The most remarkable aspect of Christopher Buckley's endorsement of a Democratic congress -- not to mention the rather fierce kicks he delivers to Dubya's shins -- is Buckley's continued declarations of affection for Bush the elder. Buckley used to write speeches for Bush I, but the ties seem to go deeper than that. Much deeper. As Bill Maher might have put it, you would almost think they were sleeping together. (Actually, I think Maher once used a stronger term.)
Over the years, we've seen many subtle hints of a rift between Bush I and Bush II. Is it possible that a subterranean opposition had finally bubbled to the surface? Is Buckley's piece the first hint of a real-life (and non-violent) version of the Winter Kills scenario?
2 comments:
Yep. As I believe I've intimated here before, when Big Wedding II failed to materialize in June of '05, then again in June of '06, I was convinced that in accordance with the increasingly distressed 41's wishes, 43's plans for global destruction and consequent continued subsistence in office had been nixed (thanks, again, Bill!). When we passed June of '06 and it seemed as if we were actaully safe from "It," I became reasonably sure that the subtle signs of 41's having written off 43 were not my imagination anymore--Dad was done with his eldest fuckwit progeny. (I'd tell you to knock on whatever hard surface you feel is appropriate, by the way, but I heard this blog is trying to cleanse itself of anti-science things like superstition, so I won't.)
In my eyes, the source of the split is simple and obvious. 43's ill-advised alliance with the absolute worst, most dangerous and least publicly palatable of the neo-cons (and his inability to exercise one ounce of control over any of their agendas) has--in addition to undoing the tenuous post-Cold War American advantage 41 probably genuinely wanted to see preserve world peace--has created a second Gulf war that has horrified the "old gaurd" in the Bush clan, especially its European branch. ( 'Cause the teeming masses? Are more than a little upset as a result of Bush's chaos.) So in addition to risking attaching the Bush moniker to WWIII, 43 has upset and embarrassed the family. When it was just damage to U.S. and world security, that was one thing. Now that he's soiled the family's image, though, 41 basically has no choice but to support that scenario Joe mentioned.
My guess was that it was going to go down this past Spring, actually. The only explanation I have for why it hasn't is that they're still struggling with the problematic "Cheney factor," (you'd think the indictment rumors would have neutralized him, but did anyone notice how tan--and lucid--he looked with Russert the other day? He still looks disturbingly fit for someone who should know he's fried) as well as a plausible "cover story" for 43's quiet departure from office. And there are also those rumors that Babs hasn't been happy with the "exit strategies" 41 and Co. have been proposing. It's still weird to see any recognition of it in the public sphere though...let alone from Buckley.
Considering how much trouble 41 has had to go through to make Bush removal a reality, (and how big and permanent a hit the Bush name took because of 43's disasterous second term) you gotta wonder if 41 still feels supporting his son's re-election in order to keep all that Iran Contra stuff under wraps was entirely worth it.
in case you missed it->
"A Higher Power " by Robert Dreyfuss -
James Baker puts Bush's Iraq policy into rehab. ... Robert Dreyfuss covers national security for Rolling Stone and is the author of Devil's ...
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.dreyfuss.html
Post a Comment