August 13, 2009

"[Dick Cheney] said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took."

"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."

28 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...

That's my impression of the situation as well. I still support W, having a lot of sympathy for the position the public put him in: it was unfair and wrong.

And so much for the Cheney-pulled-the-strings idea. Every charge of the Left was delusional - and so is the result we're stuck with now.

madawaskan said...

Second sentence that I scanned in that article -

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply.

I stopped reading.

traditionalguy said...

In politics a player MUST be either loved by the other players, or be feared by the other players. Only those two motivations will run anything. Manipulating/tricking others has a short half-life and a bad ending(Somebody tell Obama). IMO Cheney relied all on fear, while Bush instinctively sought to use love for him as one part of a negotiation. This should be a very interesting book indeed.

Hunter McDaniel said...

So the shocking detail here is that Bush was not just Cheney's puppet.

Who knows what else the left told us all these years that will turn out to be untrue.

garage mahal said...

That's my impression of the situation as well. I still support W, having a lot of sympathy for the position the public put him in: it was unfair and wrong.

The position the public put him in? Ha!

Paul said...

"The position the public put him in? Ha!"

That's right. A public duped by a lying leftwing media propaganda machine. The same one that duped them into believing Obama was both competent and moderate.

With the unfolding realization amongst all but the truly brainwashed like yourself that the media has lied about Obama, the Democrats, and things like AGW, hopefully that propaganda organ will soon be in need of a transplant.

MadisonMan said...

Hubris.

Roger J. said...

It is clear what is happening: the evil emperor Rove is manipulating his underling, the dark lord of the Cheney ith in order to begin rehabilitating Chimpy McHalliburton himself. Rove: you magnificent bastard.

Robert Cook said...

IF Cheney's petulant tell-all is at all factual--a big IF given his history of mendacity--we can be thankful Bush felt restrained by some inhibiting factors; given the bloody criminal regime over which he presided, a presumable "Bush Unbound" is too ghastly a prospect to conceive.

More likely, this is Cheney's attempt to establish a premptory challenge to any blame--or prosecutions--that may be directed at him if we return to the rule of law and do what that requires.

Cabbage said...

Go down, Cheney,
Way down in DC's Land.
Tell ol' Dubya,
Let my unconstitutional domestic surveillance go.

garage mahal said...

That's right. A public duped by a lying leftwing media propaganda machine. The same one that duped them into believing Obama was both competent and moderate.

Always someone else's fault, ain't it.

elHombre said...

Hubris.

Too little, evidently.

Phillip said...

I really don't understand why this is news. It feels so contrived given the public's opposition to President Obama's domestic plans.
Drawing attention to the last presidency is just a slight distraction from the real issues at hand.

Also, what's with the tone of the headline? Was President Bush supposed to always take his advice? Is all advice from everyone supposed to be taken?

ricpic said...

Bush was conciliatory from the gitgo. Compassionate Conservatism. Right there you knew he was going to cede midfield to the libs. And he did.

elHombre said...

...we can be thankful Bush felt restrained by some inhibiting factors; given the bloody criminal regime over which he presided ....

Here's Cook. Presumably another left wing "small business owner," a la Jeremy, et al., into the fray.

Are these "businesses" subcontracting with the ACORN/Kos propaganda machine, or mixing Kool-Aid for dissemination to the hoi polloi?

Cedarford said...

Bush started conciliatory, then with 9/11 he became the War Leader...he thought...with no time to talk to the opposition or work at consensus building on things like legal matters. If he had behaved less arbitrary, he might have gotten more slack. And like it or not, what should have been an at best brief overpowering military intervention - Iraq - became an all-consuming neocon fueled "Nation - building" affair and Bush felt justified in ignoring his other duties.

While the neocon effort did have certain benefits...AQ and other Islamazoids discredited themselves... in large part it was terrible fiasco that weakened America's place in the world. And the "noble" Iraqis - Bush's beloved "freedom-lovers" proved outside the Kurds who still pissed off critical ally Turkey...to be singularly unworthy of 4500 American lives and a trillion in blown treasure that has to be repaid to China.

Bush ignored growing healthcare, financial, manufacturing competitiveness, energy, international relations crises...because NOTHING MATTERED more than "the Evildoers!!" He ignored rampant corruption in Republican ranks and unchecked, reckless spending on pork...because ...he believed.."9/11 changed Everything!!!"

Then after his Party was routed, Bush wanted to be kinder and gentler again. Less Maximum Beloved War Leader and Savior of All From the Evildoer Fellahs...More conciliatory.

It was too late.

Paul said...

Well Garage people have trusted an untrustworthy media for too long. It's buyer beware in the information market too and now that people are waking up to the danger posed by the sociopaths that run the Democrat party I suspect they will start to be a bit more discriminating with regards to their news sources.

Of course people like myself were never snowed by the leftwing bullshit so Obama was utterly transparent to us.

Too bad you're permanently mired in said bullshit and doing your vile little part to keep the lie alive.

