Katrina and wanted what happened to happen. Much like 9/11.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:01 amWhoa: he’s Nancy Dickerson’s kid? That escalates the mystery: she was a very sharp reporter.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:09 amDickerson will figure it out around 2011.
Until then, why do we have to read him in Slate and listen to him on Al?
Can’t he express his views on a blog that no one reads?
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 amBush administration lessons learned:
1. Naptime is sacred; let nothing and no one interrupt.
2. Shh. It’s naptime.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:19 amWhat I don’t understand is how there can be some argument that, since the weather guy said levees might be “topped” as opposed to “breached,” the President was being honest when he said no one could have anticipated the flooding. Why oh why won’t we be honest about what is happening?
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 amDickerson is also one of the guys at Time who was told Rove was behind the Plame leak — but then repeatedly and intentionally lied in his articles about what he knew and what Rove’s role was.
Dickerson is a liar. He lied to the public about the Bush administration and about the Plame leak. He broke very rule of journalistic integrity and betrayed the trust of his readers. John Dickerson betrayed his country. And then he hid, like a cheap coward, behind the ‘confidential source’ gambit. He perverted the purpose and concept of the confidential source, in order to protect those who abuse power in punishing a whistleblower.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:23 amI only have one wild guess at Dickerson’s piece, but it has a flaw, even still. Here it is anyhow:
What if enough journamalists start to act all surprised and confused by the complete and total contrast between the real Bush and the Bushpersonna that’s been driven into the public’s mind? What if the pundits/reporters/journalists started to make a little tiny trail of face-saving breadcrumbs for Bush supporters to follow out of the Cult of Bush Personality?
Considering the total disregard for facts by Bushco’s apologists and acolytes, it might make sense that a “We didn’t know he was *that* bad till now” type of storyline might be just the cover certain iffy Bush supporters need to jump ship with their faces still attached.
The caveat is this: How many Slate readers really need that kind of cover? That’s a fairly “elite” (coopting the Repug’s connotation!) media outlet compared to, say, USA Today or some crappy TV news program. Those average Joe media outlets are where Dickerson’s type of story would be great. Imagine the facts and Bush-flagellating getting ratcheted up slightly, every week, until a whole group of people were led, Pied Piper style, right out of Bush support!
Christian, not Fristian,
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 amJesus H. Democrat
I take the charitable view that any conversion is a good one; yes, it should have been obvious to a moron that GDub just isn’t very curious about anything other than what’s for dinner tonight, but hey, journalists aren’t just any morons. If Dickerson is figuring this out six years after he should’ve…well, better at the eleventh hour than not at all.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:25 am“Reading his stuff is like crawling through a tunnel filled with disturbing, wriggly things.”
Ain’t it just?
There is really NO EVIDENCE that Bush has ever asked even your basic questions, let alone a genuinely incisive one. All I can think is that Dickerson (along with the entire Washington press corps, which desperately seems to want to believe in Bush for no apparent reason) has been simply lying to himself about Bush for all these years.
What do you do in the run-up to Katrina, if you’re the President? It’s really pretty simple: you get the heads of all the agencies in the room, that are likely to have a role to play, and you ask them what they know about the situation, and what they’ve done to prepare for the worst-case scenarios.
Questions like, how many people are still in New Orleans? In nearby parishes? In the low-lying areas of Mississippi? What resources do we have standing by? Where are they? How quickly will they be able to get into the afflicted areas, once the storm’s moved north? What’s the prognosis on the levees? Anything the Corps of Engineers can do on Monday if a levee starts to go, or are we SOL? What areas might be flooded if a levee breaks, and how many people are still in those areas?
I can think of plenty of questions I’d ask, and I’m just this guy, you know?
OK, so maybe we can’t expect Incurious George to ask the shrewd questions. But here’s the thing: when he was running back in 2000, he made the point that he didn’t need to be a genius himself, as long as he could hire good people to do the things he couldn’t do. OK, so who did he hire to ask the pointed questions? Andy Card clearly isn’t that person. Karl Rove’s beat is totally different. Harriet Miers? Don’t make me laugh.
Let’s face it: NO ONE in this Administration is particularly known for being able to ask the piercing question, or even having a questioning streak at all.
And that’s fully consistent with everything else we know about this administration. They, as a group, from the President on down, arrived in this town knowing what they believe about everything; they didn’t need to ask questions, because they were already in possession of the Holy Writ, wingnut version. The only question was, how much of their orthodoxy could they implement? To what extent could they remake America in the image of their dark visions?
Questions kinda get in the way of that.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 amDoes anyone else have the feeling that Chance the Gardner has become President? “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.”
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 amJHD, the problem is Bush isn’t running again, so leading people out of Bush support doesn’t help. They need to be led out of Republican Party support, and my fear is that Republicans are now getting a chance to distance themselves from the former God-Emperor and anoint a new one. The big question is who that will be.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 amThank you for your sacrifice.
I’d like to point out that this is one more case of nepotism we’re paying for: Because his mom was a competent journalist doesn’t mean he could ever be, just like GW is our worst president ever, even though his dad was not all that bad.
