We have had so much proof of Bush’s criminality that more of it, even in his own words, barely causes a stir. Truth to tell, it never has. As further proof of this phenomenon I urge you to read ‘The Moment Has Come to Get Rid of Saddam’, by Mark Danner at the New York Review of Books.
Just before the start of the war, while Bush was still telling us that he had not decided on war, he was telling Spanish Prime Minister José Marìa Aznar that he was going to have war, UN and the facts be damned. It’s all on a transcript of a conversation that took place in Crawford on February 22, 2003.
I know-further proof of Bush’s criminality in this respect is just a yawn producer. We never had this much proof that Clinton was lying about Monica, but let’s remember what’s important. Blow jobs-No, War and destruction abroad, constitution wrecking at home-no problem.
Danner riffs on the transcript to attempt to delve (if that’s the right word when the waters involved are so shallow) into Bush’s mind. What he finds is a self deluded thug:
Aznar, a right-wing Catholic idealist who believes in the human rights arguments for removing Saddam Hussein, finds himself on a political knife edge: more than nine Spaniards in ten oppose going to war and millions have just marched through the streets of Madrid in angry opposition; he is intensely concerned to gain a UN resolution making the war an internationally sanctioned effort and not just an American-led “aggression.” Bush responds to his plea for diplomacy with a rather remarkable litany of threats directed at the current temporary members of the Security Council. “Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon have to know,” he declares, “that what’s at stake is the United States’ security and acting with a sense of friendship toward us.” In case Aznar doesn’t get the point, he describes to the Spaniard what each nation will suffer if it doesn’t recognize “what’s at stake”:
[Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos has to know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile is pending Senate confirmation, and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised if they don’t show a positive attitude. And Putin must know that his attitude is jeopardizing the relations of Russia and the United States.What is striking about this passage is not only how crude and clumsy it is, with the President of the United States spouting threats like a movie gangster—he presumably wants the Spaniard to convey them directly to the various leaders—but how ineffective the bluster turned out to be. None of these countries changed their position on a second resolution, which, in the event, was never brought before the Security Council to what would have been certain defeat. Bush, in making the threats, did the one thing an effective leader is supposed always to avoid: he issued an order that was not obeyed, thus demonstrating the limits of his power. (The Iraq war itself, meant as it was to “shock and awe” the world and particularly US adversaries, did much the same thing.)
There’s more thuggery-read the article. As for the delusion:
Bush came to office a man who knew little of the world, who had hardly traveled outside the country, who knew nothing of the practice of foreign policy and diplomacy. Two years later, after the attacks of September 11 and his emergence as a self-described “war president,” he has come to know only that this lack of knowledge is not a handicap but perhaps even a strength: that he doesn’t need to know things in order to believe that he’s right and to be at peace with himself. He has redefined his weakness—his lack of knowledge and experience—as his singular strength. He believes he’s right. It is a matter of generations and destiny and freedom: it is “up to us to face a serious threat to peace.” For Bush, faith, conviction, and a felt sense of destiny —not facts or knowledge—are the real necessities of leadership.
Besides furnishing proof of his criminality, the transcript provides proof positive of his incompetence. The entire transcript is reproduced. Bush predicts, Bush asserts, Bush rejects options. On every point he is wrong. He predicts he’ll get a UN resolution. He’s wrong. He predicts the war will cost $50 billion. He’s wrong. He makes the standard assertion that Saddam has not disarmed. He’s wrong. He rejects allowing Saddam to go into exile, which might, perhaps have saved us lives and money. The only time he’s right is when he predicts his own short term future actions: he will start a war, come what may.
Bush is no fun. As I’ve said before, Nixon was a fun guy to hate. He was fascinating in his own way. Bush is banal, just like Hannah Arendt said. Extremely evil, and yet at base not really that interesting.
Only in America could we throw up a leader (and I mean that literally) who could wreak havoc like Bush without being an outsize character.
