The Bush Chronicles revisited -- if you dare

I had forgotten about published conversations between presidential-candidate George W. Bush and his autobiographical ghostwriter, Mickey Herskowitz, until a reader reminded me via a reprinted article from October, 2004. Journalist Herskowitz had met with Bush numerous times in 1999 in preparation for a campaign-puff volume, and much of what he heard and later made public -- though not without genuine reservations -- made him realize that “Bush's true views … and basic essence had eluded the American people.”

Had they ever.

For instance here’s Bush explaining the relationship between domestic and foreign policy with a superficiality that stuns:

One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.

In reading the above musings of candidate Bush I’m unsure which reaction a thoughtful reader experiences more -- disgust or sadness. Both are pronounced. The future president comes off as a cross between a cold-blooded opportunist willing to expend others’ lives in the pursuit of political goals and an insecure adolescent possessed of a precocious grandeur.

“If I have chance to invade” -- an astounding self-delusion about deploying toy soldiers, not human beings.

Herskowitz saw that Bush regarded human life as an expendable commodity not primarily in the defense of liberty, but in the goal of achieving ideological victory. Bush seemed unreflective on the righteousness of that victory -- just that winning was everything.

As told to Herskowitz, Bush and his advisors were quite impressed -- politically speaking, of course -- with the minor military victories of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (the Falklands War) and former presidents Ronald Reagan and dear old dad (the first Gulf War was a bad scene, as mentioned, but the Grenada and Panama “campaigns” were terrific political coups). Said Herskowitz of Bush & Co.’s view of Thatcher: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at her and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches." Looking back further, they believed Jimmy Carter's political troubles emerged as the inherent result of a peaceful presidency.

So what a successful presidency came down to for Bush, according to Herskowitz, was this: “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” Once accomplished the chief executive will have secured the support needed for ramming through his domestic agenda. Seen through this lens, then, 9/11 for George W. Bush wasn’t so much tragedy as opportunity. He had his “chance to invade.”

One might argue that pre-9/11 circumstances had discredited any inclination for war on Bush’s part. For instance right up until that tragic day he and his congressional friends were shoving through tax cuts at a feverish and wildly successful pace. The domestic policy assistance that a costly foreign war could provide was hardly necessary, let alone desirable.

Yet the Bush interviews reveal that the president was genuinely fixated on war as a policy staple -- it would secure what you might call a permanent revolution. Nothing was to be left to chance. Peace presented a constant political threat.

Now of course we have the Downing Street Memo as proof that we would have war -- justified or not, necessary or not. Thousands of lives for “political capital” -- Bush's “basic essence.”

Comments

[Kid Charlemagne]

I cannot understand how this miserable AWOL-from-the-Guard excuse for a man can send better men than him to fight and kill and die to improve his political outlook, and then look in the mirror and call himself a Christian. I am just SO glad I voted for Gore and Kerry, so I can at least say to any foreign readers that this criminal Administration isn't MY fault.

[Michael P. Kaehler]

The tragedy of it all is echoing through time in Osbert Sitwell’s “The Next War:”

The long war had ended.
Its miseries had grown faded.
Deaf men became difficult to talk to,
Heroes became bores.
Those alchemists
Who had converted blood into gold
Had grown elderly.
But they held a meeting,
Saying,
"We think perhaps we ought
To put up tombs
Or erect altars
To those brave lads
Who were so willingly burnt,
Or blinded,
Or maimed.
Who lost all likeness to a living thing,
Or were blown to bleeding patches of flesh
For our sakes.
It would look well.
Or we might even educate the children.''
But the richest of these wizards
Coughed gently;

And he said:
"I have always been to the front
- In private enterprise-,
I yield in public spirit
To no man.
I think yours is a very good idea
-A capital idea-
And not too costly . . .
But it seems to me
That the cause for which we fought
Is again endangered.
What more fitting memorial for the fallen
Than that their children
Should fall for the same cause?''
Rushing eagerly into the street,
The kindly old gentlemen cried
To the young:
"Will you sacrifice
Through your lethargy
What your fathers died to gain?
The world must be made safe for the young!"
And the children
Went . . .

[Vestal Vespa]

Herskowitz saw that Bush regarded human life as an expendable commodity not primarily in the defense of liberty, but in the goal of achieving ideological victory. Bush seemed unreflective on the righteousness of that victory -- just that winning was everything.

It is so incredible to me that the "Support Our Troops" ribbon-sporting crowd simply fails to see how dangerous the above ideology is. I have often likened many politically naive people who nonetheless support Bush to sports fans. They may not know the rules of the game, but they know that they like the winning team. But this is a much more dangerous game . . . it concerns me that so many are blind to that fact.

[Linson]

George Bush and Dick Cheney thought the Iraq war would be quick and easy. They probably did truly envision the "freed" Iraqi people showering our liberating troups in flowers. Then, with the "political capital" gained from that "quick and easy" war, they WOULD HAVE been able to ram through a lot of their domestic agenda. But they were wrong on the war, wrong on this, wrong on that, and they had to start lying to cover their tracks. And they are still lying, as they find themselves in a quagmire they weren't smart enough to predict. GW Bush told Herskowitz that a true leader never admits to mistakes. And he isn't. GW Bush is a tradgedy in the making, a less than capable man pushed who's family contacts enabled him to rise far beyond his capabilities. But it's all crashing down on him now. The next two and a half years are going to be very, very ugly.

[Brad Turner]

The shrub and it's cronies are an evil lot, seeking to parasitize the nation. They are a reflection of our society, which would screw you faster than I can see for a buck. Their incredible stupidity on all issues is getting their asses in a crack, and hopefully they will be brought down. What continually amazes me is how they continue to get away with this shit. The rest of the world is not going to take the USA lightly, and I don't blame them.

