I Hate What You Just Said

In today’s Boston Globe, foreign affairs columnist H.D.S. Greenway provides a brief retrospective on the calamitous reign of Bush the Younger.  Greenway mentions a number of Bush’s greatest hits, including “mission accomplished,” the botched job in Afghanistan, torture, and the current financial crisis.  But the money shot is Greenway’s comparison between the shame of Bill Clinton and the shame of W:

IT IS HARD to believe how far this republic has fallen since President George W. Bush took office. Eight years ago, the United States had a budget surplus, peace and prosperity reigned, and America was universally respected. True, Bill Clinton had besmirched the office of the presidency by his self-indulgence. In his memoir, he would put down his dalliance with a White House intern to the worst of all possible motives. He did it because he could. But that pales in comparison to what Bush has done to the country.

…

When all the various reasons for a preemptive war against Iraq are examined - the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy, helping Israel, etc., etc. - it all boiled down to the worst of all possible reasons: Bush invaded Iraq because he could  [Italics added].

I’ll say it again: draft George W. Bush.

As a handy supplement to the Zapatero fiasco, we have a harrowing summary of Oily McWar’s persistent confusion from Steve Benen:

Let’s also not lose sight of the broader pattern. McCain thinks the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia was “the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.” He thinks Iraq and Pakistan share a border. He believes Czechoslovakia is still a country. He’s been confused about the difference between Sudan and Somalia. He’s been confused about whether he wants more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, more NATO troops in Afghanistan, or both. He’s been confused about how many U.S. troops are in Iraq. He’s been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq. He’s been confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda. He’s been confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia. McCain, following a recent trip to Germany, even referred to “President Putin of Germany.” All of this incoherence on his signature issue.

I’m curious. What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama’s ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?

Wow.

It’s a good thing that his running mate - Sarah “What the F*ck is the ‘Bush Doctrine’?” Palin - will be able to help him sort out all these complicated foreign policy thingies.

Somehow McWar continues to campaign as a foreign policy expert, and people seem to buy it.  Matthew Yglesias summarizes the ridiculous situation well:

The problem is in the underlying assumption that McCain has some deep underlying national security expertise. In conventional Washington terms, expertise and credibility on security issues basically just requires you to (a) enjoy talking about security issues and (b) support starting wars. Support for launching a war that turns out well is the best thing to do (+5 cred points), but support for launching a war that doesn’t get launched is pretty good (+3 cred points), and even support for launching a war that turns out poorly is okay (+1 cred points) — the important thing is to support launching wars.

He likes wars.  He likes oil drillin’.  That’s why I call him Oily McWar.