What If Bush Finally Told Us The Truth?

I said yesterday to my daughter Amy that “Bush cannot admit he’s wrong.” She immediately replied, almost instinctively, “But dad, he can’t!" Her inference was that, because he was president, Bush has no choice but to continue to say that we were right to invade Iraq. I appreciated Amy’s realpolitik reasoning and had to admit, “You’re probably right; he can’t.”

Buy why not? I wondered. Is it just not “appropriate” for a president to admit error? (It's certainly appropriate at times for non-presidents,). Is it the perceived political consequences? Foreign relations considerations? Would it be too embarrassing, or even shameful?

Is it because the issue is such a big one and the cost is so great? (compared, say, to Clinton's transgressions, and coming clean wasn't easy for him either!). Is that why you don't want to admit that you might have acted hastily? It's harder to admit being wrong when the cost is high. It's easier to admit to being wrong with the small stuff..

All are factors, but I think ANGER FROM THE RIGHT is the biggest reason Bush cannot admit he was wrong. The "Angry Right" would include many (but not all) of those whose loved ones will now have "died in vain". It includes good people who "believed in" George Bush . . . and now he has let them down. It includes those who use banalities like "fighting them over there rather than over here" as if such slogans offer VALID JUSTIFICATION for the war. It would include his Evangelical friends, many of whom see our uninvited involvement in the Mideast as a first step toward fullfilling Scripture. Some in the military would be angry. Some would be relieved that their commander-in-chief has the courage to tell the truth.

Later, I asked my friend Gloria what she thought of Amy’s conclusion – that “Bush cannot admit he’s wrong” -- and she quickly agreed. “He can’t even admit he might have been wrong,” she added. But, interestingly, Gloria and Amy saw it differently. Gloria’s perspective was psychological, while Amy’s was political.

Gloria believes that Bush is “psychologically incapable” of admitting he is wrong. Yes, it's hard for men like Bush to admit error – maybe impossible in any practical sense. (We all know the type). But when pressed, Gloria agreed with me that it was possible for Bush to come clean with us . . . “theoretically”.

But I want to ask . . . What if George Bush experienced an epiphany and said to the American people . . . "My fellow Americans, in my sincerest desire to do the very best for my country, and based on the information available to me at the time, I made a decision to invade Iraq that I would not make today . . . based on what I know now.

As for the political impact of Bush's mea culpa, Gloria and I agreed that our personal opinions of Bush would soar from intense disrespect to grudging respect -- almost overnight. There must be others who think as we do. After all, we all make mistakes. We Liberals would understand that!

I would respect him for finally telling the truth. I would respect him for acting honorably, for possibly opening the door to fresh new ways of fighting “the war on terror,” rather than stubbornly hanging on to a policy that, if not flawed or failed, was established based on flawed information. I would admire him for finally letting go of the lie!

Nothing Bush has ever said infuriates me more than his assertion some time back that he would "do it all again . . . even knowing what we know now." The Bushies don't say it much anymore, but the attitude is evident in everything they say. The supreme irony is that, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW, BUSH COULD NOT HAVE STARTED THIS WAR. Congress and the people would not have supported an invasion whose main purpose was "to spread democracy in the Mideast," and "free the people of Iraq."

I found myself feeling sorry for Bush (that’s a first) after his Veteran’s Day speech. Imagine being forced to try to convince everyone you’re still “right” when all the reasons you gave us have been shown to be bullshit. That’s not easy.

Poor George, he's gotta keep telling the lie. He has no choice. (He does, but I doubt he could never see it). So he resorts to clever phrases that sound weighty and true. An expression like “trying to rewrite history” actually sounds credible. But it's purpose is not tell the truth. It's purpose is to mislead an ever-shrinking base of supporters into believing that George is right and the Democrats are wrong. Even if parts of it are partly true, the statement is at a minimum "bullshit" -- I think it's closer to a "lie". (A book "On Bullshit" by a Princeton philosphy professor makes brilliant distinctions between a "lying" and "bullshitting").

While striking back at those who question him, George ignores that he cherry-picked the intelligence, exaggerated the claims, ignored anyone who didn't agree with him, and scared the hell out of everyone, including Congress. He wanted this war from day one, and 9/11 gave him the excuse to start it.

Fortunately, George Bush is now able to fool only his hardcore supporters (which includes the same idiots who believe humans were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago). He is no longer fooling the three out of five Americans (based on the latest polls) who see through his bullshit, which will soon grow to seven out of ten -- but probably not harder because true belivers don't change their minds.

Perhaps because of my own experiences, there's something about George Bush’s semi-religious devotion to concepts like "staying the course" that makes me uncomfortable. No matter that the course might be wrong! What counts is "staying the course" and "not changing your mind." He said of Harriett Miers that she “would not change her mind in 20 years” -- as if (incredibly!) that was a good thing(?).

I agree with Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines . . . Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.”

Bush is not a bad man. He doesn't mean to have a "foolish consistency." He only wants to go down in history as “a better president than his dad." That's reasonable. I just resent him for dragging the whole fucking country along! Handle your own father-shit, George.

So, Amy and Gloria, what do you think? Is it really true that Bush “cannot” admit he’s wrong? Or is it just that he won’t? Or is that he can, but shouldn’t?