 |
August 02, 2007The Bush 43 Years: An "I Do Not Recall" ChorusCheney, yesterday: "I do not recall". Rumsfeld, today: "I do not recall..." Gonzalez, perennially: "I do not recall". Lewis Libby, to a grand jury: "I do not recall..." And so on (readers can doubtless find myriad more examples). If the Clinton era is often remembered for the memorable phrase "it depends upon what the meaning of the word is means," surely the more placid "I do not recall" will figure prominently in the annals of the Bush 43 years. But forget Gonzalez, a profound mediocrity who has caused morale at DOJ to capsize below that of even the trying Watergate days, or Libby, the footnote-like "fallen soldier" of Fouad Ajami's hallucinatory imaginings. Let us instead focus on those two old and wily Beltway barons, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Bruce Fein was likely right when he recently wrote about Cheney (it applies equally well to Rumsfeld) that: "Like old soldiers, he will simply fade away after the expiry of his term, but probably in disrepute." But that is mostly a pity. If we had legislators of keen intellect, significant energy and tactical skill, moral courage and greater backbone, Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't be allowed to fade into (relatively dulcet) ignominy. They'd be facing a cascade of subpoenas and dogged Congressional inquiries related to varied abuses of power (ones which transcend in national import lying about receipt of fellatio, say, even to potentially evade liability in a lawsuit, by exponential degrees of gravity). But the sad reality is these two men, however profoundly misguided stewards of the national interest they've proven, however grossly reckless, however willfully myopic, or pugnaciously stubborn--they are nevertheless about as smart as it gets in today's Washington. This is a sad statement, but it accurately reflects the state of play. They played the bureaucratic game for keeps at the highest levels of government, and they usually mostly won (though the '06 election finally forced the detestably prostrate Decider to give Rummy the heave-ho). In short, while history will ultimately view them with disdain, they nonetheless outpaced their critics handily enough that a cozy retirement on the Eastern Shore of Maryland beckons, rather than a much more ignoble fate. And that's a deep pity, for reasons too numerous to list here tonight. Posted by Gregory at August 2, 2007 04:26 AMComments
Small note: Clinton said "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (not "means"). Apparently the phrase wasn't THAT memorable. Otherwise you are spot-on, as usual. Congress and the press are still reeling from the body blows they've taken in the past 6 years, but I suppose feeble attempts at pushback are better than none... Posted by: Dogtowner at August 2, 2007 09:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
I just can't help but think back to the movie Clear and Present Danger: Jack Ryan: Who authorized this? Ritter: I'm sure they'll ask you that. Jack Ryan: Who authorized it? Ritter: I have no recollection, SenatorPosted by: Dan at August 2, 2007 11:41 AM | Permalink to this comment
It must be the office: I don't remember - 71
But the sad reality is these two men * * * are nevertheless about as smart as it gets in today's Washington. * * * They played the bureaucratic game for keeps at the highest levels of government, and they usually mostly won * * * .In other words, one can be an idiot savant in the field of bureaucratic infighting, but still a complete idiot when it comes to larger policies and "wins" on the national and international stage. There isn't a single policy these two clowns have advocated during the Bush 43 Presidency that hasn't turned into a disastrous loss for the USA. Posted by: Redhand at August 2, 2007 01:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
In the Kingdom of Idiots, the idiot who never changes his mind, is King. Posted by: Semanticleo at August 2, 2007 02:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Of course, "I don't recall" is what the lawyers tell you to say when answering truthfully would get you into trouble. That way, you're not lying, exactly, or at least they can't prove you're lying, because everybody forgets stuff. I mean, just the other day, I was firing a bunch of people just because they disagreed with my political views, and today, I can't remember any of their names. C'mon, people are busy, they can't be expected to remember every little thing. Good thing for us the Washington Times is on the case, to let us know exactly how many times politicians say they don't remember stuff. I trust they're keeping track of every Bush administration failure of memory so that 10 years from now, someone can copy it all down and paste it into a blog. Gonzales' alone will consume quite a lot of space. They may have to get another server or something. But never fear, our Great Leader is meeting with the sharpest political minds we have: Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall. With sage counsel like that, Bush can't lose! I'm not sure exactly how a bunch of talk show hosts are going to help Bush at this point, but I guess every little bit helps. Posted by: LL at August 2, 2007 04:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
