The Shakespearean drama between [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]41[/tag] and Bush [tag]43[/tag] continues to grow increasingly bitter. The New York Daily News’ Thomas DeFrank, for example, noted over the weekend that aides to the first President Bush are becoming more and more candid in their criticisms of Jr.
Indeed, one of the worst-kept secrets in Bush World is the dismay, in some cases disdain, harbored by many senior aides of the former President toward the administration of his son – 41 and 43, as many call them, political shorthand that refers to their numerical places in American presidential history.
For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment – particularly their belief that many of 43’s policies are a stick in the eye of his father.
“Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still he won’t say a word,” a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. “Personally, I think he’s dying inside.”
Loyalists to 41 are starting to draw up fairly long lists of complaints. While 41 aimed for the middle, 43 is a divisive conservative. While 41 was a respected international figure, 43 embraces “cowboy diplomacy,” pushes away our allies, and diminishes U.S. authority around the globe. 41 listened to Colin Powell; 43 fired him.
Curt Smith, a speechwriter for 41, said, “Conservatives want limited government, a balanced Middle East approach, a foreign policy that builds, not destroys, and general, not special, interest. Bush 41 endorsed all of the above. Bush 43 supports none.”
It’s worth noting, of course, that this conflict isn’t new, but it is getting more obvious. Maureen Dowd recently noted, for example, that the current Bush seems to be blaming his father “for policies that led to 9/11 and the rise of Osama and Middle East terrorism.” Indeed, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow recently told reporters that “when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn’t stay the course, and that led to September 11th.” Who was president in 1991? Oh, right.
Moreover, Bush has personally blamed his predecessors for what he saw as a misguided belief that “stability is more important than form of government.” Dowd translated this to mean, “Dad cuddled up to the corrupt Saudi monarchy and other Middle East dictators and let Saddam stay in power and was tough on Israel. I got rid of Saddam to establish a democracy and uncritically sided with Israel, a democracy.”
A top 41 aide told Dowd that W. and Condi are “in over their heads,” and that without 41, Jim Baker, and Brent Scowcroft around, there is no one to “corral” Dick Cheney from his hard-line craziness.
Indeed, getting back to DeFrank’s piece, 41 loyalists seem to be reveling in their ability to say, “We told them so.”
“Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts,” another key 41 assistant said. “Everyone knew 43 didn’t have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi [Rice] wouldn’t be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don’t know what we’re doing.”
Of course, as Salon’s Tim Grieve noted, all of this is fascinating as a family drama, but none of this is particularly helpful now: “If ‘everyone’ who worked for Bush I knew all along how bad Bush II would be, where were they, exactly, in 2000 and in 2004?”
They’re all dishing now, with biting sarcasm and obvious observations about what a joke of a president 43 is. Of course, everyone knows this now. If they were so convinced of 43’s ineptitude before, couldn’t they have offered a few subtle warnings to the rest of the country?