Ah libs & selective memory.
BUSH'S MOTIVES
Jonah Goldberg
The Corner
Ezra Klein at Tapped writes:
<<< OF LEGACIES AND LEADERS. Mike Crowley notices Sy Hersh's ascribing Bush's enthusiasm for an attack on Iran to the "legacy thing": Bush wants to be remembered for saving Iran, not merely wrecking Iraq. Which reminds me, anybody else remember the press's obsession with Bill Clinton's second-term legacy-building? I can't recall Clinton ever mentioning it, but the media's spin on every single one of his late initiatives, no matter how innocuous or broadly supportable, was that that self-interested ego-hound was deploying American capital, treasure, and spirit to ensure himself some piece of political immortality. Meanwhile, Bush tried to restructure Social Security, is hinting at a grand bargain to fully rebuild our country's Big Three entitlement programs, and now seems to be hungrily eyeing Iran, </b>and not a moment of consideration is ever given to the guy's motives. [Emphasis mine] >>>
Me: There's much worth quibbling with here, but the one thing that stands out is this bit I've bolded.
Does Klein honestly, seriously, believe that "not a moment of consideration is ever given to Bush's motives?" What about the last five years of Daddy's boy theorizing? Or the nonsense about the Carlyle group, Halliburton and Texas oilman culture? Or his theocratic bent? Or his desire to clear the Bush name? Or his several interviews in which he's said "history will be his judge" and the subsequent thumb-suckery over all that? It seems to me that Sy Hersch is hardly the first person to raise the specter of the "legacy thing" let alone the first to give it a moment of consideration.
corner.nationalreview.com |
