Dec 07 2008
Karl Rove to Attempt World’s Most Difficult Magic Trick: Make George W. Bush Look Like a Great President
Now that George W. Bush is leaving office, it appears that Karl Rove is considering a career move from political strategist to magician.
According to the Sunday Telegraph, Rove and Karen Hughes, who served as the president’s communications chief, have unveiled a “Bush legacy project,” which aims to “set the record straight” on Dubya’s time in office.
Stephen Hayes, a right-wing commentator and the official biographer of Vice President Dick Cheney, said that Rove and Hughes, “have been meeting senior figures in the current Administration to discuss how to ‘roll out the president’s legacy’.”
Speaking of Cheney’s upcoming biography, I’m not sure what the title will be, but I think it’s fair to say that “Weak Heart of Darkness” would be a fitting choice.
Rove spearheaded the campaign to put a positive spin on one of the most unpopular and anti-intellectual presidencies in living memory by asserting that “George W Bush would not have ordered the invasion of Iraq if the intelligence had shown that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.”
“Mr Bush’s friends and advisors have started a loosely coordinated campaign to defend his record and promote what they see as his achievements in interviews, speeches and private comments to influential audiences,” writes Philip Sherwell of the Sunday Telegraph.
“They think this is a good time to try and set the record straight,” said Rove. “The president has always made clear that he’s not interesting in looking back or second-guessing his decisions. But his friends don’t want that to mean the ground is ceded to his enemies as his presidency is debated.”
If Mr. Rove manages to convince a majority of the American people that the Bush presidency has not been the unmitigated disaster that it certainly appears to be at this time, then he should get out of politics entirely and seek a new position as the world’s preeminent magician. Seriously, I don’t think David Blaine ever did anything this incredible.
Then again, Rove has already performed some eye-popping magic tricks. Consider the fact that he got Dubya elected not once, but twice – although he had some assistance from the Supreme Court the first time.
Speaking of magic, Bush himself is a notable sorcerer whose powers rival those of a certain bespectacled nerd from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft & Wizardy. After all, he made Clinton’s budget surplus disappear in a short amount of time. Can he make our gargantuan debt disappear to? Keep your fingers crossed!
“This was a funny post!
”
Er, thanks.
Ha! I’d hate to be the writer charged with that task! Great post
“Speaking of Cheney’s upcoming biography, I’m not sure what the title will be, but I think it’s fair to say that “Weak Heart of Darkness” would be a fitting choice.”
oh man that one killed me…
Cheers
“oh man that one killed me…”
Yeah, when i read about Cheney’s upcoming biography, I couldn’t resist sneaking that one in, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the article’s topic.
Well, you know that we have differing interpretations of Bush.
I voted for him, much to my current chagrin, and no longer defend much of his excesses, as he has finally gone past my limits.
But I am forced to defend some things, as I remember what was published, and it seems that you and a lot of others seem to conflate your opinions with what was publicly known at the time after 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq war.
That said, don’t think that I am saying that Bush ever has been straight with us regarding what they actually knew vs. what is public knowledge, but I will defend him in that I refuse to believe that he ever actually lied about it. I do remember that the intelligence services in Britain, France, and Germany also were worried, and made public comments to the affect that they were afraid that Saddam had WMD’s, and wanted to ensure that he was not ever going to be in a position to use them.
Come on, when was the last time those three both agreed with us AND each other? Doesn’t happen often, but it did then. I remember because it was unusual.
Saddam Hussein was a warlord, a strongman, a dictator, in the best (or worst, depending on the context) tradition of third world warlords. His remaining in power depended, as such always do, upon his being strong enough to fend off his rivals both in and outside of his country. Thus, he HAD to be seen as strong, without weakness. He needed to be seen as successfully challenging the US or anybody else on his own turf. Anything short of that put him in greater danger of being seen as weak, and that would have been fatal.
Thus, his “nuclear weapons” program was vital to being seen as playing on the world stage along with the big boys, and played a crucial role in his being able to fool his neighbors into thinking that he was stronger than he really was. His playing games with the UN inspectors was an important part of that game, as it made it seem as though there was really something there.
Of course, we know that NOW - but that is after we had boots on the ground - and those boots expose why it is crucial that international inspectors have unfettered access to such programs - they can expose fakes that waste the world’s time and attention, and not just ferret out the cheaters that really have something. Because Saddam kicked those inspectors out, it seemed as tho he had something to hide.
