For Blair, Iraq stands as a major mistake. He apparently decided –for reasons probably neither altogether disreputable nor stupid– that it was necessary for the security of the civilized world in the aftermath of 9/11 to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He also continued for four years –for reasons that I do not understand, and that no one over there was able to explain to my satisfaction– to remain on board Bush’s war, long after he must have seen how greatly he’d misjudged his ally.

These are very significant mistakes. But they do not define the entirety of his accomplishment during a decade in power.

And evidently the British people see this: despite the fact that the biggest single item in the picture, the overall picture is not one that they condemn. More than sixty percent of Britons see him as a good Prime Minister overall.

But with Bush, it is different.

With Bush, as with Blair, Iraq represents a major blot. But with Bush, this blot is of a piece with all the rest of his presidency.

With both men, the Iraq invasion was a blunder. With Bush –far more (I think) than with Blair– it was even moreso a crime as well. And as a crime, it blends in with the whole pattern of Bushite lawlessness.

If the invasion of Iraq represented an arrogant imperial over-reach, it was also emblematic of this president’s pervasive self-serving hubris.

If Iraq was botched because of an indifference to genuine knowledge and understanding, it is consistent with this president’s lack of that elementary form of wisdom, knowing that he does not know,which is in turn a part of the still larger pattern of the profound lack of self-knowledge on which hypocrisy feeds.

If the selling of this war was a campaign of lies, big and small, these lies are but part of the tapestry of deception the Bushites have woven in their communications with the American people on virtually every matter on which they’ve spoken.

If the Bushite venture in Iraq was callous about the human costs to be paid –by Iraqis and Americans– to satisfy their imperial ambitions, that callousness fits with an entire presidency marked by indifference to human needs other than the over-weening lust for domination.

So when Bush leaves office, his countrymen may well identify Iraq as the dominant story of his years in the White House, just as Blair’s are doing.

But when the question of an overall evaluation of this presidency comes up, there will be no majority telling pollsters that, despite Iraq, Bush has been a good president.

Sure, he’ll get his twenty-some percent, for whom loyalty means never having to confront reality, who’ll still tell pollsters they approve of this president.

But the majority of American will see this whole Bush presidency as a disaster and, perhaps, as a disgrace. 

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: