Bush Says "So What?" Cheney Says "So?"

Watching the MSNBC triumvirate of Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow these past Monday and Tuesday nights, I saw a number of clips that... well, made me angry. When I'm usually so serene.

First there was the clip from a recent interview Bush gave on ABC, as part of what many are calling his "Victory Tour" (celebrating and "explaining" how great he's been).

The interviewer asks Bush about Iraq and his legacy and what he thinks it all means. Bush listens to the question with a very happy smile on his face, and says he had to keep the country safe, then quickly gets to:

One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take...

But the interviewer interrupts him with "But not until after the U.S. invaded."

Bush looks disoriented by the question, blinks his eyes repeatedly, semi-stammers and says vaguely,

Yeah... that's right. So what?

"So what?" Wow. Great answer, huh?

And then in a clip from an interview with our usually invisible vice-president, Cheney is asked about Iraq, and is confronted with the fact that 2/3s of the country have concluded that the war in Iraq was not worth doing. Cheney's answer:

So?

Bush: So what? Cheney: So?

Here are the links to see for yourself: Bush and "So what?" Cheney and "So?":

After Cheney's "So?", the interviewer says "So you're not... you don't care what the American people think?"

Cheney answers:

No, I don't. I live in a hermetically sealed universe, I only hear the sound of my own voice, and if everyone in the universe was against me, I would still impose my view on the world, as I long as I had the power. And for much of this administration, I had the power. So fuck you and the American people. And Patrick Leahy too!

Actually, my quote above is a bit inaccurate. What he really said was:

No I think you cannot be ... um, blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. There has in fact been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better. That's a huge accomplishment.

Fluctuations in the public polls.

True, most people were for the war when Bush-Cheney-Rice talked about mushroom clouds and pushed "we're in danger, we're in danger!" Then when there were no weapons of mass destruction or nuclear program and Iraq seemed way more complicated than had ever been presented to the American people, many turned against the war.

This wasn't a FLUCTUATION. It was a CHANGE. We were "sold" the war as one thing, and it turned out to be ... an expensive, draining quagmire that created more terrorists. Are we occupied by a Muslim army? No. Is Iraq occupied by an American army? Yes. Good recruiting tool, that.

Bush and Cheney have been so proud saying they don't let political polls affect them. And I admit there can be a danger in always following popular opinion. However, war should be a last resort for real, which this one wasn't. And you can't wage a war in a democracy if 2/3s of the citizens don't want to be part of it.

On Tuesday night Cheney showed up in more ABC interview clips. Karl Rove recently said that if Bush had known there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would not have invaded Iraq.

Cheney disagreed. He said the mere fact that Saddam had the CAPABILITY of creating weapons was enough of a reason go to war.

Pre-emptive war, after all, is about a guessed at "what if," where we have the hubris to say we can see the future and are willing to bomb people and maim them because we're so certain our assumptions are accurate. Just like our assumptions were 100% sure there were vast weapons in Iraq and they even knew where they were. And we knew that either by talking to Chalabi or by calling 1-800-PSYCHIC.

And in a different clip on Tuesday, Cheney admits to having approved waterboarding and having helped pave the way for the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques," otherwise known as torture.

Rachel Maddow pointed out that after World War II, the Japanese who used waterboarding on our troops were put to death with America's approval. I guess it's only torture when someone else does it, not us.

And how good is waterboarding in getting actual information? We've never been given any actual examples.

If we could get Dick Cheney to agree to be waterboarded on, say, 60 Minutes, what do you think we could make him say? If the waterboarding just wouldn't stop until he said things we wanted him to - such as "I slept with Laura Bush" or "I enjoy watching people be tortured" or "9/11 was a plot Bush and I cooked up to justify our invading Iraq" - don't you think he would eventually say what was demanded of him? And if so, in what way is it a good technique?

One more interview quote, and then a wrap up.

Keith Olbermann showed a clip I hadn't seen elsewhere related to the shoes being thrown at Bush in Iraq a couple of days ago.