He did, but what it was, was that there was nothing to hide! That would have been a great relief to the world, but it would have been a disaster for Saddam. Which is why he did all he could to hide it, which is why everybody thought he DID have something.
When he didn’t have squat.
Which wasted our time, attention and killed thousands of his countrymen and ours. AND diverted our attention away from where it should have been.
So no, Bush did not lie about Iraq and WMD’s.
He DID shy away from anything that pointed to the contrary, shaded his public comments to make things seem worse and generally ignored things that weren’t to his liking.
But when did you EVER see a politician do otherwise?
Do you think that Bush is really THAT much worse than others before him? Other Presidents have been just as vilified in their day. Others have made stupid mistakes, too.
And some of them have not been vindicated by history, so let’s see where Bush ends up on that scale.
I don’t know what history you watched or read R but I saw a different Iraq and Saddam than you. Sure the guy wanted to be a hero in the eye of other arabs but the sanctions were choking him to death (along with his people from whom he stole what little made it through the sanctions). If you watched anything other than Faux News, you knew about the effects the sanctions were having on Iraq. I certainly did. There was no doubt in my mind then or now that Saddam did not have WMDs of any kind and that, if he had by some miracle managed to build a couple of them (nuclear or biological or even the poor man’s Abomb), he had no delivery mechanism that could reach the USA. In other words, he was little more than a great ape stomping around and beating his chest. He had no capacity for real damage very much beyond his own borders. There are a lot of bad dictators in the world and not a few bad presidents and kings. It is not our job nor is it the job of our armed forces to rid the world of all of them. There is no excuse for the deaths of 4000++ American and coalition soldiers and probably half a million iraqi civilians, men, women and children. All those deaths can be laid at the feet of George W. Criminal Bush for which deaths he ought to be hung along side the rotting corpse of Saddam.
And I also believe to this day that the criminal Bush knew exactly that also and lied about whatever it took to get us into war with Iraq. You may not call selective intelligence reporting lying, but I do. Even so, lying about intelligence to get us into a war may not be a federal crime. Just a moral one. Wire tapping Americans without a warrant, however, IS a federal crime and violates the original FISA. I also believe torturing prisoners, rendition (kidnapping) and holding prisoners without access to lawyers and courts are also violations of federal law tho I am not a constitutional lawyer and am not sure about that. Violations of the Geneva Convention, a treaty signed by the US, may also be a federal crime. Multiple egregious violations of the Hatch act are a federal crime. Violations of the Posse Comatatus Act and the Insurrection Act are federal violations. Bush has done all of that.
Hopefully some Democrats will have the balls to hang his ass and they could start by subpoenaing Cheney - I recommend waterboarding for use during his interrogation.
Yeah, I think you saw some weird alternate reality. The sanctions weren’t killing Saddam, it was affecting the poorest of his people. This had little affect on HIM, and if you’d bothered to listen to ANY newscast, you’d have heard reports about those other countries’ intelligence services, the hoopla with the UN inspectors and all the rest.
We’ve been all over this subject, especially your illusions about supposed crimes and Bush that I’ll not repeat all the arguments here, it’s gotten boring.
Suffice it to say that, again, Federal officials are NOT indictable for actions taken IN OFFICE, or IN THE COURSE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, that were taken in the belief that they were acting in accordance with the law.
Bush’s actions regarding the wiretapping were honest actions taken on his part as a matter of policy, and he even got a ruling from his Attorney General saying that they were legal.
Whether that argument is overturned by a future AG or not, that comes under the heading of an honest policy difference, and cannot be seen legally as anything other than that.
Give it up, dude, even Obama says such legal actions will NOT be taken.
Here’s why we went into Iraq. A couple weeks before the invasion Saddam stopped selling his oil in dollars and began selling it in euros. So now our government had to go to a European bank and buy their currency to take it to Iraq to get the oil. Add that to the fact that with centralized banking being structured the way it is, that meant the Federal Reserve couldn’t make money off of the purchase either. When you buy as much oil as we were off of them (I forget exact figures) this equates to a lot of money. I’m sure there were more reasons, but I believe this was a pretty big one.
There are lots of shady reasons why superpowers undertake war and the fact that many people in this country STILL believe we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqis really makes me wonder about our electorate and the strength of our republic.
skwguitar,
What makes you think that the government buys our oil? What a moronic statement! It is bought by the oil companies that refine it and sell it as gas, heating oil, diesel fuel, etc.
