August 31, 2020--Dukakis Redux

The Republican convention behind him, Trump immediately took to the road.

First stop, all in one day, New Hampshire then Louisiana and Texas hit hard last week by Hurricane Laura. This was not going to be his Katrina.

Then, he announced, that on Tuesday, tomorrow, he plans to visit Kenosha, Wisconsin where Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by local police. 

God knows what he'll say and do while there.

Next, he'll probably make his way to Portland, Oregon, where over the weekend a Trump supporter was shot and killed during a confrontation between far-left and far-right demonstrators. Trump's visit will likely be inflammatory.

All the while where was Joe Biden and what was he up to as Tump was making these telegenic stops?

In his basement, delivering a speech remotely to the American Legion convention.

Oh yes, he also announced he'll resume in-person campaigning after Labor Day.

After Labor Day? What's wrong with today? What was wrong with last week?

Does he want to be president? Is he aware of what his absence from the campaign trail suggests about his 77 year-old stamina? 

Trust me, nothing good.

This reminds me of Michael Dukakis's ill-fated 1988 run for the presidency. His opponent was the not-very-popular or charismatic George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan's vice president. 

For a while Dukakis's's strategy seemed to be working. A few months before Election Day he built a 17-point lead in the polls. And so, what did he do? Sat on his lead while he effectively stopped campaigning, he said, so he could concentrate on his day job--governor of Massachusetts. And I assume, practice his inaugural speech. 

But every once in a while Dukakis did get out to participate in a campaign stunt. The best known of these was his ride in a military issue 68-ton M1-A1 Abrams Tank. 

Pictures of the diminutive governor with his head barely visible above the armor plate made H.W. by comparison look like a super hero. And from the minute pictures of this began to circulate, Dukakis's poll numbers began to plummet and a few months later George H.W. Bush was the one measuring drapes for the Oval Office.

(Of course it didn't help that Republicans played the race card when  they circulated pictures of the very black menacing murderer, Willie Horton, who Governor Dukakis ordered released on weekend furlough and while free committed armed robbery and rape.)

Unless Biden gets mobilized, a few weeks from now I suspect that he and Trump will be in a statistical dead-heat and who knows where things will wind up. 

December 11, 2019--Presidential Obituaries

It is claimed that if a president is impeached it will be mentioned in the first paragraph of his obituary.

Here's what Wiki has to say about Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached--

"He came into conflict with the Republican-dominated Congress, culminating in impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted in the Senate by one vote."

And about Richard Nixon--

"A vigorous campaigner for Republican candidates while serving as the nation's 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961, and as a representative and senator from California, he became the only president to resign from the office due to his involvement in the Watergate scandal."

Then, Bill Clinton--

"In 1998, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. The impeachment was based on accusations that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice for the purpose of concealing his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 22-year-old White House intern. He was acquitted by the Senate and completed his term in office."

This will be true for Donald Trump as his impeachment is all but inevitable.

Even for ahistorical Trump this must be on his mind. How he will be remembered by posterity. And also for senior members of his administration as they too will be remembered this way. Bill Barr, for example, who is his (and I underscore his) Attorney General and all-round lackey.

I have been wondering this week about Barr who is so much in the news. Is this how the erstwhile establish Republican seeks his place in history? Isn't it enough that he is the only American to be named Attorney General by two different presidents--George H.W. Bush and Trump?

Clearly not.

Could it be that he doesn't care because he knows how very few Americans know anything, anything about their country's history?

Clearly he doesn't. It is certain that Trump knows even less.

But still, he, they know something and what will be said about them after they are gone must rankle them.

At least that is my hope.

December 6, 2018--RIP #41

I spent most of yesterday watching everything I could find about George H. W. Bush and of course took in every minute of his funeral service.

After Jon Meacham's moving and amusing eulogy, with all four living presidents seated before him in the first row, when it appeared that Trump was paying attention, Rona said, "I generally don't believe in miracles--in fact I don't--but wouldn't it be wonderful if after what Meacham and others are said about Bush 41's life Trump, while still living, had a version of a deathbed conversion and vowed that for his remaining days--which could be relatively few--he would assume the semblance of a normal president?"

As stirred as I was by the stories about Bush's character and overcome by similar thoughts about his example as president and human being, I said, "Sadly I don't think that God has the power to perform such a miracle. It's too big even for him." 

