The Romance of Empire

George W. Bush laments that his advanced age doesn't let him participate in his own screw-ups:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Need we note that when Bush had an actual opportunity to put his life on the line in a war, he chose to avoid doing so? The guy who sent me the link observed the connection between these sentiments and the point about Bush-style democracy-promotion as the return of Victorian imperialism -- shot through with daffy romanticism about dashing off to exotic lands to take up the white man's burden. The idea isn't to identify policies that are effective at boosting the prospects for democratic reform; instead, the idea is to identify policies that are pleasurable to the egos of the politicians and opinion-leaders who frame them.

Comments

Is Mr. Yglesias trying to remind us that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were both draft dodgers during the Vietnam War?

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2008 9:59 AM

The idea isn't to identify policies that are effective at boosting the prospects for democratic reform; instead, the idea is to identify policies that are pleasurable to the egos of the politicians and opinion-leaders who frame them.

Well said. It's beyond grotesque. I'm very curious to see how well Bush is able to maintain his imminence front during retirement.

Posted by fnook | March 14, 2008 10:00 AM

Did you really say that they are not insincere?

Posted by gregor | March 14, 2008 10:01 AM

oops, I mean "eminence" not immenence".

Posted by fnook | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM

You guys just don't appreciate George W Bush's wicked sense of humor.

For more of the same, look at his explanation for why he would veto any attempt to restore the Fairness Doctrine in PUBLIC broadcasting on the PUBLIC airwaves:
-----------

"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - President Bush has pledged to veto any legislation that would "stifle" Christian broadcasters' freedom to spread their message.

Speaking to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, the president warned that some in Congress want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987. It required stations to offer air time for opposing views on controversial subjects.

Christian broadcasters fear it would force them to air anti-Christian views. Conservative talk show hosts worry that government-mandated balance would prompt stations to drop their programs.

President Bush said, "We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson."

Bush told the Christian broadcasters that in today's culture, "You are the balance."
-----------
Ref: http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/16607851.html

ha ha ha. There's a point at which extreme two-faced deceit crosses over into self-parodying irony.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 10:05 AM

There are several private and quasi-governmantal entities dispatching volunteers to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure there are provisions to waive age restrictions (where applicable) for persons with specific qualifications. Bush will certainly follow through on his stated desire to experience the thrill of nation building firsthand once he's out of office.

Posted by steve duncan | March 14, 2008 10:06 AM

I'm currently reading a book about the history of women's service in the British Army during World Wars I and II. Bush has done less to personally defend America than Winston Churchill's daughter did to defend Britain. Like hell he would volunteer if he were just young enough.

Posted by Dragonfly | March 14, 2008 10:10 AM

Reality and Bush are strangers.

Posted by Rich | March 14, 2008 10:14 AM

I like the Reuters reporter's offhand note that Bush was "increasing and lowering the volume at will."

What a monster!

Posted by nbt | March 14, 2008 10:21 AM

1) "EMPIRE" is not very fucking Romantic when your major banks start crashing:

2) The fucking Brits let the cat out of the bag :
From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3542775.ece
"Global stock markets may have cheered the US Federal Reserve yesterday, but on Wall Street the Fed's unprecedented move to pump $280 billion (£140 billion) into global markets was seen as a sure sign that at least one financial institution was struggling to survive.

The name on most people's lips was Bear Stearns"

3) From there, it was one quick link on Drudge and BAM:

"NEW YORK (AP) -- The federal government and JPMorgan Chase & Co. teamed up on a bailout of Bear Stearns Cos. on Friday, a last-ditch move to save the investment bank, which acknowledged its dire financial straits after a week of firm denials.

Bear Stearns lost half of its value within 30 minutes of the market open."

---------
Read'em and weep, Rubes.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 10:25 AM

In about 5 minutes, it may occur to everyone who has money deposited with Bear Sterns that they need to ..er..make a withdrawal.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM

This just in:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve says it has voted to endorse an arrangement to bolster troubled Bear Stearns Cos. and stands ready to provide extra resources to combat a serious credit crisis.
The Fed announcement came in a brief two-sentence statement that was issued as stocks were plunging on Wall Street over worries that a plan to ease a liquidity crisis at Bear Stearns Cos. might not work."
------------
Gee, I wonder when they are going to do something to help those Hurricane Katrina refugees.

