Earlier this week, I referred to the 2000 George W. as a child. And while I was kinda being harsh on him, I also meant it as just a coy reference to how young he looked. It is certainly an office to wear on a man.
I also, less recently, hinted at Bush's being a revenge ravished man, intent on getting back at the man who had attempted to assassinate, essentially, his whole family.
I believe I called him: an ideological, passionate, nepotistic and nepotized extravaganaire
intent on exacting revenge on a man who had, to be fair, (at least allegedly) plotted to kill his wife, father and mother, and two brothers,
But in all honesty, for the most part, these and other attacks on our soon to be former President do not quite hit the mark. They are, in essence, too personal attacks on a man whose legacy, truly, has yet to be measured, and whose intentions, truthfully, have not yet been gauged.
Zakaria's cover story this week details, from his perspective, "What Bush got Right." As you all know, Zakaria is a pedestal of modern journalism: objective, substantive, and on point. And he has at times been one of Bush's harshest critics. Still, his measured is approach is appreciable and appreciated.
The article speaks about all of the requisite topics: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, China, AIDS, and criticizes and complements as necessary. It's funny, because even in this "corrective," he still manages to just tear W. up in almost every area. "On the whole, Bush's record remains one of failure and missed opportunities."
But as Zakaria notes, it is not 2001, it is 2009, and some of the more considerate mantles that the (repudiated) Bush administration has taken up more recently deserve serious consideration from the new President.
So the promise of "change" is set up as mythical, in that this change that we ALL seek, so desperately, is not so much a change from the policies (so much) of this current administration, but moreso, the overbearing SYMBOLS of what this administration has come to represent, through the blustery echoes of its initial intents.
In many, many ways this "dilution of the brand" was a self-caused debacle, from issues such as poor post-war planning to institutional failings, it wasn't so much the opposition that presented strife, but the administration's own policies and procedures.
In almost every case, one can imagine a more precise and prepared narrative where the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are neat little clean up operations, and team America moves on to brighter pastures (Iran, Libya, Syria) swiftly and successfully. No doubt, it was this fear that brought Muammar al-Gaddafi to the table a few years back.
Had the Rumsfeldian notion of a small troop force WORKED (only would have had they decided NOT to occupy) or the proper number of troops and equipment been brought in, a quickly stabilized Iraq (or an American force that was nimble and non-occupying) would have allowed America the ability to pivot.
As t stands, we are mired, and even the President, as of like, today, is apparently on board for a swift withdrawal. (This is a big enough topic for its own entry, but for now: isn't it interesting how the powers that be seem to attempt to maintain a position of control by neutralizing oppositional stances? ie: "Obama wants a troop withdrawal?? HERE's your troop withdrawal!....Gas prices killing you?? HERE's a moderate reduction in prices so you won't feel compelled to "vote on the economy." I want to see a timeline of gas prices over the past 16 years, in correspondence to the elections.)
Why is the President on board for a quick withdrawal (from Iraq's cities, at least...)?:
+Even he sees it. The jig is up, the cat is out of the bag. The situation in Iraq is depleting, rapidly, America's international sway. In the end, it is a small country in the middle of the desert, and we're putting everything we've got into it. We're going broke and we can't even (honestly) defend ourselves. (Can you imagine, if, today, there was an INVASION on American soil? There would be American Riot Police and decommissioned National Guardsmen lining up in formation on the streets, to face some sort of organized military apparatus. All of our best troops are overseas.) Besides, since the oil contracts were all signed up last month, it just about lines up for us to smile, gingerly, at our cohorts and opponents in the game of Iraqi nation building, say "Gentlemen, it's been a lovely evening," take our hat and leave.
+ In case you missed it, and as an avid reader, you shouldn't have, as WE were first to break the story: Russia kicked off the Olympic Celebrations with an invasion of Georgia! Now, I know what you are thinking: do we really need peaches anyway? But this is serious stuff, and Russia is even now threatening aggressive actions against POLAND, in response to our building missile interceptor technologies there. So a boisterous, bellicose Russia is good reason for the American President to reconsider our military priorities.
==
Going back to the idea that the majority of ill will towards the administration comes from its inglorious post 9/11 chest thumping and misguided adventure in Iraq, we can discuss the issues of legacy and intention.
It seems to me that Bush's legacy will be forever tied to his intention, and that has yet to be fully revealed. I think the Iraq/Anthrax link is a key element in this consideration.
Many will vigorously argue for an "Iraq War for Irari Oil" narrative, and I for one will do little to stop them. But another option for the primary motivation of the President and his men may have been the same medicine they were injecting in us: fear.
9/11 was an incident of tremendous proportions. But in the end, it was that: an incident. It involved mortar and concrete and paper and dust and American lives, but could be swept up tidily in a mess of bureaucracy, an eventually, ten or so years later, something could rise again.
It was a wake up call, but, in the realm of vigorous terrorism, a relatively innocuous one. I know that is a terrible thing to say, and I don't even mean it. But still, my point is: 3000 people died, not three million.
The Anthrax attacks, on the other hand, were a different kind of wake up call. This was the kind that pleasantly whispers in your ear, as you roll over to hit the snooze button: you just might wake up to three million dead Americans. For all its bluster as a unique approach to warfare, 9/11 was essentially still conventional warfare. It targeted citizens from the financial sector, which was certainly somewhat new, but it still, in the end, just involved explosions and the destruction of buildings.
Biological warfare is a different cookie.
In His book The Bush Tragedy, Jacob Weinberg describes the intense struggles of the white house after the anthrax scare. Considered were national smallpox inoculations, and other sweeping reactions. Smallpox seems to have been the biggest fear, as it could easily kill millions with little effort. For the terrorist, the key aspect is access, and in the case of the anthrax used in the attacks, the US wasn't really sure where the hell it came from. This was driven, of course, by the fact that it was OUR anthrax.
If you believe the current line, Bruce Ivans did this on his own, out of anger and frustration. If this is true, it makes sense why the government was so concerned. They didn't know where the "terrorists" had gotten ahold of such good stuff, and it frightened the hell out of them that it looked so much like our own.
So Cheney was pushing for national inoculations, which can include terrible side effects like sickness and ARMS TURNING BLACK! It was approved only for the military, and while Bush did bravely inoculate himself, Cheney, in the end, declined.
Still, there are plenty of Ivan doubters who feel the government's story does not line up, and that Mr. Ivans could not have done this alone, if at all.
Be this the case, perhaps then, the anthrax attacks are another in a line of false flag operations designed to manifest an atmosphere where planned maneuvers can be put into place. I don't particularly agree with this line of thinking, but I ain't been convinced otherwise either.
Which brings me back to my point. It is difficult to attack this man, and Cheney, and the rest, on a personal level. It isn't fair. Sure, they may be diabolical henchmen out to manipulate and bankrupt the government as they see fit. But they may also be somewhat misguided heroes, on a quest to rid the world of evil and make it a place where babies can sleep comfortably through their 3AM wake up call.
The Bush Administration's legacy will be that of intention, and as these intentions come to surface through historical examination, only then, if ever, will we truly be able to measure the man against his failings.
Posts
