Cheney Trying to Re-Frame Bush?

by Deb Cupples |  Today's Washington Post tells us:

"Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

"'In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.

"The two men maintain respectful ties, speaking on the telephone now and then, though aides to both said they were never quite friends. But there is a sting in Cheney's critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end.

Blah, blah, blah.  The message seems to be that George Bush used to be a weakling follower, whom Dick Cheney could lead by the nose -- but, in the second term, Bush became a weakling follower of public opinion.

Which public?  Does any of that seem particularly accurate?   First of all, Mr. Bush did not -- in either term -- push for many policies that would benefit the millions of ordinary Americans who constitute "the public."  Quite the opposite, in fact.  For example --

Bush publicly fought for the no-strings Wall Street bailouts that were made necessary partly because of his anti-accountability policies.

Bush publicly fought against a stronger GI-bill for our troops (he was against it before he was for it). 

Bush publicly fought against better funding for needy children's health care.

Bush publicly fought against holding accountable those Telecom companies that had knowingly broken federal law while helping the Bush Adminsitration illegally wiretapping Americans (and for obvious reasons).

Throughout both terms, the Bush Administration fought to allow a relative few folks to increase their wealth at the expense of us ordinary, hard-working Americans (e.g., tax policy and  regulatory policy).

I could go on and on with examples of the public-unfriendly actions that the Bush Administration took during both terms -- despite strong public outrage and protest.

Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Cheney would have us believe that 1) Mr. Cheney was the heartless hard-nose all along; 2) that Mr. Bush was a weakling follower only for the first term; and 3) that, in the second term, Mr. Bush proved himself to have a heart after all?

Bottom line: Mr. Bush was president, not Mr. Cheney -- and the buck stopped with Bush.  

And no, many of the things that Mr. Bush did (even in the second term) showed evidence that Mr. Bush did not give a damn about the well being of the hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans that constitute the "public."

It's amazing how unabashedly some people will attempt to rewrite history.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Forty More Years in Afghanistan?

* Wall Street Bailouts: Paulson had Conflicts of Interest?  Nooooo!

* Clinton Gets Journalist Freed from North Korea

* Public Option May Reduce Rejected Insurance Claims

* Health Care Protests Shape Public Opinion?

* Man with Gun at Obama Townhall?

* Health Care Deal: Obama and Big Pharma

* Health Care Lies by Palin and Other GOP Fools

Comments

[James Stripes]

Thanks for this post. I couldn't make any sense of the article in my local newspaper, which seemed to start as a critique of a recent article in the Washington Post by Barton Gellman, author of Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency (2008). Gellman's book makes sense, and pins on Cheney his share of the responsibility for the most repressive Presidential Administration since that of John Adams. I haven't read his recent article in the Post.

[Jason]

This is a great site that you have here. I have a debate site myself and I would like to exchange links with you. We have to stick together. Let me know. Jason

[Sandon Flowers]

"Blah, blah, blah." Nice quote. Can anyone say dysfunctional invalidation?

"Does any of that seem particularly accurate?" Wow, that's insightful. Unfortunately it's equivalent to "Does any of that fit into your preconceived bigotries and prejudices?" You're very well educated, but this is just not your "A game".