I find it intriguing that we are finally seeing President George H. W. Bush lash out against the legacy of his older son, and possibly admonishing his younger son mid campaign regarding the advice he is getting from largely the same crowd.
He aims his arrows at Cheney and Rumsfeld:
the elder Bush told biographer Jon Meacham that Cheney “had his own empire there and marched to his own drummer.” Calling the former vice president “iron-ass,” the elder Bush said he “just became very hard-line and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with.”
The former president also called Rumsfeld “an arrogant fellow” and suggested that his lack of empathy made him a poor public servant in George W. Bush’s White House.
“I think he served the president badly,” H.W. Bush said. “I don’t like what he did, and I think it hurt the president having his iron-ass view of everything.”
“There’s a lack of humility, a lack of seeing what the other guy thinks. He’s more kick ass and take names, take numbers. I think he paid a price for that,” he said.
He largely blames these advisers and implies they manipulated his son, who is characteristically and somewhat stubbornly sticking up for them in his own surprised reaction to his father’s words.
HW Bush doesn’t quite get there in condemning junior for this foolhardy foreign policy, but we can still look up his own thoughts regarding the invasion from a prescient prediction he and Brent Scowcroft made in their own book:
We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. …
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome.
Bob Neer says
As Rumsfeld said, perhaps ensconced in the former slave torturers residence he owns. What a wretched bunch of old sinners, struggling to deny the truth as their reputations circle the drain.
jconway says
The question “what made Cheney snap?” is the key that unlocks the door to the history of this era. In 1998 he was repeating almost verbatim what his former colleagues and boss said above about why avoiding “going all the way” was the wisest course of action. By 99′ he is a signatory to PNAC and ingratiating himself with the dauphine. An early Time article from April 2001
even laid out how these guys were looking into an air war against Saddam, long before 9/11 this plan was in their radar. So the “9/11 made me change” is a bunch of BS. I still don’t know why or what they thought they could gain.
dasox1 says
But, I’ve always had a soft spot for 41—and that was before he kicked Cheney and Rummy in the teeth. I probably don’t agree with him on much of anything, politically. But, he’s not an ideologue. He may not even be a Republican anymore—they would probably kick him out of the party. The guy enlisted before college, became a fighter pilot, successful businessman, and then served his country in many capacities. Not a bad guy. And, when placed next to the Republican party today, looks like an out-an-out moderate.
jconway says
He also fully embraced his lesbian neighbors, attended their wedding, and all but endorsed marriage equality in a statement he made to Jon Meachem, the author of his authorized biography. It would be nice if he apologized to Mike Dukakis like Atwater did, and nicer still if he fessed up to his role in Iran-Contra.
But his foreign policy was the most successful of any president of either party in my lifetime with few black marks. Certainly fewer than Obama or Clinton, It goes without saying that his Iraq War was a limited operation backed by a multilateral coalition defending international law rather than a clusterfuck of choice.
centralmassdad says
He handled the end of the Soviet Union quite deftly. Can one imagine any present Republican having the sense not to gloat about the demise of the Soviet Union? Had GHWB done that in 1989, the results could have been catastrophic. I also think that he and his administration were pretty good in the Desert Sheild/Storm. It is hard to imagine any Republican being capable or even willing to craft an international coalition such as that now. Now, they think “leading” means making crude jokes about other nations, and then going off on our own. No coincidence that many of his people were sidelined, even ostracized, in his son’s presidency.
Also, they guy had some courage to sign a tax hike when he knew it was the right thing to do and also that it would cost him dearly, which it did.
jconway says
As early as March 91. The domestic fights with his own right wing were starting to weigh him down and he thought about quitting, and even said ‘by the fall I won’t be riding this high and the economy could sink me’. Which is exactly what happened. He also wanted to dump Quayle, but Jeb convinced him not to, only to flip flop four months later, which should let us know about his judgment. This could be a fascinating book, even if Meachem’s Jefferson hagiography seemed abysmal.
