But there are a couple of passages which, if one assumes they are accurate portrayals (and I do assume that), reveal a mindset that is distinctly authoritarian or dictatorial as regards how government ought to operate and how it ought to stand in relationship to citizens.

He’d [President Bush] showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”

…But there is a sting in Cheney’s critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end.

These notions do not reflect what we normally consider ought to be the relationship a leader of a representative democracy imagines ideal between himself/herself and the citizens who placed him in office.  Rather, they are notions that we would imagine to reside in someone who is interested only in gaining or maintaining power and which he might then wield with zero regard for the popular will and with absolutely no sense of a responsibility to be honest or forthright or accountable to the citizens.

From such an “understanding” of the proper role of a leader, it is immediately obvious that propaganda operations will define or mandate all communications between that leader and the citizens of such a state, of the press, of Congress and of the courts.  Secrecy, pervasive stone-walling, purposeful deceits and obstruction of Justice Department or other investigations will mark how such a leader will operate.

But the second issue here is psychological, and this cuts much deeper than politics. Cheney wants Americans to live in fear. He believes that we should be living in more or less constant fear of another attack. I suppose it probably occurred to him over the years that, when a people are whipped into a fearful state, they tend to hand their leaders more power. But now he’s out of office, so this can’t be his motivation. I think it’s just how he sees the world.

Obama wants to move people beyond fear. “If we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear,” he said, “we will make more mistakes.” Are the American people up to this? More to the point – and more depressing to consider – are Washington politicians? We will find out as this debate plays out.

In either case, this argument is a long way from being settled. Cheney will see to that. He’ll stir the pot the moment he sees the contents settling. But he’s really pushing it.

Let’s cut to the chase: If, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack on America, Cheney has with this speech ensured that rather than uniting behind the sitting administration – as conservatives insisted we all must do eight years ago – this country will be torn in two. That’s a very toxic and dangerous game, and it certainly won’t make for a stronger country. NOw who’s playing politics with national security?

Full piece here

The Official George W. Bush Presidential Librarium/

h/t Crooks and Liars

Andrew Sullivan has a good piece on this here. He correctly observes that Cheney is trying to counter the emerging narrative (which has been emerging for several years…no WMD found, photos from Abu Ghraib, snippets from the torture memos, revelations from Britain).  But as Andrew points out, the internal information held so closely by the Bush/Cheney administration, and which looks likely to be seriously damaging to Cheney’s (and others’) reputations but which also may quite possibly result in criminal proceedings against them, are now slowly emerging into the light with a real possibility that subsequent information will be utterly damaging.

God only knows what Cheney et al are doing out of sight (likely their greatest area of expertise) but Cheney is clearly, as Andrew suggests, also trying to wage preventive propaganda right now.  But why?  Who does he expect to influence?  Is he counting on the conservative movement base to cause such a loud ruckus that Obama, with all on his plate, might go easy on Cheney and crowd?  It seems unlikely he’s worried about his his legacy (less so about Bush’s legacy) but perhaps it’s a consideration.  He’s been deeply committed for some years now (since Nixon) to an ideology which seeks expanded powers for the Presidency and may fear that, just as post-Watergate, this ideology is in serious jeopardy of being again discredited.

It’s a bit of a puzzle.  But motivations are often difficult to comprehend or ascertain and certainty most particularly so when the person who’s motives are subject to the inquiry borders on the pathological, which I believe Cheney does.

Update: An entirely relevant matter…the ongoing legal proceedings in Spain

Spanish human rights attorney: ‘I would recommend that Mr. Feith…get a very good lawyer.’

Last week, a Spanish court agreed to consider “opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials…over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay.” Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith said the charges “make no sense,” adding, “they criticize me for promoting a controversial position that I never advocated.” Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers filing the complaint, responded to Feith, saying, “If they [Bush officials] are innocent,they shouldn’t be afraid” to come to court:

“I would recommend that Mr. Feith first of all read the complaint, and secondly that he get a very good lawyer,” Boye said. “If he is so sure of what he is saying — then the address of the national court is #22 Genova Street, second floor.”

Feith often expresses amnesia about his central role in approving torture. “I strongly championed a policy of respect” for the Geneva Conventions, he told Congress last year. In reality, British international lawyer Philippe Sands reported that Feith “took the steps to ensure thatnone of these detainees could rely on Geneva.”

From Think Progress

President Bush had become extremely unpopular, and politically he was sort of a millstone around our necks in both ‘06 and ‘08. We now have the opportunity to be on offense, offer our own ideas and we will win some.

CNN story here

We’ll note in passing that McConnell would not dare say this about Rush Limbaugh.

h/t Think Progress

He uses “necessarily” but his voice and expression strike me as rather less diplomatic.

Yesterday, former attorney general John Ashcroft spoke at the University of Texas at Austin on the differences between the Obama and Bush administrations in a lecture hosted by the Young Conservatives of Texas and College Republicans.

