Pure Strategery: bush’s Plan to Save America

Back at the end of 2006, after the republicans lost control of Congress, bush was asked about his “legacy.” You may recall his response:

And you’re talking about legacy. Here, I – I know – look, everybody’s trying to write the history of this administration even before it’s over. I’m reading about George Washington still.

My attitude is if they’re still analyzing number one, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he think is right, and make the tough choices necessary.

In a most peculiar way, he may be right to question a quick assessment of the years he “ruled.” To find out what I mean, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls…

bush, under the encouragement and advice of cheney, addington, yoo, and many others, has had the courage to do-oh so blatantly-what his predecessors could and would only do clandestinely. (Remember “plausible deniablity”?) Do you imagine that extraordinary renditions, torture, the looting of the treasury, warrantless wiretapping, rampant cronyism and the rest of bush’s crimes are something totally new on the American political landscape? (Remember Nixon, mentor to cheney and rumsfeld?)

Of course not. What’s new is the open admission of these atrocities by the bush misadministration without so much as a blink of the eye towards the Constitution or the rule of law.

You may well dispute whether this is courage or blind stupidity. Be that as it may, bush’s legacy will remain in question for a long time to come. Granted, it will not be too difficult for (honest) historians in the years ahead to label this cabal as the absolute worst in the entire history of the United States of America. (see below)

But “legacy” is a larger question. Will his destruction of the republican party be factored in? And what about this question: Will the backlash against bush’s overstepping all bounds on executive authority result in the passing of new laws that prevent future Presidents from flouting the laws of the land? Or will the damage bush has done destroy America as we have known it to be for over 200 years?

If it is the former (which I doubt), then he will have done a great service to America at great personal risk. He will have risked impeachment, conviction of war crimes (doubtful), prison (even more doubtful), permanent exile to his Paraguayan redoubt, all as part of his plan to “Save America.”

By openly revealing what America has been actually doing for oh so many years, he has made it possible for us to confront the true nature of what our country has become and set forth conditions for us to rectify that misbegotten nature and bring us into line with the rhetoric of our politicians and the view much of the world previously held of us.

If it is the latter (destruction), then bush’s legacy will be written by the kool-aid drinking sycophants who always recognize a cash cow when they see it. In which case, bush could go down in revisionist history as a great President.

I must admit that for the life of me, I can’t figure out how the disastrous debacle in Iraq, the wanton torture, the tax cuts for the rich, the looting of the treasury by his corporate cronies, the unprecedented rise of military contractors, and a host of other treasonous acts, could all be part of this grand plan to “Save America.”

The legacy of  bush pere is just about settled (except for all of his papers and documents that remain under seal by order of his son, bush the Usurper.)

Mr. Bush’s 2001 order negated a post-Watergate law mandating the release of most presidential documents within 12 years. The order also extended executive privilege to vice presidential papers. Critics have been particularly unhappy about the provision giving an ex-president’s heirs the right to keep records sealed; legal scholars note that in the U.S., executive powers have never been subject to inheritance.

Most recent UPDATE on bush’s executive order that I could find, 9-19-07.

Even though as recently as the end of 2006 bush was unwilling to speculate about his “legacy,” at Mt Rushmore in August of 2002 he had no such reluctance (can you say hubris?)

Click here for a humorous take on bush’s ludicrous dreams.

Execution of “Bush in stone” is a bit disingenuous as there is no rock where the Bush Bust is to be placed. For the Bush Bust, both Haliburtion and Becktell have proposed the fabrication of a reinforced concrete addition to Mt. Rushmore.

When I first began writing this diary my intent was for it to be total snark-bush and his Plan to Save America by Falling on the Sword. As the writing progressed, however, it took a bend in an unexpected direction.

UPDATE: I missed the opportunity to put: “Fear of ponies” in the poll.

Is the Pony/Pie/Hide rating system too cutsie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. I can’t imagine anyone here wants to fight about it.

    • brobin on March 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    will be that of the “Reverse Midas Touch.”

    Truly, everything that was once golden and was somehow touched by his administration has turned to shit.

Comments have been disabled.