Wallace Defends Bush’s Abuses Of Power, Says Comparison To Nixon Is ‘A Gross Misreading Of History’
Wallace Defends Bush’s Abuses Of Power, Says Comparison To Nixon Is ‘A Gross Misreading Of History’
During a discussion period after the screening yesterday of Ron Howard’s new film “Frost/Nixon,” Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace defended President Bush against criticism by Howard that Bush has abused the office of the presidency in a way similar to President Richard Nixon:
“Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain,” Mr. Wallace told Mr. Howard before an audience of a few hundred after viewing the filmmakers new film “Frost/Nixon,” which is about the only U.S. president to resign from office.
“I think to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country — even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding — it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now,” Mr. Wallace said.
So according to Wallace, Bush’s abuses of power in the name of national security are more palatable than Nixon’s because his motives, as Wallace said, were “to protect the country.” Thus he seems to be willing to excuse the disastrous consequences of Bush’s security policies, from the thousands killed and maimed in Iraq to the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and beyond. By that logic, Wallace could excuse the atrocities of some of history’s most ruthless dictators.
But Wallace also seems to ignore the fact that, like Nixon, the Bush White House has also abused power for political gain and to maintain control of government. Some examples:
– Outing of Valerie Plame Wilson: In 2003, the White House leaked the CIA identity of Valerie Plame Wilson as retribution for an op-ed written by Plame’s husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson, that questioned Bush’s justification for war in Iraq.
– U.S. Attorney Scandal: An 18-month DOJ Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility investigation released in September found that the Bush administration fired nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 for political reasons.
– Hatch Act Violations: In 2003, Karl Rove and Bush re-election campaign manager Ken Mehlman “visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.”
Moreover, in one way or another, the Bush White House has politicized numerous federal agencies, most notably the Justice Department, but also, HHS, the EPA, NASA, DOD, the GSA and the Interior Department.
But maybe the real difference between Nixon and Bush is that when Nixon abused his power, it didn’t cost people their lives.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, there is really no comparison…Bush is much more of a criminal than Nixon ever was.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm“when Nixon abused his power, it didn’t cost people their lives.”
Secret bombing of Cambodia would seem to be abuse of power – and hundreds of thousands were obliterated by US bombs.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pmThis one fell faaar from the Wallace tree.
¶ AIO
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pmI’ve always wondered what Mike Wallace thinks of his idiot son. Chris Wallace inadvertently shows what’s happened to the media. Mike Wallace came up the hard way as a journalist dealing with real people. Chris Wallace came up as the idiot son of a wealthy, connected man who got all his breaks because his name was Wallace.
Journalists used to be working-class people with working-class sensibilities. Now, their part of a millionaire Washington DC elite class. As Somerby continually points out, you can’t have a middle-class democracy with a millionaire press corp.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pmSorry about the typo – They’re part of a millionaire elite class.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pmHAHAHAHA….I AGREE…..THERE’S NO WAY NIXON WAS AS BAD AS BUSH
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pmI guess Wallace forgot that the main policy of the Bush Administration was to run his Presidency as a perpetual campaign towards their goal of maintaining a permanent Republican majority. This method of governing wormed it’s way into every policy decision that Bush made from coddling PNAC/neocons, belittling and obstructing Democratic legislation to trying to bolster the misbelief that Repubs are stronger on national defense by breaking the Geneva Convention, stripping Haebeus Corpus, illegally spying on American citizens (as well as allies of the US) and lying daily to the public about Iraqi WMD’s, the threat from Iran, the “we don’t torture” meme through their press agents as well as a coordinated propaganda machine. Also, Wallace is a GOP shit-eating brown shirt.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pmI just hope that these idiots know that when they say stuff like this, people remember. And THAT will be their legacy… obedient mouthpiece for a corrupt administration
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pmMike Wallace must be deeply embarrassed by this Republican hack posing as a newsman.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pmeven if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding
Er no, I am immeasurably disgusted and ashamed that these are things that are done by my government. “Disagree” is fcuking country club word, utterly devoid of any moral context.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pmO.T.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pmCould we replace the word ‘news’ with something a little more appropriate when it is preceded with the word ‘fox’ ?
FuxNews, bringing us a “gross misreading of history” every day.
Wallace, every time I think you’ve found a pinch of journalistic integrity, you go back to the fountain of spin for a refill.
