Bush's Interview wtih Charlie Gibson Marks the Start of His Effort to Revise History

The inevitable campaign to revise the history of the George W. Bush presidency has apparently begun. In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson broadcast on Monday, the soon-but-not-soon-enough-to-be ex-president made several eye-roll-inducing statements that feel like the first salvo in a war to completely recast the Bush years.

I'm all for Barack Obama's mantra of looking forward. I was even fine with his decision to let Joe Lieberman back into the fold. But sometimes it's okay to look backwards, and we have to make sure our history is accurate so that we decrease the chances of repeating our mistakes. And the eight years of Bush's presidency were chock full of sins, mortal and otherwise. That's why I think it's essential that, as a country, we are vigilant about not letting Bush or his team of enablers prevent us from remembering what actually happened when he was president.

For example, in discussing the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush claimed: "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." He makes it sound as if he was a passive receiver of the reports on the subject, and that the existence of WMDs was the real reason he started the war in Iraq. We know now that neither of those claims are true; that the president cherry-picked intelligence information to make his case for war in Iraq, and that the weapons of mass destruction were merely a pretense for that war. As former CIA director George Tenet told Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes last April, as early as the day after the 9/11 attacks, the White House had started using the tragedy to justify action in Iraq, with Pentagon advisor Richard Perle telling Tenet, "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility," even though Tenet knew that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

The Iraq war must be remembered as being a result of Bush's foreign policy objectives, not as an unfortunate byproduct of Bush getting bad intelligence on WMDs.

What really bugged me about the Gibson interview was Bush's effort to portray himself as a compassionate advocate for the American people. He said at one point: "One of the things about the presidency is you deal with a lot of tragedy -- whether it be hurricanes, or tornadoes, or fires or death -- and you spend time being the comforter-in-chief." But it was Bush's disdain for government and the people it serves, as evidenced by his policy of appointing unqualified political cronies to run agencies like FEMA, that helped intensify the effects of Hurricane Katrina, the biggest natural disaster his administration faced. People died while Bush and his administration did nothing. That should be the take-away point from the Bush administration's handling of crises, not that he was some kind of "comforter-in-chief."

Similarly, Bush made wholly ludicrous claims to Gibson about trying to change how partisan Washington was. He said he "knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone, and, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work." He would have liked to have it work? This is the president whose Justice Department asked nonpolitical appointees about their political allegiances (and researched their political activities). This is the president who treated the Justice Department like his personal law firm, ensuring that it protected his administration's officials rather than the rights of the American people. This is the president whose administration outed the identity of an undercover CIA agent as retribution for her husband writing (accurately) that a claim made in Bush's State of the Union address was false. And this is the president who commuted the sentence of an official in his administration who had been convicted for lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of the identification of the CIA agent.

In short, this was the most political, divisive president in recent history, who took the approach that "working together" meant doing exactly what he wanted. For him to now claim that he wanted to "elevate the tone" of political discourse is absolutely laughable. Bush said, "9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together. I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better." But nobody was more responsible for the deterioration in the tone in Washington than the president himself.

I was also struck by Bush's effort in the Gibson interview to absolve himself of blame for the subprime mortgage crisis and near collapse of the financial system. He said:

"You know, I'm the president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived ... And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator."

Look, by no means was Bush the only one responsible for what happened. The Clinton administration also moved to free the financial industry from regulation. But it is certainly false that Bush "tried hard to get a regulator," with recent reports (like this one from, of all places, Fox News) revealing that the administration ignored warnings about the imminent dangers posed by the rampant practice of extending of unwise mortgages. To me, the big point here is that no president (maybe even no political figure) has stood as more of a towering symbol of the leave-corporations-alone, the-free-market-cures-all approach to governing than Bush. And the recent economic collapse has been a total repudiation of this position. For Bush to portray himself now as someone who sought to limit the abuses on Wall Street is nothing short of absurd.

Bush also made silly statements in the interview on topics like immigration and how he "kept (Americans) safe for eight years" (conveniently forgetting that he was the president during the 9/11 attacks and how his administration ignored warnings that some kind of terrorist action was imminent, including a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" ), but you get the general drift.