I didn't know the Fed was so generous. That if you can't pay your bills, you just call them up and they take care of things. Now that what's I call a safety net.

And isn't it nice how it protect the US workers as well as rich Wall Street bankers?

Hmmm. I wonder where the Fed got the $280 Billion for the bailout?

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM

Re Don Williams

"Hmmm. I wonder where the Fed got the $280 Billion for the bailout?"

That's easy, they printed the money.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2008 10:47 AM

Note that the article referred to makes it clear that Bush is addressing folks in Afghanistan.

That's the war that serious folks like MY say they support. Heck, they want to send more troops. (They aren't interested in their own "actual opportunity" to go. MY is using his own "actual opportunity" to write big books about foreign policy.)

But these same serious folks are so fucking incoherent that at the same time they say they support increased efforts in Afghanistan and they say that both oppose imperialism and think that our efforts there are imperialistic.

How the heck did you get a book contract? Do you flesh out this incoherence for 250 pages?

Why would MY compare voluntary service in Afghanistan, a war he says he supports, to voluntary service in Vietnam, a war he says he would have opposed? Because he's incoherent!

Posted by Thomas | March 14, 2008 10:58 AM

What is incoherent is Thomas's thought processes.

People haven't support a war to bring democracy to Afghanistan. What they've supported is hunting down and destroying Al Qaeda -- the group that killed 3000+ Americans in Sept 11. That's not imperialism, that's self-defense. Something that George W Bush has failed to do because he's too busy pandering to special interests, grabbing Iraq's oil,etc.

George Bush attempts to cloak naked aggression on behalf of US business interests -- in the guise of a crusade for "democracy" -- is a Big Lie that only morons take seriously.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 11:08 AM

c'mon guys, we all know how romantic it is to travel to a foreign land, meet interesting people of a new and exotic culture, and kill them.

Posted by NutellaonToast | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM

Since we're talking about my generation here, I might note that the interesting piece on Mr. Obama's mother in today's New York Times shows how there was a way for people with more brains and character than Bush to get involved in development issues in these "young" countries.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM

What? No HEADS IN THE SAND angle to this post??

Posted by Jim Henley | March 14, 2008 11:27 AM

Bush can comfort himself by pretending that brush clearing is just as good as combat, and comparing a scratch to a lost limb.

Posted by KCinDC | March 14, 2008 11:31 AM

Thanks for the post, Matt.

If Bill Clinton had said something like this we would never have heard the end of how this shows his contempt for military service. Bush shouldn't be allowed to get away with it either, but probably will because Republicans are given the benefit of the doubt on all matters military.

PS I'm sure Congress would be willing to pass a law allowing Bush to join the army after his presidency ends. That way his dream of fighting in Afghanistan can become a reality.

Posted by Steve | March 14, 2008 11:42 AM

On Thursday, President Bush once again provided fodder for generations of psychology graduate students to come. For the second time in just six months, the same man whose dubious Air National Guard service kept him out of the jungles of Vietnam announced he was "envious" of U.S. troops now on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Back in September, Bush told a group of conservative bloggers:

Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he'd like to be there but "One, I'm too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me."

For the pathetic details, see:
"Bush 'Envious' of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Posted by Furious | March 14, 2008 11:45 AM

On Thursday, President Bush once again provided fodder for generations of psychology graduate students to come. For the second time in just six months, the same man whose dubious Air National Guard service kept him out of the jungles of Vietnam announced he was "envious" of U.S. troops now on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Back in September, Bush told a group of conservative bloggers:

Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he'd like to be there but "One, I'm too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me."

For the pathetic details, see:
"Bush 'Envious' of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Posted by Furious | March 14, 2008 11:45 AM

Don Williams,

You have a salient point about the Wall Street bailouts. Or as I like to say, why should we spend 280 billion to save Bear Sterns and WaMu, but zero to save Ford and GM? Who employs more middle class Americans? Who is more important to our overall economy? So why is the Fed so concerned with dumping all this money into a ship that is clearly sinking?

Posted by freddiemac | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM

More benefits from the George W Bush Empire:
------------
"BOCA RATON, Florida (Reuters) - The United States is in a recession that could be "substantially more severe" than recent ones, National Bureau of Economic Research President Martin Feldstein said on Friday.

