Slate: The Enigma in Chief - re: bu$h

[liberal N proud]

We still don't know how or why Bush made the key decisions of his administration.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009, at 7:08 AM ET
Read more of Slate's coverage of the end of Bush's presidency.

As George W. Bush once noted, "You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone." What I think he was trying to say is that, over time, historians may evolve toward a more positive view of his presidency than the one held by most of his contemporaries.

At the moment, this seems a vain hope. Bush's three most obvious legacies are his decision to invade Iraq, his framing of a global war on terror after Sept. 11, and the massive financial crisis. Each of these constitutes a separate epic in presidential misjudgment and mismanagement. It remains a brainteaser to come up with ways, however minor, in which Bush changed government, politics, or the world for the better. Among presidential historians, it is hardly an eccentric view that 43 ranks as America's worst president ever. On the other hand, he has nowhere to go but up.

In a different sense, however, Bush's comment has some validity to it. We do not know how people will one day view this presidency because we, Bush's contemporaries, don't yet understand it ourselves. The Bush administration has had startling success in one area—namely keeping its inner workings secret. Intensely loyal, contemptuous of the press, and overwhelmingly hostile to any form of public disclosure, the Bushies did a remarkable job at keeping their doings hidden for eight years.

Probably the biggest question Bush leaves behind is about the most consequential choice of his presidency: his decision to invade Iraq. When did the president make up his mind to go to war against Saddam Hussein? What were his real reasons? What roles did various figures around him—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice—play in the actual decision? Was the selling of the war on the basis of WMD evidence a matter of conscious deception or of self-deception on their part?

More at link:http://www.slate.com/id/2204488/?GT1=38001

[EraOfResponsibility]

1. I've been saying for the past seven years

That Bush ALWAYS intended to go to Iraq, 9/11 or NO 9/11. It was his plan all along. He wanted to finish what his daddy started. It's so obvious I don't know nobody knew sooner.

[justinaforjustice]

2. Cheney Went to War for Oil, Bush for Spite.

I don't know why so many folks are saying: "We still don't know why Bush invaded Iraq". We know; it was very obvious.

Then Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, reported that Bush told his very first meeting of the National Security Council in February of 2001 that he wanted to get Saddam, and he wanted them to give him the means to do it. Bush wanted to go one better than his Daddy and take complete control of Iraq.

Meanwhile, in the spring of 2001, Cheney was holding meetings with the top energy companies at which he had maps of Iraq's oil fields, showing how he intended to divide them after we had control of Iraq. The maps were produced pursuant to a Freedom Of Information Act request, although Cheney successfully withheld all the other documents relating to his meeting with the energy companies.


Bush went to war for spite, Cheney went to war for oil.