We need to push back on efforts like this interview to recast the Bush presidency. It's important that we remember that Bush is not the "comforter-in-chief," but the guy who oversaw and/or was directly responsible for illegal wiretapping, the demise of habeas corpus, the adoption of torture, denying and then ignoring global warming, failing to address America's dependence of foreign oil and failing to develop any kind of energy policy that didn't involve putting more money into the pockets of oil companies, blocking advances in stem-cell research, eschewing competence in government in favor of ideology and religion, the subprime mortgage scandal, numerous government failures in areas ranging from FEMA to mining to product safety, the politicization of the Justice Department, the shoddy treatment of veterans, deteriorating relationships with the rest of the world, and, most of all, the unnecessary, financially draining, national-reputation-staining, poorly managed war and occupation in Iraq, which will stand as one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in American history and resulted in the loss of thousands of soldiers, the disruptions of the lives of tens of thousands of military personnel and their families, the placement of U.S. military preparedness at a dangerously low level, and the expenditure of approaching a trillion dollars (including the disappearance of billions of dollars for which there is no accounting).

The colossal failures of the Bush administration should be what is remembered about Bush's eight years in office, not some feeble attempt to show what a principled guy he was.

When asked by Gibson what advice Bush had for Obama, Bush said: "One of my parting words to him will be: 'If I can help you, let me know.'" For the sake of the country, I hope Obama never calls on Bush to help with anything. After eight years of failure leading to the dire circumstances in which the country finds itself, I'm not sure we can stand any more of Bush's help.

Comments

[SailFree]

I would submit that it is the start of his attempt to reverse the revision of history and to correct the current conventional wisdom mythology.

In fact, I have written a piece on it soon to be published at www.thelandofthefree.net

[carrieanna]

"Patriotism ruins history" - Goethe


I would love to see history books become less propagandistic. As children we are only taught the pro-American view, sweeping any bad bits under the rug. I think I was in college by the time I learned about the camps the US sent people of Japanese descent. And I only chanced upon the 1930s Mexican Repatriation history the other day. Why are we not bringing up that history when we discuss the current immigration debate, especially as it pertains to our Latin American cousins?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_repatriation

I think it is unlikely that Bush's "sins" will be forever held against him. I think he'll spend the rest of his life in the doghouse, like Nixon, but there will be sympathy for him over time.

[twosexy4mycat]

DONT LET THEM REWRITE HISTORY.......W= WORST NEVER FORGET IT.

[Craniumdude]

These are some facts of my boats when I was CAPTAIN. FIRST... I AM RESPONSIBLE and the buck always stopped with me. SECOND.....My boats were profitable and NEVER lost money. Third....My boats were safe (no one died) and if they were taking on water.....I fixed it and did not take my money and run and leave it to sink or leave it that way for the NEXT CAPTAIN. My boats were always left in better shape than I got them! So who would you want to captain your boat? A free thinking liberal like myself? or W? Who's boat do you want to invest in or work on?

[agate]

THIS PAST 8 YEARS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THEY WOULD MOST LIKE TO HAVE A BEER WITH. I'M AFRAID THAT WE GOT THE LEADER WE DESERVED. I'M STILL FURIOUS AT THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO VOTED FOR THIS CLOWN. THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OUT THERE BEFORE THE ELECTION FOR ANYONE WHO WASN'T TOO LAZY TO SPEND SOME TIME ON ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE MAKE AS A DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE. ONE CAN ONLY WONDER THE GOOD THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO DO IF HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND THE NECESSARY RESOURCES CLEANING UP AFTER W'S FRAT PARTY.

[biglover]

I know two of them personally, my brother and sister and still think he was a good president. I almost can't even have any meaningful conversation with them these days. I guess because they seem to be in a good financial situation and retired with little worries, they think the rest of the world should be in the same position.

[exmate]

Some otherwise intelligent people will only vote for one or the other political party. T. Boone Pickens would never vote for a Democrat. My wife who is extremely intelligent would not have voted for Abraham lincoln if he ran on the GOP ticket.
I ,sure as hell, would not vote for someone like me. I want my President to be MUCH BETTER THAN I.

[shipwrecktown]

The levels of Bush's deceit and delusion veer into the pathological. He expresses more concern over the reputations of those he claims believed the intel on WMD than he does over the tens of thousands who have died, and continue to die. Having misunderstood Gibson's question, he is unable to state that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq even if he'd known there weren't WMD. The shameless prevarications of Bush and the neocons will not stand up to the overwhelming evidence that invading Iraq was on the agenda from the earliest days of the Administration. Wolfowitz is on record saying that the threat of WMD would be used to sell the war to the people. If you listen to Bush's bumbling syntax it is apparent that his attempts to cover up his crimes are straining his brain's ability to generate coherent thought. Poor Laura, she looked like she wanted to crawl inside her own skin.

