December 8, 2006

Why Bush (the Elder) cried.

Peggy Noonan says:
[N]o one who knows George H.W. Bush thinks that moment was only about Jeb....

Surely Mr. Bush knew--surely he was first on James Baker's call list--that the report would not, could not, offer a way out of a national calamity, but only suggestions, hopes, on ways through it. To know his son George had (with the best of intentions!) been wrong in the great decision of his presidency--stop at Afghanistan or move on to Iraq?--and was now suffering a defeat made clear by the report; to love that son, and love your country, to hold these thoughts, to have them collide and come together--this would bring not only tears, but more than tears.
She goes on to speculate about the younger Bush's feelings:
He has been shorn of much--his place in the winner's circle, old advisers. A man who worked for Richard Nixon reminded me the other night that when Nixon fired Haldeman and Ehrlichman, "he lost his asbestos suit." He lost his primary protectors and loyalists. President Bush is now without a similar layer. Old staffers gone, Rumsfeld gone, Cheney marginalized, Condi and Karen off representing. And the ISG. And the loss of Congress.

And yet the president presents himself each day in his chesty way, with what seems a jarring peppiness.
Why hasn't the ordeal registered on George W. Bush's face? His foes would, I think, say it's a sign of his idiocy. He's too shallow and witless to have processed the information. His fans must think it's depth of character (if not divine inspiration). Peggy says:
It is part of the Bush conundrum--a supernal serenity or a confidence born of cluelessness? You decide. Where you stand on the war will likely determine your answer. But I'll tell you, I wonder about it and do not understand it, either what it is or what it means. I'd ask someone in the White House, but they're still stuck in Rote Talking Point Land: The president of course has moments of weariness but is sustained by his knowledge of the ultimate rightness of his course . . .

If he suffers, they might tell us; it would make him seem more normal, which is always a heartening thing to see in a president.

But maybe there is no suffering.

Maybe he outsources suffering. Maybe he leaves it to his father.
I haven't heard an "outsourcing" joke in a while. Not that that's really a joke. It's nothing all that special for parents to suffer for their children. Once our children are not babies anymore, we have to release them into the world and see what happens. It's a dangerous thing about having children. It's like having a second body that can experience pain, but you can't control what that body does. You can't avoid that pain. But your suffering as a consequence of what happens to them doesn't save them from pain. It may make it worse. Didn't you refrain from telling your parents things that would only make them feel bad? If your parents are deceased and something bad happens to you, don't you think about how they didn't have to suffer the pain of knowing that? So it's a joke-like end to a column that raises a serious question: Why hasn't wartime presidency ravaged GWB the way it ravaged Lincoln, LBJ, and Nixon?

IN THE COMMENTS: Some excellent answers to that last question. Sean says:
Repeating what others have said, George Bush is a child of privilege. People like that (I am one) never worry, because we are Fortune's children. Roosevelt wasn't ravaged by WWII.

And Ed serves up the red meat for the conspiracy theorists.

51 comments:

ed said...

Hmmmm.

*shrug*

1. He realises what is, is?

2. He has faith in redemption and salvation?

3. He realises that now the Democrats will have to figure out a way of succeeding without doing the exact same thing Bush has been doing? Which may be impossible?

4. That, and this is very "out there", the real reason behind the very successful invasion of Iraq and the incredibly bad reformation of Iraq is that the entire point is *not* the creation of a democratic Iraq? But rather the final impetus towards igniting the 1,000+ year old religious war between Sunni and Shia'a?

To create a battlefield in Iraq that will draw the most violent and extreme of both Sunni and Shia'a and give them each a cause for battle and thus insure the safety of America by forcing the very hostile sects of Islam to combat one another into exhaustion?

(No I don't ascribe to it, but I do find it curiously amusing in a Tom Clancy sort of way).

Sean said...

A couple theories:

1. George Bush is a lot more religious than Lincoln, LBJ or Nixon. Wilson wasn't ravaged by WWI.

2. Repeating what others have said, George Bush is a child of privilege. People like that (I am one) never worry, because we are Fortune's children. Roosevelt wasn't ravaged by WWII.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

It's interesting how on the left side of things what really matters is intentions rather than results. Case in point, the nearly $8 Trillion spent on the "War on Poverty" in the last 40 years, largely to no result apart from destruction of the black family and resultant high population of black males in prison.

