|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 15, 2005 / 6 Nisan, 5765 The Three Amigos are annoying By Diana West
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
What is the deal with Bush, Bush & Clinton, and am I the only one to
find this presidential reality show, starring Theirs Truly, extremely
annoying?
What we see in photo-op after photo-op is something that goes beyond
protocol, the codified strictures that have evolved to lend that
impersonal, if awesome, dignity to gatherings of state, right down to
their least prepossessing attendees. We see instead "The Three Amigos,"
as Newsweek has dubbed Bush, Bush & Clinton. The Three Amigos can't have
dignity; they have to have personality. Camaraderie. Maybe even
adventures aboard Air Force One. First stop, tsunami-land, where Dad and
Bill offer aid and comfort in leisure wear. Next, it's Dad and Bill and
W. in Rome, soberly suited for the pope's funeral. Then, it's dinner for
three with Berlusconi; later, it's briefings for the "troika" with
Condi. What next — a remake of "The Three Musketeers"?
The fact is, these guys aren't all for one and one for all. And this is
where things get annoying. First of all, as presidents they don't just
represent the culmination of the democratic process at a given time —
1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, respectively. They bring clanging,
clashing generational baggage to the job; they can't help it. George
Bush (41) is the last president from the so-called Greatest Generation.
Bill Clinton (42) is the first president from the Baby Boom.
Symbolically, they are as far apart as World War II and the 1960s.
George W. Bush (43) may be the second president from the Baby Boom, but
not having opposed the Vietnam War as Bill Clinton did, he skipped the
elite-approved New Left 1960s experience. (In case you missed the 2004
election, George W. Bush joined the Air National Guard in 1968; at about
that time, in case you missed the 1992 election, Bill Clinton "loathe(d)
the military.")
Of course, that's just how these men started out on their distinctly
separate paths to the Oval Office: It's what they did there once they
got behind the desk that really makes the buddy routine ring false. Or
what Clinton did there, that is. And I'm not just talking about the Oval
Office-overlap of Monica Lewinsky, oral sex, and a telephone discussion
with a congressman about troop movements in Bosnia — although certainly
this less-than-harmonic convergence is the nadir of the American
presidency. The grime, slop and tawdriness of the Clinton years is
infamous, culminating not in the historic Clinton impeachment in 1998,
but in a slew of 11th-hour Clinton pardons in January 2001 for assorted
crooks and cretins.
As far back as 1992, Bush (41) famously placed any and all of Clinton's
character deficiencies beyond the scope of his campaign. For this we can
say, thanks a lot, George. Maybe, just maybe, lashing into the "bimbo
eruptions," the shady deals, the draft evasion, etc., could have made a
difference on Election Day. Probably not, though. Bush pere was no
Second-term Coming. But Bush's discretion proves a point; namely, that
he believed in the tradition of the Marquis of Queensbury more than in
the ghost of Lee Atwater. By the time Bush fils came along, the line on
the innumerable Clinton-Gore scandals was a promise to "restore honor
and integrity to the Oval Office." This would ultimately include a new
paint job on Inauguration Day 2001. Bush (43) had a fresh start —
although no thanks to his predecessor, Clinton (42), who has openly
questioned Bush's legitimacy as the 2000 election winner.
Shouldn't bygones be bygones? Frankly, if these clashes were purely
private, maybe so. Certainly, they wouldn't be cause for discussion. But
these were affairs of state (absolutely no pun intended) and they
involved urgent matters of principle. "Patching things up," as unelected
citizens might or might not choose to do, isn't really an option for
public servants in this case — unless, of course, they now consider the
clashes to have been purely personal and, worse, the principles
unimportant.
One more thing: It may be a flash in the PR pan, but reports about a new
biography of Hillary Clinton by Edward Klein promise revelations that
could be damaging to the senator from New York's presidential
aspirations. In such a case, hubby's newfound friendship with those
mind-your-manners, blue-blazer-born Bushes would only help fend off any
future sleaze. All for one and one for all? Frankly, discretion really
is the better part of valor. And that's precisely what protocol tells us.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Diana West |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
