An Oral History of the Bush Presidency

Puppycow · 19th January 2009, 10:07 PM

From Vanity Fair

This quote about Cheney from a Bush Admin insider stands out:

Quote:

Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States.

He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum.

I had forgotten that Cheney was in charge of Bush's VP search committee. Was George Bush just a weak character, skillfully manipulated by a Svengali-like Dick Cheney into doing what Cheney wanted him to do? Isn't it odd that a VP search committee would end up picking the person in charge of the VP search committee?

Francesca R · 20th January 2009, 01:35 AM

Wasn't it the Clinton presidency that had oral history?

Whiplash · 20th January 2009, 02:17 AM

Just out of curiosity, will you guys get over this obsession with Bush and Cheney after tommorow? I sure hope so.

drkitten · 20th January 2009, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Just out of curiosity, will you guys get over this obsession with Bush and Cheney after tommorow? I sure hope so.

Almost certainly not -- and I see no reason why you should hope so.

Historians will probably dig at the Bush presidency for a century; historians still dig at Louis XIV.

From a historical perspective, Bush was a uniquely influential individual -- I don't think any other president in US history was afforded the sort of personal political authority that he was in the aftermath of 9/11, nor has any other president taking such a personal role on the world stage. Add to that his unmitigated incompetence, corruption, and cronyism, and you have a tremendously compelling figure for analysis.

I suspect that he will go down in history in the same group as Caligula and Marie Antoinette, and be just as re-analyzed.

Ziggurat · 20th January 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

From a historical perspective, Bush was a uniquely influential individual -- I don't think any other president in US history was afforded the sort of personal political authority that he was in the aftermath of 9/11,

You have GOT to be kidding me. Lincoln, and suspending Habeas Corpus? Other wartime presidents (and Lincoln isn't the only one) have assumed greater powers and "personal political authority" than Bush ever did.

Quote:

nor has any other president taking such a personal role on the world stage.

Reagan? FDR? JFK? On what basis do you conclude that he had a larger personal role than them?

19th January 2009, 10:07 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,723	An Oral History of the Bush Presidency From Vanity Fair This quote about Cheney from a Bush Admin insider stands out: Quote: Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States. He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum. I had forgotten that Cheney was in charge of Bush's VP search committee. Was George Bush just a weak character, skillfully manipulated by a Svengali-like Dick Cheney into doing what Cheney wanted him to do? Isn't it odd that a VP search committee would end up picking the person in charge of the VP search committee?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

20th January 2009, 02:17 AM	#3
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 5,389	Just out of curiosity, will you guys get over this obsession with Bush and Cheney after tommorow? I sure hope so.
	__________________ Ken Buddha.. a smile, two bangs, and a religion. On the ricochet.. it's gonna hit you. It's always funny until someone gets hurt.

20th January 2009, 09:05 AM	#5
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,184	Originally Posted by drkitten From a historical perspective, Bush was a uniquely influential individual -- I don't think any other president in US history was afforded the sort of personal political authority that he was in the aftermath of 9/11, You have GOT to be kidding me. Lincoln, and suspending Habeas Corpus? Other wartime presidents (and Lincoln isn't the only one) have assumed greater powers and "personal political authority" than Bush ever did. Quote: nor has any other president taking such a personal role on the world stage. Reagan? FDR? JFK? On what basis do you conclude that he had a larger personal role than them?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

20th January 2009, 01:35 AM	#2
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Wasn't it the Clinton presidency that had oral history?

20th January 2009, 08:05 AM	#4
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Whiplash Just out of curiosity, will you guys get over this obsession with Bush and Cheney after tommorow? I sure hope so. Almost certainly not -- and I see no reason why you should hope so. Historians will probably dig at the Bush presidency for a century; historians still dig at Louis XIV. From a historical perspective, Bush was a uniquely influential individual -- I don't think any other president in US history was afforded the sort of personal political authority that he was in the aftermath of 9/11, nor has any other president taking such a personal role on the world stage. Add to that his unmitigated incompetence, corruption, and cronyism, and you have a tremendously compelling figure for analysis. I suspect that he will go down in history in the same group as Caligula and Marie Antoinette, and be just as re-analyzed.