Leaving aside for the moment any evaluation of results, W's intentions in the Middle East were not only appropriate but were approaching something akin to "noble." But intentions are a useful cover only if they are left-wing intentions.

Someday, when our era is described as "Pre-War," books will be written about the overwhelming double standard prevailing at the time. For now we simply have to live with it.

Personally, I think there are reasons for W's calmness in addition to his Christian faith. He said five years ago that we wouldn't know about most successes in this war until we read about them in the history books.

Iraq is a wonderful focus for all the opposition. Do you recall during the '04 elections how Bush never once tossed even a tidbit of anti-French red meat to his base?

There's a reason. We're working closely with the French across wide swaths of northern Africa and we are enjoying many small-but-important victories. Presumably that's the case in other parts of the world, of which the profoundly altered relationship with India (and improving India-Paki relations) are but one example. I suspect that the new relationship with India will ultimately be seen as the greatest accomplishmenet of Bush 43's administration.

He said this would be a war lasting through a number of administrations, and he has put in place many of the tools his successors will need and want.

In the meantime the Bush administration has:
a) eliminated two of the six official (bi-partisan) state sponsors of terrorism.
b) boxed in a third (NK) and largely neutralised the fourth (Cuba).
c) prevented any follow-on attacks on the US for more than five years.
d) wiped out or captured nearly 75% of the "commissioned officer" structure of Al Qaeda and something like half of its "NCO" structure. Al Qaeda and most of its allies are now very heavy on "privates," and the number of those they recruit doesn't really matter.
e) garnered a unanimous UN Security Council renewal of the international mandate in Iraq, and secured a UN sponsored involvement in Somalia to reduce to strength of islamists in that region. If you don't understand (immediately) the implications for Ethiopia and Kenya, you're not really paying attention to what's going on. And you've probably got no idea what we're doing in Djibouti, if you even know where it is.
e) Oh, and finally (I'm skipping stuff), Mr. Bush has accomplished more of his domestic legislative agenda in six years than any Presidents other than FDR and Ike.

He's an absolutely terrible communicator in formal settings, but why wouldn't he be satisfied with a record like that? If he's got to take a lot of $#!+ over Iraq -- which for 2/3 of the population is going vastly better than presented in the media -- why should he care.

He keeps his eye on the big picture and the long game. The old-line media, academics, Joe Six-Pack, and most blog-gnomes do not.

Dave said...

I think Sean is correct. People born into a life of privilege tend not to worry about a lot of things because they have learned, from a very early age, that either family wealth or connections or both, will prop them up during setbacks.

See Born Rich et al.

Gerald Hibbs said...

And why didn't Clinton just step down and admit all his critics were right? Oh, yeah. . .because he didn't think they were right.

I think the answer to this question is very simple.

1. He still thinks this course was the correct one.
2. He thought from the beginning it would be a long hard process so isn't surprised that it is in fact a long and hard process.
3. He listens more to the front line troops than the NYT editorial board and thinks they are making progress.
4. He has faith that this will work out in the end and he will be vindicated. The Iraq of a year from now will look better than the Iraq of today as more and more authority is able to be handed over to the local governing authorities and military/police.

If you look at it from a point of view that doesn't include "Bush lied - people died" and don't believe that "It's all about the oil to make his cronies rich" and other conspiracy theory fodder -- call me dangerously naive if you like but my guess is Bush doesn't think he did all this just so he could kill brown people for profit -- than it's not hard to understand how he can sleep at night.

He is fully expecting for his critics to one day have to give a full throated Emily Litella, "Nevermind" and move on to the next political target to score points with.

Perhaps he remembers Ronald Reagan. Vilified, called dangerous and incompetent. But now try to find an elected Democrat who won't take credit for taking down the Soviet Union. Yeah, we were ALL cold warriors in hindsight, weren't we. Funny how Gorbachev gives all the credit to Reagan. Must be a damn neocon, that guy.

