Bush and Cheney: Why Do They Feel The Need To Revise Legacy?
My mom used to tell me the people the boast the most are usually the ones that are the most guilty of wrong doing.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have spent the last two months trying to revise history by being willing to be interviewed by every TV and Radio station they can get onto.
Why do they feel the need to 'revise' their legacy? Usually, if you are in the 'right' there is no need to explain why you did what you did. It's just plain obvious by the results of what you did.
If the President and Vice President had done things on the up and up, Americans wouldn't need to be brainwashed into believing something else.
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have spent the last two months trying to revise history by being willing to be interviewed by every TV and Radio station they can get onto.
Why do they feel the need to 'revise' their legacy? Usually, if you are in the 'right' there is no need to explain why you did what you did. It's just plain obvious by the results of what you did.
If the President and Vice President had done things on the up and up, Americans wouldn't need to be brainwashed into believing something else.
Advertisement
Why do you care? They're out of here soon.
January 14, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because George II was our President whether we wanted it that way or not and his performance is a reflection on all of us. We ahve never thought that while the Reich was running the country that this country was not still ours too.
January 15, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't mean our work is done, it just means the goal changes from "how do we stop this?" to "how do we prevent something like this from ever happening again?"
January 15, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHILE BUSH REWRITES HISTORY, SHOULD OBAMA BE LOOKING BACK?
Obama can be given a pass for not wishing to look backward. The rest of the country, however, should do so.
-
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-obama-right-to-ignore-bush.html
-
Too many pieces of the system need fixing to let things slide.
January 14, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I care about how THEIR history/legacy will look. I do NOT intend on allowing them to change what really happened. I will do whatever I can to get the truth out and if that means demanding that the Obama admin's AG look into these matters ASAP, then so be it.
However, my first priority is getting the economy back on track, ending the wars and getting health care for all. Once those have started THEN they can go after the guilty of THIS admin.
January 14, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and Cheney will get away with it.
Cheney said that
IF Not Impeached, everything they did was Legal.
Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has done the most to
Stop Impeachment.
See David Swanson's great article entitled
*Conyers Explains Why He Hasn't Impeached"
article
Conyers has blocked impeachment for years.
This report is just an updated version of an earlier report.
In Swanson's article we see that Conyer's own statements condemn him for Blocking Impeachment and Accountability for Bush and Cheney.
Conyers: "Many think these acts rise to the level of impeachable conduct. I agree." and "I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man" from his earlier books cover.
So way did Conyers go out of his way to avoid hold impeachment hearings?
I agree with David Swanson that "the fact was that he (Conyers) refused to try, and as many of us read the Constitution, that was a failure of duty".
In other words Rep. Conyers has violated the solemn Oath of Office which requires him to protect our Constitution.
Conyers has portrayed himself as a leading supporter of impeachment but in his job as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee he has blocked impeachment for years.
Conyers promised to hold impeachment hearings after the 2008 election but broke his word.
Conyers ignored a petition with over one million signatures asking for impeachment hearings.
Now we find that Conyers was using a Republican operative involved in alleged vote rigging scams to maintain and control his congressional website.
See this article: article
So if Conyers is upset that some lone person somewhere in the comos called him a "traitor" to the Constitution, he brought it on himself.
The voters in his district had better be happy with him for No One Else in America is.
The only way Conyers can prove to the voters in his district that he wasn't playing games with impeachment is to start impeachment hearings prior to January 20th.
Conyers doesn't have to finish the process, just start the hearings to get the names of the witnesses on record to stop Bush's ability to pardon them.
Conyers may claim that Speaker took impeachment off the table.
The fact that Pelosi has violated her oath of office did not cause Conyers to violate his oath. He made his own decision. His Oath is a separate matter between Conyers and the US Constitution. If Conyers refused to honor His Oath, he cannot say "She made me do it".
That excuse no longer has any credibility. The Democrats control everything except the Supreme Court.
The Illinois House proved that impeachment can be done in 90 minutes when they impeached their Gov. Blagojevich for far less serious offenses
The Bush/Cheney offenses of ignoring House subpoenas and Torture require no investigation. Both Bush and Cheney have admitted these offenses during interviews.
Either way the voters will remember what Conyers does or does not do.