PEACE
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pmHe also politicized the FDA and the Dept of Labor. I’m sure could think of more if I had the time…
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pmSpeaking of the liars at FOX, Limbaugh is out “sick as a dog” again today.
I’ll bet when he gets back he’ll still snake oil sell ZYKAM to his flock of dopes.
¶ AIO
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pmMemo to Chris Wallace: #7 of the 14 points of Fascism:
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pmIt looks like our old enemies Trajan(Rodan), Mr. P and Avid have a blog that actually has a following. http://littlegreenfootballs2.com/
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pmThat explains why they haven’t troll. Although they have attacked TP today.
“Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain”
And George Bush’s crimes weren’t??????????
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pmIt’s a bit early in the playbook to attempt the Ol deify the monster play. We all knew the wingnuts would start this attempt to create a legacy of competence out of whole cloth but I have to admit I haven’t forgotten what a total waste of oxygen this as*hole is
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pmNixon only wire tapped his own office.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pmBush wire tapped everybody’s office.
But maybe the real difference between Nixon and Bush is that when Nixon abused his power, it didn’t cost people their lives.
Other than those 40 or so THOUSAND GIs, and millions of Southeast Asians who died after 1968, after Nixon won election promising to end the war, you mean?
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pmbtruthful at 18: couldn’t resist to peek at this blog you mentioned. then couldn’t resist a little insult or two…
Here’s what I wrote. I propose we all visit that site and spam the heck out of their comment section.
“You right wing nut job fools! America is the land of the free and home of the brave; we’re not a bunch of bed-wetting wussies who think there is a Jihadist around every corner and under every bed! Get a grip! You people are cowards! Imagine if your lords Bu$h and the DICK were in power during the height of the cold war! They probably would have started a nuclear (NOT NuKUlar! lol) war.
To call Think Progress a Jihadist propaganda outlet is the epitome of paranoia!
Oh well, guess I shouldn’t get too upset at your ridiculous ramblings. You people are a dying breed. Won’t be long until we kick your insane, paranoid, cowardly minions to the dustbin of history, along with your leader Bu$h, who SHOULD hang at Nuremberg by the way.”
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pmwell Chris, old habits are hard to break.
the key phrase here is “I think…”
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pmyeah, chris is entitled to an opinion and I’m entitled to not put much stock in it.
Clumberfeet Says:
Nixon only wire tapped his own office.
Bush wire tapped everybody’s office.
Nixon wiretapped the Democratic Party, not his own office.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pmcitizen_pain ,
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pmIn their defense they hate Bush. They view Bush as a Muslim ass kisser. They also didn’t like McCain or Clinton. It seems they hate both GOP and Dems. I have followed this site, it began when Trajan (Rodan) started a blog was with Little Green Footballs. He stole some readers and then some Savage guy was banned. Rodan made him admin and alot of people came over. It seems Trajan wasn’t lying when he said he was gonna start a Rightwing civil war between Populists and Corporatists. Ironically I fins many of Tarjan’s writings to be Leftists. The only thing Rightwing is his hatred of Islam.
Sorry for the typos.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pmObama has had 5 big news conferences and has yet to call on anyone from Fox for a question. If Mike Wallaces’ idiot son keeps it up, they’ll NEVER get a question.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pmBush and A Gross Misreading of History go hand in hand.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pmJust sayin..
No matter how Fox News spins the horror done by the Bush Administration the United Nations will still bring War Crimes Charges with the evidence and documents. Yes even victims will step forward with medical records. At lease the 7 professionals accidently kidnapped on false information will be seen before their abduction in good health and brillant professionals now after being held by US all have been tortured/raped and are declared totally insane. Yes the White House has said they found no evidence and but still ask a Judge to hold them in the US. The Judge said No. When these men are sent home Americans and the World will know the horror this Bush Administration has done to thousands. Now those we killed in Gitmo and other Iraq jails like Abu Ghraib will show the Bush Administration is truly the Axis of Evil.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pmThe REAL difference between Nixon’s transgressions and Bush’s is the integrity (and lack thereof) of the people in Congress during the respective administrations. Nixon stated that “If the president does it that means it’s legal” – Both, Demcorats and Republicans, in Congress at the time disagreed; and a bi-patisan impeachment was looming. Bush declared that he’d like to be dictator, and over the course of eight years, both parties in Congress passed legislation making it so.
PS – Wayne – Nixon did wiretap his own office…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pmIf Chris Wallace is a journalist, then I’m the Pope.
