News Intelligence Analysis
On George Bush's "Greatness"
by Dennis Crews
September 7, 2004
In his Weekly
Standard posting following the Republican National Convention
David Gerlenter says, "It's obvious not only that George
W. Bush has already earned his Great President badge (which might
even outrank the silver star)...."
Perhaps nobody explained to Gerlenter that the Silver Star is
awarded for valor. But if he knows this I'd like him to inform
us, when has George Bush ever manifested a glimmer of physical
or moral courage? Is there a single courageous incident recorded
from any time in his life? (Not counting challenging his dad
to fight with him mano a mano - I did that at fifteen, it was
a draw and I'm sorry, it doesn't count for anything.)
Gerlenter says "opposition to Bush has a remarkable and
very special quality; one might be tempted to call it 'lunacy.'"
I would contend opposition to Bush has no one particular quality
because it comes from all over the spectrum. I will not address
George Bush's truthfulness closely here, nor the efficacy of
his proposed platform. The most devastating critique of George
Bush in my mind is that he has used both his Christian and his
conservative credentials to take credit for moral values he neither
possesses nor apparently understands.
Above all I submit that George W. Bush has no greatness because
he is a creature of remarkably limited courage. Let's look at
both "then" and "now". In 1994 he admitted
in an interview with the Houston Chronicle his intent to avoid
the Vietnam War by the easiest possible means. He was not a war
resister on principle: "I don't want to play like I was
somebody out there marching when I wasn't. It was either Canada
or the service."
By now of course everybody knows (or should know) that George's
daddy got him hopscotched over a hundred thousand other less-privileged
young men who were in line for National Guard duty before him.
There were over five hundred applicants in Texas alone vying
for four open pilot positions, and young George slid in with
an amazing score of 25 percent on his pilot aptitude test. But
of course that
is an old story, as is his graceless skipping out on Guard
duty before his term was finished. He doesn't even have the courage
today to candidly address that chapter in his life.
So scratch the physical courage - where is George's moral courage
today? His defenders would claim going to war with Iraq is proof
of that, but I say it proves the opposite. Here is why.
George W. Bush was never known for any coherent set of philosophical
beliefs before his entry into Texas politics. The entry itself
simply became the most convenient path for him, paved as it was
by family connections. His cavalier non-review
of death penalty cases during his tenure as governor, culminating
with the stunning
record of over forty executions in the year 2000, give some
indication of his true views with respect to the value of human
life. Further, his executions of born-again Karla Faye Tucker
and John Paul Penry, a retarded inmate with the mind of a seven-year
old, betray George Bush's unfamiliarity with the actual teachings
of Christ and the absence of Christian principles in his real-world
policies and decisions.
Cut to the year 2003, and the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Osama Bin Laden was still at large, but the search was proving
more difficult than George Bush had imagined it would be. He
needed an immediate political boost, and his advisors were pressing
him harder and harder to go for Iraq. Not only were Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Condi Rice all much smarter than him - he owed them
for his own political strength and was needy for their guidance.
Be clear on one thing: after 9/11 a truly strong and courageous
president would not have taken his focus off Bin Laden. And a
leader with even a modicum of wisdom would have done nothing
to play into the hand of terrorists by recruiting even more enemies.
But the opportunistic George Bush once again waved off the difficult
task and chose the path of least resistance - going after a tin-pot
dictator who posed no real threat to the US but could easily
be demonized and defeated.
What is it in human nature that loves violence so much? Crowds
love a good fight. It is the essence of the Roman colosseum,
of football, of rubbernecking at accidents and most of all, of
war. It is one thing all politicians know. It is the lowest common
denominator: start a fight and immendiately people have to choose
sides. War is an instant hothouse for nationalistic fervor. If
your fight against terror is too abstract and going badly, create
a diversion by starting a nasty, highly visible altercation which
causes people to forget whatever they were thinking before. And
there was an extra political bonus to starting a war in Iraq:
the evangelical right, whose knee-jerk support of anything pro-Israel,
and whose end-time theology so deeply
influences (if not drives) this administration's Middle Eastern
policies, were delighted. Screw the loss of human life - that
never meant anything to George W. Bush or the ideologues around
him.
Iraq will not be saved, regardless who the next American president
is. Why did George Bush choose to remove the one strong, secular
bulwark in an increasingly radicalized Islamic part of the world?
Please don't say it was for human rights or democracy. In Liberia,
Charles Taylor's troops were making roadblocks of human intestines
and forcibly recruiting young boys as killers while Taylor traded
diamonds with terrorists. But Liberia has no strategic value,
nor any known reserves of oil - and Charles Taylor also was a
friend of Pat Robertson, one of George Bush's primary cheerleaders.
By waging war in Iraq George Bush pandered to the lowest instincts
of human nature, rallied his base and pleased his advisors to
whom he owes so much. It was anything but a courageous decision
for him. He long ago isolated himself from what the rest of the
world thinks - it truly doesn't affect him. What he fears most
is alienating his base, and disappointing those on whom he relies
for information and wisdom. It is why George will not dismiss
anyone around him, even though so much has gone wrong because
of their counsel. Going it truly alone is something George W.
Bush has never done; the very idea of it terrifies him. He didn't
even have the guts to face the 9/11 Commission without a chaperone.
I believe Bush is a coward to the core - the most cowardly United
States president of our lifetime, and possibly in the history
of our nation.
The National Security Strategy of the Bush administration is
not of his own invention - is it a set of ideas precast long
ago by others. Those others are happy for him to claim it as
his legacy, as long as it is implemented. Watching twitches of
self-consciousness and pride flicker across George Bush's face
during the long applauses of the Republican Convention, as well
at as his last State of the Union address, I was struck by the
sense of dumb wonderment that he must have been feeling. That
someone with so little moral and intellectual substance or originality
could be elevated to such heights is an amazing testimony to
the integrity America has lost in recent decades.
Young Republicans today think they have a grasp on what America
is - the satisfaction of wealth, the awesomeness of our military
and the pride of kicking butt wherever we please. Little do they
understand that original American values are being overtaken
by these things, disintegrated by them and left in the dust.
Even less do they understand the peril these present American
values place us in, seen from the perspective of authentic New
Testament Christianity. But that is a subject for another column.
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article