June 16, 2008--Bush's Farewell Tour

It is seven months and four days until a new president will be inaugurated. But who’s counting? Among others, Europeans, including virtually all of their leaders.

We know this from recent Pew public opinion polls—an increasing number of people worldwide are looking forward to the end of the Bush presidency. And we can read this not-so-between-the-lines in the comments of European presidents and prime ministers as they host our president as he makes his farewell tour. (By the way, T-shirts, jackets, and souvenirs commemorating that tour are not exactly jumping off the shelves—we’re not talking Barbara Streisand.)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who George Bush tried to smooch-up in public during his first meeting with her, when asked if she would miss him praised him as someone who calls a “spade a spade,” but demurred when pressed to say how she would feel when he was gone from the scene. (See linked NY Times story.)

But the most noteworthy comments emerging from the final lap were reserved for the president himself.

There was curiosity among the press corps about how George Bush was viewing his legacy. In his inimitable way he said that that would be up to historians, that “I don’t do legacy.” In fact, in this regard, he reminded them and us that he never has “second thoughts.”

“First of all,” he said, you don’t get to do things over in my line of work.” Though he did acknowledge that if he had it to do over again he would have toned down some of his rhetoric. Things like saying Osama bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive” or, when strutting his macho to the A-rab world, challenging them to “bring it on.”

Tragically, though he’s right about the ruinous rhetoric he’s wrong about what presidents get to do in their line of work—they do, if they choose, sometimes get to “do things over.” Minimally, they get to do things differently if they have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. For example, not bomb or invade Iran.

But more subtly, they get to make midcourse corrections, which is a version of doing things over. Bush himself did this a few times. We heard that passive-voice admission after the 2006 midterm elections when the Republicans got trounced that “mistakes were made.” As a consequence Donald Rumsfeld was asked to step down and since that time there have been some adjustments in Iraq strategy. It is arguable how effective that has been, but for my purpose here there has at least been some new zigging and zagging.

More profoundly, as JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he backtracked and even reversed himself at critical moments and thereby contributed to saving the world from atomic warfare, Bush could have done a version of the same thing in Iraq—done things over.

After invading Iraq, forget for the moment if this was the right or wrong thing to do, and discovering that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he could have said that we accomplished our mission and we, like during his father’s administration, are leaving. We are satisfied that Iraq and Saddam are not substantial threats to Israel, Europe, and the U.S.

He could thus have demonstrated his don’t-tread-on-me cajones and his legacy, even though he pretends not to think about it, would have been much different than it inevitable will be.

But, I know, I know. This is much too simple a view of things. On the other hand . . .