You may all kiss my ring. ;o)
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pmAn abuse of power is an abuse of power. An erosion of our liberties is an erosion of our liberties. Period.
ENOUGH!
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pmAnd Pox News wonders why Barack Obama ignores them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pmAh yes, college paper material for the rest of time, “How did Nixon and Bush abuse their power and why? Which specific crimes did they commit?”.
Anyone who thinks that Bush abused his power solely to “protect the country” is either very stupid, very brainwashed, has not come to terms with ever supporting Bush at all, or all of the above.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pmbtruthful Says:
It looks like our old enemies Trajan(Rodan), Mr. P and Avid have a blog that actually has a following. http://littlegreenfootballs2.com/
Looks like they are still as dumb as ever, and as unoriginal, since they cannot ever come up with an original site to sling their stupid from. littlegreenfootballs2.com… ThinkProgressWatch….
I wonder, does Mr. Pee still think Saudi’s are not Muslim because they are our “allies”? /snicker
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pmWallace, Bush, Alfred E. Newman, triplets separated at birth.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pmNettles – and the hundreds of thousands, some estimate a million, Iraqi lives don’t count? Yikes!!
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pmThis fascist piece of dog pooh has that Rethug smile. The evil grin. Same as Cheney and Bush.
There are no fascists in heaven.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pmbtruthful Says:
Ironically I fins many of Tarjan’s writings to be Leftists.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
___________
Those were some very Trajanesque typos, there…
Just sayin…
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm——————————————————————————–
Nettles Says:
——————————————————————————–
Anyone who thinks that Bush is in the same class as the Evil Troika of Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon in terms of long-term damage to the country is letting their fresh emotions of Bush skew their opinions. The facts speak for themselves:
Under Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon, over 60, 000 Americans, more than 2/3rds of whom were drafted involuntarily, lost their lives, all for an inconsequential sliver of jungle that ultimately had no bearing on us winning the Cold War.
The death count between Afghanistan and Iraq is below 5000 (last I checked). The last thing that I want to do is diminish their unfathomable sacrifice, but the fact remains that those brave soldiers volunteered for duty. They were not pulled off the streets as they were in the 60s.
Bush is Mohatma Gandhi next to those 3.
The 1.2 million MURDERED Iraqi civilians do not count?
Your an imbecile of immense proportions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pmNettles Says:
Under Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon, over 60, 000 Americans, more than 2/3rds of whom were drafted involuntarily, lost their lives, all for an inconsequential sliver of jungle that ultimately had no bearing on us winning the Cold War.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
______
Well, if body count is the only metric you want to use, then the worst President in history is obviously Abraham Lincoln. 600,000 American troops died under his watch. Plus he suspended Habeas Corpus and issued a few potentially unconstitutional Executive Orders.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pmMr. Wallace is right…no comparison…. Nixon was more honorable and much more competent than Bush,…..Nixon had a conscience…he resigned, when he was caught
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pmctcadguy Says:
The 1.2 million MURDERED Iraqi civilians do not count?
Your an imbecile of immense proportions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
_______
To be fair, Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon have Bush pretty soundly beat in civilian casualties as well – 4,500,000 Vietnamese, 700,000 Cambodians, and 50,000 Laotians.
Also don’t forget the September 11th attacks that happened under Nixon’s watch.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pmNettles Says:
Bush is Mohatma Gandhi next to those 3.
Yeah, invading Iraq for lies and 1.2 million dead Iraqis makes him a candidate to become canonized as a Saint…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pmSo, Mr. Wallace brings out the old “the ends justifies the means” argument, which is moral relativism at its most pure unadulterated best. The argument is to not look at the actions themselves, but to rather look at the INTENDED result (not even the actual result: the point of this argument is that the ultimate intention is the only relevant yardstick, and a good intention trumps bad actions. And, most importantly, the ACTUAL result of the actions is completely disregarded in the equation).
So, by this theory, for the defense of our country, we are right to capture innocent people and incarcerate them without any form of justice, and to even torture them (including women and children) in order to try to get their radical family members to surrender so as to be executed in an orderly fashion. And we should feel no regret for these actions, as they were done in the name (the intention) of securing our safety. The intended ends justifies the means.
Hmmmm… that is the addition the neocons have added: the intended ends justifies the means.
Well, I disagree. Neither the ends, nor the intended ends can justify the means. We could do hypothetical examples that prove this all day, if we wanted.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pmNettles Says:
Of you want to lay those iraqis killed by Death squads at the foot of Bush 43, be my guest. It doesn’t come remotely close to ‘Nam.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
_______
Oh, I do. I lay every single death resulting from the Iraq War at the feet of Bush 43 – every driver killed by a roadside bomb, every market shopper killed by a car bomb, every child who died of cholera, every one of those deaths wouldn’t have happened had we not invaded.
And the key difference between Vietnam and Iraq – Vietnam was an existing civil war that we gradually got involved in.
Iraq was a war that our president LIED our country into starting, because he thought it might be fun to invade and occupy a sovereign nation.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pmWell said CageyCretin.
Right-wingers might want to follow some of their “logic” through a bit more often. It might take them to places they hadn’t thought of.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm@50 – Hear hear, Toasty. Well said.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pmNettles-
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pmThe topic of discussion is a comparison of Nixon and Bush’s abuses of power. Vietnam had NOTHING to do with Watergate dipshit. Nixon’s crimes, though politicaly motivated, revolve around one instance of illegally searching the DNC headquarters, destroying the evidence and attempting to kill investigations into said acts. Bush’s laundry list of crimes range over the course of seven long years in our Nation’s history, have cost us trillions of dollars, countless lives lost, our reputation in tatters, our Constitution thrown to the wayside ALL for the political goal of perpetual Republican rule. Nixon didn’t start and maintain an illegal war for profit, pardon political allies for protecting him, illegally spy on the entire nation and our allies, illegally detain and torture thousands, suspend Haebeus Corpus, make millions of potentially damning e-mails dissappear, form an illegal media-driven propaganda machine to perpetuate his lies, illegally (politically) fire his appointed state AG’s in order to replace them with obediant lackeys and plant political hacks in every branch of Government. Get on topic or get the hell out, idiot.
Bush seems to think he’s absolved because of bad intelligence and his defenders seem to think that if he committed his crimes for the good of the country, and that as long as he hasn’t killed at least five million civilians in the course of committing his crimes, then it’s all good.
There’s gonna be a long line of people being turned away from heaven’s gate with reasoning like that.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pmNettles Says:
Anyone who thinks that Bush is in the same class as the Evil Troika of Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon in terms of long-term damage to the country is letting their fresh emotions of Bush skew their opinions.
Yours is a sleight of hand: The damage to the nation cannot be measured in body counts alone.
Bush is one of the worst presidents in US history (if not the worst) because his administration embarked in a all-encompassing bankrupting of the country on all fronts: Legal, financial, and ethical.
The secret “renditions” of detainees, their torture, the enormous deficit, the illegal occupation of a country, starting two wars, the politization of science, the illegal wiretaps, the expansion of the presidential powers under the so-called Unitary Executive Theory, the breaking of his own executive orders, the current financial meltdown -all of these are his legacy.
All these will cause long-term, lasting damage. This is painfully obvious for all to see -all of those, that is, who can handle intangible, abstract concepts… which is why Bush is still rated as one of the worst president by historians; even worse than Nixon.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pmAnd intention itself is purely a relative notion. Hitler did not sit in a corner and fondle himself while mumbling, “I’m a naughty boy…” He believed that his intention was to a positive end: a ‘perfect world’. And he used whatever means seemed expedient to reach his intended ends. And belief in the ‘rightness’ of those intended ends was shared by others. Yet the people of the world did not share that vision. Hitler’s intention may have seemed good to himself and some others, but that in itself does not justify their actions. “But I meant well,” is not an argument that exonerates bad actions.
Funny, it seems that the greatest atrocities of history are almost always defended with the moral relativism of, “I meant well.” Hitler, Stalin, any of the multiple crusades and inquisitions, the occupation of Iraq….
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pmIt’s all well and good that we (the commenters here) talk about Chris and his “Joe The Plumber” views. But by doing so we validate him – look what happened when we, and the whole MSM, did that with the real Joe the Plumber. Now the guy’s like a Palin or a cockroach – you can’t get rid of them.
Bush/Cheney -Nuremburg ‘09
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 pmAnyone else happen to notice that FOX has been trying to spin this new meme about Bush’s White House NOT being overly politically motivated? It goes directly against Scott McLellan’s assertions that EVERYTHING that came out of the White House was political with the aim of running the Administration specifically as a perpetual political campaign. I don’t see the logic in this strategy yet, but it is there clear as day, none the less:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/25/rove-policy-politics/
http://wordpress.com/tag/perpetual-campaign/
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmNettles doesn’t keep up on his history. Why am I not surprised. Don’t include Kennedy in your trio of shame, Nettles. We have known for some years now that his plan was to completely remove all military advisors and other personnel from Southeast Asia. He had already made his intentions known to his cabinet when he was murdered. LBJ was the one who used a phony excuse to geared up. Nixon was the one who lied to the American people saying he was going to end the war when he was planning to ramp up.
