September 20, 2007
George Bush: all brush, no cattle
We're becoming Michael Corleone in "The Godfather." Just when we think
we're done with analysis of George Bush, something more appears and
drags us back in. Paul Begala and Sidney Blumenthal have of late
provided even more insight into the persona of George Bush. .
It never fails to even inadvertently pop up but how in the world did a cipher like George Bush become president of the
United States, and then get re-elected? Not only is he a non-entity, a wastrel, but
a psychologically warped one at that. This is a character who should
have been the lead patient in the foremost psychological studies at our
leading institutions.
He's a grand poseur. Presidentially, there's no there there.
It should boggle anyone's mind, that is if rational thought were a prerequisite for possessing a brain.
Here is someone who was and not surprisingly remains a truly pathetic
failure, a deadweight to
whatever business venture he touched and, shazam, he's winning the
presidency twice. His family name and connections set him up and bailed
him out often in financial, business and personal scrapes throughout
his life all the way
through his second presidency. If you disagree then explain why Jim
Baker, who directed the Republican efforts to quash the Florida voting
recount, co-headed the Iraq Study Group (ISG)? The only difference of
late is that Bush pissed on the ISG and turned his back on the path it
offered as a means of extricating the U.S. out of Iraq.
As an example of the gravitas Bush offered to the various business
ventures he hooked up with, here's David Rubenstein, cofounder of the
Carlyle Group, describing George Bush and his contributions to the Cater-Air Board of Directors:
"...Came to all the meetings,"
Rubenstein told the conventioneers. "Told a lot of jokes. Not that many
clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three
years: 'You know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should
do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value
to the board. You don't know that much about the company...'
For those of you who will firmly reply about Bush
being a former governor of Texas, well allow me politically incorrectly
to state that such is akin to becoming leader of any of the more
backwater states in our union. Which state kills the most of its
citizens, even if the defendants were represented by drunks or snorers?
Which state has the highest percentage of its population uninsured
medically? Plus, while Bush was governor of the Lone Star State, it was Democratic Lt.
Governor Bob Bullock, now deceased, who carried the water for Bush in
getting anything accomplished legislatively in the Lone Star State. Unlike our federal system, a
Texas governor must work with the legislature in order to achieve
anything.
What we have now is either an unformed or mal-formed individual
possessing the greatest power of any nation on earth. Sure, this meme
will never appear on national television nor make it into national
magazines or newspapers but a fairly elementary connecting of the dots
reveals this.
The follwing isn't necessarily congruent with the slant of the
entry today but sure is a blatant example of the morals Goerge Bush
lives by, he who also spoke of Jesus as not only his personal saviour
but favorite philosopher. Here's Paul Begala in a recent column at The Huffington Post
"...In the 2000 South
Carolina primary, George W. Bush stood next to a man described as a
"fringe" figure - a man who had attacked Bush's own father - at a Bush
rally. With Bush applauding him, the man said John McCain "abandoned"
veterans. McCain, who was tortured in a North Vietnamese POW camp, was
incensed. Five U.S. Senators who fought in Vietnam, including Democrats
John Kerry, Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey, condemned the attack and called
on Bush to repudiate it. When pressed on it at a debate hosted by CNN's
Larry King, Bush meekly muttered that he shouldn't be held responsible
for what others say. Even when he's standing next to them at a Bush
rally..."
Andrew Greeley checks back in with another column on the inner Bush. Two paragraphs in particular have been highlighted:
Why won't Bush admit mistakes?
Andrew Greeley
Chicago Sun Times
September 19, 2007
Last week was a strange one. The
commander in chief, the president of the United States, took refuge
behind a military field commander to achieve credibility with the
American people. Through constant repetition of his name, almost an
invocation, George Bush built up Gen. David Petraeus as the man who
finally found a strategy that would work in Iraq. Because he said it
would work, therefore, it had worked.
Robert Draper's Dead Certain, a
sympathetic portrait of the Bush presidency, reports that the president
had insisted to his chief of staff Andrew Card up to the time of Card's
resignation in April 2006 that there were weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq. The president does not give up easily on something of which he
is dead certain. He can't give up on it...
...Draper effectively dismisses
the notion that the president is just plain dumb and that Cheney or
Rove were running the presidency. Yet, he adds, the questions that some
who served on Bush's staff had were whether "a man [could be] all that
secure with himself if he felt compelled to assert over and over that
he never wavered, never lost a wink of sleep and harbored no regrets?
What bespoke his compulsive optimism, and was it, in the end, worth the
loss of credibility?"
It is a question about which many Americans wonder. Why can't he change his mind?
