Politics makes strange bedfellows of us all, which is why I commend UN Ambassador-Designate John Bolton for his recent service to our nation. This commendation is, of course, indirect and is merited only because Mr. Bolton’s confirmation hearings shed such light on a particular mode of operation within the Bush administration.
Mr. Bolton’s nomination is on hold for now as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee more thoroughly investigates allegations about Mr. Bolton’s behavior, from chasing rivals through the corridors of Moscow hotels to retaliation against subordinates whose interpretations of intelligence differed from Mr. Bolton’s.
Abusing subordinates is an ugly, if not uncommon, practice and one unworthy of high-ranking government officials, especially those whose positions call for tact and diplomacy. Still, many Americans are puzzled as to why John Bolton is such a bully. So some mid-level bureaucrats’ professional opinions diverged from Mr. Bolton’s, so some career employees at the State Department or CIA delivered news Mr. Bolton didn’t want to hear. So what? Is his skin so thin that Mr. Bolton cannot bear to hear contradicting facts or opinions? Does he have such time on his hands that he can chase about the greater DC area ruining the careers of those who displease him?
The reason John Bolton gets angry with subordinates is that when they send him memos telling him things he does not want to know, it puts him on the record. Mr. Bolton may know full well that Iran has no intention of producing nuclear weapons, or that there is no evidence Iraq attempted to purchase uranium “yellow cake” from Niger, but once a memo with that info lands on his desk, then a congressional committee or a journalist with a FOIA request can find out what he knew and when he knew it. Getting news in a traceable memo removes plausibility from future claims of “I didn’t know; no one told me.”
Ignorance is a hallmark of the Bush administration. Think of the times Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pleaded that he “didn’t read that memo” – whether the topic is Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or extraordinary renditions. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the 9-11 Commission she “didn’t read that section” of the report telling her the intelligence on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction was bogus. The Washington Post reports that Ms. Rice Monday told her senior staff “she did not want any information coming out of the [State] department that could adversely affect the [Bolton] nomination.” Screw the public’s right to know, Condi’s going to do her bit to restore honor to the Oval Office. When George W. Bush says he relies on his staff rather than the media to inform him about events, he’s adding plausibility to his future claims of ignorance. He knows his staff will take the bullet if a scandal breaks.
In late 2002, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told the Senate it would take 500,000 troops several years to secure Iraq. He was publicly and deliberately removing his superiors’ plausibility of ignorance. Gen. Shinseki was forced into retirement soon after.
Therein lies the hazard for the career civil servant in the Age of Bush. If you do your job faithfully, even patriotically, and pass along information the political appointees need to know but don’t want to hear, you’ll be purged for disloyalty. If you hide politically uncomfortable facts, you’ll take the blame – and the public humiliation – for failing to do your job when the truth comes out, as it often (but not always) does.
Do your job; get fired. It happened to Eric Shinseki, to Richard Clarke, to Lawrence Lindsey, to just about everyone who worked in the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. On the other hand, for those high enough in the pecking order, plausible ignorance or incompetence has resulted in promotion. Witness Ms. Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte and perhaps Mr. Bolton. It’s granted extended tenure to Mr. Rumsfeld. Ignorance and incompetence won the Presidential Medal of Freedom for George Tenet, Tommy Franks and L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer III.
It’s true, George W. Bush is not as dim as some of his critics would paint him, but it’s undeniable that he places a high value on ignorance. John Bolton’s confirmation hearing made it clear and gives us a glimpse of the price we pay for it.
Plausible Ignorance
Politics makes strange bedfellows of us all, which is why I commend UN Ambassador-Designate John Bolton for his recent service to our nation. This commendation is, of course, indirect and is merited only because Mr. Bolton’s confirmation hearings shed such light on a particular mode of operation within the Bush administration.
Mr. Bolton’s nomination is on hold for now as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee more thoroughly investigates allegations about Mr. Bolton’s behavior, from chasing rivals through the corridors of Moscow hotels to retaliation against subordinates whose interpretations of intelligence differed from Mr. Bolton’s.
Abusing subordinates is an ugly, if not uncommon, practice and one unworthy of high-ranking government officials, especially those whose positions call for tact and diplomacy. Still, many Americans are puzzled as to why John Bolton is such a bully. So some mid-level bureaucrats’ professional opinions diverged from Mr. Bolton’s, so some career employees at the State Department or CIA delivered news Mr. Bolton didn’t want to hear. So what? Is his skin so thin that Mr. Bolton cannot bear to hear contradicting facts or opinions? Does he have such time on his hands that he can chase about the greater DC area ruining the careers of those who displease him?
The reason John Bolton gets angry with subordinates is that when they send him memos telling him things he does not want to know, it puts him on the record. Mr. Bolton may know full well that Iran has no intention of producing nuclear weapons, or that there is no evidence Iraq attempted to purchase uranium “yellow cake” from Niger, but once a memo with that info lands on his desk, then a congressional committee or a journalist with a FOIA request can find out what he knew and when he knew it. Getting news in a traceable memo removes plausibility from future claims of “I didn’t know; no one told me.”
Ignorance is a hallmark of the Bush administration. Think of the times Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pleaded that he “didn’t read that memo” – whether the topic is Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or extraordinary renditions. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the 9-11 Commission she “didn’t read that section” of the report telling her the intelligence on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction was bogus. The Washington Post reports that Ms. Rice Monday told her senior staff “she did not want any information coming out of the [State] department that could adversely affect the [Bolton] nomination.” Screw the public’s right to know, Condi’s going to do her bit to restore honor to the Oval Office. When George W. Bush says he relies on his staff rather than the media to inform him about events, he’s adding plausibility to his future claims of ignorance. He knows his staff will take the bullet if a scandal breaks.
In late 2002, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told the Senate it would take 500,000 troops several years to secure Iraq. He was publicly and deliberately removing his superiors’ plausibility of ignorance. Gen. Shinseki was forced into retirement soon after.
Therein lies the hazard for the career civil servant in the Age of Bush. If you do your job faithfully, even patriotically, and pass along information the political appointees need to know but don’t want to hear, you’ll be purged for disloyalty. If you hide politically uncomfortable facts, you’ll take the blame – and the public humiliation – for failing to do your job when the truth comes out, as it often (but not always) does.
Do your job; get fired. It happened to Eric Shinseki, to Richard Clarke, to Lawrence Lindsey, to just about everyone who worked in the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. On the other hand, for those high enough in the pecking order, plausible ignorance or incompetence has resulted in promotion. Witness Ms. Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte and perhaps Mr. Bolton. It’s granted extended tenure to Mr. Rumsfeld. Ignorance and incompetence won the Presidential Medal of Freedom for George Tenet, Tommy Franks and L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer III.
It’s true, George W. Bush is not as dim as some of his critics would paint him, but it’s undeniable that he places a high value on ignorance. John Bolton’s confirmation hearing made it clear and gives us a glimpse of the price we pay for it.
© Mark Floegel, 2005