At the end of Suskind's piece he states: "Bush was not so much a victim of circumstances and birth order—or of bad advice from ambitious advisers—as he seems in W. He knew more than he's letting on. He made choices of his own free will."

And yet I wonder how true this sentiment will prove to be. What if GWB really is as dimwitted, incurious and foolish as most of us suspect? What if he really is the tool of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and the other Neocons? Is Suskind just blindly hoping that this isn't true? Is he pushing the incredulity?

This all reminded me of the reviews I read of one of the biographies of Ronald Reagan, I believe it was "Dutch" by Edmund Morris. After being at Reagan's side for years and interviewing everyone he could who ever met Reagan he couldn't believe what he had found. He learned that Reagan was essentially a stuffed shirt, a kind of empty vessel who, like Bush, was incurious about the world and didn't really know how to fix any problems. But Morris could not believe this. Surely there must be more to Reagan. Thus he chocked it up to Reagan be a mysterious, inscrutable person of endless depth. Despite his closeness to Reagan Morris never found the bottom of the man, at least he couldn't believe that he had. Thus to explain Reagan Morris had to make up stories about Reagan and insert himself into events he wasn't a part of.

Suskind believes that some future writer will get a better and truer grasp of Bush. But if there is nothing else to grasp then Suskind is sounding or acting like Morris.

Of course, I could be wrong.

-Doughdee222

"Will conservatives ever tire of being wrong all the time?"