 |
After China, praise for the prez? Junior Gets His LicenseBy Rick Horowitz Well, that didn't take long, did it? The glorification of George, I mean. No sooner had China's high command said "Good enough" to the latest round of creative diplo-draftsmanship and sent the crew of the EP-3 on its way than word started spreading from people in a position to spread it: The President of These United States had been positively masterful. Actively engaged. Managerially adept. Strategically savvy. Equal parts Henry Kissinger and Knute Rockne. Who'd a thunk it? "Behind Scenes," the headline announced, "Bush Played Vigorous Role." Followed by accounts from assorted insiders about just how vigorous that role had been. Then there were the glowing reviews from heavy hitters on Capitol Hill. "The president," declared the Speaker of the House, "exhibited mature and responsible leadership throughout this tense situation." Well. Far be it from me to be churlish at such a triumphant moment, or grudging in my praise, or even -- perish the thought! -- skeptical. (A skeptical sort might wonder how many other presidents would need to have their maturity mentioned as part of a compliment from the Speaker. Anyway...) The prez and his team deserve plenty of strokes for what they accomplished. They defused a bad situation before it became a much worse situation. They got the 24 American "detainees" undetained with a minimum of fussing and fuming. (Getting the plane back may be something else again, but that's something else again.) And they did it all without apologizing for things they had no reason to apologize for. Good job! Credit where credit is due and all that. But that's the point -- who deserves the credit? Now that the crisis has passed, everyone involved seems to be trying just a bit too hard to make the new guy the star of the show. For instance? For instance: The prez on the phone with a U.S. Army general who's been to see the captive Americans. "Bush's questions," the newspaper reports, "were numerous, and detailed." And what, you're wondering, were those questions? "'How's their health?' the president asked of the crew. "'Are they staying in the equivalent of officers' quarters?' "'Are they getting any exercise?'" Excuse me, but is there anything on that list your Uncle Leo wouldn't have asked if he'd been sitting in the Oval Office? Or how about this business about how the prez chose not to use the special White House phone line to speak directly to the Chinese leadership? He didn't want to "box them in," his people say. That's certainly one explanation. But can you think of another reason why, when precision and subtlety are the critical ingredients in reaching a crucial agreement, you might not want to have this particular fella chatting up Jiang Zemin without a safety net? Better to leave that part of it to the professionals -- who delivered. So praise the prez for appointing a top-notch foreign-policy team, and for supporting them. But all this stuff about hands-on George, behind-the-scenes George, man-in-the-middle George, eyes-on-the-prize George? They could tone it down a bit. You realize, of course, that had the whole thing gone bust, you'd be hearing none of it -- not the compelling presidential anecdotes, not the reassuring presidential timelines. Somebody else would be taking the fall, and the president's fingerprints would be nowhere in sight. Fair enough. Part of the staff's job is to keep the Big Guy out of trouble whenever necessary, make him look good whenever possible. I know how it works. I watch "The West Wing." Posted 4/12/01. Watch
this space for fresh commentary twice every week!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
