June 01, 2007
Greater Love Hath No Man
Once in a while you come across something that shifts your focus all of a sudden, making clear a thing that had been in front of your eyes all along. “No man,” Albert Jay Nock wrote more than a half century ago, “can learn what he does not already know.”
Moving right along, Georgie Anne Geyer wrote yesterday in the Dallas Morning News:
But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness. Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”
Of course. We’ve known all along, those of us who are not purblind, that Bush means to pass his trash to the next president. And most of us have seen this as just the latest and worst demonstration of Bush’s lifelong pattern of irresponsible cowardice.
But I, at least, never before understood it as an act of kindness toward the next president. A selfless sacrifice of one’s own place in history by forcing the next occupant of the White House into doing the right thing, even if he or she is a blackhearted, brie-sucking surrender monkey of a Democrat.
Bush is hanging on bravely, heedless of plunging polls and the rats blackening the hawsers of his sinking ship (Bartlett is only the most recent), until he has nailed the next president’s feet to the ground of Iraq with thousands more dead GIs crying out to America’s idiot heart for revenge, with completion of the biggest embassy in the history of the earth, with the ring of huge permanent bases that our media seems determined to ignore, with a takeover of Iraq’s oil fields by the Seven Sisters.
By Inaugural Day in 2009, our crackpot savior hopes, the quicksand will already have closed over the head of whichever poor sucker is taking the oath that Bush has so dishonored.
Posted by Jerome Doolittle at June 01, 2007 06:36 PM
They never change -- ever since Reagan the official policy of the Republicans has been -- "Let's push the country so far into debt and deficit that we have a good solid reason for having ONE answer to questions about social programs for the poor, the elderly, and the sick, that answer being: 'Sorry we just can't afford it.' "
Then leave the mess for the Democrats and point and yell "Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend!" (Of course that policy could be called "Borrow and spend.") So Monkey Boy is just carrying it on, in addition to the fiscal rathole (with his pals, the sewer rats down there snarfling up the money) regarding Iraq, he made it clear that he was planning to screw it up so badly the next prez will have NO CHOICE but to stay there or take the blame for the total collapse caused by Bush's War -- excep he calls it POLICY, that he was tying his successor to "our country's destiny." Apparently he believes our country's destiny involves destroying the lives of the American men and women who are willing to wear the uniform and misusing and abusing our armed forces until the world perceives them as being just slightly weaker than a popcorn fart. As destinies go, not the most inspiring. As legacies go, well, as you said, it's his lifelong pattern to walk away from his mess and let mommy's friends clean it up for him. Daddy -- well, he really has his 9-year-old's "I hate Daddy" act down perfectly. Perhaps the Bush Monument will be an entirely appropriate hole in the ground with a little house on either end, one marked MEN and the other marked WOMEN.
As re: the instance of a scumbag warmongering President considering himself to be making an honorable choice to sacrifice himself, I recently re-watched Secret Honor. It's a weird one-man show in which Nixon talks about what happened and who manipulated him, and hints at what they wanted. I recommend it.
In Iraq, we're clearly building what our force projection strategies call lily pads. You and I know this, yet the media seems curiously unaware of the import. Thus Jonathan Alter:
But what does that aim have to do with permanent bases? The only two reasons to station troops in the Middle East for half a century are protecting oil supplies (reflecting a pessimistic view of energy independence) outside the normal channels of trade and diplomacy, and projecting raw military power. These are the imperial aims of an empire. During the cold war, charges of U.S. imperialism in Korea and Vietnam were false. Those wars were about superpower struggles. This time, the “I word” is not a left-wing epithet but a straightforward description of policy aims — yet another difference from those two older wars in Asia.
I guess we can hope that seeing what's in front of you now might help you understand what happened before.