SomervilleTom says
Rightly or wrongly, I’m less forgiving than you.
Your summary omits a few things that matter very much to me:
– Rumors of his advance knowledge of the Iran embassy takeover and hostage taking
– A relatively long list of reported CIA abuses while he was director (no investigations were ever performed, so nobody knows the truth)
– His role in illegally selling weapons to Iran while he was Vice President
– His role in using CIA aircraft to import cocaine from South America, through Panama, to various destinations in the US where it was sold to fund the illegal Contra support. The aircraft, now loaded with weapons, flew the same route back and delivered the weapons to the Contras.
– His role in overseeing and coordinating illegal US support for the Contras
– His role in arranging for Manuel Noriega, former dictator of Panama, to be captured an imprisoned after Mr. Noriega threatened to reveal the extent of the illegal US weapons and drug traffic through Panama
– His role in pardoning ALL the key players in the various illegal operations of the Iran-Contra scandal.
– His role in ensuring that his brother Neil Bush evaded prosecution in spite of Neil Bush’s key role in the Silverado S&L collapse.
I agree that George H. Bush was far more moderate than today’s GOP. I disagree with your contention that he was “not a bad guy”.
jconway says
I am not familiar enough to confirm or deny any or all of those allegations. I will say for sure I think he played dumb on Iran Contra and knew a lot more than he let on, and alluded to that in my comments, and I think he sullied the patriotism and good name of a good man who still picks up the trash in his neighborhood at 81. Those two black marks are beyond dispute, and apologies are definitely in order. But yeah, the man is no Jimmy Carter.
Christopher says
I’ve always considered that to be one of the ultimate conspiracy theories in our history.
To the positive side of the column I would add his resignation from the NRA in reaction to their calling the ATF “jackbooted thugs”.
SomervilleTom says
There were various reports like this at the time. I remember a much younger Senator John Kerry pursuing this “conspiracy theory”. I have a distinct recollection of watching questioning by, I think, then-Representative Boland of MA presenting and developing similar evidence.
The aircraft in question were owned by CIA front company. As I recall the questions and answers (this was during the Iran-Contra hearings), Oliver North and company did not dispute the facts. Mr. North’s claim was that he passed his knowledge up the command chain and felt that he had no further obligation to worry about it. There was no evidence that the reports went past Mr. North.
We will never know the truth because the subsequent pardons ended the various criminal prosecutions that would have put hard evidence in the public record.
If it’s just a “conspiracy theory”, then it’s a theory that then-Senator John Kerry took very seriously.
centralmassdad says
Most of those fall within the realist school of Republican foreign policy and security policy during the Cold War. Would that they would return to those realist roots, rather than the “neoconservative” path, which seems to involve invasions right and left, chest-thumping and bragging while sneering at everyone, everywhere abroad, and using the word “resolute” to describe it all.
jconway says
Liberal idealism isn’t as pretty either. It led us to WWI and Vietnam among other quagmires, and more recently a destabilized Libya. Neoconservatism is largely it’s evil stepchild, having been founded by ex-liberals like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Richard Pearle who never wavered in supporting the Vietnam War.
Christopher says
It strikes me as a hard-nosed Machivellian pursuit of narrow interest at the expense of what should be our values. I’m generally more Wilsonian except that I don’t necessarily think that every ethnic subgroup needs its own sovereign state.
jconway says
As is investing in our infrastructure and pressing needs here at home. Our track record of transforming the world in our own image is terribly unsuccessful. Unless American lives or American interests are directly threatened, I would caution against military intervention. It’s a lesson learned the hard way as I did give the President and Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on Libya, and they proved their critics right in mismanaging that conflict.
centralmassdad says
between Wilsonism and George W. Bush. If you are going to use the military to kill and maim people and destroy property, then do it only when American interests are actually at stake. Otherwise, let it go, pray for peace and donate to the Red Cross. That way, you don’t wind up with American soldiers killed in support of the interests of Iran’s Ayatollahs.