December 3, 2018--Cozying Up

He wouldn't agree to fly the flag at the Capital at half mast and it took two days after he died for him to squeeze out a few words of condolence. 

So, after treating John McCain's death shabbily I've been wondering why Trump so quickly had appropriate words to offer about his passing and generously ordered Air Force One to fly to Houston to bring George H. W. Bush's body back to Washington. 

When thinking about Trump's true feelings about Bush and his sons "generous" and "appropriate" aren't words that come quickly to mind. 

This from a man who during the campaign mocked Jeb for having "low energy" and who said, "We need another Bush in office about as much as we need Obama to have a 3rd term." In Trump's political cosmology that's about as nasty as it gets--including Bush and Obama in the same sentence.

But there you are.

Could it be, then, that behaving with uncharacteristic moderation is Trump's way of thanking our 41st president for dying at just the right time to distract the nation and the media from the bad news for Trump emerging daily from the Mueller investigation?

Since for Trump it's always about himself, now that we know him as intimately as we do, this helps explain his unexpectedly thoughtful behavior. 

Though Trump resents and hates his betters (a very long list that includes all former presidents except Jackson, about whom he in fact knows nothing), he has an instinct for spotting his betters and for our outer-borough president that includes the Kennedys, Obamas, and Bushes. With each he has a complicated hate-love relationship. 

Trump so craves positive attention that by thrusting himself into the events that are following H. W.'s death he likely hopes that by cozying up some of the personal characteristics that made 43 respected might rub off on him. 

This is a case of legitimization by association.

The tributes flowing in about Bush do not fit Trump's character but since he is not someone to be shy about pushing his way into all available spotlights, during the services expect Trump to be on camera more than anyone other than Bush family members.

In any list of Bush qualities, Trump palls by comparison. 

Among the many things being said about George H. W. Bush, he was thought to be temperate, inclusive, generous, bipartisan, thoughtful, informed, collaborative, modest, ethical, graceful, gracious, moderate, self-effacing, playful, and deferential. 

He was far from perfect and he should not be over-adulated now that he is gone, but even without the inclination to forget limitations and faults after one's passing, this still sounds like the real George H. W. Bush. 

Inverting this list, where generous becomes greedy and modest become narcissistic, would produce an accurate picture of the man who now occupies the former president's chair in the Oval Office.

Then, by this week's end Mueller will be back on the case and places for Trump to hide from culpability will be even more limited. Also, Bush's example won't be able to help protect Trump from himself. In fact, attempting to claim he is worthy of sharing in our former presidents' example Trump will find that the spotlight not only illuminates but can also scorch.

March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

November 20, 2017--Stupid

What do the following have in common?

Harvey Weinstein
Louis C.K.
Roy Moore
Al Franken
Mark Halperin
Bill Cosby
Kevin Spacey
Anthony Weiner
Gary Hart
George H.W. Bush
And, of course, Bill Clinton &
Donald Trump

Obviously, they all are among the best known sexual predators.

But in addition to using their power, wealth, and fame to exert sexual power over women and men (actually, boys), they are also stupid. 

This in no way is meant to humanize what they did, or allegedly did, but to indicate that while engaged in dastardly behavior they also were just plain stupid.

Let's begin with Gary Hart. Recall, back in 1987 he was the Democratic frontrunner and was expected to win the nomination for the upcoming 1988 election. His potential opponent was George H.W. Bush who was Ronald Reagan's Vice President. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

It was suspected by many in the press that Senator Hart liked to fool around. He vehemently denied that and, incredibly, challenged the press to try to catch him at it.

Among other things, to do so, they proceeded to sift through his garbage. It was a pre-digital time and this was considered state of the art in the surveillance business.

They didn't find anything incriminating but quickly a photo turned up of him on the fantail of a 83-foot cabin cruiser. On his lap was a women other than his wife (see picture below). She was Donna Rice who, after being identified, before becoming an advocate for internet security, was the spokesperson for No Excuses jeans. The boat was aptly named--and I'm not making this up--Monkey Business.

This qualifies as just plain stupid and when all was exposed ended Gary's political career.

Briefly, since I mentioned him, the first president Bush appears to have a penchant for patting attractive young women on their bottoms while he poses with them for pictures. Confined now to a wheelchair and physically declining, he confessedly continues to engage in what his family is attempting to excuse as the sort of charming practice older Waspy gentlemen are prone to. Perhaps, after a long career in public service, entitled to.