Your statement has no basis in fact at all. Please learn how things work before making embarrassing statements. The government only buys oil to go into the Strategic Reserve, that’s all.
You can apologize for Bush all you want R, as I have said before, hiring fake legal talent that gives you the answer you want does not make a crime legal. Saying the words “Bush” and “in good faith” together in the same sentence is impossible. Bush violated one or more federal laws, whether he “acted in good faith” or “had bad legal advice” or not. Ignorance and incompetence are not valid excuses. It is not an excuse accepted for ordinary citizens and certainly not for Presidents.
If Obama actually said that, he is a coward too.
Anyone that thinks violations of FISA, torture, rendition and revocation of habeas corpus are merely “policy differences” needs to have his American citizenship checked for validity. Perhaps you might consider taking up pre-WWII german citizenship or Stalinist Russian citizenship.
Perhaps you should examine yourself. I am not, nor have I ever condoned his actions in an apologetic way. I am arguing that you cannot expect our current political system, that has worked pretty well for over 200 years, to start throwing politicians in jail cause Oldfart doesn’t like ‘em.
I never said his actions were acceptable, I said he will not be prosecuted for them, because our system does not allow for it. He is covered, because the man that gave him his legal cover WAS the AG, whether you describe him as fake or not.
So, in short, he did NOT violate any Federal laws, he IS covered against any legal action, and even if that is debatable, Obama has decreed that his Administration will not pursue any such action.
Game over.
How you get from “torture, rendition and revocation of habeus corpus” to “Oldfart just doesn’t like him” is beyond me. My feelings about Bush have nothing to do with it. I disliked Raygun too but Raygun didn’t attack and weaken the Constitution the way Bush has. If I dislike Bush it is for cause and not just because he is a neo-con Republican.
The game is NOT over yet. Obama doesn’t own Congress the way Bush did and he claims not to own his own AG, unlike Bush. There may still be some men of honor left in this country that WILL hold to their oath to defend the Constitution. And I am hardly alone in my opinions in this matter.
No, you are just vindictive.
I really don’t want to live in a republic that sends past Presidents to the slammer over political differences. That IS what this is about. Past Administrations have done things that outraged their oppositions too. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, for instance. Roosevelt threw the Japanese into concentration camps, too, didn’t he?
Bush’s actions WERE about policy, and that is what we pay the President to do - set policy. He DID get an opinion from the real, Congressionally approved Attorney General. Now whether his opinion stands up under the future scrutiny of another AG, well, that’s up to that particular AG, now isn’t it? You and I sure as hell aren’t qualified to speak on that, that’s certain!
Unless you are actually a retired attorney in disguise? I’m not, so I’ll wait for an actual attorney to rule on it.
So you and the other haters out there can just keep that hate boiling into heart attacks, it’s your heart, not mine.
The rest of us will look to the future and see that we fix what got broken instead of looking at the past in hatred and vitriol.
Look, if places like South Africa can have their reconciliation commissions and get past some of the horrific things that happened there, this country can take a breath and move on in the assurance that our system is sound and resilient and will rebound from the last eight years under the control of good, solid people that are smart and well meaning.
That would never happen if you and your crowd got their way, we’d be caught in round after round of recriminations, vindictiveness and mutual hatred.
No thanks. Fortunately, Obama has sufficient leadership and power over his party (as the head of that party) that he CAN prevent it.
So you and yours can go pout in the corner, that’s all the satisfaction you will get.
“Ignorance and incompetence are not valid excuses.” Were you talking about yourself, and your own messages?
Hmmm…. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached. Why did he do that? And he was subsequently pardoned. Why was that necessary? Because, had he not been he could likely have been facing a trial for the several federal crimes he committed. Bush is in the same shape. “If the President does it, it IS legal…” will not stand up in court. The only reason Bush, Cheney, Rove, Yoo and the others will get away with this is because of the cowards in Congress and in the new administration.
Once again, anyone that thinks torture, rendition, revocation of Habeus Corpus, violations of the Posse Comatitus and Insurrection act and violations of the earlier FISA act are simply “matters of policy” needs to check their moral compass. By your standards, Saddam could not have been a bad guy at all because all he did, such as gassing the kurds, was just a “matter of policy.”
James. Try to actually join in the conversation and present a few logical paragraphs illustrating your thoughts on a subject. Don’t be afraid. Surely you can present more than just the right wing argumentum ad hominem.
FYI and correctly spelled:
Posse Comitatus
The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.