David said...

Iraq is a sideshow in the global war on terror. Bush knows that if the U.S. does a Murtha 2-step over the horizon, cut and run, the carnage will be impossible for the Democrats to ignore. The Shia's will slaughter the Sunni's as our troops watch and wait.

Or the U.S. troops in the next year and a half will fight this war efficiently and coldly by giving the beligerents a choice; Give up the insurgents and lay down their arms for American protection or face systematic annihilation of their civilization as we do it for them. The same goes for the Palestinians and Israel.

End the death-of-a-thousand cuts now or face the consequences. The Democrats have what they wished for. Their bluff is called and now we will see what sturdy stuff they are made of.

Pelosi, et al. Put up or shut up! You can always go after the trans-fat problem while the real work gets done.

monkeyboy said...

"We are all cold warriors in hindsight".

So true, I saw Ted Kennedy on TV saying Bush wasn't like Lincoln who united the country (hah!).

I expect Gerore Bush is sure that fifty to one hundered years from now some democratic polititian will be saying "This guy isn't like Georeg Bush uniting the country on a war on terror!"

Dad said...

Bart and Gerald-

Good stuff. Thanks.

Freder Frederson said...

Roosevelt wasn't ravaged by WWII.

What the hell are you talking about? Roosevelt was 63 when he died. All four of his surviving sons (one died as an infant) served in World War II, and in combat units, not cushy staff positions. Don't you dare compare FDR to Bush, unless it is to put Bush in a negative light.

Freder Frederson said...

a) eliminated two of the six official (bi-partisan) state sponsors of terrorism.

Are you including Iraq as one of the two. Hate to tell you, but Iraq was not on the official State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.

d) wiped out or captured nearly 75% of the "commissioned officer" structure of Al Qaeda and something like half of its "NCO" structure. Al Qaeda and most of its allies are now very heavy on "privates," and the number of those they recruit doesn't really matter.

Oh yeah, you're basing that on Condi Rice's unintentionally hilarious statement when she said with certainty we had killed or captured 75% of Al Qaeda's leadership. But when asked a follow up on exactly how many people were in Al Qaeda's leadership she said, we're not sure, somewhere between 20 and 200.

How on earth can you kill or capture 75% of a group when you don't know whether 75% equals 15, 150 or some number in between?

And how many times have we managed to kill Al Qaeda's number 3 man? Usually just after some bad poll numbers for the president are published.

b) boxed in a third (NK) and largely neutralised the fourth (Cuba).

Really, NK is producing nukes with impunity and Cuba has been neutralized since the Soviet Union collapsed.

Ignoring the Cuban bloc in South Florida and engaging Cuba would bring Castro's regime down faster than all the sanctions we can bring to bear. Why is the last Soviet client state left the furthest one from its former borders and closest to ours?

Presumably that's the case in other parts of the world, of which the profoundly altered relationship with India (and improving India-Paki relations) are but one example.

Oh yeah, legitimizing India's nuclear weapons program (and pissing off Pakistan) in exchange for Mangoes. That was a brilliant move.

Freder Frederson said...

4. He has faith that this will work out in the end and he will be vindicated. The Iraq of a year from now will look better than the Iraq of today as more and more authority is able to be handed over to the local governing authorities and military/police

And if it isn't?

Hasn't that been the promise for the last three years. Yet the trend is exactly the opposite. Every year it is worse. What if things are worse a year from now? Will the president be able to say "things will be better in a year", knowing full well he won't have to deal with it if it isn't? At what point do we get to say, "hey, things are getting worse, not better".

The Postulant said...

Isn't Bush the Elder also a child of privilege?

Icepick said...

Why hasn't the ordeal registered on George W. Bush's face?

I disagree. I think it has registered on his face. I saw a clip of him earlier this week and thought he looked almost as old as his father does. (And he was speeking, so I know it was W.) He's not undergoing the spectacular facial crash of Carter, but it is registering. Does anyone have any picture comparing W's face from October 2000 to now?

I don't think it registers as much for people because Bush keeps up his bluff and bluster. I give him credit for a certain steely resolve, and he's not going to give his critics a goddamned inch. So he continues with the fighter pilot strut.

