Bush vs. the Environment

George Bush is to statesmanship what Britney Spears is to Western music. To be fair, Bush hasn’t shaved his head, checked in to rehab, and been sited in public without undergarments. Nevertheless, it would be hard to think of a more empty-headed and obtuse president than the one we have now.

The story of how George W. Bush managed to make it to the Oval Office, of course, has turned from farce to tragedy. A majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, but legal jujitsu was the deciding factor, not the voters. It would not be the first time Alice in Wonderland reasoning would be employed to hoodwink the public.

Gore, of course, has proven prescient in his critique of the Bush Administration. He argued against the invasion on the grounds that post-war Iraq would be rife with sectarian rivalries that would unleash dangers far greater than the threats posed by Saddam. And Gore was also one of the only major political figures to steadfastly critique the administration’s dubious legal argument regarding warrantless wiretaps and coercive interrogation methods.

Gore, as it happens, has also been decades ahead of America’s politicians when it comes to the perils of global warming. Fifteen years ago, Gore was ridiculed as “Ozone Man” by Bush’s father; today denying global warming puts you in the same company as the flat-earth crowd, those waiting for the Rapture, and those who believe (like Dick Cheney) that we’re making fantastic progress in Iraq.

With Iraq unraveling Bush has taken the line that it will be thirty years or more before his decision is vindicated. It is no small irony, however, that Gore’s visionary stance on global warming, staked out some three decades ago, is being vindicated in the present. Bush has scolded war critics; blithely asserting that hindsight is not wisdom. But lack of foresight is not wisdom either, and apologist for the Bush Administration should be at pains to explain how it is that Bush’s record as a prognosticator is even less reliable than the predictions of Saddam’s former Information Minister, Baghdad Bob.

So, Gore wins the popular vote, an Academy Award, and maybe even a Nobel Prize. Bush loses the popular vote, mismanages two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), and seems destined to displace Andrew Johnson as America’s worst president. Why in the world would America send Al Gore to Hollywood while sending George Bush to Washington? The answer to that question rests with the oracles on the Supreme Court.

There’s a cosmic irony in all this: Gore goes to tinsel town and creates a genuinely edifying motion picture, while Bush goes to Washington and hypnotizes the public with chimeras and sleight of hand (non-existent WMD and spurious connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam). They say we get the public figures we deserve. Speaking for the majority that voted for Gore in 2000, I don’t think that’s always true. But it doesn’t say a lot about us that buffoons like Bush and Brittany Spears are the one’s making the news these days.

Sphere: Related Content

George Bush vs. George Washington

If you are a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, then very few vocations are likely to provide the psychic rewards your voracious ego requires. Short of commanding your own Starfleet, or founding your own worldwide criminal syndicate (like Dr. Evil), President of the United States is probably the professional slot most conducive to inflating one’s sense of self-worth. After all, as the Decider-in-Chief you get to have the biggest jumbo jet on the planet, your own nuclear blast-proof bunker, and an eager cadre of sycophants and enablers dedicated to making you look good and helping you avoid reality as long as possible. If I wasn’t so busy blogging I might try running for the nation’s highest office myself.

George W. Bush, of course, seems to bask in the perks and paraphernalia of the presidency. His dirt bike is adorned with a presidential seal. And it’s not hard to imagine that he’s got his infamous flight suit stashed away in the same Oval Office closet Bill and Monica made out in. It’s not enough for W. to be a mere president, however. From time to time, Bush feels the need to compare himself to Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Honest Abe, and George Washington. Yes, the man who cannot tell the truth (about Iraq, global warming, or anything else) dares to compare himself with the man who could not tell a lie.

So, on President’s Day, Bush was visiting Mount Vernon to pay homage to himself by associating himself with the Founder himself. As Bush put it, Washington lost more battles than he won, but that didn’t stop him from winning the Revolutionary war. The implication, in case you didn’t notice, is that the mistakes, misjudgments, and failures in Iraq aren’t really mistakes, misjudgments, and failures; they’re just the historical flotsam and jetsam meant to test Bush’s implacable will.