"The situation is very bad, the situation is getting worse, and the risks are that it could get very bad," Feldstein said in a speech at the Futures Industry Association meeting in Boca Raton, Florida.

"There's no doubt that this year and next year are going to be very difficult years."

NBER is a private sector group that is considered the arbiter of U.S. business cycles. Feldstein is also a Harvard economics professor and former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan.

Answering questions from the audience, Feldstein said the downturn could be the worst in the United States since World War Two.

Ref: http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080314/usa_economy_feldstein.html?.v=1
-----------

There went the trust fund, Matthew.

Time to develop an appreciation for Pizza Hut pizza.

Or maybe even that stuff from Costco that you stick in the oven and which has been shown to cause shrunken testicles in laboratory mice.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 12:20 PM

freddiemac, banks really DO hold a special place in our economy; that said, I'm as outraged as you.

We are facing 4 problems:
1. Falling dollar
2. Rising oil prices
3. Oversupply recession
4. Arrested credit markets.

The Fed has made it quite clear that it sees it's current job #1 as fixing #4.

I've watched Bernanke closely for awhile, and I'm pretty convinced he's not doing this because he's Wall St.'s bitch, but yes, it's infuriating, did these private firms share their profits back in the good times? No. Did they bitch about regulations? Yes. Did they bitch about taxes? Yes.

That said, as public policy, these direct bailouts (in the form of cheap loans) are better/smarter policy than the increasingly inflationary rate cuts we've been seeing.

My hope: This ends the Reaganesque notion of 'moral hazard.' How can right-wingers bitch about food stamps and LIHEAP with the specter of rich banks being bailed out?

Posted by mike | March 14, 2008 12:25 PM

If we were lead by non-fucktards who didn't take troops out of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq, who didn't obsess over poppies and instead make a Turkey-like deal with Afghans to take those poppies and make them into much-needed pharmaceuticals for sale in Africa and who didn't condescend and bitchslap Karzai in public (from killing Karzai's initiatives to showing up unannounced and expecting Karzai to make time to meet with him) in a way that makes him look like a puppet and thus discredit Afghan democracy, then we wouldn't have to have this debate in the first place and snarky guys like Thomas wouldn't have the chance to feel morally superior.

When all is said and done, Bush's memory will revolve around his anxiety about his penis.

Posted by Reality Man | March 14, 2008 12:29 PM

"Gee, I wonder when they are going to do something to help those Hurricane Katrina refugees."

You mean beyond rescuing them, mobilizing the National Guard to keep them from killing each other, feeding them, clothing them, giving them medical care, giving them thousands of dollars each in debit cards, spending tens of billions of dollars on reconstruction, and putting them up in hotels for a year*?

*That is, those refugees who weren't taken in by naive but well-meaning Americans like the Tracey Thornbury who remarked, after hosting a single mother from New Orleans and her kids, "I won't help anyone for the rest of my life. I won't put my family through it."

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 12:39 PM

He should not feel envious. His Vietnam War experiences (when he was of age to participate) provide inspiration for a generation desperate for direction. It was enough. Dayenu.

Posted by della Rovere | March 14, 2008 12:43 PM

This just in from George the Whore:
---------
"NEW YORK - Trying to calm jitters about the economy, President Bush conceded on Friday that the country "obviously is going through a tough time" but expressed confidence that it will rebound. He cautioned against overreacting to fix the problems.

In a speech to The Economic Club of New York, Bush said this was not the first time the economy has been rattled and that he is certain that it will ride out its troubles. "These are uncertain times," he said.
----------
Oh, Fuck Me. Another Great Depression is bearing down and we have Herbert Hoover in charge.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 12:44 PM

More great insights from George the Whore:
"But, Bush said, "Our energy policy hasn't been very wise up to now." He avoided further discussion of prices, saying, "I'm going to dodge the rest of your question."

--------
"Our" energy policy? Who's "Our"?

What political party has been in control of Congress for the past 12 of 13 years -- and has also been in control of the White House for the past 8? What party failed to fund research into alternative energy resources because said party had its nose buried 3 feet up Big Oil's ass??

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 12:51 PM

"How can right-wingers bitch about food stamps and LIHEAP with the specter of rich banks being bailed out?"

