There are a variety of apt descriptions for President Bush in relation to the war in Iraq, but "sympathetic figure" doesn't appear to be one of them. Nevertheless, the Washington Post's David Ignatius makes the case in his column today. It's not quite persuasive.
As Ignatius sees it, the burdens of leadership during the crisis in Iraq have taken their toll on the president, and that the "stress of the job -- so well hidden for much of the past six years -- has begun to show on Bush's face."
"Bush and his officials are strong characters; they work hard not to let you see them sweat. But the anguish and exhaustion are there," Ignatius argues, adding, "This very private man has begun to talk out loud about the emotional turmoil inside. He is letting it bleed."
Ignatius seems to be suggesting that in this fiasco, Bush is someone for whom we're supposed to feel some sympathy. He launched a disastrous war for reasons that turned out to be wrong; he mismanaged practically every possible angle to the conflict; and he's left with critically-important questions for which he has no answers.
Ignatius considers this and notes that Bush seemed "stressed." Forgive me, but isn't that what's supposed to happen to a president in the midst of a disastrous war of his own making? Nearly four years after the initial invasion, shouldn't we be setting the bar a little higher?
For that matter, Bush isn't really "letting it bleed" at all. LBJ may have had trouble sleeping during the war in Vietnam, but when asked a few weeks ago about his own sleeping habits, Bush bragged about what a good night's rest he enjoys.
Ignatius perceives "emotional turmoil inside" the president. I'm left wondering whether he's watching a different president than the rest of us.
Comments for this entry are currently under maintenance but will be restored soon.