"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd 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."Does that description of Bush by Cheney sound in any way like the Bush anyone remembers from his eight years? Conciliatory? Showing care towards public reaction or criticism? Independent? But I guess Cheney didn't get what he wanted near the end of the term (the carpet bombing of Iran and any other country with an 'I' in it's name, Scooter Libby on the $20, or a sufficient enough supply of kittens to drown in the Potomac) and he blames Bush for not heeding every one of the Vice-Overlord's commands. Worse, he thinks Bush committed the most cardinal political sin, the unforgivable act: possibly being concerned with how the citizens of this country viewed the actions that were being taken on their behalf.
The two men maintain respectful ties, speaking on the telephone now and then, though aides to both said they were never quite friends. 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.
I think that sums up Cheney pretty well. He doesn't view torture as a moral weakness, illegal wiretapping as a moral weakness, outing CIA agents as a moral weakness, or any of the other hundreds of barely legal and illegal activities he secretly presided over as a moral weakness. He views listening to the voter as a moral weakness. How apt. His book is going to be great. Even better is that his daughter describes the book as historical record for posterity. That ought to be great, the most secretive and dishonest man in politics writing what is, in his opinion, a definitive historical account. That's all I needed to hear, I'm buying two copies.
No comments:
Post a Comment