Cheney calls Americans dishonest

A recent poll of Americans show that nearly 60% of Americans do not believe George Bush is honest, which after everything that has come out regarding the run-up to the war in Iraq it is no surprise, yet he and Dick Cheney are the ones complaining about others being dishonest.

One has to wonder if Republicans have figured it out that by criticizing those against the war they are now criticizing the majority of Americans. Not that they care. Throughout their term they have strived to be the 51% party, just enough support among voters to stay in power, but not enough support among the public to have to care about the wishes of the majority.

However polls now show Bush's support in the mid-thirties which may mean that members of Congress aren't as willing to support anti-America policies. Even Sen. Rick Santorum found a way not to be seen with Bush at a recent event.

With a growing lack of support, Bush and Cheney are attempting to fight back. Their main claim is that the Democrats saw the same information that they did and that other countries shared the same views. Former Sen. Bob Graham disputes this, but the administration's argument also assumes the relationship between Congress and the president is that among friends. "Hey, I think we should invade Iraq, what you think." "Sounds good to me."

As part of their imperial presidency the Bushes wanted submission and blank checks from Congress, but now that those deferrals are coming back to haunt them and the administration wants people to believe it the policies were developed among equals, rather than forced down their throats. Maybe in theory this is how it works, but in practice Congress gave Bush wide latitude, which apparently they couldn't handle.

Rewriting History

After hearing George Bush's remarks criticizing Democrats for "rewriting history," the word that comes to mind is Chutzpah. This from an administration that is all about lying and rewriting history, from aluminum tubes, to yellowcake, to Jessica Lynch, to the death of Pat Tillman. In each instance the Administration pushed the limits of being able to say they didn't lie in order to further their agenda or score political points.

Anyone who questions their need to score political points only has to remember that Bush pushed for a vote on the authority to go to war prior, not after, the 2002 election. During the same 2002 election the GOP used images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to defeat Democratic Senator Max Cleland.

In 2004 this manipulation added up to just enough votes to stay in the White House, but as Abraham Lincoln said "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

And that's the problem Bush is facing. Too many people feel fooled. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll found that 57 percent of Americans agree that Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq."

So in reality, what Bush is concerned about is not that the Democrats are rewriting history falsely, but rather that the Democrats are informing the public about the actual events that transpired, thereby rewriting the White House's questionable version of history.

Buyer's Remorse

Looking at the election returns in Virginia, New Jersey and Minnesota, one has to wonder if they are reflective of more than just local politics and instead an indication that the public has turned on the Bush White House.

While poll after poll has showed Bush's approval drop to levels associated with a failed presidency, many in the public have also given Democrats low ratings.

So is the public just mad at both sides and politicians in general; made a bargain with themselves that they can admit they have lost faith in Republican if they say the same about Democrats; or have the Republicans lost their base because the public has figured out they lied and Democrats have lost the middle because they lost their chance to get rid of Bush last year?

After four years of mismanagement the public was just about ready to vote against him until a despicable campaign managed to shift the campaign from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on a distorted view of Kerry.

However it one thing for voters to voice dissatisfaction, it is another thing for voters to actually step up and be willing to admit they made a mistake and vote against a sitting president.

Today they may be able to admit that they made a mistake and say today they would vote for Kerry, but as the Bush White House knows full well, it's a year too late.

Did the Coverup work?

With the announcement in October 2005 of an indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff it became clear that the effort to delay the investigation worked, stretching out the release of the findings until after the 2004 election.

As Fitzgerald said of the lack of cooperation "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005" if people had cooperated.

Or as E.J. Dionne, Jr. in the Washington Post pointed out "Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation."

Does this really surprise anyone? No. Could anything have been done? Yes. The members of the media who were approached by Karl Rove and Libby could have decided either that they weren't bound by confidentiality as the story being pitched was an attack and not a news story or one of them could have told another reporter the details of the story and informed the public.

Instead Time and the rest of the media's inaction impacted the election. As MediaMatters pointed out, the issue of Time's actions over the past two years was revived by an August 25 Los Angeles Times article stating that the magazine did not pursue a waiver from Rove allowing Cooper to testify in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year."

Perhaps the press was in a no win situation. The press could have sat on the story and deceived the public. Or they could have told the public and be accused of playing sides. Gee which side is worse? Inform the public and get criticized or keep the public in the dark to support a cover-up?

Too media in the media went with the cover-up, just as the White House probably guessed, and the bet paid off. Big time.