The owners of big investment and commercial banks are lot less rich now. The Fed intervening to keep a bank solvent out of fears of systemic risk doesn't mean that the bank's shareholders aren't suffering huge losses. Take a look at Bear Stearns's 1-year Stock Chart.

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 12:54 PM

Yes Fred, the corporate officers of these banks (who have made obscene bonuses the last few years) have seen their stock options dramatically decline.

But now that they're going to get (apparently endless) chances at this never-ending poker game, I imagine they'll eventually get their sh*t together, find some worthy investments, and the money train starts all over again for them. Maybe no bonuses this year, maybe even none next year, but by '10 xmas will probably ring in another $100 million apiece.

Now tell me again why poor black people shouldn't receive LIHEAP and food stamps?

Posted by mike | March 14, 2008 12:59 PM

"What party failed to fund research into alternative energy resources because said party had its nose buried 3 feet up Big Oil's ass??"

What party has consistently opposed expanding proven domestic alternatives to foreign oil? What party has opposed expanding oil exploration and production in America? What party has been against expanding the use of coal? What party has been against expanding the use of nuclear power?

Posted by Fred | March 14, 2008 1:04 PM

"What party has consistently opposed expanding proven domestic alternatives to foreign oil?"

Ethanol sucks, expensive, inefficient, and requires almost as much oil. Lotsa Dems have supported it anyway.

"What party has opposed expanding oil exploration and production in America? "

Dude, oil is at what, $110/barrel? You really think people aren't looking under american rocks for it? You think anyone's stopping them? What, Exxon doesn't have enough cash to check?

"What party has been against expanding the use of coal?"

Coal is really destructive.

Posted by mike | March 14, 2008 1:17 PM

Oil's fungible, fred.

Posted by ajay | March 14, 2008 1:17 PM

I love how the prez sounding like a dumbass turns into an argument over which party is better than the other.

None of them have any damn brains.

Posted by AJ | March 14, 2008 1:24 PM

Fred, what part of, "America has only 2% of the world's oil reserves" don't you understand? Are you mathematically illiterate?

Posted by Tyro | March 14, 2008 1:24 PM

Finally, there is a little ray of sunshine:

"The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman."
---------
Ha ha ha . I LOVE IT. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302841_pf.html

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 1:27 PM

Now even the Brits think New York Has AIDS:

"LONDON, March 14 (Reuters) - Financial market traders across London have been told by their firms to stop dealing with Bear Stearns, sources in several dealing rooms said on Friday.

At least six major institutions in London -- including Commerzbank (CBKG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and JPMorgan (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) -- had stopped giving prices to the U.S. bank, a credit trader at one European institution in London, who declined to be identified, told Reuters.

Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) had also stopped trading with Bear Stearns (BSC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), a London-based equities broker said.

None of the institutions named by the traders would comment on the subject when contacted by Reuters.

A London-based government bond trader said banks had been withdrawing from transactions with Bear Stearns since Thursday."

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 1:46 PM

Word from London is that another US Bank is headed down the toilet:
----------
""You can safely assume that Bear is not alone here," said an interest rate strategist at one European investment bank in London, who declined to be identified.

"We have been setting prices in swaps markets in recent days that were designed to say 'no deal' and at least one other U.S. investment bank -- not Bear -- dealt. That is very worrying if they needed the cash that badly. We have been forced to review our counterparty limits ever since."

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 1:49 PM

Don, have you thought of getting your own blog, rather than posting spam on some else's comment threads?

Posted by Tyro | March 14, 2008 1:50 PM

MY - Need we note that when Bush had an actual opportunity to put his life on the line in a war, he chose to avoid doing so?

Amazing that Lefties like Matt still think flying a particularly dangerous supersonic interceptor jet (30% which crashed in their service life) and tasked with intercepting Soviet Bombers is "avoiding putting your life on the line in war".
Equally amazing, because so few Gentiles and Jews on the Hard Left or ivory pillars inhabited by fellow cocksuckers, like at Harvard KNOW anyone in military service, thus are ignorant of what service involves. You join, and you might end up in a War like I did (the Gulf War), something you never expected when you joined, or you might be outside the War serving vital jobs in the 90% of the military outside the combat zone.

