Poppy's Remorse

One trope of contemporary political discussion among "serious" observers (who can always be spotted by their patched tweed jackets, corncob pipes, and argyle kneepads) is the affectation of evoking George H.W. Bush as some sort of eminence grise of American statesmanship. Instead of perhaps correctly noting that more than anything, Poppy Bush simply had a knack for knowing whose to knob to work to grease his way incrementally higher up the food chain, it is apparently simpler to accept as an article of faith his stature as an elder statesman.

Conveniently, more unsavory episodes are simply avoided altogether as topics of discussion, as if the Bush family's habit of periodically renting themselves to the Moonies had nothing to do with anything else. This is more of a testament to the prostrate condition of the supine corporate media, than any real sort of reconsideration of 41's legacy. If he has a true lasting legacy, it is simply that of the career henchman -- he knows where all the bodies are buried, because he helped plant them.

So when I hear tell of yet another ponderous article [link via Talking Points Memo] of how secretly disappointed Poppy is in Junior, I have a hard time mustering the energy to give a fuck.

At this month's christening of the nuclear aircraft carrier bearing his name, former President George H.W. Bush delivered a rousing endorsement of his son.

"I am very proud of our President," the elder Bush said in rain-swept ceremonies in Newport News, Va. "I support him in every single way with every fiber in my body."

Is there any serious person on the face of the planet who doesn't believe that only familial loyalty allows Bush Sr. to utter such things with a straight face? Furthermore, does anybody seriously believe that family loyalty should trump loyalty to country? More directly, if your own administration proactively established a firm policy which is now being recklessly and aggressively countermanded, with predictably disastrous results for the country and the world, and no end in sight, isn't it despicably irresponsible to continuously pretend that your belligerent halfwit of a son actually knows what he's doing?

Indeed, one of the worst-kept secrets in Bush World is the dismay, in some cases disdain, harbored by many senior aides of the former President toward the administration of his son - 41 and 43, as many call them, political shorthand that refers to their numerical places in American presidential history.

For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment - particularly their belief that many of 43's policies are a stick in the eye of his father.

"Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still he won't say a word," a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. "Personally, I think he's dying inside."

Good. I hope it eats him up inside. I hope it haunts him to his very last day. Seriously. Even Junior's staunchest supporters acknowledge that without his famous family, their boy would never have been inflicted on this country; you could scarcely make a case for him being anything more than an incompetent middle manager at a chain store. So his family's enablement of and indifference to Junior's demonstrable lack of any marketable skill or ability is something which has affected the course of world history, indisputably for the worse.

And yet, not only is Poppy not really "dying inside", as it's being portrayed, but he's mobilized his old posse to help his bumbling oaf of a son out of yet another jam.

The ultimate sticking point for the old guard is Iraq. They cite the appointment of 41's close friend and former secretary of state, James Baker, to chart a new Iraq policy as belated vindication.

The 41s remain incensed, however, that Brent Scowcroft, 41's national security adviser and once a top outside adviser to this administration, has been demonized since he wrote a 2002 article opposing an Iraq invasion.

"What Brent said is now the accepted wisdom," a senior 41 hand said, "and everyone believes 41 agrees with him, though he'll never say it."

Well, that's chickenshit. He sure had no trouble publicly criticizing Bill Clinton for his sexual exploits, but when it comes to something important, he doesn't say shit, and he gets Jim Baker in to fix Junior's mess. Some legacy.

Because no matter what Poppy says -- or doesn't say -- now, we all know what he said then, no matter how much he'd like us to forget.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.

....

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Yeah, that. So when I hear these dumb little stories about the old man's inner heartbreak at the fecklessness of his offspring, I am not "touched" by his loyalty to stupidity, I am pissed at his blindered callousness to the notions of genuine truth and reason and accountability.