The Enemy of the Enemy is My Friend

Check out Rolling Stone's interview with Kevin Phillips, conservative author of American Dynasty, which places the Bush family under careful scrutiny, and finds them wanting.

Excerpt:

By the time George W. [Bush] came in, he was a product of a family that was more embroiled in the Middle East than almost any other American family -- to say nothing of any other major American political family. The administration has not been interested in turning over any rocks that represent Saudi Arabia, because the Bush family has been in bed with them for so long. In addition, many of the people surrounding the president are former retainers of his father. They wanted to nail Saddam because he got away from them before. That's a central element of restorations: the settling of old scores.

More:

Enron is a prime example of [cronyism]. No other presidential family has made such prolonged efforts on behalf of a single corporation. This was the first scandal spread out over two generations, and it was the biggest in terms of size. Enron was the nation's fifth-largest company when it went belly up -- it had a lot more impact on the economy than the small oil companies in the Teapot Dome scandal. Ken Lay needed government favoritism, and the Bushes supplied it. George W. made calls to drum up business for him in Texas, and George H.W. made Lay the chief planner for a G-7 meeting, which helped Enron get approval for major overseas projects. Thanks in large part to the Bushes, Enron received more than $7 billion in government subsidies.

Why doesn't the media focus on the fact that Bush is alienating at least some of the conservative base, namely, those who recognize the necessity of a world view that involves--sorry to sound like John Madden's football comments--viewing the world. The Bush position on world affairs shows a profound, and dangerous, indifference regarding global opinion. As I've noted before, this could become a REAL problem in the not-too-distant future: The United States needs allies, not organized competition from the rest of the industrial world, or, for that matter, the emerging industrial nations. Either group could cause problems, especially if the under-developed nations view the US as little more than a bully that should be avoided if possible.

Why won't the media look into THAT story?

The Iraq lesson will not be lost on underdeveloped nations. A country that was willing to do business with the US, even as we tacitly encouraged it to press on with a foolish war against Iran. A country that needed to be slapped down because it was getting too uppity--hence, the mixed signals on Kuwait. A country that suffered under sanctions so harsh that the UN coordinator for humanitarian relief in Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in disgust. A country where hundreds of thousands of ordinary, innocent people were systematically eliminated in the effort to show it "who was boss." A country that is now literally toxic due to substances like uranium dust (from depleted uranium shells we've fired during the two wars). Finally, a country that was to be the showcase for the younger Bush's electability, via invasion and occupation--although the total breakdown in civil society has made the Iraq issue less a means to coronate Dubya, and more just a pile of dirt to be swept under a rug.

When the facts finally emerge, the right which has bought into the myths of George the younger will have a lot of explaining to do. The media which reports these myths as fact will have some explaining of their own to do as well.