Everyone else on my list of miscreants has their signature interests--Louie C.K. confessed that he masturbates in front of women; Weinstein cavorts around hotel rooms in a bathrobe and nothing else; Weiner posts selfies of his junk on the internet; Roy Moore is only interested in underage girls; Cosby drugs and then molests women; Bill Clinton likes oral sex from his pizza delivery intern; and Donald Trump, well, Donald Trump, boastfully told Billy Bush and Howard Stern that he likes to grab women's (euphemism) genitals. 

In every case, disgusting behavior and really stupid stuff.

Just Friends, They Claimed

April 18, 2017--Presidential Daddy Problems

Since John F. Kennedy almost all of our presidents and aspirants to the presidency have had Daddy problems.

This struck me again recently when watching Donald Trump, pose in the Oval Office to sign an executive order to gut one more Obama initiative. This one I think having to do with environmental protection regulations.

President Trump has not given much attention to making the White House office his own. The shelves are deplete of books with the exception of an impersonal row or two of leather bound volumes purchased by the foot. Probably an ornamental set of Dickens novels. His desk has a messy stack of papers and files but no visible tchotchkes. And on the credenza behind his desk where all presidents array at least a dozen pictures of their families (even Nixon did this!), on Trump's credenza there is just one picture--a severe black-and-white photo of his Germanic-looking father, Frederick. And, yes, there is also a stack of souvenir golf balls. I assume one from each of his 17 courses.

When thinking about presidents and their fathers, there are reasons to begin with Barack Obama. His Daddy problem stemmed from the fact that he essentially didn't have one. I believe he met his Kenyan father just once when he was 10 years old. The title of his first book, Dreams From My Father, says it all. In fact, it could serve as the title of books by at least a dozen of our presidents--how they each were either in search of their fathers or coveted their involvement, love, and acknowledgement. In Barack's case all of this was missing and that contributed to the kind of adult and president he became.

Of presidents Kennedy had a pathologically involved and controlling father. From early on Father Joe unrelentingly prepped his sons for public life. His oldest boy, Joe Junior, was slated to become president and when he was killed in action in World War II Joe Senior's attention immediately turned to second son Jack, who he pushed to get into politics (JFK was reluctant) and for whom he then behind the scenes bankrolled his career and, it is generally agreed, not only promoted his various runs for office, but in 1960 spread enough money around to assure his winning the nomination and then conspired with political bosses in key states, including bribing them, to fix the vote count to assure his son's election to the presidency.

And once elected, Joe Kennedy, out of public view, played a major roll in influencing policy. It is now also fully known that President Kennedy on a daily basis sought his father's guidance and was powerfully motivated to please him and seek his approbation. Some biographers even say that JFK's hawkish inclinations were in large part to demonstrate manhood to his philandering Daddy.

Joseph and John F. Kennedy

Lyndon Johnson succeeded Kennedy. His father was a major player in the Texas state legislature but a poor businessman. So much so that when his finances collapsed the Johnson family lived for decades in dire poverty. Sam Johnson was a very severe man and never showed son, Lyndon, much affection or offered encouragement or praise. Robert Caro, Johnson's remarkable biographer, writes at length about how LBJ sought to please his father even well after he died. Much of what Johnson did was an attempt to make up for his father's failure and ultimately to surpass him.

Then there was Richard Nixon. No one had a more clinical Daddy problem than young Dick. There is no evidence that his censorious father ever praised him for any of his accomplishments. Quite the contrary. Dick was also raised in virtual poverty--his father's various business schemes for the most part failed and he took his frustrations out on his children, especially the bright, hardworking, and eventually successful son. Desperate for his father's praise and encouragement, he pushed himself beyond sensible or legal limits and brought himself down in the process. The disparagement and constant criticism he felt from his father was a large part of what motivated Dick--to show by his dogged success that he was worthy.

Jimmy Carter's father, according to his biographers, was also a withholding patriarch for whom his son, Jimmy, could never do enough to win his affection or praise. One even goes so far as to say that Carter's propensity to laugh without seeming motivation when speaking in public was the result of a lifetime of accumulated anger. Much of it derived from his father's severity. It was, in a manner of speaking, a nervous laugh that attempted to obscure the frustration and anger he felt from an unhappy, caustic childhood relationship with his Daddy.

