A reader writes:
You seem to be suggesting that Bush's 'gut' was not always entirely or immediately off. The most consistent strain of informed criticism about his leadership, though, is that he is not interested in open debate, in getting all the perspectives and data out on the table, and that Mr. MBA failed to set up the management procedures that would establish honest deliberation and keep him in the loop regarding his own experts' thinking.
In this, he is a polar opposite not only of Obama but of his own father (whose management style and procedures, you may recall, Obama has openly sought to replicate). This is from Gates' From the Shadows:
A dogged defender of the Presidency, Scowcroft's lack of egotism and his gentle manner made possible the closest working relationships with other senior members of the national security team. Further, the strong individuals who ran State, Defense, CIA, and the other key institutions of national security trusted Scowcroft as no other National Security Adviser has been trusted–to represent them and their views to the President fairly, to report to him on meetings accurately, to facilitate rather than block their access to the President. Scowcroft ran the NSC and its process as it should be run (457-58).
Gates ran Bush Sr.'s deputies committee, which oversaw the interagency NSC process. Of that group he claims:
The friendships–and-trust–that developed among the core members of the Deputies Committee in 1989-1991 not only made the NSC process work, but cut down dramatically on the personal backstabbing and departmental jockying that had been so familiar (459).
The question is not so much "what was Bush thinking" but "how did Bush's administration think" — how did it process information and decision-making. Answer: it didn't. Bush allowed the most ruthless ideologues in his cabinet and on his staff to short-circuit deliberation at every key juncture.
The Dish 