Clinton had a similar kind of resolve in not caving to his enemies, but due to personality it manifested itself in a different manner. When cornered, that's when Slick Willy would take charge. W takes more care to not get cornered, so I have no idea how he would react in that situation.

tjl said...

"Oh yeah, legitimizing India's nuclear weapons program (and pissing off Pakistan) in exchange for Mangoes."

This has to be one of the stupidest comments ever to appear on this site. India is a rising economic force, a future counterweight to China, and a strategically-placed military power with its own pressing reasons to oppose radical Islam. But Freder thinks India has nothing to offer but mangoes.

grenat said...

I think you can unerstand this better if you take the politics out of it. Assume your adult child was under serious public criticism for something that they are doing. Don't you think that it would bother you that other people are attacking your son/daughter? Now, take that and amplify it to the point that George W. is under--constant criticism (both valid and not valid) approaching the better part of a decade. The son/daughter is in a better position to weather the criticism, but you, with all of your parental instincts, want to try and make it stop. That's been shown by the elder Bush's occasional public statements attacking W's critics. Plus, take that general feeling and double it by having another son in a similar position. They say in politics the first thing you need is a tough sking, but I would imagine that it would start to wear off after a while.

Freder Frederson said...

This has to be one of the stupidest comments ever to appear on this site. India is a rising economic force, a future counterweight to China, and a strategically-placed military power with its own pressing reasons to oppose radical Islam. But Freder thinks India has nothing to offer but mangoes.

It may be a stupid comment but it is not nearly as stupid as a president who claims to be concerned about nuclear proliferation going outside the IAEA structure to sign a nuclear agreement with India that allows them to continue to develop nuclear weapons in secret outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty while giving them access to American nuclear technology, all in exchange for apparently relaxed agricultural trade.

Mack said...

Bush literally tells us he doesn't read the papers. He's basically told us he doesn't sit around thinking seriously about this stuff. He simply makes decisions, and goes with them.

I imagine he is stressed. I don't think he's happy about the current course. He's explained, though, how he doesn't allow his decisions to ravage him; he just doesn't think about it. Things are starting to hit him in the face, which might start to change the disposition somewhat, but that's just started.

Yes, I think he's a light weight. Not an idiot, simply a light weight. Dumber people could certainly take the decisions more seriously. He just choses not to. I don't see the need for further explanations.

Henry said...

It may be a stupid comment but it is not nearly as stupid as a president who claims to be concerned about nuclear proliferation going outside the IAEA structure to sign a nuclear agreement with India that allows them to continue to develop nuclear weapons in secret outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty while giving them access to American nuclear technology, all in exchange for apparently relaxed agricultural trade.

Good grief, Freder, you're doubling down on stupid.

It may be Machiavellian of the current administration to support India as a nuclear counterweight to Pakistan and China, but dealing productively with geopolitical reality is hardly stupid.

Dave said...

"(No I don't ascribe to it, but I do find it curiously amusing in a Tom Clancy sort of way)."

How do you ascribe to a theory? You can ascribe a theory to the progenitor of a theory but a theory is an inanimate concept, not a person.

Freder Frederson said...

but dealing productively with geopolitical reality is hardly stupid.

No it is tragically stupid to offer ridiculous nuclear concessions to India without a thought to the consequences to the well-estabished international regime and the impact on the region. It is also contrary to his stated goal of curbing nuclear proliferation.

Henry said...

Bush is not only a child of fortune, he is the child of a president. He may have noticed that leaders that break down under stress don't help anybody.

Go find the warmest-hearted, most thoughtful men ever to be president and you'll see just as much disaster in their wake as the coldest-hearted bastards.

* * *

Freder, given that Pakistan, India, and China already have nuclear weapons, I think the administration's decisions to strengthen the relationship with the most democratic and progressive of the the three is wise. We disagree.

Sure this does violence to the ideal of non-proliferation, but I personally think India is better off with a balance of power than piece of paper.

Paddy O. said...

"Bush literally tells us he doesn't read the papers. He's basically told us he doesn't sit around thinking seriously about this stuff."

I bet he doesn't read Time or Newsweek either! Probably even has let his National Geographic subscription run out. The signs of an unserious thinker are upon us! Likely, he spends his morning checking out the new antics of Garfield and perusing whatever shallow reports his advisers have prepared about the state of Britney's career.

My suspicion is that GWB is not holding up because he's a child of privilege but because he's not been the golden child all his life and has faced his own demons. What this does is make him less susceptible to vainglory -- that need to impress others and gain personal validity from those around.

He's had times in his life where people likely abandoned him during times of mistakes, so isn't bowled over by times like these where people are distancing. His ego has found other resources, likely Laura and a close group of others, as well as his religion.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a brilliant man but his need for personal validation destroyed his potential -- because he was risk averse and poll driven. Also because he couldn't pass up even the validation of an intern to support his ego.

Gerry said...

My theory is that Bush is lessing willing to let his guard down in public, after the way his initial reaction to the news of 9/11 became fodder for his political foes.

Gerald Hibbs said...

Freder Frederson:

All right, I'm not gonna get into a tit for tat with you. The question was, "What is Bush thinking?" and I bet my take on it is better than your take, don't you think?

Though I will say in response to your semi-hysterical, "It's getting worse every day!!!!!" viewpoint that I disagree.

Here is an extremely critical WP story on training in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600980.html

It's looking like we will need some US forces in Iraq until at least 2010. But, note that it doesn't say that we are moving backwards. We aren't making the progress as fast as we would wish. There needs to be more money for equipment. Lots of finger pointing, political posturing and appeal to hindsight. In other words, same sh** different day.

Look, the goal is a free Iraq that can govern itself and be an example to the rest of the Muslim world of what a free/prosperous yet Islamic country can look like. We are doing our best to train up and equip local Iraqi's for the job. We are doing our best to protect civilians and our troops. Meanwhile the enemy is trying to disrupt our plans. That's how this war is going to go. That's how ALL wars go. The enemy tries to screw you. Why is it a surprise?

Do you see what is going on in Europe especially non-violent France who is Islam's best Western ally? Have you read about the nation by nation take over in Africa? A friend from Nigeria has told me how Muslims use fear and violence to take over neighborhood by neighborhood. Read about the beheading of Christians. That's because Bush loves oil?

I'm not exactly pro-gay, but I'm glad that we aren't crushing them under walls here in America and that women can wear what they want even if it's skanky and I will tsk them in disapproval (see: Britney Spears - tsk tsk Britney!)

I support the President and one day we will find out if he's right. I hope and believe he is. Most of Iraq, according to polls, is glad we came. That will have to do for now.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Freder said: a) eliminated two of the six official (bi-partisan) state sponsors of terrorism. "Are you including Iraq as one of the two. Hate to tell you, but Iraq was not on the official State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism."

He is an ignorant dolt. Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 to allow some assistance to flow its way during the Iran war. Iraq was put back on the list in 1990 because it was actively sponsoring the PLO, the PKK, MEK, and Abu-Nidal.

Iraq was removed from the list 07 May 2003 because it was no longer sponsoring terrorism. Why do you think that might be?

Libya was removed from the list in July 2006 due to its "continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism." (Rice). Saddam had also outsourced much of Iraq's nuclear program to Libya and Qaddafi knew we had the documentation to prove it.

Afghanistan really ought to make a third state sponsor of terrorism neutralised by the Bush administration, but it was never officially on that list because we refused to recognise the Taliban government. The counter-terrorism office, however, declared in 2001 that "Taliban-controlled Afghanistan remains a primary hub for terrorists."

Freder also said: "And how many times have we managed to kill Al Qaeda's number 3 man?"

Well, about as often as they rope some poor SOB into replacing the last #3 tango we double-tapped. Which is my point. Even a 10% degradation of "commissioned officer" structure causes a world of hurt, and those guys aren't back in Chaostan building corporate memory.

Look at the military quality of AQ's assorted attacks. It's been heading south for five years (I wonder why).

I could go into much greater depth about India, but explaining such things to the likes of F is a waste of bandwidth. Utterly !clue

Tim said...

