Bush vs. Bush

I wonder how much of what Dubya does is an attempt to get out of the father's shadow. From the NYT:

When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.

The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Mr. Sharon had helped develop. But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 — six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond — the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.

"He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody," said one person present, given anonymity to speak about a private conversation. "It was like, 'Whoa, where did that come from?' "

The whole article is an interesting read. It lays out the stark contrast between the elder Bush's statesman approach through a prism of diplomatic experience, as opposed to Dubya's slayer of terrorists approach through a prism of religious evangelicalism.

There is one ridiculous quote from Bill Kristol worth noting:

"He (the elder Bush) had many years of dealings with leading Arab governments; he was close to the Saudi royal family. The son is less so. He’s got much more affection for Israel, less affection for the House of Saud."

Oh please. Dubya is as much a corporatist as an ideologue, and certainly has more than enough affection for both. After all, the objective of one isn't necessarily different from the other, given that Israel and the House of Saud share the same enemies: Hezbollah and its natural ally, Iran.

| +Save/Share | |