Do you suppose that we could have a law, akin to incest prohibitions, against people following in their parents’ vocational footsteps?
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 amRT–you are wrong. there is absolutely evidence that Bush asked questions–that evidence is the testimony of his aides (think Karl Rove, obviously, but others as well) over the years.
now, like all evidence, an intelligent person would weigh the particular merits of the particular testimony–might there be an ulterior motive for this person to say this to me? might they have an agenda that i could advance for them if i reported what they said uncritically? and if the answer to those two questions was even a qualified yes, then of course any good reporter would look for independent verification.
and without that independent verification, that reporter would either not report what he had heard, or treat it as unverified gossip in his column: “while aides to the president paint a picture of an engaged executive, those aides have important reasons to paint that picture as part of their spin–others without such motivation have painted a very different picture, one of an oddly disconnected man in the oval office.”
see, that’s writing in the world of facts. what dickerson does is risible–it doesn’t even rise the level of hagiography. he is a piece of shit, and weldon you could not be more right–he is a perfect indication of everything that is wrong with our press core, and therefore our democracy.
mediawhoresonline, how i miss thee.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:24 amIn defense of people who like drinking while reading books (vide supra), Dostoevsky does exceptionally well when flavored with large amounts of vodka and read straight through (*).
I think that watching the trial and incarceration of the entire Bush Administration would fare similarly.
(*) This is wise to do while young so that the alcohol and all-nighter aren’t fatal.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:26 amweldon,
Thanks, but GQ wrote it, not me, darn it. I just type crappy pulp (but our latest book is really, really good).
And, having never bothered to read a single Dickerson column before, I’ve been spared the boggles for the most part. Still I think this is going to give me a tumor:
He may not be much for details, say aides, but he can zero in on a weak spot in a briefing and ask out-of-the-box questions. I have been repeatedly told over the years that he once interrupted a briefing on national defense to pose a 30,000-foot stumper: What is the function of the Department of Defense?
I’d like to think that a General, pointing at a collection of tents on a spy satellite photograph, turned, waited a pregnant pause, and asked an aide to get the president a box of crayons.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:28 amMany of the responses above are hoping to find competency where there isn’t any. This White House has shown that they value ideology far more than they value evidence. Since Bush clearly wasn’t elected on competence, NO ONE should be surprised that it is missing.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:55 amI remember when he asked that piercing queston about those guys from our spy plane who were downed in China: “Do they have Bibles?”
Anyone who believed the “piercing question” story after that is dumber than pencil shavings.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:14 amWhat we have is a Mr. Bill press corps. They’re only now starting to wonder about Mr. Hands.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:23 amThe kind of questions Bush’s hirelings are likely to ask are like Homer Simpson’s: “Can I have my money now?”
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:24 amask out-of-the-box questions.
lmao…. Its not too tough to ask out-of-the-box questions when you are nowhere near the box nor could you recognize it even if you tripped over it.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:29 amThe irony I have yet to hear anyone point out is that Bush gives a pat reassurance to the very people who are responsible for the reassurance he is promising! Bush acts as if there are back-ups for all these agencies that he can call upon to back them up. In fact, these are the agencies designed to save your ass when everything’s going to sh*t! Here they are looking directly at their leader — obviously desperate for guidance and direction. It’s like telling General Custard not to worry cause I’m sending in the Calvary — they are the Calvary! Bush is a spoiled rich kid who has always relied on others to take care of things for him and whose ass has been saved by others so many times before, he just assumes it will somehow get taken care of.
If John Dickerson is just figuring this out, I say save a place for him on the gallows next to Joe Klein!
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:34 amActually buying the “Bush as strong leader” spin? The press can’t be that stupid, can they? A massive bribery scheme — a la Armstrong Williams — is the only explanation I can come up with, unless all that wiretapping came up with enough dirt to keep ‘em all in line.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:44 amDawn breaks over Marblehead.
I’ve noticed that Al listens to the guy and then debates him, often getting a “well, I guess I don’t know that much about it” or some such out of young John.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 amJohn Britney Dickerson: I think we should just follow our president.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 am“out-of-the-box” questions … was it a cereal box? the free prize at the bottom of Crunch Berry?
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:56 amThe press corps has internalized the basic tenet of Bushism: Asking questions is a sign of weakness, man!
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:59 amJust to clarify: Technically, Max Mayfield said there was fear that the levees would be “overtopped,” not “breached.” Wingnuts are latching onto that distinction, ignoring the larger point that both “overtopping” and “breaching” lead to people drowning. But anyway, what the press seems to’ve forgotten is that we already knew that Bush had been provided a FEMA report and PowerPoint slideshow in which levee overtopping and breaching were spelled out as distinct possibilities, and the estimates of the dead were in the tens of thousands. (Never mind that several years ago the Times Picayune, NPR and PBS all ran specials on New Orleans flooding, and it was on the top ten list of looming disasters in America.)
