Scott Simon and Daniel Shorr

During their weekly tete-a-tete (audio link not yet available) Simon asks Shorr about whether the nation is going to engage in any more nation-building blah blah blah. Shorr opines that at this stage Bush is becoming concerned about his legacy and doesn't want the kind of stigma left on Clinton for Clinton's failure to act in Rwanda. Shorr does news analysis well compared to so many journalists who have crossed the bridge to become tellers of our opinions and complete truths but I think he is being too easy on Bush (like all "analysts").

Bush doesn't know anything about Rwanda. Couldn't have told anyone about what was happening on the ground when the genocide was occurring. Couldn't have formulated an argument for going in. Couldn't have formulated an argument for not going in other than a platitiude about not being "nation-builders." Bush doesn't formulate independent thoughts on any issue without being told by Rove or Cheney what the policy ought to be. Bush's "policies" are all ad-hoc. Therefore, having a serious discussion about "Bush's policy decisions" is all fantasy.

And finally, Bush's legacy, like his soul, is completely beyond rescue.