Truth and consequences
Thursday May 29, 2008
Categories: Iraq
From Scott McClellan's new book, "What Happened": But Bush was not one to look back once a decision was made. Rather than suffer any sense of guilt and anguish, Bush chose not to go down the road of self-doubt or...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Rod Dreher's New Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
This can only be bad for McCain (i.e., continue Bush's policies) and good for Obama (i.e., he was against the war, and Hillary was not).
We'll see how much support Bush gets for his attack on Iran, which will be his parting gift to the next President.
So McClellan's guesses about what was going on inside Bush's mind...
"I could see the doubt in his eyes"" how could he could know that?
One person's doubt may be another person's painfilled acceptance of the ambiguous results of difficult decisions.
"Character is destiny"
Apart from McClellan's unjustified guesses, how exactly is the character expressed in these anecdotes,"bad"?
I see a moral heroism: the willingness to make hard choices and live with the consequences.
I apologize for not posting my name...hit the post button too quickly.
The posting at 1:34 pm was mine.
Doesn't that passage sound kind of... tarted up a bit?
I personally take what has been released/reported so far as being an imbalanced selection of what McClellan wrote. I'm going to have to grab a Venti and a copy of the book at Barnes & Noble and sit down and read it in the store (the closest thing we have to a nearby library).
I see a moral heroism: the willingness to make hard choices and live with the consequences.
Really, David WL? I see a willingness to make hard choices and make others live with the consequences. What consequences has Bush had to live with, really? (Other than feeling that he had to give up golf, if one believes recent reports.)
What close friend or family member has Bush put in harm's way by his actions? What serious consequences has he or his family or close circle of friends suffered as a result of his actions?
I think that taking actions whose consequences will fall upon others is a pretty good definition of moral cowardice.
Appreciate the originality of this post. Bush may have misled himself on Iraq as well as the nation, is what McClellan in his artless way, seems to be saying -- but sometimes it takes an outsider to see that.
I think that taking actions whose consequences will fall upon others is a pretty good definition of moral cowardice.
By that definition, pretty much every President shall be guilty of moral cowardice.
That'll be Bush's legacy: a good, moral man who made a incredibly poor decision that will affect us for generations to come.
"That'll be Bush's legacy: a good, moral man who made a incredibly poor decision that will affect us for generations to come."
Thank you, Zach, for acknowledging that good, moral men can make poor decisions. Unlike so many people on this blog – and everywhere – I don't presume to know how the Iraq situation will turn out, nor how history will view it. But when I read the passage above, I do not see a man who lacks character. Possibly judgment, but not character. And certainly not compassion.
By that definition, pretty much every President shall be guilty of moral cowardice.
Yes.
And most of the rest of us, at least at some point in our lives.
[i]By that definition, pretty much every President shall be guilty of moral cowardice.
Yes.
And most of the rest of us, at least at some point in our lives.[/i]
Most of the rest of us don't run to be president though. It comes with the job. Judgment.
Many people who have worked with him have called him a good man. Some of his actions support this. Visiting injured troops, AIDS support, trying to do something about education and maybe the Medicare drug benefits. A lot of his actions seem inconsistent with a good and moral man. His shadings of truth to get us into Iraq, misleading us about how well it was going for so long, torture, misleading us about faith based initiatives (see Kuo's book), following the Rovian playbook and further polarizing the country.
I think he will just go down in history as an average guy who was in over his head. He was blindly loyal to the wrong people and had a hard time admitting he was wrong. I still cannot figure out why, by all acounts, he did not seek out his father's advice on the Middle East. As much as I might deplore Bush Sr's. role in keeping the Iran hostages in Iran a little longer, the guy had a lot to impart about the problems of that area of the world.
Steve
Steve, very good analysis of President Bush. I would say you're a bit too charitable in places, but overall more fair and evenhanded than I've read anywhere else.
I am developing increasing respect for Bush senior, who after all managed to fight a (1)successful war with (2)limited objectives and (3)limited casualties on (4)other people's money. But I suspect that his advice would be the last thing in the world Bush junior would want. In fact, trying to outdo his father was probably one of his major motivations.
"average" in what way?
IQ? Emotional health? Practical sense? Sure he was "born with a silver spoon in his mouth," but most of the people who get ahead in life in one way or another have that.
Truman was thought "average"; but is now being recognized making important contributions to his time.
"admitting he was wrong" but maybe he was not...probably won't know that for a long time. Just because you think he was wrong proves nothing about his character.
"further polarizing the country" And whose fault was that? I am not responsible for what someone does; I am responsible for my emotions and attitudes. If you are polarized, maybe you need to look at your own heart first.
Bush had the courage to work with Democrats on education and health. Whether I agree or disagree with those particular policy initiatives is not relevant; the significant point is that, at least from my perspective, he tried everything to avoid being polarizing. And then we've had six years or so of constant MSM Bush-hatred ("Rethuglicans", "Bushitler," etc.)....
(For the record, polarization in politics is a good thing. It is what makes the system work. Either accept the side-effects, or stop being involved in the system. But one needs very strong spiritual fibers to participate in the system without being corrupted by it.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.