Dec. 8, 2006 - On the eve of a report that repudiates his son’s leadership, former president George H.W. Bush broke down crying when he recalled how his other son, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, lost an election a dozen years ago and then came back to serve two successful terms. The elder Bush has always been a softie, but this display of emotion was so over the top that it had to be about something other than Jeb’s long-ago loss.

The setting was a leadership summit Monday in Tallahassee, where the elder Bush had come to lecture and to pay homage to Jeb, who is leaving office with a 53 percent approval rating, putting him ninth among the 50 governors in popularity. The former president was reflecting on how well Jeb handled defeat in 1994 when he lost his composure. “He didn’t whine about it,” he said, putting a handkerchief to his face in an effort to stifle his sobbing.

That election turned out to be pivotal because it disrupted the plan Papa Bush had for his sons, which may be why he was crying, and why the country cries with him. The family’s grand design had the No. 2 son, Jeb, by far the brighter and more responsible, ascend to the presidency while George, the partying frat-boy type, settled for second best in Texas. The plan went awry when Jeb, contrary to conventional wisdom, lost in Florida, and George unexpectedly defeated Ann Richards in Texas. With the favored heir on the sidelines, the family calculus shifted. They’d go for the presidency with the son that won and not the one they wished had won.

The son who was wrongly launched has made such a mess of things that he has ruined the family franchise. Without getting too Oedipal, it’s fair to say that so many mistakes George W. Bush made are the result of his need to distinguish himself from his father and show that he’s smarter and tougher. His need to outdo his father and at the same time vindicate his father’s failure to get re-elected makes for a complicated stew of emotions. The irony is that the senior Bush, dismissed by Junior’s crowd as a country-club patrician, looks like a giant among presidents compared to his son. Junior told author Bob Woodward, for his book “Plan of Attack,” that he didn’t consult his father in planning the invasion of Iraq but consulted a higher authority, pointing, presumably, to the heavens.

The father also consulted a higher authority: family fixer James Baker. The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Baker, pulls no punches in calling Bush’s policies a failure. It’s a statement of the obvious, but when you have a collection of Washington wise men, plus retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor (perhaps doing penance for her vote that put Bush in the White House during the disputed 2000 race), it’s the equivalent of last rites for Bush’s Iraq policy, along with his presidency. It’s not a plan for victory because that doesn’t exist except in Bush’s fantasy. The recommendations Baker and company offer—of more international engagement and shifting U.S. troops to a backup role to Iraqi forces—may help the administration manage and mask defeat. Even so, that may be hard for Bush to accept. His body language when receiving the report, while polite, was dismissive, thanking the eminences assembled for breakfast at the White House for dropping off a copy.

This president has lost all capacity to lead. Eleven American servicemen died in Iraq on the day Bush was presented the report, which calls the situation there “grave and deteriorating.” Events on the ground threaten to overtake even this grim assessment. And we’re left to analyze Bush’s tender ego and whether he can reverse course on the folly that is killing and maiming countless Iraqis along with U.S. troops. Historians are already debating whether Bush is the worst president ever, or just among the four or five worst. He has little choice but to accept the fundamental direction of the Iraq Study Group. He’s up to his neck in quicksand, and they’ve thrown him a rope. It’s trendy to make fun of the over-the-hill types in Washington, but they’ve done a noble thing in reminding us that war is not just about spin and a way to win elections. It’s about coming together to find a way out, however unpalatable.

Bush was asked during the campaign in 2000 what would happen if he lost. He said he’d go back to Texas, watch a lot of baseball and have a great life with Laura and the girls. He’s an accidental president, a man who was vaulted into a job he wasn’t prepared for, and who treated war like a lark. Bush’s father observed between sobs in his Florida speech, “A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat.” He was talking about Jeb, but surely it’s his first-born who triggers the tears.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16115397/site/newsweek/

Bush-haters gleefully berate our President, yet get livid when their man Mr. Clinton is discussed in a negative light.