If I were associated with the Bush Administration, I wouldn't want to remember the experience, and I'd certainly want everyone else to forget about it, too. But is it a lack of intelligence that is causing failure in Washington today, or a simple lack of patriotism. Because it sure seems a lot of folk put party and reelection over country right now. Maybe it's always been thus (legislators are politicians and therefore definitionally a craven lot.). But that's not my feel of our history. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at August 2, 2007 04:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
One possible explanation for the shocking lapses in memory that defines this administration: drug abuse. It's common knowledge that various figures in the Republican party are heavy users (read:addicts) of potent prescription drugs, such as Ambien, et. al. Wouldn't this explain a terrible amount of the Bush 43 administration? It would almost absolve them of a great amount of blame... they couldn't help it! They were high the whole time! (if only it were true) Posted by: SGEW at August 2, 2007 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
Other Cheneyism: I haven't read that report/article/statement, so I can't comment on any aspect. [translation: If I haven't seen the exact words, then they don't exist in my reality]. Posted by: J. at August 2, 2007 06:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oh please, Don't act, for a moment, like this is the first administration to use 'I don't recall.' As the earlier poster pointed out, and a quick google search will confirm, 'I don't recall' was a motto of the Clinton Administration throughout their eight years. Get upset for the right reasons, but apply your indigation equally. Posted by: BDS at August 2, 2007 06:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
Actually, I had rather hoped that any President following Bill Clinton would take steps to keep his administration far removed from the more sordid aspects of his predecessor's, including the convenient failing memory. President Bush has instead thought it right to expand them into areas of government President Clinton had mostly left alone. It's fair to offer reminders that what preceeded the Bush years was not exactly the Golden Age of the American Presidency. Timely, too, since the leading Democratic candidate for President is enjoys that status only because she is Bill Clinton's wife. To point this out, though, is not to defend President Bush very effectively. At a minimum, those who expected from Bush something better in the way of ethical administration than the country got from Clinton have to be disappointed. Posted by: Zathras at August 2, 2007 07:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
To expand on what Zathras said: I believe Bush promised specifically to bring honor back to the White House. I don't remember Clinton making any such promise. If Republicans think that reminding us Clinton lied about his sex life is going to make Bush look good by comparison, they didn't learn too much from the Clinton years. Most people didn't want Clinton impeached, they thought it was a bunch of political posturing for no other reason than to give Republicans something to be self-righteous about. So bringing up Clinton now as if to say, "Well, this is what Clinton said..." is not even good politics. We're not talking about Clinton, you nitwits. He hasn't been the president for 7 years now. Bush was supposed to usher in a new golden age of honor and responsibility and effiiciency: The grownups are in charge now, it won't be politics as usual. I knew it was BS when I heard it. Posted by: LL at August 2, 2007 08:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
> Bush was supposed to usher in a new golden age of honor and responsibility and effiiciency Just like he was going to promote bipartisanship, and diplomacy. Just like Newt Gingrich was going to promote family values... You have to be, um, a bit naive?, to believe that sleazy politicians such as these are in any way likely to do aught but continue line their purses when given more power, no?
Yeah, BDS, let's apply it equally. I was indignant at Clinton in 2000, so I voted for Bush. I was indignant at Republicans in 2004, so I voted for Kerry. At this point, my indignation at the Republicans is so great, that not only will I vote for whoever the Democratic nominee will be in 2008. At this point, I am hard-pressed to see a scenario where I will vote for a person nominated by today's GOP. And that, BDS, is how you lose a swing voter. The funny thing is that the Dems didn't win this thing; you a-holes lost it. Posted by: Neocock at August 3, 2007 12:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
NJBUSH-
Clinton may have forgotten things way too often. But Bush will have to live with a memory that no man forgets. Dead soldiers. Dead kids. Dead innocents.
I also am a Republican, who has been increasingly voting anti-Republican. By this I mean, I am increasingly voting against the Grand Old Party Now Devoted to Corruption, Sleaze, Incredible Over-Spending, Under-funding, Bankruptcy-Desiring, Religious-Hypocriscy-Zealot, Police-Terrorist Statists. The last 4 years have only more reinforced to me how important it is to vote against the corrupt Stalinists that now control the Republican administration. I am glad that most of my Republican forefathers are dead, and did not live to see the US Republican Party become the champion party of torture and secret police and secret prisons.
Its obvious that one will not remember the mistakes he done in his life, so it is very much expected answers from people like Bush and his officials...
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!
Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
