[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
It is a sad day for Democrats. And I'm not even talking about the unbelievable and despicable acts of corruption committed by the hare-brained and silly-haired governor of Illinois. (Although every Democrat should stand up and call for his immediate impeachment if he refuses to resign.) No, I am referring to the Democrats completely caving in to George W. Bush on the auto bailout.
You would think that winning the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress would instill some backbone into Democrats on Capitol Hill. You would, of course, be wrong.
Consider this passage from a Yahoo/AP story on the bailout negotiations:
"One potential stumbling block remained. Democrats' were still refusing to scrap language, vehemently opposed by the White House, that would force the car manufacturers to drop lawsuits challenging tough emissions limits in California and other states.
That measure "kills the deal," said Dan Meyer, Bush's top lobbyist.
Senior Democratic aides acknowledged as much Tuesday and said they expected the provision to be dropped."
So let me get this straight: Bush, with his 29 percent approval rating, has the nerve to try and dictate to the Democrats, who just won convincing victories in last month's elections, what the terms of the bailout should be, and the result is ... the Democrats acceding to Bush's demands?Why? And how? How can the Democrats allow this to happen?
Bush wanted the bailout money to come from previously approved funds that were intended to help the automakers modernize their operations to produce greener cars, while the Democrats wanted the money to come from the $700 billion bank bailout allocations. Even though Detroit's survival is directly pegged to the companies developing the next generation of green vehicles (they have already failed in the market in developing cars consumers want to buy now), the Democrats caved.
Bush then wanted to appoint the so-called "car czar" to oversee the auto bailout money, without the Democrat-controlled Senate having the power to confirm the pick, even though Bush's term ends in a month and a half and, again, the public voted for a Democratic president and increases in the Democratic majorities in Congress. Not to mention that Bush's rhetoric has emphasized busting union contracts over the automakers making energy-efficient cars. And with all this in the hopper, what do the Democrats do? They cave, and Bush gets to pick the car czar.
But the real kick in the butt, the thing that absolutely demonstrates that congressional Democrats have no intestinal fortitude, is the issue quoted above, the requirement that the automakers drop lawsuits over emission standards.
Isn't the whole point of the bailout to let the American car companies survive so that they can make the next generation of energy-efficient cars? So why should they be allowed to fight emission standards? It should be a basic, rock-solid premise of the bailout that the automakers will be full partners in the energy policy of this country that will be seek to end dependence on foreign oil and build a green economy that will both revitalize the economy and help in the battle against global warming. By not agreeing to drop the fight over emission standards, the car companies are demonstrating loudly and clearly that they have no intention of really changing. And if that's true, they shouldn't get a penny of public money.
I just don't understand why the Democrats in Congress are caving so easily. And not just because their electoral success and Bush's all-time-low approval ratings put the party in a position of strength. What I really don't get is what the hammer is that is causing them to crumble. What is the "or else"? The answer you will hear is, "If we don't get money to General Motors and Chrysler, they will go into bankruptcy, and millions of Americans will lose their jobs." But if the party is truly looking out for the workers, why are they allowing Bush to demonize the union contracts? And, more importantly, the future of American auto workers depends on a viable industry emerging from this mess. That will not happen if money is handed to the companies so they can just continue their "business as usual" approach, one that has failed miserably and brought them to near extinction.
The Democrats in Congress should stand up and say the party supports a bailout, but only if it leads to a restructured, environmentally friendly, energy-intelligent, viable American auto industry. The deal the Democrats are striking with Bush doesn't do any of that, and congressional leaders should be strong enough to say that they won't support legislation that won't work. After all, in less than six weeks, the party will control the White House and enjoy large majorities in Congress.
By taking such an incomprehensibly weak position, the Democrats are ceding the high ground to their Republican rivals. In the Yahoo/AP article, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the proposed deal "fails to require the kind of serious reform that will ensure long-term viability for struggling automobile companies." Sadly, he's right, even if he is making the statement for the wrong reasons. By caving on the emission standards and taking the money from a fund meant to modernize the automakers' operations, the Democrats are supporting a plan that does nothing to force the car manufacturers to make more energy-efficient cars.
And there is no evidence that Detroit really understands the need to change how they do business. Thomas Friedman wrote today in his New York Times column that General Motors passed on a revolutionary new electric car plan (believe it or not, a good analogy is to the iPod and iTunes store), developed by an American company, that is about to be rolled out for testing in several countries, and that has the support of Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru. The current management of GM just doesn't get it.
The bottom line is that the three U.S. automakers have such a failed business model, they do not deserve federal assistance. If the government is going to intervene to save American jobs, then any plan should insist that the Big Three radically change their business models. General Motors, Chrysler and Ford do not seem to want to do that, and Bush is fine with letting them go along as they are (after all, Bush is a friend to the oil companies and no help in helping to combat the effects of global warming). It is the Democrats' place to step in and have the strength to say that if the automakers want taxpayer money, they have to make changes.
But the Democrats in Congress are not acting with strength. They are behaving as if they have no power and no options. And there is no reason for it. They are battling an unpopular president whose failed administration will be swept into the dustbin of history in 41 days, and yet they are losing the fight. From the behavior of congressional Democrats, you would think that John McCain was taking the oath of office on January 20.
As damaging to the party's reputation as Rod Blagojevich's corrupt antics are, his crimes are still the acts of one man. Far more damaging to the Democrats is the inability of leaders in Congress to stand up to a lame duck president and to allow $15 billion of taxpayer money to be handed to companies that have shown nothing but arrogance and incompetence. Everyone said that Barack Obama would have to face many difficult challenges in the early days of his presidency. Sadly, one of the biggest might be the weakness and ineffectiveness of his fellow Democrats in Congress.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"Spectacle: Elvis Costello With ..." Is a Fresh Take on the Talk Show Genre
[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]
The talk show format is so entrenched in television history that it's really hard to do something fresh in the genre. A guy or gal sits behind a desk (or maybe on a couch or stool) and talks to famous people who are usually plugging something. There can be tweaks (think James Lipton's "Inside the Actor's Studio"), but before long, the new approach becomes standard, too. That is why I was so impressed with the new music-themed talk show on the Sundance Channel, "Spectacle: Elvis Costello With ..." (new episodes air Wednesdays at 9 p.m. Eastern). It's fair to say that we now have a genuinely unique take on the genre.
A lot of the freshness of "Spectacle" flows from the host. Costello is not completely new to the talk show world, having sat in for David Letterman on a couple of occasions in the past. But what makes Costello such an interesting presence is that not only is he relaxed, conversational, entertaining and funny, but he is also a genuine student and fan of music. So when he interacts with his guest (the series premiere featured Elton John), he offers insight and passion that is missing from most television interviews.
The debut began with Elvis and his all-star backing band (including several members of his outfit, the Impostors, along with piano legend Allen Toussaint) performing Elton John's "Border Song," a savvy choice as the rhythms and flow of the number played to Costello's strengths as a performer.
Costello then introduced John, big-band style (with musical accompaniment and carnival barker lines like "Duke Ellington was not a real duke"), and the two dove headfirst into a joyous discussion of music. It reminded me of the final scene in Cameron Crowe's film "Almost Famous," when the rock star (played by Billy Crudup) finally sits for an interview with Patrick Fugit's teenage reporter and responds to the question of what he likes about music with: "To begin with, everything." Costello and John got into a discussion of influences, with names like Laura Nyro, Leon Russell, David Ackles and Carole King being thrown around fast and furiously. And they talked about these musicians (and others, like Norah Jones and Rufus Wainwright) not in a detached, academic way, but more like two friends talking about their buddies. It was a great dynamic for the viewer, more listening in than being shut out.
What makes Costello such a perfect host for the show is that he is a true equal in the discussion. When John made a reference to King, Costello quickly noted that she was already an established songwriter by the time she broke through as an artist with the classic album "Tapestry." Recognizing a subtle point like that enriched the whole conversation.
"Spectacle" takes a 180-degree opposite approach to the questioning from a program like Lipton's "Inside the Actor's Studio." The queries did not consist of a fawning and academic chronological rundown of John's work. Instead, discussions circled back to some of his albums, not always in any kind of logical order. The conversation dictated the biography, not the other way around. So it was more natural and less forced than most talk show conversations.
And because Costello could engage John as a colleague, it led to stories that strayed from the tried-and-true anecdotes we've all heard about a performer like John, who has been in the public spotlight for so long. Nothing felt rehashed. We didn't just hear stories about how John and long-time lyricist Bernie Taupin write separately, but we were treated to anecdotes about a young Taupin staying with John in his mom's house in suburban North London, and how the two men would go to the record store each day to pick up music that they could ferociously study and dissect to see why it all worked.
John added astute observations, like how much more varied the musical influences were then (soul, blues, folk and pop all being thrown into one big barrel), and more amusing ones, like how he and Taupin always looked for the American pressings of records because the cardboard was better, and how English fans considered the U.S. issues of records to be the definitive versions, while American fans felt that way about the U.K. ones.
And the relaxed, conversational style also coaxed more personal stories from John, with Costello content to let his guest speak without interruption for long stretches, something you would be less likely to witness from a classic talk show host. John's confessions ranged from how Russell's acceptance of him gave him the confidence to succeed as a performer, how important Taupin is to him (they've never had an argument in 41 years), how his ambition was to have any job in music (musician, executive, even record store clerk) so he was thrilled but surprised to be a pop star, and how much he learned about stage craft when, before he was a successful solo artist, he played in Patti LaBelle's back-up band (which featured a pre-Supremes Cindy Birdsong). John also lamented how artists in the 1960s were not compensated properly, telling a story about how he picked up Martha and the Vandellas at the airport when they came to England for a tour, but it was "shocking" that he had to give them money because they didn't have funds to pick up their dry cleaning.
I think my favorite moment of the show was when Costello and John discussed their stage names. Costello admitted that his manager came up with his, and he seemed happy enough about it (saying he wore it like "a suit of armor"), noting that if he performed under his real name, Declan MacManus, the audience would be "expecting a guy in a cable-knit sweater singing whaling songs." But the name change seemed more personal for John, who was born Reginald Dwight, even though he picked it in a hurry (Elton was the name of his sax player). At first, he mirrored Costello's approach, expressing that "if you're going to make a record, Reg Dwight is not going to make it." But he went on to explain that he no longer thinks of himself as Reginald Dwight and hates when people call him that, even relating that he used to cringe when Eric Clapton insisted on calling him Reg (but that he couldn't stand up to Clapton "because he's God"). The discussion produced an insight into John's vulnerability that you wouldn't catch in virtually any other talk show.
It was also helpful that there was a piano on stage, so John could hop on to explain some of his points, whether it was how his "Burn Down the Mission" was heavily influenced by Nyro's groundbreaking writing style (she "broke the template"), or how Russell's piano style differed from his own (complete with a dead-on impression of Russell's playing and singing).
By the time Costello and John, joined by the band, dueted on Ackles's "Down River" to wrap up the show, the hour had flown by, and the line between performance and talk show, interview and conversation, had been completely blurred, producing something wonderful and unique.
Future episodes will feature diverse guests like Lou Reed (with Julian Schnabel), James Taylor, the Police, Tony Bennett, Rufus Wainwright, Herbie Hancock and some little known sax player named Bill Clinton who held some other important job outside of music.
"Spectacle" is a real treat, an opportunity to listen in as a great performer and songwriter like Costello, who also happens to be especially engaging, hangs out and jams with some of the most important musicians of the last 50 years.
Early in his career, in 1981, Costello proved himself to be mature and insightful (as well as funny) in a great interview with Tom Snyder on the "Tomorrow Show." (You can watch the interview and performances, part one here and part two here, including Costello discussing his famous dust-up on "Saturday Night Live.") It's not surprising that the young punk rocker would grow up to be a stellar television host himself, even if he rejects the notion of "maturing" in the interview. If Snyder was still alive, I have no doubt he would heartily approve of "Spectacle." I certainly do. And if you give it a watch, I'm sure you will, too.
The talk show format is so entrenched in television history that it's really hard to do something fresh in the genre. A guy or gal sits behind a desk (or maybe on a couch or stool) and talks to famous people who are usually plugging something. There can be tweaks (think James Lipton's "Inside the Actor's Studio"), but before long, the new approach becomes standard, too. That is why I was so impressed with the new music-themed talk show on the Sundance Channel, "Spectacle: Elvis Costello With ..." (new episodes air Wednesdays at 9 p.m. Eastern). It's fair to say that we now have a genuinely unique take on the genre.
A lot of the freshness of "Spectacle" flows from the host. Costello is not completely new to the talk show world, having sat in for David Letterman on a couple of occasions in the past. But what makes Costello such an interesting presence is that not only is he relaxed, conversational, entertaining and funny, but he is also a genuine student and fan of music. So when he interacts with his guest (the series premiere featured Elton John), he offers insight and passion that is missing from most television interviews.
The debut began with Elvis and his all-star backing band (including several members of his outfit, the Impostors, along with piano legend Allen Toussaint) performing Elton John's "Border Song," a savvy choice as the rhythms and flow of the number played to Costello's strengths as a performer.
Costello then introduced John, big-band style (with musical accompaniment and carnival barker lines like "Duke Ellington was not a real duke"), and the two dove headfirst into a joyous discussion of music. It reminded me of the final scene in Cameron Crowe's film "Almost Famous," when the rock star (played by Billy Crudup) finally sits for an interview with Patrick Fugit's teenage reporter and responds to the question of what he likes about music with: "To begin with, everything." Costello and John got into a discussion of influences, with names like Laura Nyro, Leon Russell, David Ackles and Carole King being thrown around fast and furiously. And they talked about these musicians (and others, like Norah Jones and Rufus Wainwright) not in a detached, academic way, but more like two friends talking about their buddies. It was a great dynamic for the viewer, more listening in than being shut out.
What makes Costello such a perfect host for the show is that he is a true equal in the discussion. When John made a reference to King, Costello quickly noted that she was already an established songwriter by the time she broke through as an artist with the classic album "Tapestry." Recognizing a subtle point like that enriched the whole conversation.
"Spectacle" takes a 180-degree opposite approach to the questioning from a program like Lipton's "Inside the Actor's Studio." The queries did not consist of a fawning and academic chronological rundown of John's work. Instead, discussions circled back to some of his albums, not always in any kind of logical order. The conversation dictated the biography, not the other way around. So it was more natural and less forced than most talk show conversations.
And because Costello could engage John as a colleague, it led to stories that strayed from the tried-and-true anecdotes we've all heard about a performer like John, who has been in the public spotlight for so long. Nothing felt rehashed. We didn't just hear stories about how John and long-time lyricist Bernie Taupin write separately, but we were treated to anecdotes about a young Taupin staying with John in his mom's house in suburban North London, and how the two men would go to the record store each day to pick up music that they could ferociously study and dissect to see why it all worked.
John added astute observations, like how much more varied the musical influences were then (soul, blues, folk and pop all being thrown into one big barrel), and more amusing ones, like how he and Taupin always looked for the American pressings of records because the cardboard was better, and how English fans considered the U.S. issues of records to be the definitive versions, while American fans felt that way about the U.K. ones.
And the relaxed, conversational style also coaxed more personal stories from John, with Costello content to let his guest speak without interruption for long stretches, something you would be less likely to witness from a classic talk show host. John's confessions ranged from how Russell's acceptance of him gave him the confidence to succeed as a performer, how important Taupin is to him (they've never had an argument in 41 years), how his ambition was to have any job in music (musician, executive, even record store clerk) so he was thrilled but surprised to be a pop star, and how much he learned about stage craft when, before he was a successful solo artist, he played in Patti LaBelle's back-up band (which featured a pre-Supremes Cindy Birdsong). John also lamented how artists in the 1960s were not compensated properly, telling a story about how he picked up Martha and the Vandellas at the airport when they came to England for a tour, but it was "shocking" that he had to give them money because they didn't have funds to pick up their dry cleaning.
I think my favorite moment of the show was when Costello and John discussed their stage names. Costello admitted that his manager came up with his, and he seemed happy enough about it (saying he wore it like "a suit of armor"), noting that if he performed under his real name, Declan MacManus, the audience would be "expecting a guy in a cable-knit sweater singing whaling songs." But the name change seemed more personal for John, who was born Reginald Dwight, even though he picked it in a hurry (Elton was the name of his sax player). At first, he mirrored Costello's approach, expressing that "if you're going to make a record, Reg Dwight is not going to make it." But he went on to explain that he no longer thinks of himself as Reginald Dwight and hates when people call him that, even relating that he used to cringe when Eric Clapton insisted on calling him Reg (but that he couldn't stand up to Clapton "because he's God"). The discussion produced an insight into John's vulnerability that you wouldn't catch in virtually any other talk show.
It was also helpful that there was a piano on stage, so John could hop on to explain some of his points, whether it was how his "Burn Down the Mission" was heavily influenced by Nyro's groundbreaking writing style (she "broke the template"), or how Russell's piano style differed from his own (complete with a dead-on impression of Russell's playing and singing).
By the time Costello and John, joined by the band, dueted on Ackles's "Down River" to wrap up the show, the hour had flown by, and the line between performance and talk show, interview and conversation, had been completely blurred, producing something wonderful and unique.
Future episodes will feature diverse guests like Lou Reed (with Julian Schnabel), James Taylor, the Police, Tony Bennett, Rufus Wainwright, Herbie Hancock and some little known sax player named Bill Clinton who held some other important job outside of music.
"Spectacle" is a real treat, an opportunity to listen in as a great performer and songwriter like Costello, who also happens to be especially engaging, hangs out and jams with some of the most important musicians of the last 50 years.
Early in his career, in 1981, Costello proved himself to be mature and insightful (as well as funny) in a great interview with Tom Snyder on the "Tomorrow Show." (You can watch the interview and performances, part one here and part two here, including Costello discussing his famous dust-up on "Saturday Night Live.") It's not surprising that the young punk rocker would grow up to be a stellar television host himself, even if he rejects the notion of "maturing" in the interview. If Snyder was still alive, I have no doubt he would heartily approve of "Spectacle." I certainly do. And if you give it a watch, I'm sure you will, too.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bush's Interview wtih Charlie Gibson Marks the Start of His Effort to Revise History
[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