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 amThe beauty of the internet is that all these idiots will have all their pointless arguments and thoughts recorded for posterity. It won’t be long before they try to pretend that they were not part of the problem all along.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 amWasn’t Dickerson the one that asked Bush the what mistakes have you made and what have you learned from it question?
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:56 amI thought the earlier comment about Bush asking if the Americans captured by the Chinese (downed spy plane incident) had Bibles was a joke.
Did some googling and holy shit, it’s no joke. He really did ask SEVERAL TIMES if they had their Good Books.
Jesus… the press knew he was an idiot before 9/11. After that they’ve been cowering in fear at his Worshipful Majesty’s feet.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:15 amFeelMyOther: yeah, that was Dickerson. It cemented his reputation as a tough reporter. Or reported his reputation as a cement head. It’s an odd culture.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:09 pmWelton, thanks for the reply. Don’t you think that question and the reporting he did before that on O’Neill’s book when it came out suggest he wasn’t as shocked as you think and maybe you just missed the tone of his piece?
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:56 pmFMO: I’ve wondered if I’m suffering from irony poor blood when it comes to Dickerson, but then he says things like “Perhaps the Katrina briefing was an aberration. But I worry that it isn’t,” and I’m left thinking that anyone who hasn’t gone way past the “worry” stage is simply living in another world.
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 pmPraised by name on Air America … your prestige grows.
Thanks for your sacrifice. Not as hard as having a bumper sticker for Sen. Santorum, but it’s up there. Definitely, a big wanker.
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pmFair enough but isn’t he using that sentence you site as a rhetorical trick which is then followed by rather a lot of evidence making it kindof clear that he isn’t //actually// worried? I think a writer can walk readers to a conclusion rather than yell LIAR from the word go. Presumably he wasn’t writing for people who are already 100% convinced of Bush’s luncay.
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pmFMO: If he’s like most writers, he’s writing for himself. As I said, I’ve had my doubts about whether he can really be as thick as he seems, but there’s a point at which sublety becomes indistinguishable from thickness. I’ve read much of his work for Time and everything he’s done for Slate, and I haven’t yet seen anything to indicate that he doesn’t actually subscribe to the superficially fretful view he communicates. For what it’s worth, I am planning to drop him an email to ask whether I’m missing his point. (I asked one of the other Slate writers about the possibility when Dickerson first arrived there, but he’s not talking to me anymore.)
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pmGet this: The Sociopathic Idiot (you know which one) just signed a treaty with India giving them his blessing to start cranking out nuclear bombs. He did this, apparently, to distract our attention from the Katrina video and Dubai port deal. My amazing psychic powers tell me that it will.
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmHow stupid is this blog against Dickerson. Anyone with half a brain can see that Dickerson’s article is a sarcastic rebuke against the administration’s blustering about Bush’s image. This is not Dickerson’s epiphany that Bush is not all he’s dreamed him to be. Stupid post.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:28 amDickerson in one convoluted sentence: “Nobody could have anticipated that the official facade of Bush as a president who asks piercing questions that puncture the fog of the moment and inspire bold action would have been breached so unspinnably.”
March 4th, 2006 at 6:54 amI agreee with Renny. Dickerson’s piece is ironic. He is taking the Bush mythology (strong leader, decisive, cogent, etc.) at face value and measuring it up to the evidence. This gambit is much more persuasive than merely positing: “Bush is an idiot.” The latter is preaching to the converted; the former is challenging preconceptions.
March 4th, 2006 at 8:05 amThe bloggy reaction to this piece says much more about the finnicky nature of angry liberals than it does about Dickerson. The guy is no Bush fan — someone referenced his “mistakes” question of 2004 — he’s a critic, with ironic distance from both the administration and the more rabid elements of both parties. The sarcasm was a little subtle in this piece, but look at what else he’s written — about Bush critics, about the Cheney incident, even about WH Xms paries — he’s smart and observant. It’s not his fault that people in the admin still like him.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:16 pmBilly, Renny, Dino: you’re right, albeit with qualifications. More later.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:08 pmAnd how did that fairy tale go? The tailors, like John, had convinced the king and the public of his most beautiful finery and then while he was parading in public someone shouted “the king has no cloths”. Well a closer look will reveal that he is missing even more. Welcome to reality John, the fairy tale is over. Time now for the horror story.
March 4th, 2006 at 9:13 pmI was wondering about your link for hurricane relief. All it shows are links to the Red Cross and other national organizations. For good or for ill, most of these organizations (Red Cross in particular I am sure about) are not major players in recovery at this time. Perhaps, your purpose is to drive donations for the damage of future hurricanes? Putting more local links (www.renewnola.com among them) that are actually helping will be more effective. Thanks!
June 13th, 2006 at 1:51 amCan anybody explain to me how Dickerson got the job on SLATE. What does Kinsey think about him?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pmEwan, Dickerson was a White House and general political correspondent for Time. He has a reputation for developing good sources and getting them to speak candidly. He’s actually not a dense guy, and I treated him unfairly in this post. I do still think he’s trapped in conventionality and the fabled inside-the-beltway mentality. I have no idea what Kinsley thinks of him.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pm