leadership
Mar. 28th, 2003 11:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jfbFrom the Washington Post:
If the war is going badly, should the president be insulated from the news?
If the president sends troops to war, should he not be emotional about it?
Should the president let his aides and advisors decide whether he will be involved with the war he started?
People close to Bush said his aides initially emphasized a hands-off approach because they wanted to insulate him from bad news and because they did not want him to appear obsessed with or emotional about the war. These aides quickly realized they had overdone it, potentially making Bush look out of touch. But his advisers have concluded that scripted remarks, rather than off-the-cuff comments, may be required in assuring that the message of the day gets delivered forcefully.
If the war is going badly, should the president be insulated from the news?
If the president sends troops to war, should he not be emotional about it?
Should the president let his aides and advisors decide whether he will be involved with the war he started?
