Comments on: Unprepared On Day One http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/12/unprepared-on-day-one/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:02:13 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Daniel Larison http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/12/unprepared-on-day-one/comment-page-1/#comment-13840 Daniel Larison Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:10:37 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/12/unprepared-on-day-one/#comment-13840 Perle and Wolfowitz, to the extent that they were involved in his campaign at all, would have been very low-tier people, and I'm not sure that they were involved with the campaign for most of that election. They were brought into the administration thanks to Cheney and Libby et al. Rice was his main foreign policy advisor in '99-'00, and she was widely considered at the time to be working in the tradition of Scowcroft, her mentor, as someone who embraced Realpolitik. The first Bush administration's approach to foreign policy appeared to be prevailing at the time, much to the dismay of neocons. Rice was pulled in the direction that Bush went after 9/11, and only late in the second term has she reverted to something remotely resembling her old view. That is the short version anyway. What this account usually leaves out is how intertwined Rice and the "Vulcans" were with neoconservatives from the beginning. Perle and Wolfowitz, to the extent that they were involved in his campaign at all, would have been very low-tier people, and I’m not sure that they were involved with the campaign for most of that election. They were brought into the administration thanks to Cheney and Libby et al. Rice was his main foreign policy advisor in ‘99-’00, and she was widely considered at the time to be working in the tradition of Scowcroft, her mentor, as someone who embraced Realpolitik. The first Bush administration’s approach to foreign policy appeared to be prevailing at the time, much to the dismay of neocons. Rice was pulled in the direction that Bush went after 9/11, and only late in the second term has she reverted to something remotely resembling her old view. That is the short version anyway. What this account usually leaves out is how intertwined Rice and the “Vulcans” were with neoconservatives from the beginning.

]]> By: AL http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/12/unprepared-on-day-one/comment-page-1/#comment-13837 AL Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:01:17 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/12/unprepared-on-day-one/#comment-13837 "On a related note, it is worth revisiting then-Gov. Bush’s promise of a “humble” foreign policy. This was the sort of language that originally made McCain the neocons’ favorite in the primaries and misled many conservatives to expect a sane and responsible Bush administration, and it is the promise that many antiwar conservatives cite when they make their own arguments against foreign intervention. What should have given us all much greater pause then was that Bush argued for the “humble” foreign policy mainly because this was what the realist advisors around him were telling him to say. This humility was also an obvious complement to Bush’s lack of knowledge, which allowed him to avoid discussing things in detail on the grounds that America should not be as involved in as many foreign crises." You haven't convinced me about Palin, but that is a very astute observation about Bush. But were Bush's advisors in 2000 "realists"? Armitage probably, but Perle and Wolfowitz? “On a related note, it is worth revisiting then-Gov. Bush’s promise of a “humble” foreign policy. This was the sort of language that originally made McCain the neocons’ favorite in the primaries and misled many conservatives to expect a sane and responsible Bush administration, and it is the promise that many antiwar conservatives cite when they make their own arguments against foreign intervention. What should have given us all much greater pause then was that Bush argued for the “humble” foreign policy mainly because this was what the realist advisors around him were telling him to say. This humility was also an obvious complement to Bush’s lack of knowledge, which allowed him to avoid discussing things in detail on the grounds that America should not be as involved in as many foreign crises.”

You haven’t convinced me about Palin, but that is a very astute observation about Bush.

But were Bush’s advisors in 2000 “realists”? Armitage probably, but Perle and Wolfowitz?

]]>