Former Bush adviser Karl Rove went on Fox News this morning and attacked President Obama’s health care town hall meeting yesterday as “pre-packaged, organized, controlled, [and] scripted,” adding that the Bush administration would never have done something so audacious:
ROVE: This White House has carried pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted events to a new height, and they’re getting away with things that in any previous White House, the media would have eviscerated the press secretary and the White House for it.
Watch it:
ThinkProgress contacted a White House spokesperson who said that at yesterday’s health care town hall event in Virginia, half of the tickets were given out by the school (to “students, faculty, staff, as well as members of the health community from the area”) and the other half by the White House (”grassroots activists and people involved in the issue in the area”). The spokesperson then explained how questions were chosen:
The President posted a video on YouTube several days ago, saying respond to this video with questions for me on health care, and we got hundreds, and all of those are online. So in terms of the videos that were selected, anyone can look at the range and see which ones we did and didn’t select. That’s fully transparent. They’re all up on YouTube; they were all up yesterday on our website.
Because YouTube doesn’t actually have a voting function, our new media staff took videos that were rated highly by other users and selected, from among those, questions that represented the range of things being asked. So a lot of people in the progressive community still want a single-payer system, so the first question was from a single-payer advocate. We took a question from a Republican member of Congress, Mike Burgess, about medical malpractice reform.
The spokesperson then noted that there were also questions taken from people who were following along on Twitter and Facebook. When asked whether these questioners or audience members were pre-screened for their political ideology or whether they agreed with the President, the spokesperson replied, “Absolutely not.”
Of course, pre-screening for political ideology is exactly what the Bush administration did.
In March 2005, people seeking tickets to a Social Security event were quizzed about their support of President Bush and his Social Security plan ahead of time. In April 2005, Bush’s security detail threw out three people from an event in Colorado because they had a bumper sticker reading “No More Blood For Oil.” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that if there’s any evidence people might “disrupt the president,” they “have the right to exclude those people from those events.”
Bush even screened the assembled group of soldiers he would meet in Iraq during a 2003 Thanksgiving visit: Soldiers had to fill out a questionnaire asking whether they supported Bush.
Transcript: More »
The New York Times reports today that, despite Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s attempts to portray the U.S. as the instigators of last weekend’s coup in Honduras, the Obama administration appears to have out-maneuvered him. Obama “firmly condemned the coup, defusing Mr. Chávez’s charges,” and leaders of other Latin American countries and media outlets seemed unwilling to accept Chávez’s portrayal of “Washington as the coup’s possible orchestrator.” Chávez’s unpopular and belligerent rhetoric inspired Venezualan opposition party Acción Democrática to dub him the “George Bush of Latin America“:
Mr. Obama’s nonconfrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chávez off balance. “Chávez is beginning to understand that he’s dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,” said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy research group. …
Mr. Chávez’s threats of belligerence in Central America led one opposition party here, Acción Democrática, to issue a statement on Monday that was full of irony: “Hugo Chávez has become the George Bush of Latin America.”
Yesterday on Fox News, Sean Hannity and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton joined the right-wing chorus hitting President Obama’s response to the Iranian election crisis. Bolton repeatedly said Obama should act more forcefully and offer the “possibility of concrete assistance” to the Iranian protestors:
BOLTON: Well, it’s not at all what they want, and you know what’s worst of all about this, looking at President Obama, is not only that he’s being timid, he’s being disingenuous. The real reason that he won’t speak out has nothing to do with this argument that we don’t want to meddle. [...]
[Obama] is abandoning the people in the streets and not providing any possibility of concrete assistance to them.
Hannity then asked Bolton whether he agreed with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters’s recent New York Post op-ed, in which he wrote that Obama’s “silence” is “a blank check for the current regime.” Bolton surprisingly backtracked and seemed to contradict his statements from a few moments earlier, claiming it’s better to be “prudent” right now because the United States isn’t in a position to “provide concrete assistance”:
BOLTON: Well, I think it’s mostly right except I would say this. Because including during the Bush administration we did not prepare adequately for this potential revolutionary moment, we’re not really in a position now to offer much concrete assistance.
And I don’t want America to be in a position where we urge people in the streets and then watch them die. I’d rather be a little bit prudent and prepare for the long-term where we really can provide concrete assistance.
Watch it:
So basically, Bolton wants Obama to stand with the Iranian protestors and provide the “possibility of concrete assistance,” even though he also thinks the United States is in no position “where we really can provide concrete assistance”? Of course, this call to be “prudent” comes from a man who wanted Obama to launch “meaningful efforts at regime change” just a few months ago. Bolton’s claim to want to assist Iran’s “people in the streets” also rings hollow, given that he has wanted to bomb them for years.
Transcript: More »
In a speech to the Manufacturing and Business Association in Erie, PA last night, President Bush insinuated that he disagreed with President Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and try some of the detainees in U.S. courts. “I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that — persuasion isn’t going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind,” Bush said. But in June 2006, Bush endorsed a course of action quite similar to Obama’s current plan:
BUSH: I’d like to end Guantanamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries. [...] There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts. They’re cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they’re let out on the street. And yet, we believe there’s a — there ought to be a way forward in a court of law.
Further, as Jake Tapper notes, Bush’s remark that “therapy” won’t help rehabilitate some of the detainees is surprising given the fact that Bush himself sent approximately 120 former Guantanamo detainees to a Saudi-based counseling center for rehabilitation. 60 Minutes recently reported on the success of the Saudi program.
Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity interviewed Karl Rove about ABC’s upcoming special “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” which will feature President Obama answering “questions offered by audience members ‘selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate’” on health care. Hannity and Rove — echoing a recent Washington Times piece — raised questions about what they called the “unprecedented access to the White House” granted to ABC for their “infomercial” on health care reform:
HANNITY: Karl, it seems rather unprecedented. You were there in the White House for the better part of eight years. Did this ever happened while George W. Bush was president?
ROVE: You know, look, it’s normal for the networks to want to come in and do an interview inside the White House or to get a glimpse behind the curtain as to what goes on there. This is an unprecedented access to the White House and more importantly an unprecedented use of the White House. I can’t remember a time when the network came in and was going to devote a significant block of time to covering an issue that was on the president’s agenda.
As Media Matters first noted, when Fox News’ Bret Baier was granted “unprecedented access” to the White House in Feb. 2008, the network billed it as a “documentary,” not an “infomercial.” Further, Fox was not only welcomed into the White House, but aboard Air Force One, to Bush’s ranch in Texas, and into the Oval Office. Baier introduced the “documentary” saying, “Fox News has been granted unprecedented access inside the President’s world. … It’s a President Bush you’ve never seen before.” Watch a compilation of Hannity last night and Baier’s special:
Prior to airing the Bush special, Baier hosted a special on the famously-reclusive vice president entitled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat.” Fox billed it as “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president” and aired the program Oct. 13, 2007. Similarly, on Oct. 30, 2007, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren was granted what she called “unprecedented access” to First Lady Laura Bush’s tour of the Middle East.
In the period leading up to Fox gaining such access to the Bush White House, former Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow was serving as White House Press Secretary, leaving office just weeks before Baier’s first documentary aired.
After initially stating that he wanted President Obama to “succeed” and that he owed Obama his “silence,” President Bush yesterday decided to reverse course and criticize the President. The former President took aim at Obama’s desire to introduce a public health insurance option for Americans:
“There are a lot of ways to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care,” Mr. Bush said. “I worry about encouraging the government to replace the private sector when it comes to providing insurance for health care.”
Asked by the evening emcee at the 104th annual Manufacturer and Business Association meeting if he finds the new president’s policies “socialist,” Mr. Bush started then stopped.
“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on…,” he said, breaking off. He later offered a more diplomatic assessment: “We’ll see.”
Former Gov. Howard Dean, a strong advocate of a public plan, responded to Bush’s criticisms this morning on NBC’s Today Show. “We’ve had a government system for 50 years,” Dean said. “The Republicans didn’t like it then — it’s called Medicare. Everybody over 65 is already in the government system. Let the people who are under 65 make a choice.” Watch it:
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 76 percent of respondents believe that it is “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”
Yesterday at Utah’s GOP convention, the state’s two U.S. senators — Orrin Hatch (R) and Bob Bennett (R) received only “polite receptions,” compared to the boisterous applause received by some of the state’s representatives. From the Deseret News:
Hatch, at one point in his speech, appeared upset when some delegates applauded as a way of blaming national Republicans, himself included, for the deficit and other problems of the Bush years.
“Don’t you believe that B.S.,” Hatch said loudly. But some of the 1,800 delegates clearly did.
While many delegates stood and applauded the longtime incumbents (Hatch 33 years, Bennett 15 years), others sat on their hands — not booing, but showing their disapproval through silence.
Many attendees also expressed displeasure with Gov. John Huntsman (R), who has agreed to become President Obama’s ambassador to China. GOP party chair Jude Law said that Huntman’s endorsement of civil unions “mocks God.” (HT: Huffington Post)
Today in an interview with CNN, President George H.W. Bush condemned the right-wing attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Specifically, he took issue with the assertion that Sotomayor is “racist,” which has been made by Newt Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, and Rush Limbaugh:
“I don’t know her that well but I think she’s had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings. Not – [it's] like the senator John Cornyn said it,” he told CNN. “He may vote for it, he may not. But he’s been backing away from these…backing off from those radical statements to describe her, to attribute things to her that may or may not be true.
“And she was called by somebody a racist once. That’s not right. I mean that’s not fair. It doesn’t help the process. You’re out there name-calling. So let them decide who they want to vote for and get on with it.”
In 1991, Bush nominated Sotomayor as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, making her “the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York and the first Hispanic federal judge in the state.”
In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) pinned the blame for his party’s current failures on the Bush presidency:
“We’re digging ourselves out of a deep hole,” he admitted. “We took it in the shorts with Bush-Cheney, the Iraq War, and by sacrificing fiscal responsibility to hold power.”
Boehner has only to blame to himself. He voted to authorize use of military force against Iraq, and voted against a House-approved Iraq withdrawal in 2007. He also voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were largely responsible for turning our nation’s surplus into a massive deficit. As Boehner himself said in 2006, “I think that Republicans ought to stand up and support George W. Bush for the job that he’s done.” (HT: Political Wire)
This week, James Dobson has been using his Focus on the Family Daily Broadcast to air his 1 1/2-hour interview with Tim Goeglein, a former special assistant to President Bush. The interview — billed as an “Insider’s View of the Bush Presidency” — has actually been a 1 1/2-hour love fest to the former president. Some highlights of Goeglien’s thoughts:
– “George W. Bush kept us safe. Providence kept us safe. But George Bush was the instrument in God’s hand as the leader of the free world.”
– “Of course, this was the great blessing of our first president, George Washington — the original George W. … The greatest trait of Washington was to see things as they were and not as he wanted to see them. That was George W. Bush’s gift when it came to this war. He immediately upon being told of the attacks knew that this was war and that we were being attacked existentially by radical Islam.”
– “I am actually very confident and hopeful, that in the years ahead with the benefit of time and space, that historians will look back at those remarkable and incredibly eventful eight years and say, ‘You know, he made the right decisions about the biggest things during those eight years.’“
Dobson also gave Obama a back-handed compliment, saying that unlike Bush, he can “read without sounding like he’s reading.” “That is a real skill,” added Dobson. “I mean, that’s something not very many people can do. In fact, I think President Obama is in the White House today because of that ability to read off a teleprompter.” Listen to excerpts here:
At the end of the interview, Dobson asks Goeglein whether he’s saying all these nice things about Bush simply because he gets “starstruck” by politicians. Goeglein assures him that all his observations and emotions are genuine.
Right Wing Watch also notes that Goeglein resigned from the White House in disgrace in 2008, after admitting that he had extensively plagiarized in the occasional guest columns he wrote for his hometown newspaper. While in the White House, Goeglein was “the eyes and ears of the White House in the world of religious conservatives and an emissary to that world for Mr. Rove and the president.”
Last night on Fox News, former top Bush adviser Karl Rove chastised President Obama for his economic recovery package Congress passed last February and criticized him for his new proposal to enact “pay as you go” budgeting rules — paying for spending increases by either raising taxes or budget cuts.
“This is a cosmetic gesture. This guy is going to run up a $1.8 trillion deficit. That’s what it’s projected to be this year,” Rove complained. But when host Greta Van Susteren asked if the Bush administration is responsible for any of the deficit, Rove replied, “No.”:
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you take some responsibility, meaning you, the Bush eight years, for this…
ROVE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You take absolutely no responsibility? Because…
ROVE: No.
Watch it:
Rove’s denial is odd, not only because the Bush administration turned President Clinton’s budget surplus into massive deficits and left with nearly half a trillion dollars in the hole, but also because Bush presided over the largest debt increase of any U.S. president in history. But the timing of Rove’s denial is odd as well because the New York Times published yesterday the results of an examination of Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade which found that Obama “is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits” and most of his adminstration’s contribution to the deficit is a result of continuing Bush policies:
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
“In other words,” Matt Yglesias writes, “the very high deficits are not Obama’s fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame.” See Yglesias’s pie chart illustrating the Times’s story here.
Last night, Karl Rove went on Fox News and lambasted President Obama’s speech in Cairo, saying that he would give him a grade of “D minus” on the “important parts of the speech.” Host Bill O’Reilly then decided to play “devil’s advocate” and pointed out that President Bush’s approach wasn’t all that great since Muslim communities around the world “hated him.” Rove responded that it doesn’t really matter what they think:
O’REILLY: Okay? The bottom line on it is that President Bush may have been right in a lot of the things that he said and did during the war on terror in his administration. But the Muslim world would not listen to him. They wouldn’t. They didn’t like him. They hated him. He was demonized. And they didn’t like him at all.
ROVE: No, I totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: The Muslim world –
ROVE: Totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: — the Muslim people. They didn’t like him.
ROVE: Well, no, no. Look, I disagree with you.
O’REILLY: Well, all the polls showed in every Muslim country that President Bush’s approval rating was 20 percent. So I mean how can you disagree?
ROVE: You know what? Who cares about whether or not they approve or like the president of the United States? The question is do they respect the policies of the United States government? And you bet they did. Because we showed strength and power and influence.
Watch it:
Not only did many Muslim countries not “like” President Bush, they also didn’t respect his policies. A 2006 poll of five Muslim nations found that just 8-16 percent of those surveyed believed that “the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place.”
In fact, the reason that so many Muslim communities didn’t approve of Bush was because of his policies. The United States may have had “strength and power and influence,” but under the Bush administration, it used it to “weaken and divide the Islamic world,” according to a 2007 poll of four majority Muslim nations. The abuse of this power is what led to “widespread…unfavorable attitudes” of the United States by Muslim nations throughout Bush’s two terms.
Not that Rove ever cared what they thought anyway.
Transcript: More »
During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.
On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:
MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?
CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.
Watch it:
Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:

Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:
Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.
At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.
This morning on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, a caller asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) why he would not support a possible criminal investigation into the Bush-era torture program. Graham defended the Bush administration by saying they “overreacted” “out of fear,” but insisted that Bush’s “mistakes” were “not criminal mistakes”:
GRAHAM: The reason I don’t want to go back any more than we have already done is because I know what happened. Out of fear, we overreacted. … They took a view of the law that I think was aggressive, and I would not have approached it that way. Right after 9/11, we all thought we were going to be hit again. So as we go back and try to hold people criminally liable. I think we’re doing a lot of damage to the country, because their mistakes were not criminal mistakes. They were mistakes made out of fear.
Watch it:
The Bush administration approved, among other gruesome techniques, the use of waterboarding; waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime. And it’s not just retired military experts, presidents, presidential candidates, and 71 percent of Americans who say so: Graham himself declared, in October 2007, that waterboarding “is clearly illegal under domestic and international law”:
GRAHAM: I am convinced, as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding…does violate our war crimes statute and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law. … I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article Three, the War Crimes statutes, and many other statutes that are in place. So I do hope that he will embrace that.
Apparently for Graham, if you approve something that is “clearly illegal,” it’s not “a criminal mistake” — so long as you are acting out of fear.
Sitting on a panel moderated by Rachel Maddow last night, retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq from 2003-2004, called for a truth commission to investigate Bush-era interrogation and torture tactics. The Huffington Post’s Jack Hidary reports:
The General described the failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to the abuses in Iraq, “and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission.”
The General went on to say that, “during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques.”
I interviewed General Sanchez after the event and asked him to elaborate on why he felt the US needed such a commission. … “If we do not find out what happened,” continued the General, “then we are doomed to repeat it.”
Sanchez described the interrogation program as “a personal failure on the part of many.” Indeed, Sanchez himself wrote and signed a 2003 memo that included specific interrogation tactics approved for use despite noting that they may violate the Geneva Conventions. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sanchez denied signing off on these interrogation methods.
President Bush — in contrast to Dick Cheney — has insisted that President Obama “deserves my silence.” Yesterday, in his largest domestic speech since leaving office, however, Bush would not rule out whether Obama is a socialist, saying that “people are waiting to see what all this means.” In the same breath, Bush defended his own massive intervention in the financial system:
He strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program as crucial to preventing capital markets from freezing up, which he said would have led to another Great Depression. He noted that he remains “a free market guy.”
Bush was asked what he thinks about conservative pundits who claim the Obama administration’s fiscal policies are opening the door to socialism. “I’ve heard talk about that,” he said. “I think the verdict is out. I think people are waiting to see what all this means.”
“I didn’t like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best,” Bush said.
Throughout George W. Bush’s presidency, his handlers always made a special effort to ensure his appearances with regular Americans were scripted in such a way that shined the best possible light on Bush and his polices. Whether he was meeting troops in Iraq, leading “Ask President Bush” re-election campaign events, or trying to sell his (failed) Social Security reform plan, Bush always had a friend in the audience ready to ask a softball question or heap praise on the president. It appears that old habits die hard, as those attending Bush’s upcoming speech in Michigan will be forced to submit their questions ahead of time:
Former President George W. Bush will make a stop in Michiana on Thursday. He is scheduled to speak to the Economic Club in Benton Harbor this evening. Mister Bush will answer questions that have been submitted.
Even though Bush recently acknowledged that it is “liberating” to no longer be president, he apparently still feels “pretty comfortable inside the bubble.”
During a debate at Radio City Music Hall last night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove claimed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was “not necessarily” “very smart.” When host Charlie Rose noted in response that she attended Princeton and Yale Law School, Rove replied that you don’t have to be smart to attend a top school:
Rove - “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”
Charlie - “She is very smart.”
Rove “Not necessarily.”
Charlie - “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”
Rove- “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds.
Rove’s dismissal of Ivy League attendance is ironic considering that in an interview previewing the debate, he cited George W. Bush’s experience at Harvard and Yale to mock claims that Bush is stupid. “The myth was that this guy, who was a Yale history grad and a Harvard MBA, was not smart,” Rove told the Chicago Tribune. In December 2008, Rove also touted Bush’s time at Harvard and Yale in a Wall Street Journal column, writing, “You don’t make it through either unless you are a reader.”
On Sunday, Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote a column examining former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer’s complaint about how Post columnist Dana Milbank characterized his post-9/11 comment that Americans need to “watch what they say.” Fleischer said it was mischaracterized and demanded a correction.
At the beginning of his column, Alexander claimed that Fleischer has pretty much stayed out of “the public spotlight” since leaving the Bush administration in 2003:
Ari Fleischer hasn’t been seen much since he stepped down as White House press secretary in 2003 and moved out of the public spotlight. So it was a surprise when he e-mailed recently asking The Post to “correct the record” on a comment he made nearly eight years ago.
Fleischer, now a sports media consultant in New York, said that Post columnist Dana Milbank was guilty of repeating an “old canard” that has become an “urban myth.”
Alexander’s claim is not supported by Fleischer’s record of continuous media appearances. A Nexis search of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC transcripts shows that Fleischer has made at least six cable news appearances in the past three months. In the past month alone, Fleischer has been quoted on the record twice by Washington Post reporters.
Additionally, Fleischer is part of the “loose confederation” of former Bush aides that are defending the former president’s record in TV appearances and conversations with reporters. Describing the role of the Bush defenders, Fleischer told Politico, “We’re invited to comment on the events of the day and along the way, we remind people that there was, indeed, good news under President Bush.”
As part of his supposed effort to stay out of “the public spotlight” since leaving the White House in 2003, Fleischer also released a memoir about his White House days in 2005.
New Mexico’s Roswell Daily Record reports that during a speech to graduating local high school students, President Bush “expressed few regrets” about the policies he enacted as president. At the same time, however, Bush said that he’s glad he’s not in the position to make policy anymore. “I no longer feel that great sense of responsibility that I had when I was in the Oval Office,” he said. “And frankly, it’s a liberating feeling.” Bush also remarked on how his life is “back to normal”:
Bush told the soon-to-be-graduates that it was a strange experience walking his dog Barney in his new neighborhood after he moved back to Texas.
“I realized this was the first time I’d been walking in a neighborhood for 14 years,” he said. “It’s not all that hard, by the way. You take one step, and then you take another.”
It was the first time Barney had ever been in an ordinary neighborhood, and Bush had to stop when the dog took liberties with a neighbor’s yard.
“And there I was, former President of the United States of America, with a plastic bag on my hand,” he recalled. “Life is returning back to normal.”