April 06, 2004

Oedipus Praesidens

Oedipus Praesidens:

New York Daily News - April 6, 2004

Book: Poppy opposed Dubya's warBy THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - A new book on the Bush political dynasty claims former President George H.W. Bush opposed last year's invasion of Iraq.

In "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty," Peter and Rochelle Schweizer cite as evidence a summer 2002 interview in which the older Bush's sister said her brother had expressed his "anguish" about the administration's preparations for war.

"But do they have an exit strategy?" the former President is quoted as worrying.

"Although he never went public with them," the authors assert, "the President's own father shared many of [the] concerns" of Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser and a leading war opponent.

Top Bush aide Jean Becker denied the allegations yesterday.

"From the very first day, President Bush 41 unequivocally supported the President on the war in Iraq," she said. "He had absolutely no reservations of any kind."

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution and authored "Reagan's War."

The book pries open the door slightly on one of the Bush clan's most closely held secrets: the former President's private qualms about portions of his son's Iraq policy.

"He agrees with the policy goals but not with all of the execution," a close friend told the Daily News.

The older Bush has maintained strict public silence about possible differences, and only last week hammered "elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail" for criticizing the war.

Yet close friends and associates said the older Bush, while fiercely proud and protective of his son, nevertheless harbors concerns about the war and its aftermath.

These sources told The News that aside from his "exit-strategy" fears of a prolonged, bloody conflict, the ex-President is troubled that the war fractured the international coalition he painstakingly assembled to expel deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

One close associate said the older Bush feels Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may have pushed President Bush too hard for a preemptive strike.

In his 1998 diplomatic memoir, the former President offered this impassioned defense of his controversial decision not to attack Baghdad and topple Saddam in 1991:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. ... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

One well-placed Bush colleague said the older Bush recently acknowledged, "I'm having trouble with my boy," referring to Iraq.

George H.W. Bush had three main accomplishments as president to his credit: the first big steps to eliminate the Reagan budget deficits (through the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, tax increases, and discretionary spending caps), strong support for open-society reformers rather than authoritarians in Russia, and the construction of a broad U.S.-led coalition to enforce international law.

George W. Bush has revived Reagan's deficits, strongly supported Putin's shift back toward a much more authoritarian politics in Russia, and broken George H.W. Bush's coalition into shards.

It's hard for me at least not to see George W. Bush's actions as, at some level, a message to his father: "See Dad? See? I've broken everything you built!"

Posted by DeLong at April 6, 2004 10:29 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

Your analysis of the Bush dynasty shows why the Republican philosophy is so much wiser than the Democrat philosophy.

You knee jerk liberals mindlessly support each others' foolishness as long as it fits your hard left ideals while us more highly evolved Republicans carefully consider all sides before making our policy decisions.

The Bushes seeing things differently from each other as Rumsfeld and Powell see things differently from each other is a sign of Republican wisdom that you pointy headed Democrats will never understand much less emulate.

Adrian the wise right winger

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 10:38 AM

____

Because if you put Sam Nunn's and Dennis Kucinich's platforms side-by-side on a Long John Silver-sized placemat, there's absolutely no way to tell them apart.

In any event, I can't worry my beautiful mind about the Bush family internal schism.

Posted by: Norbizness on April 6, 2004 10:57 AM

____

"Because if you put Sam Nunn's and Dennis Kucinich's platforms side-by-side on a Long John Silver-sized placemat, there's absolutely no way to tell them apart.
Posted by Norbizness"

More significantly, what's the difference between kucinich and Kerry?