Your candidates won, and you're STILL not happy.

Hate on.

Herb

We're not happy because Bush still has two more years left before someone who will actually change Iraq for the better (or at least, not for the worse) can take over. The Democratic congress is an important step to block drastic moves but isn't enough.

Andrew

Herb:

First off, I am a Republican. We're members of the same Party.

That said, George W. Bush has been the worst thing to happen to this country in ... well, my lifetime. For the record, I was born right about the time that Watergate happened ... not the fallout, but the actual break-ins themselves.

I completely understand H.W.'s shame and concern. He was a good President, a wonderful diplomat, concerned for others welfare ... a good spokesman for the United State of America on the world stage. He, too, faced a crisis in Iraq and the Middle East.

This is where the comparison ends: The ONE where both father and son have had to deal with a crisis in Iraq and the Middle East. Dubya is NOT a good President, he doesn't have a diplomatic bone in his body, he doesn't give a crap about anyone else in the world and is less concerned than anyone about our world standing and how we are viewed, and he brings shame to the American people every time he steps foot on foreign soil and opens his mouth.

H.W. acted as part of a UN coalition to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The job wasn't to remove him from power. The job wasn't to make Iraq a democracy. The job wasn't to forcibly rid Saddam of WMDs or anything else. It was simply to give Kuwait their country back, and force Saddam to disarm (THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS PRIMARILY) and out of Kuwait. H.W. had no intention of invading Iraq itself and getting Saddam - he knew what would happen, and that is exactly what is happening now.

His eldest, and dumbest son didn't heed papa's advice. He surrounded himself with yes-men and women and when they questioned his actions, they were replaced. (Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld were forced out, more or less, after calling into question Bush's direction in Iraq.) Dubya acted without UN approval or help, in fact the only ally he has now in this war in Iraq is Britain, and the Brits are more fed up than we are, calling Bush the most dangerous man in the world.

Dubya has singlehandedly caused the deaths of almost 3,000 US troops and over 600,000 Iraqis. He has singlehandedly turned Iraq into a civil war mess. His actions have singlehandedly made the United States look like dogshit on the world stage, us more hated than ever in that region, and given Al Qaeda and its ilk a fertile breeding ground to do its killings and carry out its jihad ... and a reason to.

Herb, there's a lot of us Republicans that are Bush haters too. Joamon professes to be one. Trixter is another. Count me in that group.

George W. Bush has made being a Republican a shameful thing. Somehow we ALL are tied in with his ultra-conservative, bigoted, war-mongering thoughts and ideals. He has brought nothing but shame on the United States on the world stage, and in some ways it makes me feel ashamed to be an American.

All I want is my Party back. The party of Lincoln. The party of Teddy. The power of, yes, Nixon. The party of Reagan and George H.W. Bush. All men that aspired to some great things in their Presidency. Some had their pratfalls (namely Nixon and Reagan) but great things were accomplished during their Presidencies.

If the mantra of the GOP is going to be a hard-lined stance of unwarranted pre-emptive wars, writing bigotry into the Constitution and trying to legislate morality and religion, and stripping our natural resources to where we have nothing left, then I will be left without a party, because I REFUSE to be a willing part of this.

Hey, I want it back too!

At least the debate would be sane. It's very nice to be talking about different solutions to common problems, instead of having to discuss just who is and is not the problem.

That's what the Resident brought to the GOP.

Just when you think Reinstatepete has run out of troll bait he comes right back with more...

Just like FDR, President Bush has had to contend with a hostile enemy attack. It is NEVER easy being a war-time president.

Those who say they'd rather have a person in office like Mr. Clinton during war, who loathed the military and stripped our defense capabilities, whilst allowing secret technology to be sold to communist China, cannot be serious.

President Bush may not be quite as great as Mr. Nixon, but he'll be on the list when great presidents are discussed. Certainly far greater than Mr. Carter, or even Mr. Ford, who was a pretty good president and made the right decision to pardon Mr. Nixon.

