Posted on 09/12/2001 8:39:41 AM PDT by mombonn
September 12, 2001 Attack Hits Bush With Severe Test
Of His Untested Leadership Skills
By GERALD F. SEIB
PRESIDENT BUSH suddenly faces a crisis that transcends nearly any nightmare he could have imagined, and one that calls upon him to summon leadership skills he's never tested.
Indeed, the very skills he now needs most -- the ability to unite a quarrelsome nation, the knack for transcending partisan divides, the talent to pull America's international allies behind him -- are precisely the skills that skeptics doubt he possesses.
Other presidents whose skills were similarly doubted at a time of national duress -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt -- rose to the demands of history, showing depths of leadership and character that detractors never imagined they held. Others -- Lyndon Johnson, perhaps, or Herbert Hoover -- were found wanting.
In either case, there's little doubt that the defining moment of Mr. Bush's presidency occurred between dawn and lunchtime Tuesday, as hijacked airliners flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, wreaking death and havoc. Now, there is no script for Mr. Bush, for America has never before been the target of concerted attack from an unidentified foe. It isn't even clear where to direct a response. As Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has long noted, the difficulty in dealing with terrorism is finding the address to which you respond.
But there can be little doubt about the steps Mr. Bush must take. His first task is to calm and reassure a nation that, more than at any time since Pearl Harbor, has lost its sense of security and safety. In modern America, that is a job that only a president can perform, and one that will require Mr. Bush to project an aura of command that some Americans think has eluded him in his first eight months in office.
FOR ALL HIS FLAWS, Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a master at rising to such moments, as he did after the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. Bush hasn't yet shown he can master the megaphone of the presidency quite so well. His calm, measured remarks to the nation Tuesday night delivered a simple but stern message to America's foes, and marked an improvement over a somewhat shakier performance earlier in the day.
But at a time like this, Americans' demands aren't onerous. They will settle for a sense of steadiness and resolve at the top. Toward that end, Mr. Bush would be wise at this point to find ways to remind Americans that the brain trust he assembled -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- could well have been designed for a national security crisis like this one. All three have been criticized in recent months, but they present a reassuring picture at this moment.
Mr. Bush's second task will be to bury, for now and the foreseeable future, the air of partisan jockeying that has hung over Washington since last fall's contested election. Of course both parties will pay lip service to putting aside partisan divisions; that's what politicians do at a time like this.
But ramifications of Tuesday's terrorism will linger for months, if not years. Americans will now debate how to respond, how to construct defenses, indeed, how to adjust life in America. At such moments, other nations form national unity governments. That isn't the American way. But if bipartisanship is to have real meaning, Mr. Bush will have to make Democratic leaders part of a unified national response. A good way to start might be to summon his foe in last year's election, Al Gore, to the White House as a symbol that the country unites at such moments.
THE THIRD, AND perhaps most challenging task for Mr. Bush will be to marshal a united international response. If the response to Tuesday's terror is seen strictly as America's military retaliation it will be useful. If the response is a united international attack on terrorists, on their sponsors, and on their apologists, it will have far more meaning, and save far more lives in the long run. Yet testiness in dealing with allies has been more the norm for Mr. Bush.
It is impossible to say now what military response is appropriate. Americans won't demand instant action, or be comfortable with precipitous retaliation taken without careful consideration.
Yet American credibility is at stake. Going into this time of testing, Mr. Bush carries some seeming disadvantages. For one, he arrived in office with limited international experience. But he brings considerable assets as well. His very name -- Bush -- is reassuring to many Americans. His father successfully prosecuted a conventional war. Mr. Bush himself is well-liked and has shown that he takes the duties and responsibilities of his office somberly and seriously. Most reassuring of all, history shows that American presidents, more often than not, rise to the moment.
Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com
Klinton blamed this on Republicans. He did nothing to unite the country. He expoloited it for political puposes.
This situation transcends anything Klinton had to ever face. This author can go to hell.
