Display:
Well, the TPM article by Josh Marshall that you link upthread
I've said this before. But perhaps it seems like hyperbole. So I'll say it again. The president's interests are now radically disjoined from the country's. We can handle a setback like Iraq. It really is a big disaster. But America will certainly surive it. President Bush -- in the sense of his legacy and historical record -- won't. It's all Iraq for him. And Iraq is all disaster. So, from his perspective (that is to say, through the prism of his interests rather than the country's -- which he probably can't separate) reckless gambits aimed at breaking out of this ever-tightening box make sense.
agrees with TBG:
Of course attacking Iran will destroy the US as a world power. But at least George will have a real war and a real legacy. Right now, all he has to look forward to is creeping impeachment and a long slow withdrawal from Iraq, which is hardly the high-note ending he's hoping for.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 07:38:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See also Maureen Dowd's column about Junior's inability to lose.

Bush has no personal concept of failure. If something goes wrong, someone else is to blame. If a project looks like failing and he's obviously responsible, the project can't be allowed to fail.

Hence Iran, because Iraq is already over.

We're dealing with a teenager here. Attacking Iran makes no sense in the adult world. If you're a teenager and trying to make a point, it makes perfect sense as a grand gesture.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 07:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. I normally don't like psychologising from a distance, but in Bush' case (and in his & Cheney's administration's case) the actions point to this kind of attitude. It's scary.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Feb 1st, 2007 at 09:05:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series