Herbert Milhous

Herb said>>>
Your neo-CONer candidates lost, and you're STILL blaming Liberals for EVERYTHING??????

BrianL,

How did Bush write bigotry into the Constitution?

I recall he proposed a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This amendment didn't make it pass Congress.

Is that what you are referring to? If so, do you really believe that is bigotry?

Herb, at least FDR was smart enough when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to declare war against the RIGHT COUNTRY. Can you imagine if FDR had pulled a Dubya and declared war on Mexico after the Japanese attack??? Mexico, like Iraq, had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on America. At least FDR knew the difference!

Andrew

Why did America go to war with Germany? Germany had nothing to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

Uhm, Germany declared war on the United States, DD! Were we supposed to sit there and do NOTHING? What would you expect the President of the United States to do if another country which had already been hostile toward US shipping and had signed the The Tripartite Pact with Japan declared war on us? Surrender? Naturally, declaring war on Germany was the correct action after they declared war on us.

As I recall, Iraq did not declare war on the United States prior to the 2003 invasion...

Andrew

"BrianL,

How did Bush write bigotry into the Constitution?

I recall he proposed a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This amendment didn't make it pass Congress.

Is that what you are referring to? If so, do you really believe that is bigotry?"

Bush WANTS this passed and written into the Constitution, to "protect the sanctity of marriage". (Yeah, protect something that has a 60 percent failure rate as is! What a crock!)

And, yes, saying who has certain basic rights and who doesn't based on something they have no control over is, IMO, bigotry. He and a few of his Neo-Coners want it in the Constitution.

As if there aren't more pressing needs right now.

"President Bush may not be quite as great as Mr. Nixon, but he'll be on the list when great presidents are discussed. Certainly far greater than Mr. Carter, or even Mr. Ford, who was a pretty good president and made the right decision to pardon Mr. Nixon."

Herb -

Honestly. What has Dubya DONE to be considered average, yet alone great?

-Lincoln came up with the Emancipation Proclimation, and freed the slaves in a time where it was unpopular, but right, to do so.

-Teddy Roosevelt was our great conservationist in a time where the mantra was strip, burn and slash.

-Ike, seeing what a wonderful infrastructure Germany had during the war, created the Interstate Highway System and sprung for the funding to get it built.

-Nixon opened up China to us, created the EPA, created and privatized the US Postal Service and created a wonderful working relationship with our Cold War adversaries.

-Reagan created "Breakfast in America", increasing our clout on the world stage, boosting our economy to record heights, and worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War.

-George H.W. Bush handled a tinderbox situation in Iraq and the Middle East with diplomacy and restraint, and everyone involved was better for it.

What has Dubya done to be considered "great"?? What crowning achievement has happened on his watch that 20, 30, 50, 100 years down the road my children and grandchildren can sit there and say, "Wow, gee, that was one hell of a job Dubya did on ____________!" ???

Brianl, during the Republican golden age, was Lowell Wieker your ideal Repubican?

To be honest DD, I don't know much about Wiecker. I know he helped sink Nixon and lost his Senate seat to Lieberman ...

Well, is Lincoln Chaffee your ideal Republican?

"Reagan created "Breakfast in America""

Sheesh!!

Supertramp created "Breakfast in America"
9 months before Reagan was even sworn in!

http://www.superseventies.com/supertramp.html

;-)

"It's Morning in America"

I agree with everything Brianl has posted. Great insight and realism.

Herb, if you think GW Bush is going to be amongst the greatest presidents, I think you's CRAZY!

I'm not saying he's one of our GREATEST Presidents. He sure lacked in personality, and he thought he was a bit more invincible than he was ... 1992 but him square in the ass.

He sure is better than his son though.

And DD - you are right ... hah that's what I get for having Supertramp in the car!

(Oops - noticed that this was in response to someone posting to Herb about Dubya. )

"Well, is Lincoln Chaffee your ideal Republican?"