BUT as far as I am concerned, even though the House Dems mostly supported Bush policies,
Bush & Cheney still lied to Congress about WMD,
and I Believe that
ALL Congressmen who would vote to hold impeach hearings before Jan 20th
would immediately be pardoned by the public
for their earlier support of Bush.
If they don't hold hearings,
the voters will Never Forget
And many of us will be happy to remind the voters when the 2010 race gets under way.
January 15, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish some reporter would ask why Bush doesn't feel safe enough (as Obama did) to appear in PUBLIC in Germany or Britain or Egypt or anywhere for that matter? If his popularity is bad JUST among reporters and writers as he claims. If foreign nations love us so much, why doesn't he appear in open over there?
January 15, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right; he sneaked into Iraq at night and stayed in a bunker, safe from everything but shoes; while Iran's leader walks around outside fearlessly.
Bush has only himself to blame for that. Well, he is also a coward.
January 15, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are folks who've revised their lives all along! This is really no different. Just on a bigger stage. And this time it won't work.
January 15, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's legacy has not been written yet, and it certainly won't be written in some place like this. It takes a couple of decades for historians to put the bricks of perspective in place.
I've got little use for him, but given his actions on the international stage, and given the country survives the next 24 months of Marxist destruction, I'll betcha history views him with a kindness currently reserved for the likes of Reagan and Washington.
January 15, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right....and people walked with dinosaurs too.
Marxist destruction,....really? What's left for a Marxist to destroy and why would one even bother?
You compare Reagan with Washington? Holly shit!
January 15, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take that bet!
January 15, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush/Cheney are trying to drive the GOP agenda. If they can convince enough Repubs that their legacy is defensible, then leftist criticism is diminished. There is enough in Reagan's legacy that has been reimagined or erased in the public memory. Now he is Saint Ronnie, and debate on his legacy is limited to the efficacy of his philosophy. Never mind the debt, his tax raises, the Beirut fiasco, the spike in homelessness, etc. The public debate is limited to "Reagan: perfect, or not perfect enough?"
Now, it looks like Bush is repudiated and his legacy is a stain on history. But if a withdrawal occurs, expect Bush to be praised for steadfastly pursuing victory. If the economy recovers, then the long term impacts of tax cuts will be vindicated. If another terror attack occurs, then it could have been prevented with "interrogation and rendition."
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum
They are creating talking points in order to control future public perception. Its success is dependent on our ability to implement a philosophy that transcends the talking points.
January 15, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There should always be a war room to respond to their talking points. It is how Clinton and Obama were able to succeed. The critique of Kerry was that he left the Swift Boaters go unanswered for too long. I am not ignoring that the MSM let it play on the news longer then it ever actually played as an ad, but that's not my point.
January 15, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP will live or die by Bush's legacy. If they can frame history as vindicating a misunderstood man... And blame Congress for runaway spending, then culture wedge issues can return to their rightful place as the deciding factor in low turnout elections. Only then can the lunatics return to run the asylum.
January 15, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately, this is why certain issues should not be made criminal. Torture, for example. Too many Americans believe that either we do not torture OR that torture keeps us safe. If torture is retroacrively criminalized, then we risk making martyrs of soldiers and civil servants who were "protecting us from terrorists who decapitate and bomb innocent civilians." There is still too much narrative force in torture as a price to pay in saving lives. Plus, you risk alienating the military who identify with expedient violence.
It is far better to develop a counter narrative... One in which we can be safe while retaining moral prestige. It is all about reestablishing a mindset that does not view the ends as justifying the means. We have become a nation of immature spoiled children that takes more than we give. This includes those who want to criminalize Bush and crush the right. There is still too much mainstream consensus that conservatism is noble and virtuous.
January 15, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ends would justify the means if there was a benefit to torture. Our own secret service as well as numerous other agencies around the world have studied the issue of torture and determined nothing is gained with torture, unless of course you empathize with the sadistic MF who perform the disgusting deeds. Torture is immoral and useless.
BTW, the current consensus is that conservatism is in a swirl similar to a toilet. There are bastions of Bushophiles in the South, but as for the rest of the country and the population as a whole, conservatism is foundering.
January 15, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink