I went into this series (of which I saw 4 or 5 of the six episodes) believing that some absolutely rotten things had happened under HW and W, more than conceivably even with their say-so or involvement. Apparently, I am not alone here, as one need only check online comments to Youtube footage of Senior's funeral (to give just one example) to see a divided audience capable of launching uncontrollably strong and biting criticism and attack. Liberal and repeated resort to the word "evil" would be the least of the Bush clan's worries were they to see what is written in such places!!!
Set that against the presentation here and we are left with the acute 21st-century dilemma of just how two such diametrically-opposed views of the same people can possibly exist at the same time (not least in a circumstance in which court action would theoretically be more than possible in the event of slander). A normal political opponent might be harsh or critical without ever resorting to accusations of an extreme or awful nature, yet accusations of the latter kind exist IN ABUNDANCE - of course potentially from people working for other governments in whose interests no claim is to extreme, absurd or gross, but clearly with this not the only source. So on the other side, there is the conceivable possibility that a modern-day cover-up can be so perfect that conspiracy theories - however shocking - remain theories and the truth never, ever see the light of day. Just how is that (or could that be) possible?
In essence, we are faced with anomalies at once fascinating and annoying to anyone scientifically trained. History should be accessible to discourse among historians, and conspiracy theories where they exist should either be demolished or substantiated. The nether-world between the two situations is a shocking one that should not even exist, and yet would seem to be blossoming in our era. Many of us are longing to know the truth about many things, and it is daunting to realise we may never, ever do so.
Given the mainstream media's typical refusal to delve into murkier territory on ANY subject, the fact that "The Bush Years" is from CNN might engender a sinking feeling, but this is not quite a hagiography. Opening titles intended to convey an impression of soap opera are clever and mood-setting enough, but Ed Harris's pleasing commentary, while not grovelling, is clearly not the talk of a man who hates the subjects of the programme.
The talking heads are likewise mainly supporters of the family (including also family members), but much of what is said - even by them - is interesting, whether its James Baker, or Colin Powell (particularly interesting in his lukewarm context), Jonathan Bush or Neil Bush. Indeed, the family part of this series remains a key aspect and looks remarkably convincing (thereby increasing the dilemma all the more). A particularly good "TV turn" proves to be Barbara Pierce Bush - as both an attractive and an eloquent presence.
Talking-head academics better able to distance and see a slightly bigger picture are also very worthwhile, though it would be a stretch to suggest that any of them are Bush-haters. Typically, they are more ready to be slightly critical over Katrina, the economic crisis and the (lack of) WMD in Iraq, than they are over 9/11 whose many anomalies and doubts receive zero treatment here.
If a hint of the dark is to be looked for, it comes with Dick Cheney, who certainly makes an impression. Those who have watched "Vice" (2018) will have been encouraged by Adam McKay to believe that Cheney was at least a co-President for Dubya (if not, let's say, the "senior partner"), and the real-life Cheney does little to distance himself from that idea in his comments, speaking only of his conviction that he did nothing the President did not want him to do. That's seems fair (and surprisingly open) comment, as does Cheney's coldly blunt statement of principle to the effect that waterboarding or any other treatment was necessary in the face of the "need to know" about terrorists in the post-September 11th climate. Whether or not those terrorists ever even existed in the exact form they have been presented mainstream is not an issue addressed by either the series or Cheney, but a declaration from the latter of the kind we encounter is EXACTLY what critics, haters and fans alike of Cheney would have expected to hear from the man's lips; and hear it we do...
Annoyingly, I have (so far) missed the episode about Prescott Bush - a man also mired in conspiracy theories - so I do not know how his treatment looked. I also saw nothing about George HW as head of the CIA, a job that would presumably generate a fallen angel even had an angel gone in through the front door on day 1 (which for him was January 30th 1976, in a tenure lasting just one year).
The non-conspiracy-theory SOLID FACT that both Bush Junior and Kerry went into the 2004 election as FELLOW members of Yale's Skull and Bones Secret Society is (needless to say) not even alluded to in the series, notwithstanding it momentarily having been a genuine election issue given the potential undermining of America's two-party reality, and notwithstanding the mixture of "laugh it off" and sullen secretiveness that characterised both candidates' responses to question on this subject from Tim Russert (as a relevant Youtube clip makes clear).
