With both men, the Iraq invasion was a blunder. With Bush --far more (I think) than with Blair-- it was even moreso a crime as well. And as a crime, it blends in with the whole pattern of Bushite lawlessness.
If the invasion of Iraq represented an arrogant imperial over-reach, it was also emblematic of this president's pervasive self-serving hubris.
If Iraq was botched because of an indifference to genuine knowledge and understanding, it is consistent with this president's lack of that elementary form of wisdom, knowing that he does not know,which is in turn a part of the still larger pattern of the profound lack of self-knowledge on which hypocrisy feeds.
If the selling of this war was a campaign of lies, big and small, these lies are but part of the tapestry of deception the Bushites have woven in their communications with the American people on virtually every matter on which they've spoken.
If the Bushite venture in Iraq was callous about the human costs to be paid --by Iraqis and Americans-- to satisfy their imperial ambitions, that callousness fits with an entire presidency marked by indifference to human needs other than the over-weening lust for domination.
So when Bush leaves office, his countrymen may well identify Iraq as the dominant story of his years in the White House, just as Blair's are doing.
But when the question of an overall evaluation of this presidency comes up, there will be no majority telling pollsters that, despite Iraq, Bush has been a good president.
Sure, he'll get his twenty-some percent, for whom loyalty means never having to confront reality, who'll still tell pollsters they approve of this president.
But the majority of American will see this whole Bush presidency as a disaster and, perhaps, as a disgrace.
1 | 2