“I think history will be very kind to [former President George W. Bush],”

Ashcroft’s appearance was part of a blitz by former Bush administration officials to secure a good legacy for their boss. Both Vice President Cheney and former White House flack Ari Fleischer recently tried to justify the war in Iraq by falsely tying together Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (again). Loyal Bushies have even started a Bush-Cheney alumni association to “help build a lasting legacy.” Karl Rove, the man behind securing Bush’s reputation, plans to release a book that will “name names” of all the Bush haters.  story at Think Progress

Of course Ashcroft spoke the sentence noted above.  It is the key talking point of the Legacy Project.  Everyone on board repeats it, usually verbatim.

ROSE: But you didn’t believe it had anything to do with 9/11.

RICE: No. No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.

ROSE: No one.

RICE: I was certainly not. The President was certainly not. … That’s right. We were not arguing that.

From Think Progress:

In his book, Bush At War, Bob Woodward noted that Bush said after 9/11, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now.” Rice was no exception either. On Sept. 15, 2002, she said that Saddam had “links to terrorism [that] would include al-Qaeda.” As late as September 2006, she remarked, “there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.” Cheney still believes there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In recent weeks, former Bush administration officials have continued to push the link. Bush maintains that he was right to make a false link between Iraq and 9/11. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer said last week, “But after September 11th, having been being hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam Hussein might not strike again?”

Cheney has now twice since leaving office suggested that Saddam and 9/11 were linked, the last time being days ago in his interview with King on CNN.

Why aren’t these people in jail?

Bush left office with the lowest poll ratings recorded in 60 years of presidents, but he is still regarded with reverence and fondness in Dallas

More on the ‘big d little a’ and The Bush Legacy Project and Bush’s long-standing engagement with the scholarly thing and, huge surprise, propaganda.

find it here

Following Obama during the New Hampshire primary, I saw a candidate who — though I disagreed with him on many issues — defended idealism and rhetoric against the supremely cynical Clinton machine, who brought a religious sensibility to matters of social justice, who took care to understand and accommodate the arguments of others, who provided a temperamental contrast to culture-war politics.

The Clinton machine was “supremely cynical” says the speechwriter for the Bush administration.  That’s a tad much.  And, Gerson insists he was ‘refreshed’ by Obama’s “contrast to culture-war politics”.   Perhaps a bit slow coming to that revelation, Michael.

Where else can we find specks in Obama’s eye?

constant allocation of blame to others

childish cultivation of controversy with conservative media figures to favorably polarize the electorate

The pledge of “bipartisan” cooperation has become an attempt to shove Republicans until their backs reach some wall of outrage and humiliation.

But then Gerson covers his hypocritical ass (perhaps like the torture memo rewrites)

None of this is new or exceptional — which is the point. It is exactly the way things have always been done.

Translation: Obama is not the Messiah after all and we had it on the best of authority (Rush Limbaugh) that he was.  How dare Obama not live up to Rush’s propaganda trope or to my own dreams of what government could look like if, say, I was part of it and had the opportunity to sculpt my ideals there in the reality-based community.

Some relish this kind of politics. But the false dawn of post-partisanship is no reason for celebration. Ideological war creates an atmosphere in which the angry predominate — and it can cause anger to rise unbidden within all of us. While in government, I saw the persistent, moaning critics outside the window. Now I have dug my tunnel and joined them. It is not where I want to be — or where American politics might have been.

Yeah, Michael, some do relish it.  I expect you dine with them several times a week.  You’re probably not a bad fellow but you’re still blind as a bat because you only pretend to having done any penance for what you and your buddies created and for which you are now ( irony of biblical proportions) so terribly victimized by.

I’ve linked this Vanity Fair piece previously, but I had cause to re-read it and was again taken with how good a job Philippe Sands has done in reporting here

Obama was and is conceived by most Americans as new, hopeful, fresh, etc.  In a number of earlier posts here, I’ve been detailing how the right has been busy, over the last two months, attempting to counter these Obama positives through the suggestion that he’s not new or special at all – that he’s just a continuation of Bush policies and ideas.  (As I noted earlier, there was another complimentary goal in here too…to help re-establish positive notions of the Bush administration, AKA ”The Bush Legacy Project”, a PR strategy being run out of the Bush WH in its last half year or so).

Yesterday, at CPAC, Gingrich threw a bit more weight behind all of this with a strong attack against, wait for it, the “Bush/Obama regime”.  Yes.  Who knew?

What is going on here is pretty simple.  At CPAC, the Bush administration is being utterly savaged.  The meme being pushed is that Bush betrayed conservative/Reagan principles in numerous spheres but most importantly, fiscally.  He spent too many tax dollars.  Politically, or in terms of propaganda, this is seen now as a necessary idea to forward because it excuses ‘conservativism’ and the party for the last eight years and for the financial situation we are in…”We didn’t do it, a pretender did it, so there’s no reason to think we can’t run government properly”.  This is almost total bullshit top to bottom (Reagan initiated huge tax hikes, for example) but propaganda and truth have no necessary relationship.

So, this earlier identification of Obama with Bush was mainly designed to make Bush policies look good – “Obama has to follow Bush policies because they were wonderful policies after all”.   But now (there’s a truck-load of irony in all of this) the identification is being made to make Obama look as bad as Bush.  And this ‘argument’ is being made by conservatives to conservatives.