Habeus Corpus & Lincoln:
The United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in the Suspension Clause, located in Article One, Section 9. It states:
“ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. ”
The civil war was certainly such a rebellion. Grant suspended Habeus Corpus under the Force Acts but that was with the agreement of Congress.
The so-called mis-named “War on Terror” is neither an invasion nor a rebellion.
Interesting debate, guys!
I myself am conflicted on this issue, because while i agree with R on some of the legal points, i really think Bush has overstepped the boundaries of the Constitution with govt wiretapping, rendition, and the war in Iraq, among other things. But if he’s responsible, what about those in Congress (including Democrats) who let him get away with this stuff? And it should be noted too that a lot of this stuff was done, indeed started, by past presidents. For instace, as this article (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/although-bush-is-blasted-for-rendition.html) points out, the policy of rendition as we know it started under Cllinton, and the idea of a president going to war without authorization of Congress (yes, i know Bush got that authorization, but he would have gone to war even if he hadn’t managed to get Congress’s approval) started under Eisenhower.
I also rail at the sycophantic Republicans and the Bluedog “Democrats” who supported every move Bush made along the way and gave him everything he demanded. I still refer to them as the cowards they are.
There is no doubt in my mind that Bush lied about intelligence in order to start the Iraq war. I have, however, come to believe that there are no laws against that. Unfortunately. Maybe there will be. Maybe the best that can come out of the Bush presidency is enough laws and restrictions such that some future President will be unable to take advantage of all those powers Bush garnered unto himself thanks to the cowards in Congress. Not all Congressmen were cowards, of course. Many stood up to be heard at various times. But those were few and far between.
Oldfart, there is a great amount of difference between Bush’s actions and Nixon’s commissioning a burglary. There are clear laws forbidding the engaging in conspiracy to commit burglary and Nixon is believed to have violated those laws. Hence the possibility of a prosecution, hence Ford’s pardon.
Nixon’s actions, assuming he would have been convicted of them, were NOT part of the duties of the Office of President, thus would NOT have been covered by the law that protects government officials from prosecution for official duties. Those alleged actions were, by their very nature, illegal.
I say it again, Bush’s part was to decide policy. He got his AG to rule that his policies were legal. Those actions were in line with his duties as President - setting policy to be followed by the lower level officials of his Administration. THOSE ACTIONS WERE NOT ILLEGAL, due to those opinions by the AG.
There is no comparison between the two.
My position is not that the actions he set in motion were in any way proper or in the final analysis, Constitutional. My point is that Bush’s actions were as a policy maker, he got the proper legal opinions that his policies were legal, thus he broke no laws. Courts could, arguably, rule that those lower level officials would not have violated the law either, because of those opinions that would cause them to reasonably conclude the same, thus putting them beyond the reach of prosecution. They would have been acting in a reasonable belief that they were acting in accordance with the law as a result of those opinions.
Is any of that truly good? No, we agree that the things that Bush caused to happen were wrong, were bad policy, and I also agree, probably unConstitutional. But Bush violated no laws that he can be prosecuted for violating, as he was acting as policy maker, and doing so within the proper procedures set aside for that purpose.
The government pursues unConstitutional actions all the time that are ruled as such by the courts eventually, but nobody goes to jail, because the people that do so are doing so within the proper scope of their duties and in the belief that they were legal at the time. So it is with Bush.
Your insistence is illogical and based solely upon your dislike of the man, similar to the manner in which Clinton was pursued by Republicans, according to you in the past. You need to realize that he will not be prosecuted, nor will lower level folks involved in those programs. Obama has basically said that will be the case, and since it is HIS DOJ that would have to pursue those prosecutions, his policies of dropping the matter WILL be followed.
Let go and move on.
“There is no doubt in my mind that Bush lied about intelligence in order to start the Iraq war. I have, however, come to believe that there are no laws against that. ”
Thank goodness that is true! If there were laws against lying politicians, we wouldn’t have a single one outside of Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas! They’d ALL be in jail.
Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing…
The members of the Armed Services Committee released a report today that indicted the upper levels of the Bush command structure as those responsible for the Bush policy of torture. I haven’t read it yet. I understand Rumsfeld was mentioned in particular and also that they suggested that some kind of accounting should be taken. I understand the report was approved unanimously. If Rumsfeld falls, he will rat out the others. None of these guys has any courage or honor. They will sell each other out one by one. All it needs is a little balls in Congress.