Dr. J.'s Commentary: Will the Real George Bush Be Made to Stand Up?

Yes, folks, there is a real George Bush. And he is not, as I have been saying with increasing frequency in recent commentaries here and columns at ThePoliticalJunkies.net, deranged, delusional, or a raving lunatic. In his July 20, 2007, NY Times column "All the President's Enablers," Paul Krugman said, among other things: "In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits . . . . to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. . . . Iraq is a bloody quagmire. . . . Yet Mr. Bush remains confident. Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality."

That Bush remains confident is terrifying alright, but not for the reason Prof. Krugman puts forth. It's not that he has lost touch with reality. Let's take Iraq. Do you think the Georgites don't know exactly what is going on in Iraq, just like they knew for sure what wasn't going on in Iraq (building WMD, connecting with OBL) before they went in? The reality in Iraq is exactly what he wanted when he sent U.S. troops in there. You think it's "victory," when he has had so many chances to declare it: well, yes, no WMD; well, yes, the U.S. caught Hussein; the Iraqis had elections; the Iraqis formed a government; the Iraqis are moving (ever so slowly, but they are moving) to give the U.S. control over some significant part of their oil; there are the bases; Iraqi troops are getting trained (to do what exactly is a matter of conjecture, but they are).

So Bush could have declared "victory" and left on more than one occasion. But he doesn't. He keeps moving the goal posts. And folks, we have to realize this was the plan all along. Until our side really understands this, we are going to get nowhere in the political battle that has to be won to remove this man and his people from the government and prevent a like-minded successor such as Rudy Giuliani from taking over. As long as it is accepted that Bush has some kind of notion there is such a thing as the "victory" that O'RHannibaugh scream about endlessly, we will lose. It's not that Bush is not in touch with the reality in Iraq; he is in touch with it, very much so, and loves it. From this basis, the challenges to Bush on Iraq must start. It is not a difference of degree --- when to get out and on what terms. It is very much a matter of kind --- whether the U.S. will get out or stay there for the foreseeable future?

The same thing goes for dealing with Bush on matters of Constitutional Democracy. It is not whether "signing statements" are Constitutional or not. Bush, or in this case at least the lawyers who came up with the idea that is nowhere to be found in Article II that defines the nature, duties, and responsibilities of the Executive Branch, know that it is unconstitutional. The Bush people know they have violated the Geneva Conventions and thus Article VI of the Constitution that incorporates treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land. The Bush people know what they call "Executive Privilege" over the matter of breaking the law and firing those U.S. attorneys for political reasons is nowhere to be found in the Constitutional concept of the Presidency. Gonzales knows he is lying to the Senate. Gonzales knows he is engaging the "F___ You" approach to Congress when he simply refuses to answer a straight question from Sen. Schumer. And the Bush people know exactly what Gonzales is doing. In fact they have told him to do it.

So it is not a question of Constitutional interpretation. It is a question of whether or not the Constitution, as Bush once said of it, is just a scrap of paper, or whether we, in fact, do live in a nation of laws and a Constitutional democracy. When Rove made that famous statement at the opening of the Clinton Library, about "I change Constitutions," he wasn't kidding. When Bush says "I'm the Decider," he means it. When Bush said dictatorship is a good form of government, just as long as he would be the dictator (just as his father did), he meant it.

The Real George Bush does not want "victory" in Iraq. The debate must begin to swing in that direction, and soon. The Real George Bush does not believe in U.S. Constitutional Democracy. The debate must begin to swing in that direction, and soon. If both do not, and soon, it will be a very long time before we will get to have open debate on matters of policy and the rule of law in this country, and much blood will have been shed in the interim. Yes indeed, for the sake of the country, the real George Bush must be made to stand up.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | yahoo | technorati