I don't know if there is an "ideal" Republican, but yes, Lincoln Chaffee is someone I can embrace. My views line up a lot with his ... the one notable exception is capital punishment, he is anti-death penalty and I am very pro-death penalty.

(BTW, Chafee in 2004 did not vote for George W. Bush. He wrote-in George H.W. Bush on his ballot! HAH!)

"Herb, if you think GW Bush is going to be amongst the greatest presidents, I think you's CRAZY!"

Some of it will have to do with how the democrats force withdrawal. However, in this century, Mr. Bush will be accepted as a statesman, visionary and defender of freedom. Not only here in the US. But also in many parts of the world, especially the Middle East and particularly Iraq and Afghanistan.

Herb

I think George W. Bush will be seen in the future kind of like Lyndon Johnson is seen today: as a well-meaning but misguided and ultimately, failed president, who got America into a catastrophe in large part due to his own short-sightedness.

Andrew

Brianl, are you familiar with the term RINO?

Bush will be viewed as among the worst ever. It's hard to believe, but he's still got a long way down to go, as it will get worse for him moving forward.

"I think George W. Bush will be seen in the future kind of like Lyndon Johnson is seen today: as a well-meaning but misguided and ultimately, failed president, who got America into a catastrophe in large part due to his own short-sightedness."

LBJ inherited a mess in Vietnam. He escalated it, yes.

Johnson was well-meaning, he wanted to do great things, he really believed in his Great Society. Vietnam killed that off unfortunately for him.

I don't think Bush is well-meaning ... misguided, I would say stubborn more than anything ... and his failures as a President he has only himself to blame.

DD - yes. As far as issues like gay marriage and such, I think outside of the mainstream GOP mantra. If the Waynes of the world want to paint me a RINO, so be it. Fiscally, I am very much a mainstream Republican ... ok, not the model of Dubya, but I think that MOST Republicans who wouldn't be considered RINOs are that into the Bush plan.

I just personally think it's ridiculous to be so enamored with party affiliation that you take 100% of what they preach, and recycle it as your own. I have little respect for people, righties AND lefties, who do that. THAT is what leads to this partisan crap we're seeing now.

I think Bush truly believed all that stuff about freedom and Democracy in Iraq. It's just that the guy was woefully uneducated about Iraq, too stubborn to admit when he was wrong, and too inexperienced and easily taken in by the foreign policy veterans like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Let's remember that Bush had *ZERO* foreign policy experience when he became president, just like Clinton had none. Can you imagine Clinton deciding to invade another country in 1994??? Clinton's initiative in Kosovo came much later when he had more experience and of course Kosovo was a far different kind of war (i.e no American combat deaths) than Bush's and was not open-ended. And, Clinton's government had been considering for years the pros and cons of military involvement in the Balkans.

Bush's management style is one of delegation, and he made a terrible choice in picking Rumsfeld for Defense and then letting Rumsfeld run the war. A different president might have asked a lot more questions and sought a wider range of advice before making such a momentous decision to invade another nation, but Bush leads from his gut, not from his brain. He didn't even ask his father's opinion, something I consider inexcusable. Bush Senior was not only someone he could trust more than anyone else in his government, but he was the former president most experienced about Iraq. Then again, Bush knew what Daddy would say - Bush Senior had repeatedly defended his original decision not to go to Baghdad in 1991, for the very reasons we have now found out to be true.

I think I can say that while Bush was well meaning in regards to WHY he went into Iraq, the WAY he did it - lying to the American people to sell the war - is an impeachable offense.

Andrew

"Bush's management style is one of delegation, and he made a terrible choice in picking Rumsfeld for Defense and then letting Rumsfeld run the war."

Bush took great pains to surround himself with people that are yes men ... he lost the brightest one in Colin Powell because Powell dared question Bush on the path in Iraq.

One can delegate and still LISTEN to their people. A good delegator does just that. Bush isn't a good delegator at all because he doesn't listen, he just barks his orders and expects his minions to do what is told of them, and if they question him they are dismissed.