But Nettles, even you should know that the overwhelming verdict among historians and constitutional scholars, and based on a number of different criteria, has been that George Bush is probably rated as the worst president in U.S. history. 20 years from now, you won’t even admit to haveing voted for him.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmBut maybe the real difference between Nixon and Bush is that when Nixon abused his power, it didn’t cost people their lives.
This is so NOT true. Nixon was elected in 1968 due to his “secret plan to end the Vietnam War.” From 1956 through 1968, there were about 36,000 American deaths; from 1958 through 1973, there were another 21,000 American deaths. We will never know how many Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laosians (sp) die throughout those years. There were nearly 154,000 Americans wounded over that period of time, but in a quick search, I can’t find specific numbers for the period of 1969-1973. My husband was one of those severely injured (helicopter pilot) in 1969.
Nixon also excused his abuses of power many times with the “national security” mantra, as has Bush. It boils down to one thing: a desperate desire to hold onto power and a willingness to do anything and everything in order to do so. I suppose one word for that is “political,” but a better word would be completely immoral and evil.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmNettles, once again for your puny shrivelled GOP mind, the topic of the thread is NOT legacy but Bush’s abuses of office as compared to Nixon’s. Not how many people died in Vietnam, not Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon, dipshit. I’d be interested to know how you can now consider this a victory in Iraq. That’s laughable by any GOP standard (or are you one of those new “libertarians” who won’t admit to voting for shit-for-brains Bush)? What has changed since before Obama was elected that now Repubs define the Iraqi troop withdrawal as a victory? The surge was a sham, poltical goals have not been met, and Iraqis remain displaced, without reliable water supplies, electricity or any sense of safety. The Iraqis have asked us to leave, Obama has long sought an end to military actions in Iraq. Now he’s a hawk for stating he will commence a withrawal? Oh, I get it.. by victory you must mean that Bush’s oil friends have secured access to Iraqi oil! You sure have your own special brand of reality even for a Gooper. Face it, Bush will go down as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. A title that he worked long and hard on through two contentious terms at the expense of many lives lost, countless money wasted and re-distributed and a crumbling infastructure. No amount of spin from FOX or mentally challenged trolls will change this fact.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pmHey it’s Wallace & Grommet in his best Steven Colbert-esque finger pointing pose.
Why did I like TV better when newsreaders just sorta read the news? Who decided this dude was a “pundit”…where did all these stupid friggin’ pundits come from anyway…AND WHAT THE HELL IS A PUNDIT?
Sorry for shouting…really…
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pmchabuka Says:
Mr. Wallace is right…no comparison…. Nixon was more honorable and much more competent than Bush,…..Nixon had a conscience…he resigned, when he was caught
Bullshit! Nixon resigned because he was going to be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate and then prosecuted by the courts, and sent to prison.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pmNettles Says:
… we will leave iraq with dignity because WE WILL HAVE WON.
I’ll ignore the fact that you are lumping THREE former presidents together in comparison to one to fuel your argument about death tolls. Why don’t you pick ONE of those, and use just the numbers that apply to that one’s time in office?
Anyway — what is this obsession with “winning”? Really? Is everything a competition to you? Several of the numerous excuses we were given for going into Iraq included a whole humanitarian “we’re liberating them” theme: this is NOT a competitive sport. And, more importantly, how does “WINNING”, by any standards, allow us to leave Iraq “with dignity”? Just because we can qualify the situation as a “win” means that we leave with dignity? Really? Read my post above about moral relativism, because you are practicing it at a very advanced level. “Winning” does not alter any of the factual events that happened – or led up to it – which include any and all immoral (’bad’) actions, even IF they were done by ‘rogue elements’, as they were done to achieve the “win”.
The fact is that being a “winner” (whether by your standards or anothers) does NOT mean that you get to ignore any wrongdoing that happened along the way. I’ll avoid the hypotheticals because this is very simple to understand. Just because you “win” a “war” (or anything) does NOT mean that you did so with dignity. The winner is not necessarily standing on the moral high ground.
