The George we barely knew.
You'll have to forgive me. This was intended to be posted months ago. I don't imagine it to be anywhere near as relevant now.
----------------------------------
It has become rather popular to hate President George W. Bush at the moment. It has become so that, within many groups, expression of even the notion that there may be something redeeming to him are met with rebuke and disdain. Everyone is doing it, even Republican senators. Senators who, previously, never failed to side with him were taking the special opportunity that presented itself after the speech he gave two weeks ago, in which he presented the bare outline of a plan to send more troops to Iraq and after which his approval rating, uncharacteristically for presidents after giving a speech, dropped, to side against him and cite flaws in his plan. Seeing this reminded me of a historical anecdote I heard some time ago, so you'll have to pardon me if I get some of the particulars wrong. The quotation marks that follow, then, are not intended to convey actual quotations, but are simply to facilitate the telling of the anecdote. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev was giving a speech to the Communist party's elite in which he was decrying the evils of his predecessor, Joseph Stalin. It was his intent to de-Stalinize the U.S.S.R. and to do so, he felt, he had to the expound on the evils that Stalin's rule had resulted in. At one point during this vilification, someone called out,
"And what were you doing while this was being done. You tell us how evil it is now, but when it was happening, where were you?"
Angrily, Khrushchev demanded, "Who said that! Step forward!" after he received no reply he called out again, "Who said that!" But the only answer remained silence. After a few moments, Khrushchev replied, "That's where I was."
I do not mean to here compare Bush to Stalin in any real sense nor their respective tenures. Rather, the anecdote brings to mind our senators who seem to have found where Krushchev had gotten to without the luxury of his excuse, giving value to their tenures equal to the value many unfortunate Soviets were forced place on their lives. (Though, admittedly, most likely without thinking about it in that respect.) Oh certainly, they are all now siding with the American public, which makes me wonder where they would be siding if the American public had sided with Bush. We won't know the answer to that, though. All we will get instead is to hear a congress rallying against a war they voted in approval of now that it has become politically opportune to do so. Asked about it today many will say the pre-war intelligence was insufficient, but when asked separately why they voted for the war, they will contend they were deceived by the pre-war intelligence or voted to give the President the ability to go to war should the need become apparent, as it is something the president should be able to do to defend the country when the need arises. The truth is more likely in an environment where a paraplegic war veteran could loose an election for being unpatriotic, none of them wanted to risk suffering the same fate. This meant doing their best to give a reasonable explanation why the war was acceptable then, which puts them in an embarrassing position when they have to explain why they are (and in some cases always have been) against the war now. It was easy to see the cracks in the pre-war intelligence, even at the time. I personally feel a strong case for war could have been made, but these reasons did not involve the disputed intelligence, which I cannot honestly believe fooled any of them. To my mind, then, they failed in their duties. It was their responsibility to decide when it is prudent to go to war, not to give carte blanche for the president to make that decision for them.
But let us go back to Bush, as the blame is not today falling on the senate. No, with their current opposition to the president they have rendered themselves blameless in the public's eyes. What interests me instead is the interview President Bush gave sixty minutes after his speech because it reveals a great deal that we normally don't see. In it he admits mistakes were made in the war and pre-war planning, claims the democrats are just a patriotic as he, apologizes for his tough-guy speeches such as when he famously called for the enemy to "Bring it on," and candidly admits he couldn't bear to watch the entire execution of Saddam Hussein, among other revelations. I am not a fan of President Bush. Far from it. I was among his first detractors, citing the hypocrisy of his actions in the political battle following the 2000 presidential election. Still, I doubt that he made these mistakes came to him in an epiphany the morning of the interview. Instead I imagine he knew he had made these mistakes for some time, but only now revealed he felt so. I will admit there are many possible reasons for what seems to be his latest strategy of telling as much truth as he can safely get away with. (I say safely get away with because while he admits to having made mistakes, he does not admit to wrongdoing, which no one would reasonably expect him to.) Further, most of these reasons have no basis in altruism.
A particular Frontline series comes to mind, however. It is called "The Dark side," and chronicles the power struggles within the the government, focusing on Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. If you trust their sources, then, despite the vast amount of information this particular Frontline series provides, there is one part that strikes me as being most prominent. (Or at least most prominent for the purposes of this current stream of thought.) It describes the reaction of President George W. Bush when the pre-war intelligence is first presented to him in whole, which can be summed up as, (Once again, these are not exact quotes, but rather are used to facilitate recounting.)
"This is it?" To which former CIA Director Tennet responds
"This is a slam dunk."
"Well then we have to play it up," Bush said. "You say it's a slam dunk, and you know what you're talking about, but to the American Public this won't look like enough. We need to make it sound convincing."
It has been widely said while this is one of the most powerful executive branches we've seen for some time, this is not respectively the strongest president we've seen in some time. Similarly, Cheney is easily the most powerful vice president ever to hold the office. Once again, I do not mean to imply none of President Bush's mistakes are his own or that he is not to blame for many of the wrongs committed during his tenure. Rather, I wonder how much the George W. Bush we see differs from the George W. Bush that exists away from the crowds and advisors, where no one but himself and perhaps his immediate family are there to hear him. I wonder who this person is and how would the presidency have looked with perhaps a more worthy cabinet and him at the forefront. I suppose it might have looked no different at all, but, somehow, I doubt it.
----------------------------------
It has become rather popular to hate President George W. Bush at the moment. It has become so that, within many groups, expression of even the notion that there may be something redeeming to him are met with rebuke and disdain. Everyone is doing it, even Republican senators. Senators who, previously, never failed to side with him were taking the special opportunity that presented itself after the speech he gave two weeks ago, in which he presented the bare outline of a plan to send more troops to Iraq and after which his approval rating, uncharacteristically for presidents after giving a speech, dropped, to side against him and cite flaws in his plan. Seeing this reminded me of a historical anecdote I heard some time ago, so you'll have to pardon me if I get some of the particulars wrong. The quotation marks that follow, then, are not intended to convey actual quotations, but are simply to facilitate the telling of the anecdote. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev was giving a speech to the Communist party's elite in which he was decrying the evils of his predecessor, Joseph Stalin. It was his intent to de-Stalinize the U.S.S.R. and to do so, he felt, he had to the expound on the evils that Stalin's rule had resulted in. At one point during this vilification, someone called out,
"And what were you doing while this was being done. You tell us how evil it is now, but when it was happening, where were you?"
Angrily, Khrushchev demanded, "Who said that! Step forward!" after he received no reply he called out again, "Who said that!" But the only answer remained silence. After a few moments, Khrushchev replied, "That's where I was."
I do not mean to here compare Bush to Stalin in any real sense nor their respective tenures. Rather, the anecdote brings to mind our senators who seem to have found where Krushchev had gotten to without the luxury of his excuse, giving value to their tenures equal to the value many unfortunate Soviets were forced place on their lives. (Though, admittedly, most likely without thinking about it in that respect.) Oh certainly, they are all now siding with the American public, which makes me wonder where they would be siding if the American public had sided with Bush. We won't know the answer to that, though. All we will get instead is to hear a congress rallying against a war they voted in approval of now that it has become politically opportune to do so. Asked about it today many will say the pre-war intelligence was insufficient, but when asked separately why they voted for the war, they will contend they were deceived by the pre-war intelligence or voted to give the President the ability to go to war should the need become apparent, as it is something the president should be able to do to defend the country when the need arises. The truth is more likely in an environment where a paraplegic war veteran could loose an election for being unpatriotic, none of them wanted to risk suffering the same fate. This meant doing their best to give a reasonable explanation why the war was acceptable then, which puts them in an embarrassing position when they have to explain why they are (and in some cases always have been) against the war now. It was easy to see the cracks in the pre-war intelligence, even at the time. I personally feel a strong case for war could have been made, but these reasons did not involve the disputed intelligence, which I cannot honestly believe fooled any of them. To my mind, then, they failed in their duties. It was their responsibility to decide when it is prudent to go to war, not to give carte blanche for the president to make that decision for them.
But let us go back to Bush, as the blame is not today falling on the senate. No, with their current opposition to the president they have rendered themselves blameless in the public's eyes. What interests me instead is the interview President Bush gave sixty minutes after his speech because it reveals a great deal that we normally don't see. In it he admits mistakes were made in the war and pre-war planning, claims the democrats are just a patriotic as he, apologizes for his tough-guy speeches such as when he famously called for the enemy to "Bring it on," and candidly admits he couldn't bear to watch the entire execution of Saddam Hussein, among other revelations. I am not a fan of President Bush. Far from it. I was among his first detractors, citing the hypocrisy of his actions in the political battle following the 2000 presidential election. Still, I doubt that he made these mistakes came to him in an epiphany the morning of the interview. Instead I imagine he knew he had made these mistakes for some time, but only now revealed he felt so. I will admit there are many possible reasons for what seems to be his latest strategy of telling as much truth as he can safely get away with. (I say safely get away with because while he admits to having made mistakes, he does not admit to wrongdoing, which no one would reasonably expect him to.) Further, most of these reasons have no basis in altruism.
A particular Frontline series comes to mind, however. It is called "The Dark side," and chronicles the power struggles within the the government, focusing on Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. If you trust their sources, then, despite the vast amount of information this particular Frontline series provides, there is one part that strikes me as being most prominent. (Or at least most prominent for the purposes of this current stream of thought.) It describes the reaction of President George W. Bush when the pre-war intelligence is first presented to him in whole, which can be summed up as, (Once again, these are not exact quotes, but rather are used to facilitate recounting.)
"This is it?" To which former CIA Director Tennet responds
"This is a slam dunk."
"Well then we have to play it up," Bush said. "You say it's a slam dunk, and you know what you're talking about, but to the American Public this won't look like enough. We need to make it sound convincing."
It has been widely said while this is one of the most powerful executive branches we've seen for some time, this is not respectively the strongest president we've seen in some time. Similarly, Cheney is easily the most powerful vice president ever to hold the office. Once again, I do not mean to imply none of President Bush's mistakes are his own or that he is not to blame for many of the wrongs committed during his tenure. Rather, I wonder how much the George W. Bush we see differs from the George W. Bush that exists away from the crowds and advisors, where no one but himself and perhaps his immediate family are there to hear him. I wonder who this person is and how would the presidency have looked with perhaps a more worthy cabinet and him at the forefront. I suppose it might have looked no different at all, but, somehow, I doubt it.