« Home | Cape Breton Independence? » | Et tu, Alfie? » | March of the Penguins No political commentary - I'... » | Mow, mow, mow! » | A shorter John Baird... » | Sometimes the only possible response is WTF? A sho... » | Look to the Stars » | Turn the Fage » | Ernie Fage, NASCAR Minister » | The Ballad of Poor Little Rona »

Bush on Bush

There is much talk in the blogosphere about last night's 60 Minutes interview with GW, and rightfully so. For those that didn't see it, go watch it at the above link, it's worth it. It's interesting to see him admitting to every error proffered, except the largest one of his presidency - the invasion of Iraq. He has obviously opted for his final stand to be the neo-con "right war, wrong implementation" apologia that we are seeing everywhere these days.

It's also heartwarming to see that his spirit is still strong, and not "crushed". Even though he has to sign 2.5 letters to parents/spouses every day. What a wonderful country is America - you can go from dodging service to being president and ordering others to die for your folly.


It's all about the Legacy - Bush will move heaven and earth, ignore Congress, his own party and the will of the American people to ensure there are troops still in Iraq when he leaves office. Then, when the inevitable happens, he and his apologists will be able to put the blame on his successor. That's why I actually hope the Necros win in 2008 - I want them them to wear this...

I found it interesting that during the interview, unbidden Bush mentioned "legacy" a couple of times. Since it's a three-syllable word, it has to be actively on his mind for him to use it without it coming out like "decider", so I have to agree on this.

It's funny how the presidential system generates it's own internal logic: you spend your first term trying to prove that you're not a loser and can win a second one and then you spend the second one padding your historical resume. In the case of a competent, plugged-in administration, this might produce good results, but the temptation to retract into reflexive ass-covering and simple empty marketing is too great.

It is obvious that Shrub really wants to have the Iraq War carry on through to the '08 election, so it's possible that he's opting for the Vietnam Gambit. (When the Vietnam War is mentioned in the context of the presidency, as many people will think of Nixon as Johnson, and either of those way more often than Kennedy. At the very least, it spreads the blame thinner through.) As for wanting the Republicans to win simply so they can wear their mistakes, I'm not so sure. As you know, I don't have a lot of faith in the Democrats, and I have every expectation that the Republicans will win that election, but I think we would all be better off if the Democrats won. Or better still, a real left-wing alternative, which obviously will have to be an Independent.

I might as well wish for a pony while I'm at it.

Interesting thought - when was the last time an American President had a scandal-free second term? Clinton had Lewinsky, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Nixon had Watergate, Johnson had Vietnam (I know it really started with Kennedy, actually you can trace it back to Truman, but Johnson was the President when the American people stopped buying the rhetoric) - I think you might have have to go back to Eisenhower or maybe even FDR.

I don't know Kevvy - if the Dems choose Hilary, I really don't see that'll it be much of an improvement. Plus, considering the Dems tend to be protectionist about trade, I think at least from a Canadian viewpoint the best we can hope for is a 'least-harmful' scenario.

As for the pony - better ask for two, otherwise the kids'll get jealous...

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link