Too late, I wrote to him before I posted this. And, I didn't call him a slobbering sycophant.
Ya, well Bill Clinton saw a photo-op in responding to the OC bombing........It was ALL ABOUT HIM........no doubt about it..........and he hasn't changed one iota....
It's certainly a welcome change from the clownish antics of Little Big Fraud® and his legions of worshippers and enablers.
When they had the original dedication of the Memorial, Gov Keating warned clinton not to do photo ops (which he did anyways) and clinton was not invited to the dinner with the families and our Congressional delegation. He was late which caused Interstates to shut down because he was so late the dedication was almost delayed. Why was clinton late -- attending a fundraiser in NM and stayed around talking too long.
This writer is despicable in my eyes!
I just read a similar piece by chris matthews - must be the DNC talking points of the day. Disgusting pigs both.
Every person knows that absent the kind of pull McCain had, that pilots have to show they have the right stuff on their own. The fact that no Democratic fighter jocks that served with Dubya came forward to trash him in the last campaign speaks volumes to me.
Men with the "Right Stuff" do not lose their cool. They perform at their very best under great pressure. They think before they act and then act.
The other fact is the quality of those Dubya attracts to serve under him. Everywhere you look there are first class people. Dubya must be quite secure. He does his best to attract those that are more knowlegable and smarter than he is. That is very rare. It is something a Bill or Hillary Clinton could never tolerate.
If this is an Osama Bin Laudin operation it will be hard to take him militarily. The Soviet Union tried it at the peak of their world power and failed. No one ever accused the Soviet Union of sparing human life in the pursuit of a goal. One reason Putin is in our corner on this is Bin Lauden is the source of much Russian suffering. Conventional military action is not likely to succeed. If we had a simple military way to get bin Lauden, Bill Clinton would have not bombed an Aspirin factory in 1998.
Bush must take a much smarter course of action than the Russians or Bill Clinton did. It will take brains and judgement to succeed. He must do it with almost all the media and most Democrats against him.
Dubya has impressed me as a person who acts based on all the lessons of history. I do not know if it is Dubya or his advisors that came up with the shots Dubya has called so correctly in his short time in office, but he has called them right.
Do you know what history calls a very dumb person who listens to all the divergent plans of all his advisors and then follows the advice of the advisor who was right?
"A good way to start might be to summon his foe in last year's election, Al Gore, to the White House as a symbol that the country unites at such moments."
Oh yeah, right! Just exactly what could this fat, bearded freak that couldn't even win his OWN state in the election, have to offer?
Hardly. It doesn't take courage or leadership to grow the scope and power of the federal government during a time of crisis and desperation. That kind of "leadership" is the mark of a myopic, simple-minded individual. The mark of a real leader is to get the nation through a crisis WITHOUT growing government AND WITHOUT reducing the liberties of citizens. FDR and Lincoln failed miserably when measured against that criteria. But, who is really surprised that the establishment media would judge a president's leadership ability by his capacity and willingness to violate the constitution?
I suppose he could ask, but Al's busy with a big spill in Aisle 7 at Piggly Wiggly.
Hardly. It doesn't take courage or leadership to grow the scope and power of the federal government during a time of crisis and desperation. That kind of "leadership" is the mark of a myopic, simple-minded individual. The mark of a real leader is to get the nation through a crisis WITHOUT growing government AND WITHOUT reducing the liberties of citizens. FDR and Lincoln failed miserably when measured against that criteria. But, who is really surprised that the establishment media would judge a president's leadership ability by his capacity and willingness to violate the constitution?
Actually, a good start would be reporters being objective instead of giving us their personal opinions. Did FDR invite Hoover to the White House after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Did Jimmy Carter invite Ford to the White House during the hostage crisis? Did Clinton invite Bush Sr. to the WH during Oklahoma City? Or the first WTC attack? Or the attack on the Cole? The author of this story is apparently a moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.