Last weekend Bush attacked his critics as only Bush can: he insisted on a version of reality that anyone with any interest in reading archives can readily discover is a boldfaced lie. Bush is a pretty good liar, though, and for four years he got away with it. However, now support is crumbling in Congress for the idiot king. Perhaps he knows his base is a rabid group of true believers with little interest in corroborating facts. Perhaps he, in his words, "misunderestimates" their intelligence, because a majority of Americans now believe that Bush is not "honest and ethical." That's pretty harsh if you're the President who supposedly was coming to restore integrity to the White House.
Which brings up a blast from the past, and a man no one can say was an idiot. In fact, his machiavellian mastermind plots impressed right wing zealots like Dick Cheney to no end...the man who insisted he was not a crook despite all evidence otherwise, Mr. Richard Nixon. Apparently some newly released documents shed even more light on Nixon's shady dealings, in this case relating to the Vietnam War:
In a memo from the meeting marked "Eyes Only, Top Secret Sensitive," Nixon told his military men to continue doing what was necessary in Cambodia, but to say for public consumption that the United States was merely providing support to South Vietnamese forces when necessary to protect U.S. troops.
"That is what we will say publicly," he asserted. "But now, let's talk about what we will actually do."
Typical stuff from Nixon, who left office in disgrace in 1974. But how close is Nixon's attitude to that permeating the BushCo White House? Even as special prosecutor Fitzgerald tied the Valerie Plame leak to the highest aides in the executive branch -- and Libby fingered Cheney himself in his personal notes -- Bush first claimed he would fire anyone connected to the leak, then revised that to say he would fire anyone convicted of a crime, and now one wonders if he won't vow to fire anyone who has exhausted his appeals...
Bush has shown a remarkable ability to assert utter untruths as fact. In light of a fruitless search for Saddam's phantom WMDs, Bush claimed with a straight face that "we found them." The man has no shame.
Update: I just saw this piece in The Nation, in which Robert Scheer links Bush directly to Nixon:
Clearly on the defensive, Bush now sounds increasingly Nixonian as he basically calls the majority of the country traitors for noticing he tricked us.The article is a good short read and a clear refutation of Bush's claims that Congress "saw the same intelligence" that he did.
9 comments:
I've always been suspicious of Dick Cheney--ever since the Plame incident. I wrote about it several months ago and a friend of mine basically equated me to a raving lunatic.
Well who's crazy now? huh?
If we aren't already friends, we ought to be.
Hey Mass,
Good post.
I'm not an apologist for Bush et al, and I think what you're saying about the attitudes of Nixon et al and Bush being similar is right on. However, I would beg to differ on the results of Bush's vs. Nixon's behavior.
Let's look at the facts, as I think I understand them (Correct me. I may be wrong).
- Bush told the US populace that there were WMDs, based on intelligence that---at the time---many people believed, including Democrats. He then took us to war, full-on, in the public eye. Thousands and thousands were killed as a result. Iraqis? Perhaps 100,000-200,000. US? 2,000. Bush participated in some very dirty tricks---ie, the Plame leak---to stifle criticism of his military adventurism.
- Nixon ran a secret war (Cambodia) against peasant nations (Cambodia, Lao, Vietnam)---two of which were neutral in the conflict. He funded that war against Cambodia---and many other nefarious dirty tricks---from a White House-controlled slush fund. Cambodians dead? Perhaps 1.5 million, no one knows. Vietnam/Lao? tack on roughly 3 million. It's also very plausible that the reason the Khmer Rouge even came to power was a result of the Nixon bombings, so tack on like another 1.5 million. Where are we now with the numbers for the whole SE Asian conflict? My count is 6 million. US dead? 58,000.
I think it's a bit premature to compare Bush to Nixon as far as the results of the two men's actions.
Just trying to add some perspective.
Cheers,
LB
I know little of Nixon's history or policies, and concede that LB makes a point. I do recognize the importance of scale in history.
But I can't get past one fact: each of the dead people only had one life. It's deceptive to say two thousand needless deaths are somewhat less appalling than two million needless deaths. Yes, there's scale. But not on a personal level. And that's, as far as I can tell, the cruelest thing about war: it's only political to the people sitting in the back, doing the counting. To the people in the front row there's no such thing as a little war.
And if you're arguing that Bush's lie is smaller and therefore less culpable-- I am dazzled. I thought there was truth, or at least FACTS which people can wrap their own truths around, and there was not bothering with the truth. But I don't think that's what you're arguing, LB. (At least I hope not.)
Personally, I've got nothing against despotism. But I don't like duplicity. Napoleon never kidded anyone about who was boss. I got no patience with leaders who pretend to serve the people and then screw 'em. If Bush started plowing people down in Times Square and saying, "There's a new sherriff in town!" I'd have a lot more respect from him.
Or at least, I couldn't have any less.
Please note: I'm not a scholar on these topics and gladly concede the big juice bones of argument to finer minds than my own. Mine are personal assertions made by l'il ol' me, just a girl living in "interesting times."
Mass, et al:
My sister has a book coming out next week that I think you guys would like. Check it out.
"What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running The World."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452286158/002-8640938-1447243?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
LB: I'd agree on the scale argument, but as you point out I'm really comparing their attitudes -- their approach to critics and to power. Nixon of course had the good luck to inherit a full scale war, whereas Bush had to create his own. There's no doubt that Vietnam makes Iraq look puny -- but we had about 20 years of involvement in Vietnam, perhaps 8 or 9 of them good solid "big war" years (say from 63/64 to 72/73). I also don't believe that Congress saw the same evidence BushCo was given and it's pretty clear from the pre-war protests that not everyone bought into the media-stoked bonfire of WMDs. Those protests were huge.
MA: Indeed views expressed so far do seem to point to our being able to agree with what's wrong with the world. That's a start.
CCG: Good points -- one death or a million, someone's dead, and to the people affected, it doesn't matter if theirs was a small skirmish or a full out war. However, as history judges, wars are rated in terms of death and destruction...and by the way nice way to plug a book.
Bush-Cheney '08! Mass, move to Canada or France.
All good points. I just had one thing to add. I do think that one million dead is more egregious than one thousand. This isn't to belittle those people's lives that died in smaller conflicts, but numbers are significant.
LB shouldn't you be in Buenos Aires?
I'm in Buenos right now! Our apartment has a high speed connection and I just couldn't miss out on my dose of Countersignature.
We're getting ready to go out to some French restaurant. I'll post about it when we have some stories.
Post a Comment