He's Your Daddy

I’ll give Bushco National Security Advisor Steve Hadley points for persistence if nothing else based on this story that appeared in today’s New York Times by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David E. Sanger. It seems that Hadley is still looking for someone to serve as “War Czar,” despite the fact that Hadley has been shot down by three generals who he approached about the job earlier in the month.

Boy, if there was ever an assignment that you would want to stay away from with the proverbial ten foot pole, this would be it.

And assuming that Dubya wanted this to be anything more than a ceremonial position (definitely atypical for these guys, I’ll admit), it would have to be entrusted to someone who could make this pitiable charlatan finally, at long last, pay attention to what is going on in the hell hole that he, more than anyone else (with the possible exception of Dick Cheney), has created.

So, George W. Bush, allow me to introduce you to the perfect candidate for “War Czar.”

Meet George H.W. Bush.

I have issues with Poppy too, but they’re drops of water compared to the ocean of difficulty I have with his son. Out of a sense of a father’s desire to let his son try and manage things (as nearly as I can tell), he has stood aside while his ungodly prodigy has run the ship of state straight into a reef upon which it has very nearly sunk.

If there was ever a time for a father to step in and corral his misbegotten son, it is definitely now (so many analogies, but one which comes to mind immediately is Anthony Quinn as pere to Earl Holliman in “Last Train From Gun Hill”…a failing of mine I guess that I reference this stuff in terms of movies and T.V. shows – almost Kubrick-esque (word?) in its absurdity to the point where it’s hard to tell the difference at times).

Also, I think the article from this link communicates that Bush 41, along with his former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, understood and continues to understand what is going on better than anyone else among the current cabal that has made such as hash of things, particularly this excerpt (noting why we didn’t go all the way to Baghdad after Gulf War I, and it looks to me now like the authors possess the wisdom of the ages for that)…

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Yep, Poppy sounds like the guy for this job, all right.