[gwili brunner]

yea! is all I can say. i agree with all that's been said. comming from Mn. I am so glad that we never fell for his big picture. we also never voted for Reagen or Nixson. must be some smart people here

[sofla]

Minnesota voted for Nixon in '72, but then, he almost swept it all, excepting only Massachusetts, DC, and maybe SD, but probably not even SD. MN is still great, though.

Now, this particular sociopathic man, for his own glory and political success, made doing Iraq the first order of business of his National Security Council at its first meeting ('find me a way to do it,' according to SecTreasury Paul O'Neill in attendance), as he'd planned to do two years or more before.

More than only Iraq, it's overlooked he'd also had Afghanistan in his sights for months before we attacked them. A fully planned war against the Taliban was on Bush's desk for his approval, when on the same day, the largest joint US/British naval armada in history dropped anchor in the international waters closest to Afghanistan, while as part of Operation Bright Star, 45,000 US and British forces moved to near theater forward basing in Oman. That day was 9/10/2001. We went to war by mid-October, an impossibility from any supposed standing start only a month before. Papers in India and Japan reported in June 2001 that US officials had briefed the regional powers of our plan to militarily attack the Taliban, with hostilities to begin around mid-October.

[CMcC]

Do a Google search for the quote below. This is the first thing that comes up:

But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”

Time actually didn’t report the quote exactly that way. Apparently not to offend readers who admire Bush’s moral clarity, Time printed the quote as “F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

Bush offered his pithy judgment after sticking his head in the door of a White House meeting between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators who had been discussing strategies for dealing with Iraq through the United Nations. The senators laughed uncomfortably at Bush’s remark, Time reported. [Time story posted March 23, 2003]

[Gary Minich]

The American people always get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, they take the rest of us along with them. It's time for a worldwide revolution to limit both big government and the power of multinational corporations whose only loyalty is to greed.

[Kid Charlemagne]

Uh, Mr. Minich, you do mean the peaceful, ballot-box kind of revolution, right? Because as deeply as I loathe the buccaneers who misrule us, I would fear the triumph of some vengeful revolutionary junta, and the resulting reign of terror, even more. At least I know how to survive under the pirates: "It is better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

Apprehensively, Kid Charlemagne

[Mark]

Revolutions happen, generally when the masses/slaves revolt against the bourgeoisie/owners the political might of the time puts down the insurgents with deadly force. The latest revolution has already started, the spark was Seattle and Bush only serves to fan the flames. Throughout history it's the common people that have paid for the advances that have been made towards a more "human" race. The people that are dying in Iraq, either native Iraqi's, Americans, or otherwise, are dying for us, as representatives of those that have died at the hands of the few that oppress and subject the many.

Things will change, that's inevitable. It always is worse before it gets better, just has to be that way as the history of the world tells us. You think it's bad now… it will get a lot worse and progressively quicker so keep your servers running. And then we'll look back at the bad old days and tell our kids how much we did for them to make their world better if we happen to be among the majority that live long enough to see it.

Then again, there's nothing like a virus to even things out and throw a joker in the deck eh? We'll have to go through the whole damn thing again while the empires regain their fortunes to reach the same critical mass. It doesn't even take a virus, the French have lots of experience in the mid 1800's of almost making it right, but not quite getting there.

btw, the war poem Michael, yup, everybody knows that's how it goes, daNg poets eh

[Ladygrey]

eh, Kid Charlemagne...that is probably the same type of thoughts many people of europe had about another sociopath in the 1930's & history shows us what happened. Those that refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat the mistakes... never mind that gitmo is a repeat of the camps of auschwitz, etc...they are building more stuff there..progression keeps going

[Marblex]

We are the new Weimar Republic. The links of members of this administration to the Nazi regime are leigon...google it. These people were raised by parents and influential grandparents (who of course raised the parents) and they all believe in this "uber alles" proposition that unbridled capitalism, corporate rule underscored by totalitarian rhetoric; and oppression of the masses and crushing of dissent by means of the "big lie" justifying a police state (coming soon to a neighborhood near you)...all of these are part of a pattern that once again emerges from the bowels of human experience.

These same people (Cheney Rummy Wolfowitz) tried it during Nixon's administration (their first effort to create an Imperial Presidency) during the Reagan years (hooray for me and screw you) they stripped away regulation after regulation, greasing the skids for their New World Order, which will soon be revealed in all of its glory.

Now that the polls are really starting to tank and the sheeple are starting to stir out of their comas, expect the following:

There probably will be another staged "terrorist" attack followed by martial law.

The economic collapse will follow, displacing literally tens of millions of Americans who will be unable to escape their crushing debt because of the bankruptcy act and whose homes will be gentrified out from under them because they will be white elephants once the housing bubble bursts.

Folks who won't or can't "volunteer" for the military will be swept into any one of 59 prison camps that have been not so secretly built here in the U.S. where they will be tortured and/or forced to work as slaves for private industry. Prison planet is coming.

One world government, run by
One world bank.

This is the "New World Order" planned centuries ago.

The human race's biggest nightmare.

YOU ARE A SLAVE, NEO.

[Diane]

Has anyone actually sat down and counted the number of times he uses the word "I" in his speech? I don't recall ever having heard any politician do so to anywhere near this degree. It truly is all about him, and he demonstrates that fact every time he opens his mouth.

[Ted Cajacob]

If all these Liberal comments are so true, then whey did all the Senators from the right side, all Democrates after 9/11 state that we had to take immediate action against the terrorist???