Adrian CRW


Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 11:05 AM

____

Bush has broken a lot more than just what his dad built! The blood-dimmed tide is loosed. And we helped pay for it all. The Muslim World War, which never had to happen, is one step closer to reality. We are radicalizing the place. Instead of keeping the lid on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Bush let it simmer and explode. Now the Israelis have admitted that the massacres they denied for a half-century, while we all called the Palestinians liars, did in fact happen. Now bin Ladenism is being taken up by the radicals everywhere. The U.S. thinks it will be garrisoned impregnably in Iraq, with total hostility outside the walls. We’re forming a new intelligence service out of Saddam’s old dreaded Mukhaberat. Moderate Iraqis who might have been expected to support our effort are entirely demoralized by our clumsy and double-dealing puppets. They still can’t count on having electricity. There are no Iraqi police or security forces worth speaking of. Iraqi paramilitary entered Sadr City with U.S. troops, then joined the Shiite militants to turn and fire on them. Muqtada al-Sadr, far from being an isolated radical, probably has around a third of Iraq’s Shiites already in complete concert with his views. Sistani, long ignored by us, is being shoved to the side by the Sadrists. And the likes of Khadafy have decided to follow Mahathir’s admonition to his brethren to be, for the nonce, ameliorist, and bide their time. Meanwhile gas and oil are going up, a security risk, causing respiratory illness and global warming--which hastens the crash of wild ecosystems, an indispensable component of biosphere health. U.S. conservatives have revealed themselves to be psychologically and strategically inept, indeed living in cloud-cuckooland, believing that an image of American freedom will transform the hearts of everybody who we don’t have the military strength to eliminate. While U.S. liberals are in disarray without a plan, and easily confounded by phony strictures from freemarket libertarians on how alternative energy harms efficiency and productivity. ...Can I get a witness! The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...

Posted by: Lee A. on April 6, 2004 11:10 AM

____

"Can I get a witness! The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity...

Posted by Lee A'

You would be much better off with a bit broader perspective. You are confusing and conflating your impressions and characterizations with reality. Believe me they are totally different (your impressions & reality)

RELAX,

Adrian TW

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 11:17 AM

____

Well, I guess that it's clear now - 'Adrian Spidle' is indeed a bot. Turing Test score: 11 out of a possible 100.

Posted by: Barry on April 6, 2004 11:24 AM

____

Adrian, you're a hoot--almost.

Posted by: Lee A. on April 6, 2004 11:31 AM

____

"Well, I guess that it's clear now - 'Adrian Spidle' is indeed a bot. Turing Test score: 11 out of a possible 100.

Posted by Barry"

Oh yeah....

Wanna play chess?

I'll show you whose TT is higher.

Adrian TB

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 11:31 AM

____

Quote-----
The older Bush has maintained strict public silence about possible differences, and only last week hammered "elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail" for criticizing the war.-----
Unquote

Not quite true.
As early/late as March 9th, 2003 just before the break of war, he was quoted in the Washington Post as publicly saying at a dinner of some sorts

Quote------
The Madrid conference would
never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in
Desert Storm had exceeded the U.N. mandate and gone on its own . . . into
Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm,"
Bush said. "The coalition would have instantly shattered, and the
political capital that we had gained as a result of our principled
restraint to jump-start the peace process would have been lost."---------
Unquote

41 conserves capital political as well as monetary;
43 who never had to or could build capital of any kind, stands like a kid in a candy store and blows all his allowance and more and ransacks the whole store!!
he was always the boy-king, there for the photo-op, while the king-makers and regents ran the country - perhaps even for their private gain? we may never find out.

Posted by: Mercy J on April 6, 2004 11:51 AM

____

"41 conserves capital political as well as monetary;
43 who never had to or could build capital of any kind, stands like a kid in a candy store and blows all his allowance and more and ransacks the whole store!!
he was always the boy-king, there for the photo-op, while the king-makers and regents ran the country - perhaps even for their private gain? we may never find out.


Posted by Mercy J"

WRONG, WRONG.

As an obvious lefty you are blind to the fact that the European establishment is composed mainly of lefties. It's normal for knee jerk lefties in Europe and the USA to share their hatred of our most excellent president.

The US is at least 50% wealthier than your EuroLefty pals, and rapidly getting more so, because our political structure isn't dominated by lefties.

LONG LIVE A FREE USA,

Adrian

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 11:59 AM

____

Wow...Mr. Spidle is really a work of art, isn't he? Net content: 0.

Brad, a couple of alternative statements: "See Dad? I avenged you!" or "See Dad? I did what you didn't have the balls to do!"

