Bombshell: The Bush Conspiracy Exposed

Paul (and many many others) others have commented on former President George W. Bush’s recent speech that many, many others took as a thinly-veiled attack on President Trump. However, Power Line has obtained a confidential memo from inside the Bush Family High Command that blows the lid off the Deep State conspiracy to secure the political future of the Bush family, and the whole Bush house of cards could well collapse.

In a Power Line exclusive, here is the entire secret memo:

October 24, 2017

From:  Karl Rove

To:       Condi, Dick, Bill K.

Cc:       The Entire Bushoisie, Shrubs and All

Re:       Threats to The Plan

Everyone:

I am concerned that our Secret Plan to make liberals love George W. Bush, and thus pave the way for a hereditary dynasty of Jeb, George P. Bush, Jenna Bush Hagar (how sweet it will be when she thrashes Chelsea in the 2032 general election!), and lesser shrubs for the next four generations is starting to unravel.

To be sure, Trump is doing his part admirably. Everyone has been fooled up to now that his “low energy Jeb” attack was forever fatal to Jebbie. No one was the wiser that we all knew the timing was wrong—another Bush v. Clinton election would have been even more depressing than Nixon vs. Bobby Kennedy in 1968, but our operatives took care of that. We couldn’t risk it again this time, and besides, Obama’s drone campaign took out all of our potential sleeper agents. And in any case, The Donald was the perfect person to wreck the current generation of Clintons, and thus clear the field for us.

Despite all the great press in the mainstream media that W’s speech generated, I am worried that a few shrewd liberals have detected the plot. Like The New Republic. Sure, I know, The New Republic is a pale shadow of its former self. Today’s New Republic would even embarrass the Old Republic in the Star Wars prequels. Still, along the old lines of stopped clocks being right twice a day, we should regard the following New Republic article with great foreboding:

Liberals: Stop Applauding George W. Bush

By Jeet Heer

George W. Bush left office as one of the most reviled presidents in modern history—even by many Republicans’ estimation—but he’s found a path to rehabilitation: reminding everyone how much worse Donald Trump is. . .

It’s undeniable that Bush’s speech was a major political event. Former presidents rarely attack sitting presidents, especially those from the same political party. But Bush doesn’t deserve such praise. The speech was as fundamentally flawed as the speaker was. The alternative Bush offered to Trumpism is just a rehash of failed policies, and his criticisms, while valid, are rendered moot by an uncomfortable truth: He’s complicit in the rise of Trumpism.

You can see why this line of argument is so dangerous to Our Project. Jeet Heer has noted how effective it has been so far:

By 2017, “I miss George Bush” was a tired meme, and yet it has persisted—even among top Democrats in Washington, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi perhaps the worst offender. “Did we ever think we would see the day when we would say, ‘Please bring back George W. Bush’?” she asked during a Texas Tribune event in April. “We really did work together.” The same month, appearing on ABC News, she mistakenly said Bush’s name instead of Trump’s. “I’m sorry, President Bush,” she said. “I never thought I would pray for the day that you were president again.” And in June, she said, “I wish [Bush] were president now.” . . .

No, do not applaud. Do not let Trump move the Overton window. Do not let his presidency inspire a revisionist history of Bush’s. . .

Every time we extoll George W. Bush, we drift further from the sober and painful reckoning we need, and further yet from solutions to prevent a Trumpian or Bushian presidency from ever wreaking such havoc again.

You can see why we need to stop this line of thinking from spreading with liberals. Fortunately, we know the hosts at MSNBC prime time don’t read, but if this New Republic article should get circulated at the New York Times, we could be in for some real trouble.

Suggestions? Do we need to consider the “nuclear option,” i.e., having the Weekly Standard and National Review switch to a pro-Trump position? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line