Andrew Sullivan, amidst his regular shellacking of the Bush administration over torture, slips in the following:

Bush will rightly go down in history as the president who authorized the torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody. But whether he has any self-awareness in this regard is worth asking. I wonder sometimes just how deep the crisis in American government was these past eight years. The entire system, in the end, rested on a man who wasn’t there.

I disagree: it absolutely is not worth asking. Whether he is truly morally bankrupt or merely staggeringly incompetent and/or out to lunch, it happened during his presidency and is therefore his responsibility. The actual workings of his murky mind should be of no concern to anyone. End of story.

The most important thing Bush’s stonewalling and denial tell us is that he is less politically astute than Ronald Reagan. Reagan, faced with a nasty scandal of his own, at least had the sense to symbolically and publicly accept the responsibility for it:

First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I’m still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds — well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.

More cynical people like my parents at the time thought it was a cheap, sentimental tactic to have the president own up to his ignorance and plead for forgiveness with the American people, thereby insulating himself from the fallout. I’m sure Reaganites like Andrew were perfectly happy to take the president at his word.

But then as now, the actual mental state of the president is completely immaterial. Crimes were committed during both presidencies, and both presidencies are forever tarred in the history books. Good enough for me!

Politico reprints part of a People Magazine interview with GWB:

Q: Tell us about your future son-in-law, Henry Hager. Did he do right and ask for Jenna’s hand?

The President: “He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?’ We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.’ [Laughter] And I’m of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible.”

I’m just quoting it so I don’t forget it. Ever. He rivals LBJ in awesomeness at times.

LBJ: Now the pockets, when you sit down, everything falls out, your money, your knife, everything, so I need at least another inch in the pockets. And another thing - the crotch, down where your nuts hang - is always a little too tight, so when you make them up, give me an inch that I can let out there, uh because they cut me, it’s just like riding a wire fence. These are almost, these are the best I’ve had anywhere in the United States,

JH: Fine

LBJ: But, uh when I gain a little weight they cut me under there. So, leave me , you never do have much of margin there. See if you can’t leave me an inch from where the zipper (burps) ends, round, under my, back to my bunghole, so I can let it out there if I need to.

JH: Right

JH is Joe Haggar from the Haggar pants company. If only he were related to Jenna’s beloved, it would be cosmically perfect.

*