With respect to Sean du Toit's post on the Historical Bush Seminar, I, Benard Sauvant of the Free University of Central Kansas, would like to offer my own contributions. At the outset, I should thank the Langford Institute of Early Studies for their generous support of my research.
I have to disagree with my esteemed colleague Phonias Futz insofar as I believe the historical evidence does show that the office of President existed in the 20th and 21st century. I think on this point Dr. Nathan Wright has presented compelling evidence. I also think that there was, in fact, a President named George Bush. Yet, at the same time, I very much agree with my colleague Phonias Futz that George W. Bush is largely a fictitious character. The Bushisms and the nickname "Dubya" expose the absurdity of the whole legend.
See, the legend of George W. Bush may have started quite harmlessly really. At some point, confusion arose over the order of presidential succession and specifically whether George Bush was President before Bill Clinton or after him. Clearly the older tradition is that George Bush was President before Bill Clinton and this, of course, finds clear support in the historical record for we know that a George Bush served as Vice-President under Ronald Reagan. As it was fairly common for the Vice-President to become President, it must be that this George Bush became President in the four years between the end of Reagan's term and the beginning of Bill Clinton's term. This George Bush was clearly a lacklustre President, who accomplished very little in his Presidency besides coming to the aid of the Kuwaitis in the war with Iraq. Consequently, he does not win re-election and is succeeded by the popular President, Bill Clinton, who serves two terms.
After Bill Clinton's eight years, we run into the problem of the second George Bush. People like Dr. Wright want us to believe that a second "George Bush", distinguished only by middle initials and so even perhaps related to the first, became President. We are also expected to believe that like the George H. Bush, who we know was real, this George W. Bush invaded Iraq; but, that this was a second war some twelve years after the first one and it was only then that the United States managed to overthrow Saddam Hussein; and, that Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell, who are all attested members of the George H. Bush administration, were again administrators in the presidency of this second Bush. The sheer outlandishness and improbability that you would have two presidents with the same names, engage in parallel international conflicts with the same enemy (and this second one as a "preemptive" invasion), and be surrounded by many of the same characters strains credulity. It is, therefore, manifestly obvious that this second George Bush never existed. The tradition is, in fact, what we historians call a doublet. We notice immediately that the subsidiary characters all get promotions in the doublet; the second Bush wins a second term in office rather than serving just one; instead of one Supreme Court nomination, the second Bush makes two nominations; and, we notice that in the second tradition the whole Iraq conflict grows from a relatively quick, strangely abbreviated conflict into an epic battle, pitting good against evil.
Especially revealing in this second tradition is that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is ascribed to this second Bush. It is quite obvious, however, that it couldn't have happened this way because Iraq becomes a democracy far too quickly in this fantastical chronology; they have elections and approve a constitution all within two years of the dictator's overthrow. We know from many other similar cases in the 20th century that you simply don't move a country from dictatorship to democracy that quickly. Look at Germany or Japan in the aftermath of the so-called World War II. We, therefore, have here an older tradition that is displaced. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein must have occurred in the presidency of Bill Clinton, probably in 1998. Indeed, Dr. Nathan Wright posits the whole idea of a second Gulf War under George W. Bush for reasons that Bill Clinton must have addressed five years earlier as this recently uncovered speech indicates. It is Bill Clinton then who continues the war that George H. Bush started, overthrows Saddam Hussein, and starts to stabilize Iraq. His successor, whose identity has been obscured, is then President when Iraq becomes a democracy.
Indeed, it is here on this point of who really succeeded Clinton that the crux of the whole problem turns and we begin to see the real ideological reasons behind the second Bush tradition. Although the inventors of the second Bush tradition tried to suppress the real events, there are several credible extant sources that say a man named Al Gore, that is Bill Clinton's Vice-President, actually won the election that this George W. Bush is alleged to have won. This makes logical sense. Just as the George H. Bush was Vice-President before becoming President so then Al Gore must have become President after serving as Clinton's Vice-President. This is confirmed by the fact that the Clinton-Gore presidency was, by all accounts, very popular; so, it is hard to believe this Al Gore could have lost an election as Dr. Wright would have us believe. Clearly, future Republicans, taking advantage of later confusion in the order of presidential succession, wanted to erase this Al Gore from tradition and so invented George W. Bush to whom they then ascribe all the positive developments that occurred under the presidency of either Bill Clinton or his now erased successor Al Gore. It was clearly a sort of Republican wish fulfilment scenario for the abbreviated presidency of George H. Bush. Fortunately, careful historical reconstruction such as mine can rectify these cruel lies of past ideologues and reclaim history for the Democratic Party, that has been shamelessly vilified by the establishment for allegedly being on the wrong side of history. It is clear now that it must have been the Republicans who were on the wrong side of history and that it was Bill Clinton and Al Gore who, taking over from the inept George H. Bush administration, finished the Iraq war and introduced the policy of democratization that ultimately delivered the Middle East from its tyrannical governments.
Did Bush Exist? Revisited
![[Valid Atom]](http://anduril.ca/blog/themes/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom Feed"){kind=small}