Easy.

Bush suffers (does anyone familiar with his exchange with Sen.-elect Webb really think part of his pointed response to Webb wasn't due to his awareness of Webb's anger, and Webb reminding him of it?). Read some of the reports from family members who lost loved ones in Afghanistan or Iraq who subsequently met with Bush.

Bush also knows of Harry Truman, what confronted Truman, what Truman did, how contemporary history treated Truman, and how Truman is now in the pantheon of Cold Warriors.

Bush's present and future is more akin to Truman's than it is LBJ or Nixon's. That, and a sustaining faith gives him courage and strength that confuses the cosmopolitan cocktail set and just absolutely pisses off his enemies.

PatCA said...

I think Sean's partly right. Bush was elected from a dynasty, not from populist beliefs; he will pass the mantle on when it's time.

W can console himself with two very important victories--yes, victories--when the NYT gets on his last nerve:
1. We have not been attacked since 9/11;
2. The Democrats, for all their talking points, have never mounted a real offense in Congress to his war policies. They know the stakes as well as Bush does.

Christy said...

Folks like us better when we show our vulnerability. I don't value likeability in a leader.

Abraham said...

"Bush literally tells us he doesn't read the papers. He's basically told us he doesn't sit around thinking seriously about this stuff."

"Reading the newspapers" is orthagonal to "thinking seriously about stuff" - in most cases, because the "news" and analysis in most newspapers is of distressingly low quality - and in Bush's case, because he also has a multi-billion-dollar intelligence infrastructure to provide him with the same service.

ed said...

Hmmmm.

And Ed serves up the red meat for the conspiracy theorists.And Ed serves up the red meat for the conspiracy theorists.

Woot! Ah'm famus!

Please, hold the applause. And make the checks out to my secret Cayman Island's bank accout number:

123456789

Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

ed said...

Hmmm.

Utterly !clue

Now that's the kind of response a computer programmer would make. Very nice. I hope you won't mind if I unabashedly rip you off.

Goesh said...

Strong points, Bart. Isn't it amazing how the Left manufactures a myth then creates another myth to explain the myth of the first myth? Take Abdullah the shoe peddler from Cairo who upon crossing the Iraqi border instantly becomes a highly trained, blooded fighter. Then in a fight like Fallujah, when most civilians fled with advance warning, the 1500+ men killed somehow become tragic, hapless insurgent peasants, mustering a defense against the evil George Bush. Nope! no blooded vets from Kasmir, Gaza, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Sudan, Lebanon there! Amazing how simple peasansts can suddenly establish clever defenses, feints, probes, ambushes and master so many weapons and design such clever booby traps! How many F'n ways can you spell attrition? The Left can't spell and they don't know geography either. When Omar, who has already engaged the Russians and IDF, gets half his skull blown off, he won't be going back, or to Kasmir or Afghanistan for that matter. Thousands of these bastards have been blown away. Look at the degraded taliban tactics in Afghanistan. They bunch up in open terrain and get hit from above. What experienced commander/NCO would allow that to happen? Iran is literally salivating at the prospect of US troops leaving Iraq. Wouldn't you? Jordan here we come! Look out Jews on your right flank! The popular myth now is that we can dialouge with Iran and those experienced Abdullahs we haven't killed will go back to peddling shoes and herding goats once we are gone from Iraq. There will be no need for jihad once Bush leaves Iraq.

lucas m said...

Darth Helmet: "Your majesty, we must have the code to the planetary air shield!"
King of Druidia: "Ok, Ok. Here it is...1"
DH "1!"
Col. Sanderz: (Writing on notepad) "1!"
King"2"
DH"2!"
Col"2!"
King"3"
DH"3!"
Col"3"!
King:"4"
DH:"4!"
Col:"4!"
King:"5"
DH:"5!"
Col:"5!" Sir, the combination to the air shield is '1,2,3,4,5'."
Darth Helmet: "What the hell kind of combination is that? That's the sort of combination an idiot would have on his luggage!"
(President Scroob bursting through door) "Do we have the code? What did I miss?"
Col Sanurz: "We have the code, Sir. It's 1,2,3,4,5, sir."
Pres. Scroob: "That's amazing! That's the same combination I have on my luggage!"
(Darth Helmet and Col. Sandurz look at each other and snicker.)

ed. Your code offshore account number reminded me of this scene from Spaceballs.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised no one has said this:

He's a Texan. Remember "In Texas we call it walking"?