Good cheaters win a lot. Doesn’t make them ‘honest’ just because they won.
Winning is definetely NOT everything.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pmWallace Defends Bush’s Abuses Of Power, Says Comparison To Nixon Is ‘A Gross Misreading Of History’
Actually, no. Both thought they were the only ones who could lead America at a critical historical period.
Remember “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal?”
What he was saying, was that his “gut” decisions mattered more than all the intelligence available. Both had messianic impulses.
Both were wrong.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pmBy Nettles way of judging casualties, Lincoln must have been the biggest mass-murderer in American history.
Want to compare all the dead of Viet Nam, with the dead of Antitam? Bull Run?
They lost 50,000 soldiers in a DAY.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmNettles Says:
My point was (and I stand by it)that if we are going to judge presidents, better to take a pragmatic, scholarly approach than an emotional one.
If this is really your point and your goal (and not trolling), then here is this link again, for your reading pleasure.
Read it so you are aware that historians rate Bush II as worst than even Nixon.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm“But maybe the real difference between Nixon and Bush is that when Nixon abused his power, it didn’t cost people their lives.”
If only Wallace and Fox News could go back in a time machine to Nixon’s time they could have suppressed and distorted the truth about his crimes for big big ratings.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pmHard to believe Chris and Mike are related. I feel sorry for Mike.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmNettles Says:
Bush isnt Mohandis Ghandi compared to SATAN, that is ludicrous. Bush LIED to take us to a war HE wanted. Bush shredded the Constitution and lied to Congress. I am willing to entertain arguments that he isnt as bad as Nixon. He also was FAR stupider, more embarassing and incompetent. Putting Kennedy in there is pure partisan pique. Johnson, I can see the argument, Kennedy? please other than Vietnam which there is some argument he was a break on, he was an excellent president.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pmNettles Says:
Mr Samsa- Thank you. I’m familiar with McElvain. He and his HuffPo bretheren (and you as well) are entitled to their opinions.
I guess you are not all that familiar, and/or you didn’t actually read the article.
If you had, you’d know it is not his opinion, but the opinion of 109 historians -unscientific as the poll might be, it’s still an indicator of what the scholarly approach to judging Bush’s presidency will reveal: He is one of the worst, probably worse than Nixon. And that is certainly not McElvain’s opinion.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmOh, and netless, it is not surprising that, after arguing that “scholarly approach” is needed when judging George Bush’s presidency, you discount the opinion of those whose job is precisely to have a “scholarly approach”.
You better put down that kool-aid. It clouds your judgment.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pmWant a scholarly approach nettles? How about a poll of historians? In the widely publicized poll of historians 61% FLATLY called him the WORST president in American history and more than 98% of them called Bush’s presidency a failure. There is NO question that the ONLY question is will Bush be seen as THE worst president in American history or only ONE of the wost presidents in American history a group which NEVER contains either Johnson OR Kennedy
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmGregor Samsa Says:
Guess I should have read more before I posted. I cited the same poll.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pmNettles? Bottom 15? Please at BEST, giving him ALL the benifits of the doubt he belongs in the bottom FOUR which would NEVER include Kennedy OR Johnson
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pmIf we’re out of Iraq in 16 months, only time will tell what Bush 43’s legacy will be. The verdict’s out.
He’ll still be the worst president in American history, until someone more incompetent comes along.
Failure to anticipate a terrorist attack, after being warned by the Clinton administration.
Failure to prepare troops for battle.
Failure to respond to Katrina.
The list is quite long.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmHow come when time causes a new interpretation of history that people don’t like they call it revisionist but if they do like it is a joyous reconsideration in light of the magic of historical perspective? Does this work the same way as that activist judge crap?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pmNettles Says:
I must disagree with any historian who would weigh in on the Bush 43 Presidency as it hinges greatly on how Iraq turns out.
Wha!? 9/11 and the invasion & occupation of Iraq are/were the very defining moments of his presidency. Defeating terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East, and the reconstruction of Iraq, were the biggest undertakings of his administration. That is his legacy. Or, more precisely, the failure to live up to his own lofty goals is his legacy.
But now, according to you, all of this should not have too much weight when assessing Bush’s presidency? Pray tell, what else should we ignore? His response to Katrina, the financial crisis, the fact that he presided over two recessions, the alienation of the European allies, the trampling of the law -all of the above?
In order for anyone to say Bush was a good president, they’d have to ignore his entire presidency…
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmThe only redeemable quality in Bush’s presidency, is that it is ending. At a long last.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:38 pmThis blockhead that hasn’t had an original idea is giving out with the typical Fox line. In fact if he had an original idea it would die of loneliness. This is all he knows. To be on Fox, you don’t have to think. And they don’t. Wallace hasn’t had any thoughts that were not put there by Fox. He is not a journalist. He has a vacuum where is brain should be.
This idiot does not seem to know that Nixon protected himself by trashing his own Presidency. And he did not protect and defend the Constitution. When you lie and break the law, when you use the FBI and IRS to punish your enemies you break the Constitution.
As for Bush, the breaking of laws, and the breaking of the Constitution happens so often you can hear them hitting the floor. Whatever way he tries to differentiate between the two Presidents, it comes down to the same thing. All the excuses aside, they broke the law.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm“If you don’t think that mistake sullied his legacy, you will when its mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of his obituary”
________
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 pmFirst of all this is just absurd and second since your argument seems to be that the future interpretation of Mr Bush is unknowable why would you even make such an absurd statement as if the future of an obituary is in fact knowable. It makes no sense.
Nettles Says:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to ever be vindicated about Iraq since he sold Iraq with LIES and misrepresentations. Also while Saddam was indeed a butcher he was a minor league thug by the time we invaded comitting his worst attrocities while he was a stron ally. There are many MUCH worse butchers that we ALLIED with like Pol Pot and Suhuarto to just name two. Iraq WAS stable. It WASNT a hotbed for terrorists. In fact the CIA said DIRECTLY they were no threat to us and they had NO evidence of any terrorist activity or support since 1993. There was NO terrorism rationale. If our problem is extremist Islamic terrorism then invading the most SECULAR Ialmic nation in the region was insane. So NO we threw a stable country into turmoil. One thing about brutal dictators they run stable countries for the most part, so eventually having a stable Iraq will NEVER be worth the hundreds of thousands killed nor the loss of moral suasion we lost through the lies not to mention torture. No way Bush EVER looks good no matter WHAT happens to Iraq.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 pmGregor Samsa Says:
The only redeemable quality in Bush’s presidency, is that it is ending. At a long last.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have to disagree with that. There is also the sinking and discrediting of the GOP
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pmcynicalgirl Says:
He also politicized the FDA and the Dept of Labor. I’m sure could think of more if I had the time…
chimpy politicized science.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pmNettles Says:
I am saying that it too early to weigh in. The situation on the ground has improved in the last 18 months.
Too early to weigh in on the Iraq question? Fine, let’s take Iraq out of the equation. What other metrics would you like to use to assess Bush’s presidency?
The response to Katrina -shameful. I don’t believe I need to say more.
The current financial meltdown -the largest since the Great Depression and the second recession under his watch.
Unemployment rate -it’s at an 15-year high and growing.
Secret “renditions” and the torture of detainees -he made both of these repugnant practices de facto matters in his foreign policy.
Illegal wiretaps -listening in on conversations by private citizens, and lying about it.
Afghanistan -the country is in tatters, and getting worse, while the reconstruction efforts falter.
Future positive assessment of his legacy doesn’t look very likely, if you ask me….
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 pmNetless, give me a hand, will ya? I cannot come up with the name of another US president who managed to do so much damage to so many so quickly, or who devised ways to get so many things wrong so often in such a short amount of time.
Would you know who did? Because for the life of me, I cannot recall any…
(I mean losing two wars simultaneously while presiding over two recessions is no small feat)
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pmCome on Gregor. That first recession was Clinton’s fault and the second Obama’s. Haven’t you been following along with the story. If you don’t believe me you can always ask SamJoe the plumber’s gopher. SamJoe has a real handle on things. Oh yeah and Jessica Lynch was shooting her way to patriotic gloriousness and was rescued by the most amazing of military genius maneuvers of all time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 pmdbadass Says:
Come on Gregor. That first recession was Clinton’s fault and the second Obama’s.
Heh. I forgot. Or maybe I just didn’t get the memo.
Oh, and 9/11 was also Clinton’s fault. That memo I did get ;-)
(I bet the reichwingers are still trying to figure out how to put the blame for the Iraq disaster on Clinton)
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 pmOh, and netless, how about invading the wrong bloody country?
Does it count as a (most stupid f**king) blunder or is it in the doesn’t-count-’cause-it’s-Iraq category?
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm