How to debunk George W. Bush’s attempts at revisionism

[kentuck]

A good read if so inclined:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/27/bush_is_not_back_and_he_is_still_terrible/

<snip>
Every dog goes to heaven and every former president should get a shot at repairing his legacy, especially when it’s as tattered as George W. Bush’s. With the opening of his presidential library and museum this week, observers from former Bush officials to mainstream outlets were taking a fresh, rosy look at the Bush legacy. Some offered dopey and facially ridiculous cheerleading, while others offered more compelling suggestions to return to the Bush era with an open mind. After all, other presidents left office in a cloud only to be redeemed by history years later.

So, is this week making you feel a bit nostalgic for the Bush era? Don’t. It’s been almost half a decade since the 43rd president left office, and he’s looking as bad as ever. Of course, that won’t stop a small circle of admirers (many of whom used to be on his payroll) from trying, so here’s your guide to taking on the five biggest specious pro-Bush talking points put forward this week:

1) Bush kept us safe: The biggest myth of the Bush presidency, by far, is that the president kept the country safe. As Charles Krauthammer wrote this week in the Washington Post in a typical example: “It’s important to note that he did not just keep us safe. He created the entire anti-terror infrastructure that continues to keep us safe … Which is why there was not one successful terror bombing on U.S. soil from 9/11 until last week.”

Just no. First of all, why does 9/11 not count? It’s not like the U.S. government was completely unaware of the threat from al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden until 9/11. After all, bin Laden had already helped orchestrate the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds in 1998, and Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan to try to kill bin Laden three years before 9/11. And then there’s that CIA briefing that warned Bush: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” — 36 days before Sept. 11. Bush’s response to the briefer giving him the news? To say, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” Then he went fishing.
Literally.

....much more

[northoftheborder]

1. good article

[kentuck]

2. And as we know...

they will keep this attempted revision going over and over, until 50% plus 1 thinks he should be on Mt Rushmore...

[arely staircase]

3. k&r

I really like the last paragraph:

"Add to that the bungled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the preventable failure to catch Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, the absolutely horrendous handling of Hurricane Katrina, the outing of a covert CIA officer in a political vendetta, the illegal wiretapping of Americans’ phones, the improper firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the use of taxpayer dollars to pay columnists, and “misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes,” to name a few — and, well, then you know why Dana Perino, Bush’s former press secretary, was forced to lead her ode to the ex-president by recounting that he “shar[ed] his peanut butter and honey sandwiches with me.”"

[spanone]

4. k&r...

[Coyotl]

5. Lot's of cartoons, satire, humor, parady, you name it, whatever works to tell the truth

Debunk it every which way at once, I say!


What are those Five Presidents thinking?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022761858

[TNNurse]

6. In answer to your question

There is no way in HELL that I could ever feel nostalgic for the Bush era. The fact that I agree with something Barbara Bush said has me so very confused, I might no recover.

[Gman]

7. No matter what they say, or how they say it,

there is NO denying he is a war criminal as are Cheney et al. You cannot put pretty face on a war criminal.

[Agent of Reason]

8. Yeah, he's a war criminal alright...

... BUT he was also totally incompetent and had absolutely no idea what he was doing. He deserves his share of the blame, to be sure, but Cheney is the one who needs to be tried like the Nazis at Nuremberg. The fact that a perfectly good heart was wasted to keep him alive is more infuriating than the existence of this stupid library.

[pinto]

11. Agree with your general point, yet -

"The fact that a perfectly good heart was wasted to keep him alive is more infuriating than the existence of this stupid library."

Is a bit over-the-top, imo. We ought to be above that level of criticism. Agree that Cheney likely was the instigator, yet the fact that he got a heart transplant is beside the point.

[Gman]

12. Yes, he is likely the dumbest president ever

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:53 AM - Edit history (2)

But he is not so stupid that he did not know right from wrong. Killing people in another country without 1) provocation and 2) without a need for defense is wrong. He was in the position to say no, and he didn't. It can be argued that he didn't know the truth. The fact is he should have known, even though he may be of diminished capacity. And the facts were that he did have people around him telling him there was no just reason. Even JPII told him "If you go to Iraq, you go without God." Bush knowingly lied us into a war. And he did for political reasons. He allowed Karl Rove to disseminate propaganda. He knew exactly what was going on.

No, he is as guilty as Cheney, et al.

And in, fact these war crimes are the reason he cannot leave the country. Neither can Cheney and Rumsfeld. They all have arrest warrants and most other countries have obligations to arrest them for charges that gave been filed against them.

[hrmjustin]

14. Welcome to DU my friend!

[MyOwnPeace]

17. AWESOME start, Agent!

Welcome aboard!

[Canuckistanian]

9. The Reign of Error

I don't see total malevolence in Bush. His fault was trusting in those who WERE malevolent. Like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle.

Bush was the useful idiot du jour

[Mnemosyne]

10. That war criminal does not deserve a "shot at repairing his legacy". nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. The other "Redeemed" were not redeemable either -- Saint Ronnie and Tricky Dick.

Last edited Thu May 23, 2013, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Ford is unredeemable too, for whitewashing the Warren Report and pardoning Nixon. Bush the Elder, not redeemable either for his part in the JFK assassination. And much as I have to love the guy, Clinton screwed over our economy as no one has in my lifetime (60+ years) with his CFTC deregulation on his way out of office. Carter was merely ineffective at a very critical and pivotal time, the least-bad of the lot, but still not good. Johnson, there's that little problem of the phony Viet Nam war.

Kennedy is the only one I can say did a good job as President. And he was only just catching on to the "realities of office" when he was killed by those same realities. At least he had glimpsed the problem and was poised to do something about it, which is why he was killed. He had only 3 years, which is very little time, and certainly not enough to condemn him for what he didn't get his rightful chance to do.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Much of the praise is written by RepubliSlime Chuck Krauthammer.

And of course, my right wing rag the Plain Freeper carries Krauthammer's column every Sunday.

The Republicants all know that Bewsh the Dumber destroyed their brand, destroyed the "Reagan mantle", destroyed the Reaganomics myth, destroyed America's progress and worst of all, destroyed their chances of the White House in the immediate future. This is called "a last gasp".

[Martin Eden]

16. Salon was being kind to GW ...

... by not calling him out for what he is -- a WAR CRIMINAL