Ronald Reagan's father was a lifelong alcoholic who moved his family from town to town across the Midwest in an attempt to find work and change his luck. He was unsuccessful in many ways--never able to provide for his family, establish a sustainable relationship with his wife, or provide emotional support for his children. Son Ronald was so wounded by his upbringing, though he was a great storyteller, that he barely mentioned him. It was as if these memories were so painful that he excised his father from the narrative of his life in an attempt to get out from under the memories of his gnawing presence.

Both Bush presidents, though they achieved the ultimate political prize, never felt they were worthy of their fathers' love or pride. George H.W. Bush's father, Prescott, was a successful financier and later, when elected to the U.S. Senate, was held in high esteem by his congressional colleagues. To him, his children could never do or accomplish enough to earn his fulsome praise. No matter how much George achieved it was never enough. Like many presidential fathers he was emotionally aloof from his boys, never making them feel appreciated or affirmed.

Bill Clinton's biological father died three months before Bill was born. His mother some years later remarried and Bill took his stepfather's name. But the marriage to his mother did not last and after she divorced him, he drifted out of young Bill's life. So in many ways Bill Clinton was fatherless and many who have studied his life and written about him claim that the emotional void that was the result of this unsatisfying family life helps explain his undisciplined nature as a politician, family member, and man.

George W. Bush, son of the 41st president, also felt his father's emotional coolness and thus tried desperately to please him. Many say that his decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein was to "finish the job" his father left unresolved when he had American troops come to the aid of Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq, and to surpass him as a wartime president. Also, some historians feel that his turning to Dick Cheney to serve as his vice president and cede to him so much of the power of the presidency was the result of Bush's impulse to seek substitutes for his biological parent, in the hope that they would offer him the affirmation he so desperately needed.

Other than as a curiosity should any of this interest or concern us?

It could well be that so many of our presidents having Daddy problems of this kind is a problem.

Seeking acknowledgement to salve fragile self-esteem may in the first instance be what motivated most of them to seek the power of the presidency. Not the desire to protect and improve the lives of those who elected them. If emotionally compromised as a result of the influences of their fathers, it also may be that allowing unresolved intra-psychic issues to influence decision making, particularly in crisis situations, gets in the way of their using their best, most rational judgement. We do not benefit by our presidents, when stressed by the consequences of dangerous decisions, to be so emotionally influenced.

One can only wonder what Frederick "Fred" Trump (ne Drumpf) might right now be thinking as his son attempts to deal with the North Korean threat. It could be that son Donald's boundless ego and insecurity are more on display and influencing his decision-making than any of his predecessors.

I would feel better about the situation if President Trump had a full array of family pictures on his Oval Office credenza, not just the one of Fred. Especially pictures of his children and grandchildren because what he decides and authorizes will affect them and their generation more than Trump himself or those of us who have already had full lives.

Fred and Donald Trump

July 26, 2016--Hillary Quiz

Some claim that Hillary Clinton, with the exception of a few of America's founders--Thomas Jefferson, for example--is the most "qualified" nominee ever to run for president.

This assessment more than anything is based on her resumé. It is indisputably impressive.

She was First Lady for eight years and had real responsibilities. She did much, much more than preside over congressional wives' teas. Among other things, in a quasi-official capacity, she visited 82 countries.

Then for eight additional years she was a U.S. senator from New York.

In 2008, she almost won the Democratic presidential nomination.

After Barack Obama was elected, as part of his "team of rivals," she served for four years as his Secretary of State.

Even George H.W. Bush, who also had a very impressive professional history, didn't compare.

So by these resumé criteria, Hillary Clinton, on paper, is about the most qualified. Ever.

But before coming to that conclusion, there is another way of thinking about "qualified."

Not by a list of job titles and honorary degrees but by an accounting of accomplishments.

On this basis, Hillary Clinton as most qualified? Not so sure.

But, if you are inclined, convince me otherwise by taking this snap quiz.

Rate each of the following on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being indictable and 10 worthy of the Nobel Prize.

As First Lady:

Health care reform? OK, this one is too easy.