Yes, LBJ was a Texan too. Texans are not all the same. And I think our memory of LBJ showing the wear and tear is different from what we thought of him at the time..until he suddenly said he wasn't running. Also, LBJ had it much worse from within his own party.

I view this as a positive, btw...not a stereotype of clueless cowboys. It's the Texas equivalent of the British stiff upper lip.

W was also known at Yale as a tough poker player.

Anonymous said...

It's not that Bush (the younger) isn't suffering. He's just communicating his suffering not by words, but by blinking.

LarryK said...

Bush appears to be suffering but he clearly isn't physically "ravaged" the way Lincoln or Johnson were. Everyone seems to be missing at least one obvious reason why - Bush is an exercise fanatic. He bikes hard every day, which helps to diffuse tension, improve circulation and generally maintain physcial vitality - all of which keep him looking (and no doubt feeling) healthy.

anonymousgf said...

I think Wilson and Roosevelt were ravaged by their wars.

Wilson had a stroke.

Roosevelt had a stroke and died.

Anonymous said...

FDR's death at 63 was widely viewed at the time as being caused by the stress and strain of war. (His name is listed among the war dead on a memorial at Harvard.) As a former president, Theodore Roosevelt was a leading advocate of American intervention in WW I. He died at age 59, six months after his youngest son was killed in action.

While the war may not have taken a toll on Wilson, its aftermath did. He suffered a major stroke in the fall of 1919 while campaigning for ratification of the League of Nations treaty and remained an invalid for the rest of his term.

I'd also contest the claim that GW Bush is more religious than Lincoln. More of an ortodox Christian, yes, but the Second Inaugural alone testifies to the depth of Lincoln's religious consciousness.

The Exalted said...

fdr and woodrow wilson weren't ravaged by the world wars? did you people even graduate college? they both deterioated rapidly and, uh, died. does dying count as being "ravaged"?

and bart hall, thanks for the laughs man, that was some good stuff. this in particular was a riot:

Mr. Bush has accomplished more of his domestic legislative agenda in six years

yea, his domestic record sure is a glittering, towering achievement.

The Exalted said...

as for why w. is not ravaged, this isn't rocket science. its well known that he doesn't read any news or get any information that isn't provided to him by his inner circle, which is controlled by dick cheney. iraq is very much cheney's war -- you think he wants bad information going w.? w. probably honestly believes in the "the big bad media doesn't report on schools getting painted" meme and is likely not even aware of the absurd magnitude of the daily violence in iraq. he's not "ravaged" because he doesn't know there is something to be "ravaged" about.

Meade said...

AA: "It's nothing all that special for parents to suffer for their children. Once our children are not babies anymore, we have to release them into the world and see what happens. It's a dangerous thing about having children. It's like having a second body that can experience pain, but you can't control what that body does. You can't avoid that pain. But your suffering as a consequence of what happens to them doesn't save them from pain."

Well put. And who could even half doubt that losing a four year-old child to leukemia is a suffering, for a parent, that ever goes away?

For all anyone knows, George H. in that moment while honoring his son suffered the memory of his innocent daughter's pain fifty-three years ago -- his inconsolable loss, his permanent grief.

Noonan begins her column stating: "It is not fully right, or fully fair, to guess about another's emotions."

She then, half-right and half-fair, goes on to guess about an eighty-four year old man's emotions.

Half-assed.

paul a'barge said...

George had (with the best of intentions!) been wrong in the great decision of his presidency--stop at Afghanistan or move on to Iraq?

Is no one capable of mentally using the way-back machine, remembering the current state of history just before we invaded Iraq? I can think of nothing more infuriating than today's litany of reverse-history engineering sooth sayers who, devoid of virtually any sense of historical facts (not context, not judgment, but even just simple facts), can pronounce that GWB was wrong back then.