...Some members of Alcoholics
Anonymous will tell you that such behavior is not atypical in men who
beat drunkenness by sheer willpower. They no longer drink, but they
have not gone through the humility and the transformation of the self
that the AA requires of its members. The president proved he could beat
alcoholism without sitting around and talking about it (except with
Billy Graham). I'm not saying this is the explanation of the
president's sunny confidence about Iraq. I am saying, however, that it
is a model that fits the data.
Those who are not troubled by
the illusions that have marked this presidency won't need such a model.
Those who wonder how he can possibly believe that at last we are going
to win this war we should never have begun might try another model. In
fact, however, the president's endless optimism and refusal to admit
errors are, to put it quite bluntly, abnormal behavior.
Go here to read the rest and please do so.
and
Sidney Blumenthal is much more caustic. He divines the why and
wherefores of George Bush's all-encompassing Failure. He also provides
some interesting tidbits on the various power struggles between the
'normal' GOP and the Bush strand. Best of all [worst of all?}, he
depicts how Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have engaged in
psychological ploys to influence Bush. It's simply scary that such a
dangerous buffoon resides in the Oval Office.
Bush's stairway to paradise
Hoping that history will somehow vindicate him, the president has entered a phase of decadent perversity.
Sidney Blumenthal
Salon
Sep. 20, 2007 | There has
never been a moment when we were not winning in Iraq. Victory has
followed victory, from "Mission Accomplished" to the purple fingers of
the Iraqi election to, most recently, President Bush's meeting at Camp
Cupcake in Anbar province with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader
of the group Anbar Awakening (who was assassinated a week later).
Turning point has followed turning point, from Bush's proclamation two
years ago of his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" to his
announcement last week of his "Return on Success." "We're kicking ass,"
he briefed the Australian deputy prime minister on Sept. 6 about his
latest visit to Iraq. In his quasi-farewell address to the nation on
Sept. 13, Bush assigned any possible shortcomings to Gen. David
Petraeus and bequeathed his policy "beyond my presidency" to his
successor...
...In his interviews with
Draper, he is constantly worried about weakness and passivity. "If
you're weak internally? This job will run you all over town." He fears
being controlled and talks about it relentlessly, feeling he's being
watched. "And part of being a leader is: people watch you." He casts
his anxiety as a matter of self-discipline. "I don't think I'd be
sitting here if not for the discipline ... And they look at me -- they
want to know whether I've got the resolution necessary to see this
through. And I do. I believe -- I know we'll succeed." He is sensitive
about asserting his supremacy over others, but especially his father.
"He knows as an ex-president, he doesn't have nearly the amount of
knowledge I've got on current things," he told Draper.
Bush is a classic insecure
authoritarian who imposes humiliating tests of obedience on others in
order to prove his superiority and their inferiority. In 1999,
according to Draper, at a meeting of economic experts at the Texas
governor's mansion, Bush interrupted Rove when he joined in the
discussion, saying, "Karl, hang up my jacket." In front of other aides,
Bush joked repeatedly that he would fire Rove. (Laura Bush's attitude
toward Rove was pointedly disdainful. She nicknamed him "Pigpen," for
wallowing in dirty politics. He was staff, not family -- certainly not
people like them.)...
...Those around him have learned
how to manipulate him through the art of flattery. Former Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld played Bush like a Stradivarius, exploiting his
grandiosity. "Rumsfeld would later tell his lieutenants that if you
wanted the president's support for an initiative, it was always best to
frame it as a 'Big New Thing.'" Other aides played on Bush's
self-conception as "the Decider." "To sell him on an idea," writes
Draper, "aides were now learning, the best approach was to tell the
president, This is going to be a really tough decision." But flattery
always requires deference. Every morning, Josh Bolten, the chief of
staff, greets Bush with the same words: "Thank you for the privilege of
serving today..."
...Bush grasps at the straws of
his own disinformation as he casts himself deeper into the abyss. The
more profound and compounded his blunders, and the more he redoubles
his certainty in ultimate victory, the greater his indifference to
failure. He has entered a phase of decadent perversity, where he
accelerates his errors to vindicate his folly. As the sands of time run
down, he has decided that no matter what he does, history will finally
judge him as heroic.
The greater the chaos, the more
he reinforces and rigidifies his views. The more havoc he wreaks, the
more he insists he is succeeding. His intensified struggle for
self-control is matched by his increased denial of responsibility.
Hence Petraeus...
...Bush's ever-inflating
self-confidence hides his gaping fear of failure. His obsession with
deference demands exercises of humiliation that never satisfy him. His
unwavering resolve is maintained by his adamant refusal to wade into
the waters of ambiguity. "You can't talk me out of thinking freedom's a
good thing!" he protests to his biographer. For Bush, even when he is
long out of office, presiding at his planned library's Freedom
Institute -- "I would like to build a Hoover Institute" -- victory will
always be just around the corner.
Go here to read the complete article.
top
RSS feed
|