Jimmy Baker?
Did President Bush deliberately diss the ringleader of the The Iraq Study Group (ISG – James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Robert M. Gates, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson).when he recently talked about the group of supposedly bi-partisan elders charged with devising a new strategy for Iraq?
If so, then why?
It’s always hard to read the tea leaves but Bush prefers to never call anyone by his or her given name. It’s his peculiar way of demonstrating who is truly in control versus who needs to get in line. Such behavior seems childish but hey, it’s better than Bush peeing in the corners of every room he enters.
It seems evident that the establishment of such a group should be destroying Bush. Not one to take the counsel of any outsider, especially one forced upon him, the very nature of this type of taskforce would seem to be a most pointed affront to His Lord and Majesty. After all, HE’S “the decider.” Not just that, but a council headed by an individual so prominently attached to Bush’s father would also appear to be absolutely anathematic to an individual so in need of making HIS own separate mark on world.
Of course, Bush could disregard whatever advice is provided to him by the ISG. But such assistance could also be the ‘out’ he so desperately needs. If the implementation of what is proffered by the ISG works, then he can claim credit. It it fails to quell the Iraq quagmire, Bush can then point to America’s latest version of the best and brightest and say ‘they are responsible.’ Can’t you picture him appearing on television saying ‘I had a long term plan, which would have eventually been successful. But this bunch of advisors determined plan B was best and they joined up with the cut-n-runners in Congress to subvert me, you and our troops’?
After all, that’s been the Bush m.o. for six years and counting whenever anything has gone wrong.
The choice Bush faces is that of rescuing whatever form of a personal legacy he can (remember, legacies can be but in one’s own mind) versus aiding the continuance of the Republican domination of national politics. For the latter, some sort of way out of Iraq is needed so as to not have the quagmire as a perpetual anchor to other Republican candidates. For the former, realistically, not much can actually be done but there’s always hope in forgiveness and forgetfulness.
Anyone in the presidency has some form of egomania. But Bush is also one of the most intensely selfish, needy and psychologically damaged residents ever to reside in the White House. Can he somehow find the magnanimity to forsake concern about his place in history and do what’s best for our country or will it be more of the same–being all that matters is George Bush?