As Senator:

Support for the Children's Health Insurance Program? (CHIP)
Vote to authorize invasion of Iraq?
Other?____________

As Secretary of State:

"Resetting" relationship with Russia?
Keeping Russia from invading and annexing Crimea?
Containing North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
Overthrowing the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya?
In Syria, attempting to remove Bashar al-Assad from the presidency?
Overthrowing the Mubarak government in Egypt?
Seeing the election there of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Stabilizing Iraq?
The emergence of ISIS?
Containing/defeating ISIS?
Limiting China's expansion in the South China Sea?
Resolving the Israeli-Palistinian conflict?
Leading the effort to reach a nuclear deal with Iran?
Managing her State Department e-mails?
Other? (Anything but Benghazi) ____________

Of course we could do the same thing with Jefferson. Also on scale of 1-10:

Declaration of Independence?
Ambassador to France?
The Louisiana Purchase?
University of Virginia?
Sally Hemmings?
Other? ____________

December 1, 2105--George Herbert Walker Bush

There's lots to savor in Jon Meacham's comprehensive and readable biography of our 41st president.

Though it has the over-puffed title, Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush, it is for the moment definitive and hard to put down.

Also, at less than 900 pages, it is appropriately proportioned.

Bush was not the kind of or accomplished enough or sufficiently complex a president to call for 900 pages much less four volumes and counting as is the case for the larger-than-life Lyndon Johnson as represented at vast length by Robert Caro.

In truth, even in the Meacham book, H.W. (or Poppy) was not destined to become president. To the manor born, yes, wealthy, assured, to win a seat in Congress, likely, to head the CIA, certainly, but the presidency, no. Not destined for that.

And to think of his life as an odyssey, also a bit much. Odysseus had an odyssey. Not Bush. Not really.

But what do I know, Destiny and Power went right to the top of the New York Times bestseller list two days ago. A week after it was published.

Here's a flavor.

First from pages 464-5 about his wise thinking as commander in chief after building a genuine global coalition and, via Desert Storm, led the battle to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait.

He got that job done in 100 days and though pressed by the Republican political right refused to have our troops take Baghdad and bring down Saddam Hussein. Here's why--

Our stated mission, as codified in U.N. resolutions, was a simple one--end the aggression, knock Iraq's forces out of Kuwait, and restore Kuwait's leaders. To occupy Kuwait would instant shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigned young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator, condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working hard to reestablish. [My italics]

If only his son, Bush the Second, W, 43, rather than being guided by God, as he put it, had sought advice from his father before his disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Then, on page 144, there is one of my favorite LBJ anecdotes--

In 1969, while a member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bush was thinking about running for the Senate. He had one of the safest Texas House seats, a place on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, and a secure congressional future. He wondered, "Was the Senate worth the risk?"

To help him decide, he flew to Stonewall Texas to ask ex-president Johnson. Who better to ask?

"Mister president, I've got a decision to make and I'd like your advice. My House seat is secure and I've got a position on Ways and Means. I don't mind taking risks, but in a few more terms, I'll have seniority on a powerful committee. I'm just not sure it's a gamble I should take. Whether it's really worth it." 

"Son," Johnson said, "I've served in the House. And I've been privileged to serve in the Senate too. And they're both good places to serve. So I wouldn't advise you what to do, except to say this--that the difference between being a member of the Senate and a member of the House is the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit."

Bush took Johnson's advice, gave up his House seat, ran against incumbent Ralph Yarborough, and promptly lost.

The rest of the story is Bush's odyssey.

February 20, 2015--Jeb & A-Rod: Mistakes Were Made

In a speech in Chicago Wednesday, presidential-aspirant, former Florida governor, brother of one president, and son of another, to establish himself in foreign policy terms as his "own man" (to quote him), Jeb Bush said--

Look, just for the record, one more time, I love my brother, I love my dad, I actually love my mother as well, hope that's OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions they had to make, but I am my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences.

Then, about his brother's decision to preemptively invade Iraq, he torturously added--

There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure. Using the intelligence capability that everyone embraced about weapons of mass destruction turns out not to be accurate.

He did not say that his brother made a mistake by pressing the CIA to "sex up" the intelligence to justify an otherwise illegal war and then waged war based on that cooked information.

What Jeb had to say represents a little progress from what brother George W said after he left the presidency, as part of his efforts to promote his memoir, Decision Points, when he reluctantly acknowledged, in the very passive voice, that "mistakes were made."

On the same day as Jeb Bush's speech, in his own handwriting, Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez wrote--

To the Fans

I take full responsibility for the mistakes that led to my suspension for the 2014 season. I regret that my actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. To Major League Baseball, the Yankees, the Steinbrenner family, the Players Association and you the fans, I can only say I'm sorry.

Who knows how sincere this is but at least he fessed up.