Bush's Leadership Style. Hands off approach?

[Blalron]

Does President Bush exercise any sort of “hands on” leadership? It seems like he is way too content to let his underlings do their own thing without checking up on what’s happening on his watch.

On 9/11, after he was told that America was under attack, he sat there and kept reading a book to school children for 10 minutes. He didn’t excuse himself from the room and start asking questions. He didn’t flip on CNN. He did nothing.

This has been discussed before, and some people have made a valid point that at that time there wasn’t much information to be had. But this isn’t the point. Bush should have been doing whatever he can to deal with the situation and react to it quickly. If they needed him to give the orders to shoot a plane down, he should have been on the phone ready at a moments notice to give the orders.

A more recent incident of Bush’s lack of hands on leadership is the prison abuse scandal. The Pentagon knew about these allegations since January. Ok, so Rumsfeld didn’t tell him until the pictures came on TV. This doesn’t exonerate Bush for his incompetance. Didn’t Bush ever THINK of asking Rumsfeld how the thousands of prisoners held in Iraq are being treated? Did it ever cross his mind for a single instant? I know it crossed my mind several times in the past few months. Seems like a pretty basic and essential issue to want to know about when conducting a war effort. If Bush doesn’t care enough about how this occupation is being handled to personally take charge of anything, why even have a President in charge at all?

[rjung]

Going by his track record as a (failed CEO of several Texas oil companies, I believe his leadership style can be summarized as “Being a high-profile figurehead while other people do the real work.”

[Evil_Captor]

@Blalron

A more recent incident of Bush’s lack of hands on leadership is the prison abuse scandal. The Pentagon knew about these allegations since January. Ok, so Rumsfeld didn’t tell him until the pictures came on TV. This doesn’t exonerate Bush for his incompetance. Didn’t Bush ever THINK of asking Rumsfeld how the thousands of prisoners held in Iraq are being treated? Did it ever cross his mind for a single instant? I know it crossed my mind several times in the past few months. Seems like a pretty basic and essential issue to want to know about when conducting a war effort. If Bush doesn’t care enough about how this occupation is being handled to personally take charge of anything, why even have a President in charge at all?

Bush is probably claiming not to know this for much the same reasons that Ken Lay now claims not to know what was going on at Enron. His “public” rebuke of Rumsfeld sets him up to be the fall guy should the scandal look to affect Bush’s chances of being re-elected.

[Desmostylus]

Interesting take on this subject here:

The Misunderestimated Man
How Bush chose stupidity.
By Jacob Weisberg
Friday, May 7, 2004

A remaining bit of poignancy was his unresolved struggle with his father. “All I ask,” he implored a reporter while running for governor in 1994, “is that for once you guys stop seeing me as the son of George Bush.” In his campaigns, W. has kept his dad offstage. (In an exceptional appearance on the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, 41 came onstage and called his son “this boy.”) While some describe the second Bush presidency as a restoration, it is in at least equal measure a repudiation. The son’s harder-edged conservatism explicitly rejects the old man’s approach to such issues as abortion, taxes, and relations with Israel.

This Oedipally induced ignorance expresses itself most dangerously in Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. Dubya polished off his old man’s greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41’s accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq’s supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.

As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he’s something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.

[Squink]

Karl Rove struck the right tone in his speech today:

America needs people who have “the moral clarity and courage to do what’s right, regardless of consequence, fashion or fad,” Karl Rove said.
“You either have values ingrained in your heart and soul that will not change with the wind or you don’t,” he said.

He probably doesn’t want us to apply his words to leaders who set up a system that fosters torture though.

[Blalron]

@rjung

Going by his track record as a (failed CEO of several Texas oil companies, I believe his leadership style can be summarized as “Being a high-profile figurehead while other people do the real work.”

What does Bush actually do during the 16 hours of his day awake as President? If, as he has said publicly, he cares so deeply about the poor oppressed Iraqi people and rescuing them from Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms, you’d think he’d care enough to see if we’re treating our prisoners there humanely.