[peterg76]

Let me just add that the neo-cons started the revision of history in 2001. In fact, revisionism is really the only thing they are good at.

[annieR]

When Bush invaded Iraq, I screamed to everyone who would listen, and to many who wouldn't, that the inspectors were being given free rein in Iraq and they should be left there to do their job. Bush now says as part of justification for invading that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. Charlie Gibson, shame on you!

[vasta]

AMEN

[okg]

Karl Rove is now saying the same thing: "We Wouldn't Have Invaded Iraq If We Knew The Truth About WMDs" (Nov 13, 2008)

[dfranz]

It's almost as if they have forgotten that there are hours of video tape that show exactly what they were doing up to the run up to the war. The facts will not change no matter how they may try to spin it. The failures of this president covers all aspects of his administration and has brought the United States and the rest of the world to the brink of ecconomic and ecological disaster and created terrible damage to the United States reputation and moral standing. Bush will be viewed as Nero playing his ideological violin while the country burns. If his administration is viewed by his interview with Charlie Gibson he will be seen as utterly incompetent to perform the job he was elected for.

[naturethings]

And the American public will be the greatest accomplice to all of these atrocities.

[shipwrecktown]

You're right. In addition to the failures of Congress and the media, it was America's fear, ignorance and nationalism that allowed Bush to get away with what was always and obviously an illegal war. After the news of Abu Graib broke, I viewed the 04 election as a true test of America's character, it's willingness to live up to its professed ideals. America failed that test by re-electing Bush. As a country- we've lost our way. Maybe we'll find our way back, but our consciences have been tainted by the last 8 years. Obama could prove his greatness and begin the healing process by apologizing for Iraq at his first State of the Union.

[plzchuteme]

A very fine article Mr. Bard. I am sorry that you didn't mention that even while Bush was trying to weasel out of his responsibility and revise history, he continues poison the wells, salt the fields, and burn the granaries before he and his band of marauders steals out of town in the night leaving desolation in their wake that will take years to restore, if ever.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Excellent point, plzchuteme. I'm glad you brought it up. The focus of my article was a bit narrower (the interview), but it is equally upsetting to watch Bush torch the country on his way out. Thanks for the comment.

[elmundo6]

I can not even watch this guy any more. As an American, I am so disgusted by the divisiveness that Bush brought to the White House. Your article hits the nail on the head regarding the truth about the last 8 years. Bush is either living in a "la-La" land and is truly clueless about what really happened during his tenure or he is a decitful person, who knows what his legacy is but is trying to save face.

Either way, I truly wish there was a way that we could make the points you raise here resonate on a larger scale. I so hate that now Bush can give these friendly interviews and not be challenged one bit on the way he is recasting history and himself.

For one, I would love to see your article here as an Op Ed in the NY Times or Washington Post. I hope that we can get the media's attention so that future interviewers will call Bush out and challenge him on every statement he makes about his tenure.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, elmundo6. That's very nice of you to say.

HuffPost is a pretty big platform, so I think it's a good start. We need other writers to pick up the baton and keep up the story.

[CatfishJohn]

...mr. bard- great essay... the obvious but esseantil poinbt here is that sociopaths don't have principles...trhye dont have compassion...in fact, proof is in the willingness of bush at the state of the union address in 2003 to ominously discuss precise, huge amounts of alleged iraqi wmd's as factual truths...in bush showing up at a special hosptial in texas for those soldiers who were severely wounded in riaq and facing years of rehab for brain trauma, limb loss etc. making a joke as he was leaving about himself "getting some wounds while cutting brush" earlier in the week at his faux texas ranch...the corporate media will do their darndest to play down this guys staggering failures...after all , he was "their guy" vs gore in 2000 and they were indeed the ones who unquestioniningly bought into and championed the iraq war agenda...

[bodo]

An intelligent leader knows when he is wrong, and changes course. Only fools would call that flip-flopping. Bush's presidency has shown us what happens when a leader obstinately pursues the same fixed idea no matter what, and refuses to change course.