A thought-provoker for those who hate Bush

[Kev H]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/24/america/25memo.php

This article gives yet another piece of evidence of what I've heard (and believed) for a while. That while Bush is ignorant and completely unsuitable to be a (any) leader, he's not the evil imperialist that Cheney is. Rather, he was picked by the neo-cons to be the faceman for Cheney and his ilk. Note the candid reflections of the two (and I doubt they are playing good cop/bad cop); if you know anything about psychology, you can often tell who instigates things and who gets talked into them by their levels of regret.

Thoughts?

 

[midwestyankee]

Bush has free will. He did not have to act on the wishes of Cheney and his ilk. Since Bush set himself up as The Decider, then he bears responsibility for the decisions made by his office.

 

[neonlyte]

I agree with the analysis, Kev, it was a virtually inescapable once Bush Sr fucked up over Iraq.

See (Challenge Thread)

 

[cloudy]

To me, it doesn't really matter who the idea man was. Even if Cheney did talk Bush into many things, the responsibility still lies with Bush. He was president, and the ultimate responsibility is his, no one else's.

 

[Guest]

The tendencies I spotted in Bush early on in his first term were arrogance, an unwillingness to introspect about his actions, and an unwillingness, or inability, to learn from his mistakes. Since arrogance is almost always prompted by insecurity, it makes sense to me that he would be easy pickings for older, more experienced voices.

It seems, based on this interview, that he's had a healthy dose of self-insight.

I don't hate him. I deeply regret that American elected the wrong man for the job--twice. I certainly didn't vote for him.

 

[john-the-author]

I don't hate him. I deeply regret that American elected the wrong man for the job--twice. I certainly didn't vote for him.

I do. The monstrous arrogance Bush has displayed, even if Cheney has largely been running things (and there's some evidence of this), make him fully culpable. I'd have a hard time being really sad if he were skinned alive on Pay-Per-View.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Invading Iraq was always a good idea.

Saddam was a genocidal maniac who needed to go, and posed a constant threat to everyone in the region. America now controls Iraqi oil rather than Iran. And Iraq is a strategic base for America to control Iran's imperialism in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Stella_Omega]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/24/america/25memo.php

This article gives yet another piece of evidence of what I've heard (and believed) for a while. That while Bush is ignorant and completely unsuitable to be a (any) leader, he's not the evil imperialist that Cheney is. Rather, he was picked by the neo-cons to be the faceman for Cheney and his ilk. Note the candid reflections of the two (and I doubt they are playing good cop/bad cop); if you know anything about psychology, you can often tell who instigates things and who gets talked into them by their levels of regret.

Thoughts?

That's what I've always thought. It seemed pretty obvious. It doesn't exonerate him for being willing to be a puppet. He sold our country down the river.

 

[3113]

So you're saying I can't hate both of them?

 

[jomar]

...And the man who got tangled up in a question about whether he had made any mistakes — he could not come up with one in 2004 — recently told ABC News that he was "unprepared for war," and that "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq."...

And folks say he's not introspective.

 

[Pure]

note

kev, i basically agree.

gwb is a kind of 'front man' the republicans and the hawks inside the pentagon and outside, came up with.

he did 'decide', but it's well known that cheney, etc controlled the options presented.

he does, lately, show occasional insight, for example in one interview, he said that the talk of 'bring 'em on' and 'dead of alive' hadn't been so wise.

it's interesting the the RNC folks have come up with ONE central claim (on the accomplishments of Bush), which is VERY hard to assess: Bush kept us safe (out side of new orleans).

did he, i wonder? it's POSSIBLE that arbitrary arrests and detainment caught a few fish. that Padilla was up to something. it's POSSIBLY true that Bush's and others' measures *at airports* and *on planes* did prevent another SIMILAR attack.


OTOH, the US can be easily humiliated in dozens of places, as was earlier done with the USS Cole.

it's arguably true that the domestic acts within the US were placed on hold by would be terrorists. further, i suspect a future attack will be quite different, e.g. an attack on a reservoir of water, or a nuclear plant. it's IMPOSSIBLE to have 'domestic security' in a free country.

however, i'm hoping that the *indisputable mess* of the US on so many fronts WILL stick in people's minds. if bush didn't cause the economic catastrophe, he sat around doing nothing. i believe he's quoted as saying "what happened?". the downsizing of the US auto industry is about to happen. it's clear that Paulson's first plan, the 700 billion one, was NOT much of a solution. that the banks would *pocket* the money, e.g. pay it to shareholders and execs was eminently predictable.

whether obama's wall street based appointees can do better, remains to be seen. 'wall street' as is well known, influences both political parties.

 

[Bazzz]

Kev, thanks for posting this article. It was very enlightening. I do disagree with you though if you are saying that it provides any proof that Cheney was calling the shots in the white house. I think it simply shows how different the two men are in terms of their views as they leave office. Cheney is unapologetic and according to the article thinks everything worked out as planned. This is a silly view as every leader makes plenty of mistakes. Meanwhile it seems that Bush has learned that despite doing what he feels is the right thing he has made mistakes and is now finally willing to admit it. I just think the article was a quick look at how each guy feels about the job he has done.

Like them or not, Carter, Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton and Bush have all had to deal with an escalation of globalization of everything from business, the immigration and emmigration of masses of people and terrorism. They all handled these issues in their own way with varying degrees of success and most importantly I believe they were either victims or beneficiaries of the people they chose to have around them. This includes Bush's choice of Cheney to be his right hand guy. It will be interesting to see who in Obama's cabinet will move to the forefront. I can almost guarantee that it won't be Biden.

 

[Edward Teach]

Fuck'em all, Cheney, Rove, Kristol, every fuckin' Con alive. Remember, they picked Bush. He was their dream--as Rove said, perfect candidate. He had name, looks, connections, and most of all was a malleable little mama's boy. Hell, they raised $100,000,000 for him before he even announced his candidacy because the oil companies knew they were getting a good return.
Fuck'em all.

 

[Guest]

Invading Iraq was always a good idea.

Saddam was a genocidal maniac who needed to go, and posed a constant threat to everyone in the region. America now controls Iraqi oil rather than Iran. And Iraq is a strategic base for America to control Iran's imperialism in the Persian Gulf.

James, if memory serves, investigation post-invasion showed that Saddam had been so hamstrung by sanctions that he had little or no capacity for launching genocidal campaigns.

This is not to argue that the "missing" WMDs might not still be in Syria. Just saying that, as far as I'm concerned, Saddam's threat level to the region pre-invasion remains at best unproven. Was he a very, very bad guy? Absolutely. Will history show that the U.S. invasion was either justified or wise? I seriously doubt it.

On the day that "shock and awe" began I predicted to a co-worker that Iraq would be a quagmire--which it's proven to be--and that we'd need 300,000 troops on the ground from the beginning to successfully occupy the country. (I based that figure on a rough estimate of the Iraqi population of 30 million, meaning we'd have one troop for every 100 Iraqis.) Turns out that General Shinseki and I thought alike.

"In an implicit criticism of Mr Rumsfeld, Gen Abizaid said that the recommendation of Gen Eric Shinseki, commanding the US Army before the Iraq invasion, that several hundred thousands of troops were needed in Iraq had been correct."

The ultimate success of U.S. action in Iraq will, I think, be judged by what happens to the country after we begin drawing down our troops in significant numbers. I would not be surprised to find the Iraqis demanding the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and abjuring agreements to allow a continued U.S. presence in the country.

And, I think that the human rights watchers will be screaming themselves bloody at what the Iraqi government has to do to maintain order and itself in power.