bush -- an american psycho
The Bush Chronicles revisited -- if you dare
P.M. Carpenter
bush_-_american_psycho.jpeg
June 10, 2005
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 ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm ) 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.”
:: The incoming address of this article is :
pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2005/06/the_bush_chroni.html
P.M. Carpenter
bush_-_american_psycho.jpeg
June 10, 2005
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 ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm ) 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.”
:: The incoming address of this article is :
pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2005/06/the_bush_chroni.html
posted by dsekou at 7:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home