Speaking of the President's celebrated

Speaking of the President's celebrated gut

Time magazine begins a thoughtful background piece on the war and what really lead to it with this wonderful insight into our thoughtful president:

F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.

That's what the President of the United States said, not in the boys' locker room, but to three Senators meeting with Condoleesa Rice in the White House. The date is March, 2002. The statement puts the lie to every charade of diplomacy that followed. Bush had his mind made up from day 1. Ok, you knew that - but this is good evidence with which to remind others. The UN was a speed bump on his way to taking out Saddam.

What's wrong with this "manly" approach? I really hope you're not asking that question. But if you are, this is a person who is sending thousands of Iraqis and not a small number of British and American troops to their deaths. Oral sex in the oval office with an intern harms a few folks directly involved. This, in its total mindlessness and inhumanity, takes obscenity to a new depth. This is the real George Bush and this is why he sleeps well at night. He just doesn't give a damn.

The Time magazine piece is fascinating. On one level I think it's absolute truth - it describes why the participants think they have done what they have done. There is a nice, internal consistency to it. But it doesn't explore any other possible motives (oil, for example) for this deep and abiding interest in the region. And it shows an administration fixated on one set of ideas and totally incapable of exploring any alternatives.

My concern with the story is that it hardly hints at alternative thinking. Much like Woodward in "Bush at War", it takes us inside the administration to give us the illusion that we are getting the unvarnished truth. It gives us little insider glimpses. But the truth we get remains only that truth that the participants themselves perceive. In the end, it reflects how they hope history will judge them - and totally ignores such issues as the morality and long-term destabilizing effect of pre-emptive attacks. If you happen to read it - and it is fascinating - keep asking yourself what isn't being discussed in the administrtaion and in this article about it.

Did you watch him with the troops yesterday? He looked like he was in the midst of a political campaign. When lives our involved I want a president who worries a lot. Ever see those pictures of how Lincoln changed while in office? That's the face of a leader who felt the pain of what he was inflicting on his country. Posted by Greg Stone at March 27, 2003 02:36 AM