Bush’s superficial reading of history, of course, glosses over numerous pertinent differences that put #1 and #43 at opposite poles on any number of measures. First, Washington made it a point of honor to treat enemy combatants humanely and according the strictly established codes of military justice. Second, Washington recognized that the Colonist didn’t need to win conventional military battles to defeat an imperial army fighting in hostile territory thousands of miles away from home. And third, Washington would have abhorred the idea of waging war in foreign lands to spread liberty, not to mention Bush’s constant attempts to play up the commander-in-chief card. In Washington’s view, standing armies, martial rhetoric, and militarizing public life were the gravest threats a republic could face. If Bush wants to compare himself to an 18th century political figure perhaps he should consider “Mad King George,” the monarch that represented everything our first president detested.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. Reality

George Bush has about as much affinity for irony as NASCAR race fans have for French literature. So it’s hardly surprising our decider-in-chief, in his most recent press conference, would pose the following rhetorical question with a straight face: “What’s worse: that the [Iranian] government knew [Iranian weapons were being deployed to Iraq] -- or that the government didn’t know?”

What’s worse: that the Bush Administration knew it was hyping the case for war against Iraq – or that the Bush Administration didn’t know [Saddam’s WMD and connections to al-Qaeda were chimeras].

The Bush Administration, of course, would have everyone believe that examining its misuse of prewar intelligence could only be an exercise in a partisan game of gotcha aimed at re-writing history. After all, the democrats believed the same intelligence and voted for the war too. Hogwash. The so-called War Resolution gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq as a last resort. Saying legislators voted for the war is a deceptive simplification that ignores the fact that many legislators believed they were voting for a resolution that would pressure Saddam to comply with intrusive weapons inspections or face a possible war. Congress, however, did end up giving Bush what amounted to a blank check.

Ironically, Saddam agreed to the U.N. weapons inspections, but days before the invasion Bush unilaterally declared they were’nt working and ordered the inspectors out of the country. Hans Blix has since gone on record to say that had inspection continued for just two weeks more the world would have known what it knows now – that Saddam was a toothless tiger without any WMD.

Yet, in defending the war Bush continues to cite Saddam’s decision to kick the weapons inspectors out, as one of the reasons war was necessary! Bush is clearly re-writing history. But is he even aware the “facts” he cites with certitude are fictional?

They say, “Truth is the first casualty in war.” But Bush’s inability to speak the truth has created innumerable casualties. As U.S. troops raced to Baghdad they bypassed countless ammo dumps, but failed to destroy them for fear of setting off possible hidden WMD caches. Today, much of bypassed conventional munitions are being used against American forces. Thus, Bush’s failure to allow the weapons inspectors to complete their mission ranks amounts to either gross incompetence or a complete dereliction of duty. Is Bush aware of this when he tries to shift the blame for the war onto others, or his he keeping the truth from himself? And which is worse?

Sphere: Related Content

To Surge or Not to Surge

Imagine a drunken neighbor borrows your car, runs over your dog, totals your vehicle, and then threatens to sue you for giving them the keys in the first place. That scenario is not unlike the predicament the United States is in regarding the Bush Administration and Iraq. After all, the Bush Administration has wrecked the U.S. military in a self-defeating and futile mission, demolished America’s reputation with scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and then slammed critics of the invasion for not having a solution to the catastrophe the administration itself has created.

As if to heap insult upon injury the Bush Administration is now asking the public to give them the keys for another spin around the block in Iraq. The so-called Surge is certain to be no joyride, but it could well end up leading to an “accidental war” with Iran. As usual, there’s less military logic than political logic behind Bush’s latest gambit. An additional 21,000 troops is insufficient to pacify the insurgency, but it may help postpone an all-out civil war until after Bush leaves office. Insisting on surging troops into Baghdad also enables the Bush Administration to portray democrats and war critics as defeatists a little bit longer. And it could help pave the way for what many believe the Bush Administration really wants; a showdown with Iran. After all, upping the ante when you’ve got a bad hand and nothing left to lose fits with the Bush Administration’s modus operandi.

Recently, al-Qaeda tapes have taunted Bush, claiming he is an “addictive” personality. Unfortunately there’s more than a grain of truth to this. Invading Iraq was not a calculated risk -- it was a gamble. And the pay off, thus far, for that risky wager has been: to empower card-carrying axis-of-evil member Iran, feed the forces of radicalism in the Islamic world, and polarize the United States to the point of paralysis. But none of this will stop Bush from doubling down or trying to cure his hangover by getting behind the wheel again. It’s up to others (the public and legislators) to keep Bush from instigating another crackup.

Sphere: Related Content

The Iraq War has lost its luster and George W. Bush’s image as commander-in-chief has been tarnished. Recognizing this the White House has sought to burnish Bush’s bona fides as a born-again intellectual. To this end, eager aides, and even the president himself, have been going to great pains to advertise his reading list. An inventory of Mr. Bush’s recent intellectual adventures includes a little French philosophy (Camus’ The Stranger), and an English comic-tragedian by the name of William Shakespeare. It may be a tad late, but it seems the tough-talking Texan is brushing up on the Bard.

