Cold Political Calculation

George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).

On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).

On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.

In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.


On the question of water-boarding, many people felt Bush had to have approved it or some in the White House would have been risk. But more, if he approved it then he personally approved torture as defined by treaties to which the US is a signatory. His "Damned Right" response was, to this man's eye, intended to convey a "tough talk" hombre. He was using the line used in a movie, much like "Wanted Dead or Alive" about Osama Bin Laden - and I think he did so purposefully. He carries the attitude of "screw anyone and anything who doesn't like it", the same cavalier, uncaring, tin-ear which whistled while Iraq burned under excessive civilian deaths brought about (in part) by US forces NOT cooperating with locals - a policy which changed under David Patreaus. But also a policy which Bush clearly, and as supported by this same bellicose, cultural ethno-centric attitude reply of "Damn Right", which Bush clearly didn't support changing. In short, Bush showed once again that success in Iraq was something done in spite of him, not because of him. His comments about being blind-sided by Abu Ghraib weren't ones of distress or concern about the conduct of troops, but as reported by Bob Woodward years ago, were about the political fallout. In short, he didn't care much about the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, a problem which absolutely destroyed Iraqi support and confidence in the US regime and presence, just like he didn't care about water-boarding prisoners in Gitmo. These parallels point clearly to a man without moral compunction when it came to dealing with citizens of other countries. He was mean, mendacious, needlessly, and perhaps illegally, negligent in looking after their welfare. Some shock that Americans increasingly found him disconnected, base and churlish. His comments on water-boarding reinforce that image, and they do so correctly.

On his comments on being blind-sided by the financial collapse, I have only a few words for Mr. Bush. If you were, you were the only one in the entire country. Everyone, and I mean everyone who was even marginally competent knew that a huge problem loomed, that our mortgage bond market had run wild, had been misused and abused, and the only question was not if a massive "correction" would happen, but when. You, sir, spent eight years denying there were problems, suggesting that "booster shots" (your term for stimulus spending approved by Republicans in 2006), were sufficient. Your comments about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sound like scape-goating of the worst sort. First, you were a chief advocate for pushing FM/FM to have to accept any non-conforming loans, so you hold the blame for their contribution to the problems, but even more, since 2/3rds of the bond market collapse came from PLS (Private Label Securities), unless you're a lack-witted fool, you know that FM/FM weren't the genesis or even the major catalyst. Yet, here you are trying to suggest they were. Why (I'd ask)? Except that I know the answer. You, like your GOP brethren, are trying hard to blame the government for the collapse, when the government was the tail of the dog. You gladly wagged FM/FM around to your benefit (meaning so that banks could make LOTS of money), and you fiddled your time away, not warning of a looming disaster - a disaster you should have seen coming. That you didn't either meant you were completely, blithely ignorant of something which devastated the country, meaning you were asleep when you should have been aware. This is yet again something which points out why the voters tossed your party to the curb in 2006 and 2008, because you knew nothing, heard nothing, saw nothing - when everyone with even a small bit of knowledge saw 401(k)'s being raided, saw banks writing loans to people who had no income, saw people raiding their home equity just to get by. In short, you saw nothing standing on the beach in front of the tidal wave, when your job was to act as the warning siren and you had all the assets, all the warning systems you needed to see it. You were responsible to protect the nation, but your attitude about government was that government was bad and couldn't (and even shouldn't) protect anyone, so you effectively let everything go. It sure seems like you were hoping it wouldn't happen on your watch. You sounded no alarms. Now you want to come out and pretend you didn't know in one breath, and in the next say you did know and tried to get FM/FM to stop? Which way was it?

It all seems like revisionist history to me. It seems like an attempt to paint yourself in a more positive light, and to me at least, it simply reinforced that you were above all motivated by political image, were dishonest, untrustworthy, greedy and mendacious. It reminds me why, even on days when Obama fails to stand up for what should be done to rescue our country from corporate greed, why I am very glad you are no longer President. It's too bad the rest of the country forgot just what your ilk are like.