By JACK NEWORTH also writes the TV review column “Channel Surfing” for the Daily Press’ Current section. He
BACK IN 1999, ONE ASPECT OF presidential candidate George Bush’s background that troubled me was his remarkable lack of worldliness. Despite his family’s wealth, George had only been out of the country twice — once to Mexico and once to visit his father when he was Ambassador to China. (George later said China was “boring.”) Bush wasn’t self-conscious about his lack of world travels. In fact, he boasted about it, saying that if he were elected president, the U.S. would not engage in “nation building.” And he was also highly critical of Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia because they “lacked an exit scenario.”
Whenever I think of these two things, I get a migraine.
While campaigning, W’s lack of expertise in world affairs soon became obvious. When asked about Pakistan’s coup d’etat in 1999, Bush couldn’t remember the name of the president, General Pervez Musharraf. Searching his brain, Bush finally referred to him as “The General.” It could have been worse. Given Bush’s penchant for sophomoric nicknames, he might have called him “Pervie.” Musharraf recently declared martial law. So much for the “democracy thang.”
Once it appeared Bush would be the nominee, many in Republican power circles were concerned about his lack of gravitas. Some say that was why Dick Cheney was named to head the search committee to find a VP who had some foreign affairs expertise. (Or at least knew Musharraf’s name.) Suddenly, Cheney revealed that, as the result of his search, he had decided to recommend himself!
Cheney’s vast experience was hailed as the perfect balance to Bush. This, of course, was long before Cheney would become the first vice president since Aaron Burr to shoot someone while in office. Perhaps I’m a little sensitive on this subject because I attended Hamilton High School here in L.A. and it was Alexander Hamilton whom Burr killed.
With Cheney’s medical history, the joke during the first term was that George Bush was only “a heartbeat away from being president.” But Cheney’s health improved, which is more than we can say for his aim while quail hunting. Despite a little birdshot accident (reported 18 hours later), Cheney has become the most powerful VP in history. (Though the subject of his impeachment now sits in the House Judiciary Committee.) We’ve come to expect Cheney’s forceful misstatements about: Saddam’s nuclear program (non-existent); his strong ties to al- Qaeda (disproven); WMDs (bogus); and, two years ago, that the insurgency was “in the last throes.” (Giving new meaning to the definition of “last throes.”) Even with all his gaffes, nothing prepared me for Cheney’s latest one. During a speech before the World Affairs Council on Nov. 2, he severely criticized Hugo Chavez, which isn’t unusual. But in his forceful conclusion, Cheney added the coup de grâce (or as Bush might say, coop de grass), “The people of Peru deserve better in their leadership.” The only problem, of course, is that Chavez is the President of Venezuela. Peru is 500 miles south, with Colombia and Ecuador in between. Adding to the irony, the World Affairs Council bills itself as a group dedicated to educating citizens on international issues. One would think that might include geography.
Imagine, if Hugo Chavez had said, “The people of Canada deserve better from their leadership than George Bush.” Or if Hillary Clinton confused Peru and Venezuela? Or if John Edwards shot a man in the face while quail hunting? Rush Limbaugh’s head would explode! (Not such a bad idea.) And while I don’t mean to be an alarmist, if I were Peruvian, I might feel a little nervous, as in “Why did Cheney pick us?”
Last week, Bush warned whoever would listen,“If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Now it’s just the knowledge? News flash — it’s already on the Internet! As for Cheney, in 1994, he said invading Iraq would result in “a quagmire” and “destabilize the entire Middle East.” Cheney was right then, so what happened? With this Peru faux pas, it looks to me like Bush is rubbing off on Cheney rather than the other way around. Could there be such a thing as reverse gravitas? Or maybe they’re both taking the same meds?
Now the dynamic duo is insisting on “defending Europe against the emerging Iranian threat.” Since when are the Iranians mad at the Europeans? I’m afraid we’ve heard this Bush-Cheney tune before and the last line is, “Bomb, Bomb Iran!” Great. Instead of being at war with two Muslim countries, we’ll make it three. To me, it’s just more madness. Although I suppose it might calm the Peruvians.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 9, 2007. Read the original PDF.