Update:  Steve Benen writes on this too (and it’s typically bright as hell):

I understand the point [Gingrich is]  trying to get across. Bush increased spending, Obama is increasing spending. Bush’s policies were a disaster for the economy, so Obama’s policies….

It has a certain child-like appeal, just so long as no one thinks about it too much.

But the reason this isn’t a compelling argument — aside from the fact that it has no relation to reality — is that Gingrich’s point undermines the other Republican talking points. The principal complaint from the right about Obama’s spending plans is that they’re “radical.” The spending is “unprecedented.” The agenda represents “socialism.”

And despite all of this, Gingrich nevertheless argues that Obama’s spending “is more of the Bush-Obama continuity and represents more of the same instead of ‘change you can believe in.’”

This just doesn’t add up. Either Obama’s approach is a radical change or it’s Bush’s agenda warmed over. It can’t be both.  read Benen here

Some have compared Jindal to Obama, but the new president has always been more attracted to platitudes than to policy. Rush Limbaugh has anointed Jindal “the next Ronald Reagan.” But Reagan enjoyed painting on a large ideological canvas. 

Got that?  Gerson, unstinting supporter of George W. Bush, heads right into an indictment of Obama as being ‘more attached to platitudes than to policy’.  It’s like a salesman for Archie Comix advising a bookstore proprietor to put his product in to replace the crap filling the  ”Fifth Century BC Athens” section. 

And then Reagan makes an appearance (courtesy of the movement’s flag-bearer for the truthful and the accurate, Rush Limbaugh) as another intellectual and policy-wonk giant but Gerson thinks a better description of the non-platitudinous give-me-reams-of-detailed-analysis-every-morning Reagan is ‘large canvas ideolgical painter’.

We note that Gerson decides not to write about Obama’s speech last evening.  Understandable, given what presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin had to say about the historical significance that speech may well have.  Gerson instead writes about Jindal, but not about Jindal’s response which had even the folks at FOX in a god-he-looked-bad-in-comparison funk.

And we note that Gerson tries to pump up Jindal as a potential savior (against Obama) for being a wonk and for his religiosity.  The protestant nutcase wing really like him, we’re told.  We expect they do, given, for example,  his expertise as an exorcist

As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns (see update), in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer.

The guy is a Rhodes Scholar and one could certainly argue that in many ways he is a better species of Republican than what the present tends to offer up.  But Gerson is filling the role of hack in all this as he does regularly in his column in the WP.

“Tear Down This Myth”

Character Building

by digby

I just love it when people who have screwed up on an epic scale turn around and tell you that the results of their handiwork are good for you because they build character. That’s essentially what Michael Gersen is trying to sell in today’s column.

After devoting some throwaway lines to the deteriorating mental health, loss of security and grinding poverty brought on by economic mismanagement like that he and his former boos just oversaw, he says that it actually makes society better because it brings people together and encourages old-fashioned virtues like thrift. Seriously. Hooray for the depression.

What he doesn’t mention is just how much power a bad economy puts in the hands of the wealthy and how long it takes for workers to gain it back. But then feudalism is the aristocrats’ system of choice, so what’s not to like? Keep the workers fighting for the scraps as long as possible. The nobles may not make quite as much as in boom times but at least the serfs stay in their place.

I actually know people who were around in the depression and although they remember certain things fondly, as we all do about our youth, I’ve never heard any of them say they wanted to relive it. (And some of these people, by the way, are among the least virtuous I’ve ever known. If depressions create good values, they sure don’t last.)    read Digby here

Update:  John Cole at Balloon Juice weighs in:

I was going to make fun of this Michael Gerson column, but Digby beat me to it.

I’m now to the point that I no longer consider the Washington Post one of the country’s premier newspapers. The editorial pages are as bad or worse than the WSJ.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan:  “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” [...] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews:  “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” [...] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

McClellan:  “Well, certainly.”

Yes, FOX is a propaganda tool

Feb. 20, 2009 | WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed that “the United States will not torture” only two days into his new administration. But one big question Obama hasn’t answered is whether and how to investigate notorious Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. On Thursday, 18 human rights organizations, former State Department officials and former law enforcement and military leaders asked the president to create a nonpartisan commission to investigate those allegedly abusive detention practices.

Retired Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, who investigated the famed abuses at Abu Ghraib, signed on to the effort. He explained his support in an interview with Salon. Taguba agrees with many attorneys who think it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to prosecute former Bush administration officials. A nonpartisan fact-finding commission, however, might provide some degree of accountability for official U.S. detention and interrogation policies that Taguba called misguided and illegal.   continue reading here

‘I feared Bush would unleash a wave of sadism – he did’

Julie Christie

 The lousy economy is now hurting George W. Bush in a pretty direct way: U.S. News reports that fundraising has slowed down for the Bush library, making it difficult to meet the $500 million goal.

The situation is so bad that Bush has had to personally make phone calls to raise money, along with his father and Karl Rove, in order to meet the deadline of a 2013 construction.  from TPM