|
of his low-heeled, never-been-on-a-horse cowboy boots, or is there a hard kernel of advisers around him telling him to stay the course? Everybody, on DU and in the real, rational world as well, seems to be attributing this buildup notion to the Little Emperor as if it were his idea and his stubborn determination creating this policy. But is it really? I've never thought of Bush as the originator of much besides fart jokes. I've never really conceived him as having designs on actually making world policy, just on aggrandizing himself in a very narrow sense. When people attribute motives to him based on his putative concern for his legacy, I remember the frat boy who kept walking away from one business disaster after another, unscathed and unconcerned about the disasters he left behind every time. I think of him walking away from Katrina, leaving his corrupt minions to finish the job of ethnic cleansing. Legacy schmegacy, I say. Narcissistic psychopaths really don't care enough about the opinions of others to entertain notions about reputations or legacies. This guy is a tool, has always been a tool, and will continue as a tool. My major intellectual problem right now is in trying to figure out whose tool, and what anyone hopes to accomplish. About the best I can come up with is that the looters--like maybe Cheney--see the handwriting on the wall and are putting him up to one last major outpouring from the national treasury, one last gigantic credit card binge, before the whole show closes down under public cries of outrage.
|