Our Educator-in-Chief Leaves Us All Behind


In tonight’s interview on 60 Minutes – one which the Administration might rethink the wisdom of allowing – Bush, along with the stream of consciousness Clara details below, essentially told the American public, Congress, the military, the international community, all those who have questioned his latest strategy, to sit down and shut up.

“Scott, sometimes you’re the commander-in-chief, sometimes you’re the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you’re both when it comes to war.”

Well, if he’s anyone’s educator, we’re in for a hard lesson.

A telling moment in the interview (this one’s not in the transcript, perhaps because it was not in the formal sitdown session) came when Pelley asked Bush whether multiple deployments, two, three, four of them for some, were fair to the troops and their families. Bush answered saying, “this military is motivated,” (meaning, and I’m guessing here, that soldiers are more than happy to leave their families and return again and again to Iraq?).

But the toll it’s taking on soldiers, pushed Pelley, who then referenced Bush’s brief service in the National Guard:

Pelley: In Vietnam as you know, you served 365 and you were done.

Bush: This is a different situation. This is a volunteer army. In Vietnam, it was, ‘We’re going to draft you and you’re going to go for a year.’

Hmm, so if we had a draft (which would be political suicide for the Administration and any Republicans hoping to trail it), then we could relieve our “volunteer” soldiers who are serving mandatory tours over and over again. I wonder why, Mr. President, it came to that, that we had a draft during a long, protracted war that called for more and more ground troops?

A draft, says Rep. Charles Rangel, who has repeatedly introduced a bill for one in Congress, just might shake our nation and its leaders into seeing the true cost of “acheiving success” in Iraq. But now it seems that those in need of convincing are few. On this the Administration stands relatively alone. Alone and in charge.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.