And within the military, there are jobs and experiences that help convey respect and understanding of the capacities of comrades, sometimes just at a glance (that is what the ribbons are for, Lefties!). In the military ranks, people are rated with high respect right from the start if they do certain things or have certain awards. Rank not applicable except Gunnys and above enlisted or O-5 Line officers and above for their godlike power. But by profession of any rank - deck crew on aircraft carriers (the most dangerous two acres on the planet), special ops, Coast Guard Rescue, submariners, Navy divers, nuke power people, logistics loadmasters, most Marines, ANY fighter pilot, combat nurse and medivac helo guys, EOD, Army scouts, ECM wizards.

What Bush did is in a category that commands instant respect from any Vet or active duty.

*************************
Is Mr. Yglesias trying to remind us that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were both draft dodgers during the Vietnam War?
Posted by SLC

A good example of a Jew who shirked service condemning out of ignorance.

********************
Bush has done less to personally defend America than Winston Churchill's daughter did to defend Britain. Like hell he would volunteer if he were just young enough.
Posted by Dragonfly

Another dumbass that calls a man who saw some of his fellow F-102 pilots killed on duty and who was assigned to intercept and shoot down Soviet nuclear and naval attack bombers flying out of Cuba if the Cold War suddendly went. Who volunteered to fly in Palace Guard in Vietnam but lacked the hours. Bush never flew with them, but he was qualified to carry and launch nuclear missiles his Ops Base had, at Soviet bombers, if need be. That sounds like doing his personal part to defend America.

Bush? He did more than Obama did in the Gulf War, more than either Clinton did during Vietnam, or their daughter after 9/11.. Less than McCain, but only from happenstance of War. When Bush and Mccain wore the uniform, both were prepared to go in harms way. Fate dictated that McCain did, and was shot down. Lots of other carrier fighter jocks that bunked with McCain went through the whole war and never had a close call. And Kerry, poor Kerry? The verdict of most Vietnam Vets is he dishonored his uniform by meeting with the enemy at Paris, his false denunciations of his comrades to the world as "Gheghis Kahns", and behavior in the combat theater his officer peers found unbecoming an officer.

Still, even Kerry was better than a Lefty who pretends to be able to judge men that stepped up and served - while the Lefty ensured his sweet ass as safe and encouraged others to dodge their patriotic duty while lauding the cowards who fled to Canada and Europe as "heroes of resistance".

******************
Fred, what part of, "America has only 2% of the world's oil reserves" don't you understand? Are you mathematically illiterate?
Posted by Tyro

No, Fred is quite likely able to tie the ban on exploration off our coasts except a fraction of the Gulf of Mexico, in National Parks, the Great Lakes, and most of Alaska as having something to do with not finding oil that would add to US reserves. I guarantee you a surefire way to lower a nation's reserves is to ban exploration while using up what was found in the years before the widespread bans. It would work the same if we are talking about Saudia Arabia.

Unlike some other goofs, I do not believe oil is "limitless", but finite, and we will never have total energy independence until we perfect breeder reactors and hope for a solar power breakthrough or fusion breakthrough to happen. But right now, we are sending 200 billion of America's wealth to mostly our enemies overseas each year. I am in favor of opening up ALL areas to exploration to boost our share of global reserves back up, use coal in place of oil in all technologies and economics that permit it, and cut our oil import expenses down to 150, even 50 billion a year...And educate an ignorant public that Solar! Wind! Ethanol! magic dream solutions are just gross ignorance of America's future energy needs even with conservation, in the face of continuing mass immigration that will boost US population from 300 million to 420 million by 2050.

Posted by chris ford | March 14, 2008 2:54 PM

Getting kind of cocky, isn't he -- opening up the opportunity of comparison with his lack of "youthful romanticism" during the Vietnam years? Is he just terminally unreflective, or did they accidentally up his meds too much?

Posted by Madison Guy | March 14, 2008 3:08 PM

chris ford does not understand what "oil reserves" means.

Posted by Tyro | March 14, 2008 3:19 PM

Chris,

F-102s were second line interceptors. No interceptor is really 'safe', but like skydiving, lots of boys and girls like the thrill, and live to tell the tale.

On the other hand, people who wanted to put their ass on the line for the country did it where the shooting was, not flying hops in the COTUS. George joined a champaign outfit. While there was a non-zero chance he might be deployed in SE Asia, the F-102 saw limited use in the theatre.