To that (admittedly limited) extent at least we KNOW "The Bush Years" as we view it is a whitewash. It is interesting and even compelling viewing nonetheless, especially for anyone around at the time (even across the Atlantic as in my case).
Set that against the presentation here and we are left with the acute 21st-century dilemma of just how two such diametrically-opposed views of the same people can possibly exist at the same time (not least in a circumstance in which court action would theoretically be more than possible in the event of slander). A normal political opponent might be harsh or critical without ever resorting to accusations of an extreme or awful nature, yet accusations of the latter kind exist IN ABUNDANCE - of course potentially from people working for other governments in whose interests no claim is to extreme, absurd or gross, but clearly with this not the only source. So on the other side, there is the conceivable possibility that a modern-day cover-up can be so perfect that conspiracy theories - however shocking - remain theories and the truth never, ever see the light of day. Just how is that (or could that be) possible?
In essence, we are faced with anomalies at once fascinating and annoying to anyone scientifically trained. History should be accessible to discourse among historians, and conspiracy theories where they exist should either be demolished or substantiated. The nether-world between the two situations is a shocking one that should not even exist, and yet would seem to be blossoming in our era. Many of us are longing to know the truth about many things, and it is daunting to realise we may never, ever do so.
Given the mainstream media's typical refusal to delve into murkier territory on ANY subject, the fact that "The Bush Years" is from CNN might engender a sinking feeling, but this is not quite a hagiography. Opening titles intended to convey an impression of soap opera are clever and mood-setting enough, but Ed Harris's pleasing commentary, while not grovelling, is clearly not the talk of a man who hates the subjects of the programme.
The talking heads are likewise mainly supporters of the family (including also family members), but much of what is said - even by them - is interesting, whether its James Baker, or Colin Powell (particularly interesting in his lukewarm context), Jonathan Bush or Neil Bush. Indeed, the family part of this series remains a key aspect and looks remarkably convincing (thereby increasing the dilemma all the more). A particularly good "TV turn" proves to be Barbara Pierce Bush - as both an attractive and an eloquent presence.
Talking-head academics better able to distance and see a slightly bigger picture are also very worthwhile, though it would be a stretch to suggest that any of them are Bush-haters. Typically, they are more ready to be slightly critical over Katrina, the economic crisis and the (lack of) WMD in Iraq, than they are over 9/11 whose many anomalies and doubts receive zero treatment here.
If a hint of the dark is to be looked for, it comes with Dick Cheney, who certainly makes an impression. Those who have watched "Vice" (2018) will have been encouraged by Adam McKay to believe that Cheney was at least a co-President for Dubya (if not, let's say, the "senior partner"), and the real-life Cheney does little to distance himself from that idea in his comments, speaking only of his conviction that he did nothing the President did not want him to do. That's seems fair (and surprisingly open) comment, as does Cheney's coldly blunt statement of principle to the effect that waterboarding or any other treatment was necessary in the face of the "need to know" about terrorists in the post-September 11th climate. Whether or not those terrorists ever even existed in the exact form they have been presented mainstream is not an issue addressed by either the series or Cheney, but a declaration from the latter of the kind we encounter is EXACTLY what critics, haters and fans alike of Cheney would have expected to hear from the man's lips; and hear it we do...
Annoyingly, I have (so far) missed the episode about Prescott Bush - a man also mired in conspiracy theories - so I do not know how his treatment looked. I also saw nothing about George HW as head of the CIA, a job that would presumably generate a fallen angel even had an angel gone in through the front door on day 1 (which for him was January 30th 1976, in a tenure lasting just one year).
The non-conspiracy-theory SOLID FACT that both Bush Junior and Kerry went into the 2004 election as FELLOW members of Yale's Skull and Bones Secret Society is (needless to say) not even alluded to in the series, notwithstanding it momentarily having been a genuine election issue given the potential undermining of America's two-party reality, and notwithstanding the mixture of "laugh it off" and sullen secretiveness that characterised both candidates' responses to question on this subject from Tim Russert (as a relevant Youtube clip makes clear).
To that (admittedly limited) extent at least we KNOW "The Bush Years" as we view it is a whitewash. It is interesting and even compelling viewing nonetheless, especially for anyone around at the time (even across the Atlantic as in my case).