Why would a straight shooter like Mr. Bush bother with the master of nuance? At first I believed Bush would turn to Shakespeare’s lighter fare, comedies like: Much Ado About Nothing (a good title to explicate the fuss over Saddam’s non-existent WMD), The Taming of the Shrew (a guide to handling the new majority leader, Nancy Pelosi), and Falstaff (an excellent guide to understanding one’s predecessor, Bill Clinton).

I tried contacting the White House to ascertain which of Shakespeare’s plays the president had on his reading list, but officials cited executive privilege. As one aide told me in complete confidentiality (so don’t go blabbering this around), revealing any specific titles could help “al-Qaeda types, academic eggheads, and political satirists.” Lest I were to find myself designated an enemy combatant I decided to drop my inquiry forthwith and simply speculate as a private citizen which of the Bard’s tales the POTUS might or might not benefit from.

Julius Caesar, filled as it with political intrigue, might seem an obvious choice for a humble executive looking for pointers on how to get along with fellow lawmakers. However, it contains the famous lines – “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves” – a sentiment that Bush is unlikely to lend his ears to. But If Bush were to spout lines like Marc Antony's, "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war," he might get his approval rating back up over 32%

King Lear, on the other hand, illustrates a lesson Bush would likely be receptive to – namely, the folly of breaking his kingdom into three parts. If ever Bush needs a literary excuse for opposing Senator Joseph Biden’s plan to partition Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite realms he need look no further. Of course, Lear is a story about a leader who loses his kingdom (and his mind) because he ignores the advice of a fool.

Richard III might be more to Bush’s liking. It contains a rather Machiavellian character that, at least in public, appears as harmless as an inhabitant of Mayberry. If nothing else there's that line Richard utters that every commander-in-chief should memorize: "My kingdom for more Iraqi translators," (or something like that).

Henry V. Now, here’s a sure fire storyline Bush is bound love. A rather callow hereditary heir morphs into a formidable wartime leader who leads his countrymen, against stiff odds, in a victorious campaign against the ever-perfidious French. For anyone who wants to see a statesman lead by example, the French eat crow, and happy ending this is the play to see. Too bad life rarely imitates art.

Othello is the play to see if one has to contend with a pernicious and duplicitous underling who plays on the vanity of his boss, offers bad advice, and spends most of his time hatching schemes in the shadows to extend his power. Thankfully, there’s little subterfuge or lack of sunshine surrounding Bush’s right-hand man, the honorable Dick Cheney. The vice-president, as they say, “is as honest as the day is long.”

Hamlet, of course, is not the kind of character Bush would want to emulate. He’s an Oedipal nut case: a man driven mad by the ghost of his father and an unusually attentive mother. Sure the elder Bush’s military accomplishments may hang over Junior’s head like the sword of Damocles, but it pretty hard to imagine Barbara Bush as much of a son seducer. In this case at least, let’s hope that any Oedipal wreckage wrought from the bosom of the Bush Dynasty springs solely from the younger Bush’s desire to excise the demons pertaining to his father. After all, it’s one thing to mishandle a military adventure. But a president with a mother complex might tempt Mother Nature one too many times. We don’t need another Katrina on Bush’s watch.

Macbeth is another title that Bush’s is likely to have little use for. It concerns a usurper undone by paroxysms of guilt over the foul deed he committed to gain power. After all, Bush has nothing to feel guilty about; he became president fair and square as certified by Katherine Harris and ratified by the Supreme Court. The majority that voted for Al Gore “Doth protest too much.”

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is another title that’s not likely to tickle Bush’s fancy. For one thing, it’s a sex comedy, which is taboo for the abstinence only crowd that make up Bush’s base. Second, the main protagonist is transformed from a man into a jackass. This is a feat that may worry some in the administration more than one thinks. After all, history has a way of transfiguring world leaders into figures with feet of clay. Just consider, for instance, what historians now say about the British leadership during the trench warfare of WWI: “The soldiers fought like lions, but they were led by donkeys.”

I’m delighted to hear Bush is seeking to broaden his intellectual and literary interests. Bush – who once boasted that, “I don’t do nuance” – doesn’t appear to have an ironic bone in his body. Reading Shakespeare, if nothing else, should inculcate in the president a greater sense that morality is not black and white, history is suffused with irony, and it’s possible to be both a tragic and a comic figure at the same time. Of course, there’s still time for Bush to prove the Bard is wrong, assuming that the storyline to Iraq turns out to be “All’s well that ends well.”

Sphere: Related Content