If Bush had been serious, instead of playing the odds, he would have pushed for a ride in the F-105. Odds are his legacy would have been a few square inches of etched granite.

Posted by cmholm | March 14, 2008 3:31 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Another dumbass that calls a man who saw some of his fellow F-102 pilots killed on duty and who was assigned to intercept and shoot down Soviet nuclear and naval attack bombers flying out of Cuba if the Cold War suddendly went. Who volunteered to fly in Palace Guard in Vietnam but lacked the hours. Bush never flew with them, but he was qualified to carry and launch nuclear missiles his Ops Base had, at Soviet bombers, if need be. That sounds like doing his personal part to defend America."
-------------
a) If a Soviet Bear bomber flew out of Cuba to attack the US mainland, then most US cities would have been smoking rubble. Point being that George Bush was no more in harm's way in the 1960s than American civilians.

b) Yes, flying a fighter jet in the Air Guard is honorable service -- but it was a safe hideout from serving in the Marines or Army in Vietnam. Even if the semi-mythical Bear bomber attacked, it would have been a sitting duck to a supersonic fighter jet. The bomber was not a serious threat to fighters -- it was a threat to land targets.

c) If Bush was on the thin gray line protecting America, then why is his service record so sparse? The Spartans at Thermopyle didn't knock off to go work for months in some politician's campaign.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 3:37 PM

I vehemently disagree with most things chris ford types, but this one I agree with:

"educate an ignorant public that Solar! Wind! Ethanol! magic dream solutions are just gross ignorance of America's future energy needs even with conservation,"

He's right. More drilling won't help either though, we have to re-organize.

Posted by mike | March 14, 2008 3:57 PM

So, economic mismanagement? Watch out for the Bush administration starting a war to distract people.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | March 14, 2008 4:01 PM

whats interesting is that he didn't volunteer his daughters, who are certainly of age. At least the British royal family had one of theirs go over.
Even if Bush's daughters didn't want to go, is there no man anywhere in the Bush family who has the balls to serve?

Posted by stonetools | March 14, 2008 5:21 PM

So, is anyone shorting the Bush Empire? Anyone loaded up on Lehman puts?

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 5:46 PM

Re Chris Ford

1. I notice that Mr. Chris "white trash" Ford, in defending draft dodger George W. Bush studiously avoided defending draft dodger Richard Cheney. I wonder why?

2. In making claims that Mr. Bush was at risk in flying F102s, would Mr. Ford kindly like to inform us how many National Guard pilots were killed in crashes of that particular aircraft. Would Mr. Ford also like to inform us as to how many hours of flight Mr. Bush racked up in that particular aircraft.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2008 6:38 PM

Bush couldn't have volunteered his daughters. As adults, they could only volunteer themselves. George P. Bush, Jeb's son, is in the Navy Reserve.

Chris, your rebuttal basically boils down "He could have been in danger!" Flying a jet is inherently dangerous, but he damn sure took pains to make sure he wasn't in as much danger as those who served in Vietnam. If Bush were a young Republican now, he would probably be one of the war supporters who like to say "I would serve if I was drafted!" because they have, as Cheney would say, other priorities. They know the draft is exceedingly unlikely, and Bush knew he was exceedingly unlikely to face real combat.

Posted by Dragonfly | March 14, 2008 7:27 PM

You know an Empire's on shaky legs when Presidential candidates have to go and whore themselves out OVERSEAS:

"WASHINGTON—Senator John McCain has been averaging a fund-raiser a day in America’s pockets of affluence – hotel ballrooms in New York, Atlanta, Chicago – but now he will expand his pursuit of campaign donations at a $1,000-a-plate lunch at the 18th century Spencer House in London.
The transatlantic fund-raiser, to be held March 20 at the home built by the first Earl Spencer, an ancestor of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, comes at the end of a foreign trip that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has repeatedly said is not political.
-------------

Somewhere in the Ninth Circle of Hell Winston Churchill is grinning.

Posted by Don Williams | March 14, 2008 8:02 PM

"The idea isn't to identify policies that are effective at boosting the prospects for democratic reform; instead, the idea is to identify policies that are pleasurable to the egos of the politicians and opinion-leaders who frame them."

God that is mindless.