Here's a clue-by-four to the hate-GWB-brigade: George was not wrong. He was absolutely right then, and he is still right, and if he, meaning we, doesn't win this, we're in for literally decades of unconscionable suffering.

Let's argue with how to win this, but when Peggy starts to mumble stuff about GWB being wrong to invade Iraq, it's all I can do to keep from calling her up and screaming obscenities over the phone at her.

Victory or death, Peggy.

Freder Frederson said...

Though I will say in response to your semi-hysterical, "It's getting worse every day!!!!!" viewpoint that I disagree.

Gee, I don't know where you are getting your information from (apparently the same place as the president), but even the Iraq Study Group calls the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating".

Is no one capable of mentally using the way-back machine, remembering the current state of history just before we invaded Iraq?

Well, unless believe it has never been "stay the course" and the choco ration really did go up to 35 grams, I honestly don't know how you can say that, in hindsight, the decision to invade Iraq was the right one. There were no WMDs, no operational connection to Al Qaeda, the war didn't pay for itself out of oil revenues. Estimates that the war would cost 100s of billions of dollars and it would take more troops to restore order after eliminating Saddam's regime than the initial invasion were not "wildly off the mark", in fact that were prescient. In fact all the justifications for war turned out to be overstated or wrong and the predictions from the administration about post-invasion Iraq were wildly
over-optimistic.

The Jerk said...

Here's a clue-by-four to the hate-GWB-brigade: George was not wrong. He was absolutely right then, and he is still right

Right about what?

David said...

All of life cannot be compressed into the format of Oprah or Geraldo. Public emoting is not necessarily a sign of virtue or of deep feeling.

There are plenty of people who feel deeply but don't make a public show of it, and there are plenty of people who give the impression of empathy but are actually emotionally disconnected.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

'Exalted:' regarding Mr. Bush's domestic agenda. You and I may or may not agree with a lot of it -- personally I happen to disagree with large chunks of it -- but, he got it done.

As did Ike, as did FDR. You think I agree now in retrospect completely with either of their agendas? Point is, they (and Bush) got it done far better than Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton got their domestic agendas passed in the first six years of their Presidency.

For Bush to get it done in the post-2001 confusion, or for FDR to get it done in the Depression is actually rather remarkable and reflects considerably greater legislative political ability than most of our Presidents have displayed.

You don't have to like Mr. Bush or agree with his policies to recognise that he has, on both fronts, been quite effective. He probably knows that, which could contribute substantially to his peace of mind.

Revenant said...

How many times in 2000 and 2004 did we hear that Gore and Kerry, despite being as wooden and unemotional as robots, really cared about America and the American people? But yet we're to believe that Bush the Younger's failure to weep openly and wear a hair shirt demonstrates that he's out of touch?

MadisonMan said...

We have not been attacked since 9/11

Oh really?

PatCA said...

Was the anthrax jihad? I thought the jury was still out on that one. And no bombings as in Madrid or London--a smattering of lone crazies with guns or cars as weapons, but no organized operation showing a capability similar to that which produced 9/11.


And another plus from the "quagmire" of Iraq: Saddam is gone as a buffer between Iran and the more moderate states like Jordan, Saudi ARabia and Egypt. Why do you think they supported Israel in the latest war? They're just as afraid of jihad as we are, if not more so. Just because they don't kiss Bush in public doesn't mean they are not helping.

I don't think that what the NYT or Fox reports tells the whole story, do you? Which is to say, I don't think he's as ravaged as everyone thinks.

hdhouse said...

Ms. Noonan gives us one "either or" that I can agree with...hmmm idiocy or depth of character...hmmmm

Idiocy.

Oxbay said...

For those basketball fans here perhaps you remember the Boston Celtics of '80s & '90s with Bird, etc. You'll remember Bird and McHale both ended their careers with chronic injuries. Danny Ainge played and played and played some more after those other guys retired. Why? The Morman didn't drink.
Bush is a disciplined workout fellow who doesn't drink or smoke. His fitness inoculates him from the ravages of ageing.

As far as Roosevelt not being ravaged by WWII. He was ravaged into the grave.