As you know, an Iraqi journalist named Muntazer al-Zaidi, 29, threw two shoes at Bush during the Bush-Maliki press conference. We all saw Bush duck over and over, but Olberman showed a clip from yet another ABC interview most of us haven't seen. The interview asked Bush about his reaction to the shoe being thrown at him.

Before I give the quote, I want to remind you what the translators say the man shouted in Arabic at Bush.

With shoe #1, he shouted "This is a gift from the Iraqis, this is the farewell kiss, you dog!"

With shoe #2, he shouted "This is from the widows, the orphans, and those who were killed in Iraq." (This second quote I did not hear on any "regular" news programs.)

So a day or so after the incident, Bush was interviewed on ABC and was asked his reaction to the shoe throwing incident.

He said this:

I thought it was interesting, I thought it was weird, I thought it was unusual to have a guy thow a shoe at you. But, uh...I ...I'm not insulted, I don't hold it against the government, I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible...and so... The guy wanted to get on tv, and he did. I don't know what his beef is. Uh, but ... whatever it is, I'm sure, you know, somebody will hear it. (then he smiles, aware of his inexhaustible charm)

"The guy wanted to get on tv." "I'm don't know what his beef is." "I'm sure...somebody will hear it." But not me.

Do you think Bush is too incurious to ask what was yelled at him?

Mr. Bush, foisted upon the country by a Republican party who sold him like soap not caring if he was an idiot, is profoundly disconnected from reality. His world is not reality-based, it is not faith-based, it is Bush-based... he's the narcissistic, spoiled rich kid who bankrupted the country with his credit card, and for Christmas he wanted not a sled but a big whopping war.

Even if you agreed with Bush's belief that he "had" to invade Iraq to protect the county, can he have no empathy for another person? Even if he thinks the man's position is wrong, still imagine - if some country took over our government and killed over 100,000 of our civilians as so-called "collateral damage," we would be angry.

But that requires empathy, and America's pinheaded view of patriotism doesn't encourage that. How about a nice chant of "USA! USA!" followed by "DRILL, BABY, DRILL." Any takers?

Is this Bush bashing? Am I stuck in the past?

Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it.

You know, I do get it - the American public doesn't want Obama to enter office talking about investigating the crimes and semi-crimes committed by this administration.

The American public DOES want to move forward, and we're all worried/traumatized about the economy and the damage done to it and us by the Wizards of Wall Street. And we're finally worried about energy and global warming and getting out of Iraq. (And let's please DISCUSS the escalation planned in Afghanistan. Is it winnable? Can we have a plan?)

But all this desire to move forward aside, we cannot just ignore what happened. Maybe we need to leave Obama out of it, and get Senator Levin and Congressman Waxman to methodically begin investigating wrong-doing in the Bush administration. Maybe Bush-Cheney can be impeached after the fact. Or if nothing else, they should be censured, after the fact.

On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow had constitutional expert Jonathan Turley on her show, discussing the Senate Armed Services Committee report that found unamiously (Dems and Repubs both) that Rumsfeld and others were the architects and the enablers of what happened at Abu Graihb. A story which is not much discussed.

Turley said this (I quote from Crooks and Liars):

We have third world countries that when they have found that their leaders committed torture war crimes, they prosecuted them. But the most successful democracy in history is just, I think, about to see war crimes, do nothing about it. And that's an indictment not just of George Bush and his administration. It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime and say it's time for another commission.

Will we ignore the significant wrong-doing done in this administration? Will we end up with our own "So what?" and "So?"

I say we mustn't. There must be accountability.

(Note: This theme was already written about in a good post by Chris Weigant. And Erica Heller seems as bothered as I was about Bush's "So what?" in this post. )

Comments

[luziannagirl]

The "so" and "so what" retorts are very familiar to me, having grown up in an extremely rural, male-oriented Deep South culture.

Speaking up and speaking out about anything at all usually was met with a swaggering, bullying, snickering "So whatcha gonna do about it, girlie girl, beat me up?" This bully paradigm applied ultimately to everyone. Top of the heap was the biggest, strongest boy in school who subjugated all other boys, but trumping him were the football coach and town police, who kept him in line via threat of paddle, club, gun, prisons, etc.

Nobody except a few preachers seemed to much respect reason, fairness, or the rule of law.

