The Wormhole

The most charitable thing I can say about George W. Bush is that I find him absolutely fascinating. I have honestly sharpened my analytical prowess by studying this man, who is infinitely more complicated and interesting than Bill Clinton, for example.

The most fascinating thing about this man is his belief. When Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", he was full of shit. HE knew he was full of shit. And WE knew he was full of shit. It's just that none of us realized there was a stain to prove what we all knew.

In contrast, when George W. Bush said, in his first post-presidency speech last month, "My legacy is that I kept America safe", he also was full of shit. WE knew he was full of shit. The facts indicated the prodigious extent of his immersion in shit. But, unlike Clinton, Bush sincerely believed HE was telling the truth.

Let's dissect Bush's appraisal of his own legacy. "I kept America safe". Firstly we must stipulate that he means "safe from terrorist attack".

We should take note that Bush does not reference his management of the economy or diplomacy or war or disaster management or social welfare. No, he has a legacy of ashes in all of those fields, so he goes straight for 9/11.

Would any other president characterize their legacy in this way? Why are Franklin Pierce and William McKinley and Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush not credited with "keeping America safe"? After all, there were no 9/11's during their tenures.

They are not praised for preventing 9/11's even though no 9/11's occurred. George W. Bush, in contrast, aims to be praised for preventing a 9/11 even though he is the only president who was in office when the actual 9/11 happened.

The worst thing to happen to this country in a long time happened with this man in charge. That doesn't mean it was his fault. But he WAS in charge. And it happened. And this man wilfully chooses as the highlight of his presidency the fact that the worst shit ever only happened ONCE when he was in charge, as opposed to several times.

Think about that. The man who oversaw this tragedy uses that tragedy as evidence not of unavoidable tragedy, but of his manifest competence. I wonder, did the mayor of Nagasaki run for re-election in 1946 with the slogan "I prevented the 2nd atomic bombing of our city"? I doubt it.

Again, he CHOOSES this association. This man did not mention al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden in public before 9/11, which should serve as indication of the priority this threat held in his mind. Even if we assume that 9/11 would have happened regardless, we can be sure that Mr. Bush did nothing to mitigate the attack.

His response to the attack was to start two wars. Neither war has been won. Both have lasted longer than any war in our history other than Vietnam. They have cost 5000 Americans killed, 50000 wounded, and the loss of Afghans and Iraqi civilians.....priceless.

But Mr. Bush would have us believe that the greatest thing he ever did was preventing the 2nd 9/11. Being asked to prove a negative is an interesting intellectual exercise, but it's a dead end in terms of ethics or morals or practicality.

What if Bill Clinton had said, in his farewell address, "My greatest legacy is that I prevented thousands of Americans from being massacred by Arab terrorists in our country"? He would have been ridiculed. Not because it wasn't true, but because it would have been rightly castigated as a cheap stunt, a rhetorical wormhole.

When Bush does it, it flies in certain circles. Despite the fact that it HAPPENED on his watch. So there were no massacres under Clinton, there was one massacre under Bush, and Bush is the one that prevented massacres. Interesting.

A computer might look at that equation and conclude that Bush CAUSED the massacre. I absolutely do not claim that sentiment, but it serves as a reminder of how ridiculous is W's claim. If he claims to have prevented the 2nd 9/11, that means Bill Clinton gets credit for preventing the 1st. Or that W. gets blame for allowing it.

The danger of Bush and Cheney's pontification of their "legacy" is 3-fold: they are constructing a scenario whereby: 1) 9/11 could not have been prevented 2) there was not another massacre because of their policies such as invading Iraq and torturing detainees 3) if there is another massacre it will be because Barack Obama did not invade Iran or torture detainees

So we see how this rhetorical wormhole can pave the way for all sorts of damage to our psyche and our judgement. Bush's appraisal of his legacy is like Lee Harvey Oswald begging us to remember him for the fact that he didn't shoot the Vice-President as well.