Posted by: PaulB on April 6, 2004 12:17 PM

____

Leaving aside the wisdom of the left or the right as politicians and rulers (I think the current left's more wise, but then I'm a leftie of sorts), I think it's an undeniable fact that the right is more cohesive as a movement. The right's congress(wo)men have a far higher tendency to vote with the party. The Democrats, by contrast, basically don't have a coherent party infrastructure. I think this is beginning to change, and the Democrats are beginning to catch up, but saying that Democrats are cohesive and organized and Republicans are fractious and quarrelsome is absurd.

Posted by: Julian Elson on April 6, 2004 12:30 PM

____

"but saying that Democrats are cohesive and organized and Republicans are fractious and quarrelsome is absurd.

Posted by Julian Elson'

That's not what I said. What I said is that Republicans do a better job of integrating left and right perspective in their policy decisions as compared to Democrats who seem to work from the same centrally ordained talking points.

In other words, Republicans integarate data from a broad spectrum of political viewpoints while the less evolved Democrats go insane over their received bullet points.

Adrian TW

Posted by: Adrian Spidle on April 6, 2004 12:44 PM

____

Wow, these "my dog's bigger than your dog" discussions are always such a delight.

So, wasn't there a lot of speculation that Scowcroft's WSJ editorial (questioning the wisdom of the march to war in Iraq) was really a message from Poppy to W? And how, in the slick world of messages within messages, does an idea like that get started? Well, one way is for those involved to quietly spread the idea. Then, W can get the message while Poppy maintains plausible deniability. Poppy knows a lot about plausible deniability. That's why any protestations of total support from Poppy for W need to be taken with a grain of salt.

The question is, so what? A good many of us had our suspicions before O'Neill and Clarke (and Frum and DiIulio and Scully...) went public. They offered details. The fact that Poppy is heart sick at what his boy has done (is this more Oedipus or Lear?) is interesting in a people magazine sort of way. It was worth knowing before the war began, perhaps, but there was just a wee bit too much know-it-all certainty. Now, the problems that Poppy chose to avoid have to be faced. Other than a "People Magazine" sort of fascination, it doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

Unless maybe... Hey, Poppy, are you out there? Kick the kids ass in public. Get him out of office. You know better than anyone he never was worth a damn. Come on. Set things right.

Posted by: K Harris on April 6, 2004 01:03 PM

____

Adrian,
"What I said is that Republicans do a better job of integrating left and right perspective in their policy decisions as compared to Democrats who seem to work from the same centrally ordained talking points."

Wow! Don't read much, do you? You don't seem to have heard about John Diulio and Paul O'Neill and their observations of the degree of attention to policy decisions in the Bush White House.
As Adrian's example sadly demonstrates, Brad is right - we need a better press corps.

Posted by: Brendan on April 6, 2004 02:15 PM

____

I think Bush 1's spin about the question being on to "Bahgdad" versus simply liberating Kuwait is disengenious. The real strategic question faced by Bush was whether or not to preserve Sadam's regime opr not. And the crux of this question militarily was whether or not to annihilate the Republican Gaurd divisions that were literally at the mercy of the coalition forces. After a mere 100 hours Bush called off the war , following the "road of death" incident where the Iraqi column retreating from Iraq was destroyed. Following this there was essentially a cease fire in place the preserved these divisions and these in turn were needed by Sadam to continue in power.

All else flowed from this decision. There was no need to make the turn to Baghdad, it would have been enough to complete the destruction. The Bush 1 administration wanted a weakened Sadam kept in power over a unified Iraq rather than a new and by definition uncertain regime. Perhaps we could have had that discussion, but the way this is posed prevents all discussion. Of course there no consensus to occupy Baghdad among the coalition. And it was non-issue, raised in hindsight by some. Kind of like posing a question to which there are only wrong answers? Sound familiar.

Posted by: Lawrence Boyd on April 6, 2004 02:22 PM

____

Adrian:

"Oh yeah....

Wanna play chess?

I'll show you whose TT is higher."

Last I heard, chess-playing is no longer in the set of Turing Tests. For reasons that are obvious.

Posted by: Barry on April 6, 2004 02:41 PM

____

There is one other significant accomplishment that HWBush had, a great environmental record. Under Ruckleshaus, the EPA was in its prime and did more in environmental enforcement and rulemaking than anyone prior or after. Clinton/Browner were breathtakingly spineless on the environment).