It's was mostly "so whatcha gone do about it"?

We will continue to have problems as long as this paradigm is in operation.

[skynyrdfan]

I understand him (scary thought). He overthrew Saddam so Al Qaida would run there & we wouldn't have to go look for them. Makes sense to me.

[marignymitch]

Cheney blithe admission of criminality was given in the sure knowledge that he never will be called to justice.

[chayefsky]

Bush was selected BECAUSE he is an idiot and supremely incurious. The Dark Forces of the GOP, (neocons) wanted a handpuppet for Cheney and Bush suited them nicely. The Iraq "war" is a pathetic monument to this man's hubris and stupidity. The sad thing is, he and Cheney won't be held accountable for their murderous policies.

[Marlyn]

... and Colin Powell, after he delivered his lies to the UN, was questioned by reporters who said "You presented nothing new. All of this is ten years old." Powell said "So what?"

[FrankFurter]

Q - "Will we ignore the significant wrong-doing done in this administration?"
A - Yes, "we" will have no other choice, Obama won't go there.

Q -"Will we end up with our own "So what?" and "So?"
A - Most likely, the precident has been set.

Q - "There must be accountability."
A - No not really, when have we seen actual, genuine, accountability from any of our politicians in Washington during the last few decades?

No holds barred free market capitalism has killed the America I grew up in.

[JonRaymond]

The American people were stupid enough to vote these idiots into office twice. We reap what we sow.

[BabsfromKansas]

the Hague 2009

[jan4insight]

I have been speaking out for accountability for what seems like endless years now. This is vital to restore America's honor, integrity, and standing in the world,. And yet if our elected representatives continue to sit on their hands in the name of "bipartisanship" lol, we're effectively stonewalled. Citizens are starting to feel hopeless about this. What's next, after we send all the shoes we can to Bush's White House?

[erinaceus]

Here is an idea for getting around the stonewalling. (More of a pipe dream, really...)

Obama's State Department can (discreetly) indicate that the United States supports the international courts and trials of ALL war criminals, regardless of citizenship. A neutral country (e.g. Germany, where Cheney cannot travel without being arrested for war crimes once he has lost his sovereign immunity) could bring charges and seek justice in an international tribunal like the Hague. Obama wouldn't have to "go after" anyone, but he doesn't have to shield or protect evildoers from lawful prosecution either.

Cheney is, by his own fervent and ardent admissions to the world via television, guilty of the war crimes for which we executed people after World War II. Prosecution would be a no-brainer.

It would be better for a sitting US president to initiate the process after the unanimous findings of a bipartisan commission that Cheney is guilty of war crimes, but this way President Obama doesn't have to expose himself to charges of revenge. He could just shrug apologetically while he "enforces the law" and his justice department agrees to extradition. (And he wouldn't even have to do that, if Cheney were induced to fly to his own fate tempted by the promise of a handsomely remunerated speaking engagement.)

[grf67]

War crimes trials would suit both of them well.

[vicar123]

Thank you for at least saying what I've been thinking for years. You or this blog is the first place I've seen good critical look at the Bush administration. The media is to well controlled by corporations. Will there ever be justice?

[fatbellieddragon]

And yet, 44% of America voted Republican in the last election.
Or higher!
Adios, American greatness. Hello, banana republic.

[sonshine]

Please, will someone with some kind of power please start the process to get these two (Cheney and Bush) war criminal prosecuted? What can we do? This is crazy that our so-called democracy is allowing these two criminals not only to go free but to openly admit their crimes with no repercussions.

[Skeptic6]

You should consider making your thoughts known to you elected representative. That is the lowest civic obligation, as I see it.

[Skeptic6]

I am sending Bush and Cheney a "going away" present, which will be the oldest, crappiest pair of running shoes I can find, hopefully with camel dung attached. I admire the Iraqi who threw his.

That nothing will be done about this admission of war crimes is testimony to the decay of the American Republic, and yes, We The People are as guilty as our elected idiots.

As Dante observed, the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

[inthedesert]

I pray there will be some kind of legal reckoning for Bush and his pals...but I think it won't happen.