Bush's Petraeus

People have been writing me recently to ask my thoughts about Petraeus and his relationship to Bush. It is pretty simple, really. In David Petraeus, George W. Bush has found his new Dick Cheney -- a man who can speak for him in an articulate way -- and stand up to questions. As we recall, Bush was too afraid to appear alone in front of the 9/11 commission; he had to take Cheney with him.

Now Congress and 70% of America have become Bush's equivalent of the 9/11 Commission, so he enlists General Petraeus -- along with newly minted photo ops -- to make his case. Bush has always talked a good game in front of vetted, sympathetic crowds like the Veterans of Foreign Wars or the American Legion. But when there is a risk of genuine interrogation Bush needs a partner -- a phallic spokesman. He needs a new Dick, a new stand-up guy. And he's found one.

In simple psychoanalytic terms, Cheney and Petraeus are functionally interchangeable phallic enhancements, compensating for Bush's sense of smallness. His fear of appearing weak could drive him to ever more reckless positions. New adventures -- like attacking Iran -- remain viable options for a President who equates leaving Iraq with personal humiliation.

As I wrote recently in "Dangers of a Cornered George Bush" (7/27), Bush "will flinch only if directly confronted and, so far, there has been no one to confront him in a way that gets through to him. The son has great fear of being seen as not as big as his father, and works hard to avoid public exposure of his inadequacies." Hence his need for a new mouthpiece, which for him doubles as his codpiece.

What remains difficult to understand is how Bush gets highly respected generals, like Colin Powell and David Petraeus, to do his dirty work. They are the ones, not Bush, who end up suffering public humiliation. Is it some perverse idea of loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief that no matter how destructively wrong-headed he is they will willingly squander life-long reputations as respected public servants to justify his war? Or are they gallantly responding to the fact that he is only a "bush"?

Comments

[crawfishpie]

The tragedy about Dr. Frank's statement that...

"The son has great fear of being seen as not as big as his father, and works hard to avoid public exposure of his inadequacies." "Hence his need for a new mouthpiece, which for him doubles as his codpiece."

is that his father is just as small a man as junior is, if not smaller, although, he may hide it better.

[mommadona]

Give me 5 minutes with Bush, and I'll explain things to him in no uncertain terms.

It takes a woman to beat a bully.

[Ahoenobarbus]

A few quick facts you might want to ponder while revisiting your theory of phallic enhancement. Gen. Petraeus was nominated by Bush for the post of Commander in Iraq and was confirmed by the Senate 99-0.

As for answering the commands of the Commander in Chief, members of the military take an oath to do so, and the President's authority with respect to the military is clearly laid out in the Constitution. And then there's always the possibility that Gens. Patraeus and Powell actually believe in the mission the President gave them.

It's odd: Bush is so obviously limited in his eloquence and yet I always seem to know what he's saying. You, on the other hand, obviously have a fine command of English and rhetorical skill and I really can't get your point, other than that you think Bush is inept, nuts and lame.

Why is that?

[hopeless277]

It's all such a damn farce. The people know it, the press knows it, the presnit knows it. Still we go through the motions. Why? Because GWB is a product of American exceptionalism. He grew up watching John Wayne movies. Now he thinks he IS John Wayne. Not the man but the perception of John Wayne built by the MOVIE STUDIOS. It is a pitiful spectical watching this once great nation follow a sociopath down the drain of history. Rome fell and America will fall. This time, though, you can't blame the lead in the cups.

[BillZBubb]

"how Bush gets highly respected generals..."

The real question ought to be "How did Powell and Petraeus come to be respected?"

If you look closely at Powell's history, he's always been a bootlicker. From the My Lai "investigation" right through the United Nations lie-fest, Powell has done whatever was asked--no matter how amoral.

Petraeus is more of a question mark. Clearly, like MacArthur, Petraeus knows how to use the press to puff up his image. Since the beginning of the Iraq debacle, he has played the corporate media. His supposed successes in Iraq have always been temporary illusions. He is the "guy who wrote the book on counter-insurgency", yet he is the guy championing Bush's scheme that violates every rule in the book. That tells you a lot about Petraeus' character.

Powell and Petraeus are not worthy of respect.

[OrvilleHLarson]

I agree with you about Powell. He's an excellent example of the political general (another is Alexander Haig), the kind of officer who sucks ass, who cultivates powerful patrons, who's more of a Pentagon warrior than a field trooper.

Powell's ambition took a terrible toll on his character, as evidenced by his willing lies before the United Nations.

Petraeus? He's an officer who lacks moral courage. He's an ass-sucker, a "perfumed prince" type.

MacArthur? Arguably the greatest of all WW2 commanders. In "American Caesar," William Manchester
quotes Basil Liddell Hart: "MacArthur was supreme among the generals. His combination of strong personality, strategic grasp, tactical skill, operative mobility, and vision put him in a class above other allied commanders in any theater." And, as John Gunther put it: "MacArthur took more territory, with less loss of life, than any military commander since Darius the Great."

[JimLarkin]

Again, Dr. Frank, you emit the glowing light beggering a larger stage.