In addition, and I guess this goes with the intl law angle, HWBush cooperated and in fact helped along negotiations to implement the Montreal Protocol on CFCs, which is considered the most effective intl environmental treaty ever.

Posted by: Bubb Rubb on April 6, 2004 03:55 PM

____

"...the crux of this question militarily was whether or not to annihilate the Republican Gaurd divisions that were literally at the mercy of the coalition forces."

And, in Schwarzkopf's book he tells us that our allies, especially the French were screaming for us to "stop the killing". No wonder W didn't put much stock in having them onboard.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on April 6, 2004 04:32 PM

____

From the quoted article:

Top Bush aide Jean Becker denied the allegations yesterday.

"From the very first day, President Bush 41 unequivocally supported the President on the war in Iraq," she said.

Talk about a classic non-denial denial. Nowhere does the Bush administration claim that Bush 41 supported the war before it was a matter of supporting the troops or not. Which is perhaps the most salient point. Nor, for that matter, does Becker say that Bush 41 still supports the war.

Posted by: Sam Kington on April 6, 2004 05:07 PM

____

another accomplishment of 41 was restricting israeli loan guarantees 'cause of the illegal settlements in the Territories...also getting Shamir to the Madrid Conference. his son destroyed that as well...

Posted by: lawrence rocke on April 6, 2004 08:38 PM

____

If Adrian were human he might understand that the Turing Test is not an IQ test. It tests whether someone is a human or a robot. Winning a chess game does not prove that you are not a robot.

This is the second time I've explained the Turing Test to a troll in the last few weeks. I guess I'm the go-to guy for that.


Posted by: Zizka on April 6, 2004 10:33 PM

____

Another achievement of 41 was laying the groundwork for NAFTA, which Clinton somehow failed to screw up, and passed against his party's better judgement.

I don't think that 43 broke the coalition against Saddam - it was already in shreds, thanks to Clinton's non-policy of waiting for sanctions to topple Saddam. Clinton had inherited this from 41, but by 1998, a new policy was clearly required. Brad of course never blames Clinton or his administration for anything, however.

Posted by: PJ on April 7, 2004 02:46 AM

____

Adrian does such great satire without a clue that he is doing it. There must be a word for this, but I don't know what it is.

Posted by: ____league on April 7, 2004 03:40 AM

____

Brad -

In referring to Bush 43 as Oedipus, what are you implying about Barbara Bush's virtue?

Posted by: PJ on April 7, 2004 04:36 AM

____

shorter PJ: it's the Clenis™, stupid.

Posted by: longshanks on April 7, 2004 06:27 AM

____

Republicans disagree so much among themselves that Poppy gave Ted Kennedy (D-Bushmills) the George Bush award:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031006-101700-4181r.htm.

Isn't that the equivalent of Eisenhower giving Khrushchev the Medal of Freedom? Talk about considering all sides!

Posted by: Lawrence L White on April 7, 2004 10:29 PM

____

The top 10 online casinos organized by bonuses and payouts

Posted by: online casino portal to the online casinos world on May 30, 2004 07:59 AM

____

Online Casino Directory

Posted by: Online Casino on June 23, 2004 03:50 AM

____

Dum tempus habemus, operemur bonum - While we have the time, let us do good

Posted by: free bestiality pics on July 11, 2004 12:45 PM

____

Veritas vincit - Truth conquers

Posted by: drunk lesbians on July 14, 2004 12:23 AM

____

In spiritu et veritate - In spirit and truth. (Versio Vulgata)

Posted by: dogfucks on July 16, 2004 01:44 PM

____

Me fallit - I do not know

Posted by: interracial gay men on July 24, 2004 02:08 AM

____

Dulce bellum inexpertis - War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it. (Pindaros)

Posted by: nude father son incest on July 24, 2004 07:26 AM

____

Fac ut vivas - Get a life

Posted by: ebony clits on July 27, 2004 10:47 PM

____

Ego spem pretio non emo - I do not purchase hope for a price (I do not buy a pig in a poke.)

Posted by: drunk tgp on August 9, 2004 07:09 PM

____

Post a comment
















__