The Crack Emcee said...

garage mahal,

"Always someone else's fault, ain't it."

No, I blamed you and it's staying it there.

Cedarford,

The longer you keep ignoring the accumulating evidence that everything the public thought (and the liberals said) was wrong, the longer it's going to take you to understand what actually happened here. Listen to you:

"What should have been an at best brief overpowering military intervention,..."

What part of "no military plan can survive engagement with the enemy" don't you understand? Was that maxim of war Bush's fault as well? And, if the EVILDOERS had gotten away with anything more, not only would you have blamed him for that (willingly and openly ignoring everything that came before him - just as you have amnesia, now that conservatives are angry, about what liberals were doing during his term) but nothing you care about, domestically, would've been on the table anyway.

You guys make no sense. It's not just hypocrisy but a breathtaking display of a mental disorder.

WV: cabsess - what Prince discovered he had while hiding out from "Annie Christian" (Annie Christian, Anti-Christ, until you're crucified, I'll live my life in taxicabs)

Robert Cook said...

I'm not a small business owner, but a simple wage earner, although I know you're attempting irony by alluding to another poster.

Ralph L said...

While the neocon effort did have certain benefits...AQ and other Islamazoids discredited themselves
That was kinda the point of the effort--that and denying AQ and them other evildoers a safe haven. The people who hate us for it already did.

bagoh20 said...

I'm a W supporter for many reasons, but the tendency to go soft was a problem for me with both Bushes, especially the senior.

Bush, Sr. failure to finish the job in Iraq seemed smart to many at the time, but the benefits of removing Saddam then and having a free democratic Iraq for the last decade would be enormous. Maybe even could have prevented 9/11 through improved intelligence and 10 years of Arabs seeing the advantages of peace and democracy over despotism and terror. Could even have left us with a less hostile Iran by now.

Of course there is no way to know, but I can't imagine that scenario would have been as costly as what W. had to do later to accomplish the same thing,and we still lost 10 years.

W. disappointed me with his weak attempt at fixing Social security and his prescription drug bill. But I deeply admired him for everything the left hates him for.

In addition, Bush Sr. caved on taxes and cost himself reelection, and cost the world one clean blue dress and a perfectly good and dry cigar.

former law student said...

Huh?

'W. showed he was a weakling when he started standing up to me." -- Cheney

bagoh20 said...

That criticism did much more than shackle Bush. People certainly have the right to criticize, but during the war in Iraq it lead to the loss of many more lives than necessary on both sides, emboldening the enemy. They saw it work in Vietnam. Every time we self-flagellated about Iraq, they could taste the blood and hit harder. Like predators seeing a weakened prey. We have a right to criticize our goverment, but it carries a responsibility. We need to remember, that it may feel good, but if were not careful people might pay attention and sometimes they don't have our interests in mind. Of course this requires the ability to know right from wrong and to judge relative evils.

veni vidi vici said...

Dude, that Prince reference was superbly executed!




wv = "listy", a loquacious administrative assistant

hdhouse said...

The Crack Emcee said...
"I still support W, having a lot of sympathy for the position the public put him in: it was unfair and wrong.

And so much for the Cheney-pulled-the-strings idea. Every charge of the Left was delusional - and so is the result we're stuck with now."

what utter bullshit. the public didn't put georgie in a fix...he painted himself in the corner all by his little bitty peabrainself. the public rightfully saw him as a rented suit with strings leading to good old upright dick.

the "left" as you call the center and the left, was perfectly right. Cheney is an evil man who did evil. Bush...he gave up the power and office to this nerdnick psycho and we are supposed to feel bad?

bon voyage to this duo. if they hate each other so be it. i don't give a rat's ass if they have one happy day the remainder of their sorry lives.

veni vidi vici said...

"Bush ignored growing healthcare, financial, manufacturing competitiveness, energy, international relations crises...because NOTHING MATTERED more than "the Evildoers!!""

What a phantasist! Bush was responsible for the big Medicare drug reform, which although generally despised by small-government ideologues, polls pretty favorably among the subscribers to the plan.

Additionally, domestic productivity was pretty high according to all those "trusted" ratings agencies, from what I recall during the course of his administration of the war, and he started his presidency with ideologically hostile colleagues from our major allies but ended it seeing more sympatico leaders at the helm of France, Germany and Canada, as well as a dialed-back Libyan regime, substantially improved relations with India (while preserving good and strong ties with Pakistan, which is something of an accomplishment), strengthened ties with China (without alienating Japan and S. Korea), and so on.

You are high if you believe the J. Kerry nonsense where Bush somehow "weakened our standing in the world". That's some meaningless shit, homie. Get some game or go home.


wv = "rerim", to be done if it wasn't enough to get her/him off the first time.

The Crack Emcee said...

veni vidi vici,

After "rerim", you've gotta check this out.

Hoosier Daddy said...

You know I was aghast at the idea of death panels but hdhouse showed up and now they don't seem like such a bad idea.