Book review: Memoir as magic realism

Decision PointsGeorge W BushVirgin Books482 pagesRs1,740

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named George. His “Dad” (also George) and “Mother” loved him very much. But George was a spoiled kid. In an early indicator of things to come, he “poured vodka in the fishbowl and killed” his sister’s goldfish. His fondness for alcohol grew with the years. Finally, when he was forty, he asked himself: “[Can] I continue to grow closer to the Almighty, or [is] alcohol becoming my god?” God, in his infinite mercy, smiled upon him. George gave up drinking, became the governor of Texas and then the president of the United States of America.

Guided by God, his family and devoted advisors, George did the best that he could; he made some mistakes but, at the end of 8 years, the world was a safer and better place. This is the story that George W (“Dubya”) Bush  would like to tell in his autobiography Decision Points.

Unfortunately, most of this story is set in Dubyaland where fact and fiction blur into a seamless whole. In reality, Bush left office with the lowest final-approval ratings recorded in the history of polling. The United States has never balked at using violence to further its interests, but previous American presidents tried to wrap this up in various veneers; Bush’s brazen policies ruined America’s stock of soft-power.

In this book, Bush offers few substantive arguments to rescue his legacy but he should get points for novelty. For example, he was condemned for ordering his interrogators at Guantanamo to use waterboarding — a form of torture. Now, he wonders what the fuss was all about and makes the bizarre claim that Abu Zubaydah, one of Guantanamo’s prominent detainees, not only welcomed water-boarding because it allowed him to fulfill “his religious duty,” but also told his captors: “You must do this for all the brothers”!

In one of his first major decisions as president, Bush restricted funding for embryonic stem cell research. Scientists hated this, but Bush sanctimoniously explains that he could not allow the use of “federal tax dollars ... to support the destruction of life.” Unfortunately, he had no such compunctions when it came to invading Afghanistan. He even mentions that “military planners had laid out the risks” of “mass starvation.” The point is not that this eventuality did not come to pass; what is shocking is that Bush did not think twice before taking this risk.

Although the US government claims that it attacked Afghanistan only after the Taliban refused to cooperate, Bush tacitly admits that this decision was taken on September 11 itself: “I knew it was only a matter of time before I put ... the power of our mighty Air Force ... to use.” Bush focuses on “the bloodlust,” among rescue workers in New York, which “was palpable and understandable” but he seems unmoved by the fact that tens of thousands of innocent Afghans have died because of the American occupation. To the contrary, he thanks Obama — who has intensified the American military presence — for standing “up to critics by deploying more troops” to Afghanistan.

Bush also admits that his administration considered invading Iraq immediately after September 11, because it “would show a major commitment to antiterrorism.” He then goes on to repeat almost all of the propaganda that preceded the 2003 invasion. In Dubyaland, “letting a sworn enemy of America refuse to account for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a risk” and “one of the best intelligence services in Europe told” him that Iraq was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks. In reality the anthrax attacks were carried out by a frustrated “biodefense” researcher at a US government lab. Bush admits this in a footnote and, in another afterthought, he claims that “no one was more shocked and angry” than he when no WMD were found in Iraq.

In 2006, a team of public health experts found that the “Operation Iraqi Liberation” — later changed to “Operation Iraqi Freedom” because the acronym gave away the real reason for the war —  had caused more than 600,000 “excess deaths” in Iraq. However, the only mistake that Bush seems genuinely penitent about is that his “stagecraft had gone awry.” In Dubyaland, Bush had no intention of doing a “victory dance” but just “hadn’t noticed” the huge banner that proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” when he announced that “major combat operations ... have ended.”

Bush spends an inordinate amount of time on his “doctrine”: “make no distinction between the terrorists and the nations that harbour them.” This is a rather odd resolution from the leader of a country that was found guilty, by the International Court of Justice, of supporting terrorism in Nicaragua and is widely believed to aid terrorist groups like Jundallah in Iran. Bush also perceives no contradiction in allying with undemocratic rulers like King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to promote his “freedom agenda.” On the other hand, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who has won a dozen elections in as many years — each with more legitimacy than Bush’s own election in 2000 — is a “dictator” because he opposes US policies.

Finally, what of India — that benighted country whose prime minister told Bush that the “people of India deeply love you”? Alas, this love is unrequited. In 481 pages of text, Bush spends one paragraph on India. It would be best to return the favour by paying little attention to George’s made-up stories.