It's like I said regarding Kenneth Thiesen's attack on the troops as the stormtroopers of imperialism:

"There's nothing I could write here to persuade Theisen or his backers that the U.S. is a force for good in the world. For all the voluminous academic research on U.S. imperialism, the truth remains that America is not an empire."

The links are at the post. But geez, do you ever write anything with at least the tiniest smidgeon of intellectual heft?

Posted by Americaneocon | March 14, 2008 8:32 PM

chris ford does not understand what "oil reserves" means.
Posted by Tyro

Tyro, I work as an energy consultant. I know what oil reserves are and how they are established as proven. You do not. Nor do you apparantly have the ability to make causal links between domestic bans on oil exploration and the declining reserves. Nor are you likely to know how much of our oil could be domestically produced within the next 5-10 years if all restrictions are ended, synthfuel facilities built, and immigration severely limited. We could bounce back up to 60-70% domestic and use those enormous national savings to work up the other realistic goals of a true national energy plan.

He's right. More drilling won't help either though, we have to re-organize.

Except it is stupid to say that anyone facing a shortage of food, money, oil - and unlikely to become 100% independent - is wrong to reduce that dependency as much as possible. That is the argument against drilling in ANWAR or off Florida make - that we shouldn't become less dependent because drilling there won't make us fully independent. Which makes as much sense as a peasant facing famine unless aid comes in refusing to plant crops because "I can't feed my family entirely on what I grow".

**********************
Bush will soon be gone, and since all the Vets credit his service as significant and honorable, he will not have the biographical discredit Kerry earned.

But we all know that "chickenhawk" is just an insipid debating strategy the Left cooked up to "show up" Bush and the Neocons compared to the Great Hero Kerry. Which went over horribly once voters looked at his activities. But now, the same Lefties are ready to dump that - because they face a war hero with 2 kids in the combat area (which statistically is less risky than being a peacetime fighter pilot on a carrier). And they have a woman who skirked serving her country in Vietnam with a true Dodger husband and a daughter that "refused to step up" after 9/11.
And a healthy black guy that avoided serving his country with a strapping big wife who also ducked going in the military.

The tattered Lefty chickenhawk argument is all but retired in time for the next dishonest bit of crap they will ladle out on why "never in the military" Hill or Obama should not have that held against them...and why McCain isn't really a great choice for CiC because he isn't really a true civilian or his service made him "too hawkish", or if he want's to strike an enemy and doesn't personally fly a plane on the attack he is a "coward" because we all know he was a pilot...
**************

SLC - As a Jew who never served, you remain ignorant of the dangers of other service and the fact that 2/3rds of the Vietnam era draftees and volunteers did not serve in Vietnam but facing your Soviet pals armor and Air Force and Navy. You remain ignorant of honorable sevice in the Guard and Reserve, especially in a job like F-102 pilot that was actuarially riskier than going to Vietnam as anything other than a Marine. That is not "draft-dodging".
You would know the risks of fighter aircraft and the enormous anount of hardship it takes to qualify if you or any of your friends knew people in the military - instead of being part of a race that except when Israel was created, that generally tended to low patriotism, being Draft Dodgers and refusniks. Jews had the highest instance of draft-dodging of any American group if you count the likes of Cheney and his deferments as draft dodging Vietnam. In WWII, Jews had the lowest volunteer rate of any group in the US. Native Americans and Scots-Irish the highest.

*****************

Posted by chris ford | March 14, 2008 9:12 PM

With a little bit of luck, the next Democratic Party President could give him the job of Ambassador to Iraq. In an ideal world, he would within a couple of months be demoted to driver!

Posted by The Doctor | March 15, 2008 1:12 AM

Anyone with even a partial acquaintance of Victorian Imperialism will know that the Imperialism of George Bush's America is just a pale shadow.

For example, Great Britain sent its best and brightest young men into the Indian Civil Service, where they probably had as high a risk of death through the climate and disease as a young American has of violent death in Iraq.

Britain took its Empire seriously - but in the US, the brightest minds show little inclination to join the foreign service. Empire is more than joining the army and killing in exotic lands. Take a look at the work of British proconsuls in Victorian Canada, Egypt, India and South Africa to get some notion of how an Empire should be run.

Posted by toby | March 15, 2008 7:57 AM