writing/rewriting history

It's about politics

One of the problems we humans have is our tendency to rewrite history as we wish it had been rather than how it was. This plays havoc with our history books especially since the ones who lost a war are often not around to tell their story. Political correctness in one generation can lead to historic rewriting that is nothing like what happened-- but suits a new political agenda.

Currently this tendency has been irking me as much as anything with the latest brouhaha from the political right as they attempt to rewrite the last eight years and in particular the war with Iraq. They are doing this while the actual footage of certain events is still on YouTube. Obviously this particular rewriting works best with those for whom Ann Coulter is their favorite historian.

There are many books about the run-up to the war with Iraq, the treatment of the war, the motivations, and one particularly interesting one is by the right wing's best friend, Richard Clarke's book Against all Enemies. Clarke, who was in the administration as a continuation from Clinton's, describes discussions where the main emphasis was what excuse can we use to attack Iraq. From the 2001 Inauguration, he has said his attempts to get them to take seriously the threat from al Qaeda, were met with little interest. Yes, it was Clarke's story but he's not the only one who wrote such books.

Many have written of warnings delivered to Bush in the summer of 2001 from intelligence agencies regarding plots by bin Laden. In August one intelligence officer said he went to the Texas ranch; and after he gave his report, Bush said, you have covered your ---, now get out of here. In short, quit ruining my vacation. For those, like Condoleeza Rice, who would later claim no one could have imagined a terrorist using an airplane that way, those warnings had been out there from the '90s: The Dangers.

This is not an attempt to say the Bush people wanted such an attack. We may never know the full truth of what they thought in those months. It is saying they were warned, and they could have done more had they taken the warnings seriously.

So what about after 9/11? Did citizens blame Bush for the attack since it happened on his watch? Was that when approval ratings dipped? You know I am being facetious. He had 80% approval ratings for some time after the attacks and used them for what would come next.

For those who say it's okay to disrespect Obama now, they use Bush's eventual low approval ratings. Bush earned those. It took time before people realized the full extent of what Bush had done with cherry picking data to make the case for war, ignoring anything that conflicted that data, claiming the war would be without cost to Americans, hiding much of what was being done to 'gather' information.

Even when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier with the big sign Mission Accomplished, the country wanted to think it was true. It took awhile for the average American to learn that an invasion wasn't the same as an occupation. Bush's father had known it when he refused to occupy Iraq after Desert Storm. He said it would be a quagmire. Powell knew it when he warned Bush if you break it, you own it.

Bush heard none of those warnings. They were drowned out by a higher cause. He was listening to his Father in heaven, not on earth. Bush was a man on a mission, and Americans saw that mission change from weapons to a dictator to democracy, to a claim that Iraq would influence the whole Middle East. It might have, but not as the Bush people had claimed.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is another rewriting of history. Bush still claims everybody thought they were there. Remember at the time there were inspectors on the ground. The United States told them sites to check based on their reliable sources like tortured al Qaeda suspects and Chalibi types who wanted us to invade for their own reasons none of which related to 9/11 or weapons. Chalibi, a Shiite and linked to Iran, had his own reasons. As with so much of this, they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Besides the loss of life and economic cost in Iraq where the end result is still unknown, Americans were facing another reason to lose faith in Bush. The suspicions of his usurpation of power was growing. Today we know from recently revealed memos exactly how close we came to a dictatorship. These memos told Bush that he had the power to suspend the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution if he decided he had cause. Keep this in mind, if he alone decided-- remember how he bragged he was the decider. Little did Americans know how far he thought that went.

To Bush's credit, even under pressure from his own side, he didn't take that drastic last step. He did negate the right to a trial which is in our Bill of Rights (should make any American nervous), authorized torture against international agreements, used signing statements and executive orders to override Congress's laws, and in short acted above the law (which many presidents have believed they were).

Before the Inauguration of President Obama, Bush lawyers said they didn't really believe the president had absolute powers. Interesting that they figured that out right before a new president would be taking over those powers. For anyone not wanting to rewrite recent history, Bush earned his disapproval by doing things that he never once said he would do when he ran.

While Bush did misuse his power (or enable others like Karl Rove to do so for political reasons) I give him full credit for his final act. I might even add, I think he showed patriotic courage. Despite pressure from the right to do so, he did not pardon all those involved in the Iraqi war lies, the outing of a covert agent, firing of US attorneys (who were also Republicans remember) who didn't follow exactly the party line, the authorization to use torture, and many other questionable actions of the last eight years.

Bravely, and it was brave as it could lead to him also facing charges, Bush has left the country free to do what it needs to do if proof comes along of crimes. He didn't have to do that. He did have the power to block any criminal proceedings. We could have had all the hearings we had wanted; but without the possibility of actual criminal charges, they would have been meaningless.

Actually I have never blamed Bush totally for what he did. Self-titled conservatives gave him absolute power because they saw his power as their power. Now they don't want to mention his name and would like the blame to all fall on him. Sorry, it belongs to all who unthinkingly supported him through it. Power was the corrupter.

From his interest in giving his take on history, Oliver Stone decided to bring out 'W' before Bush had even left office. Movies often define or even rewrite history but this one, like some during WWII came out while the events were still ongoing. I was interested in seeing it and last week, we did.

'W' sticks pretty much to publicly known events, using news footage, and weaving actual quotes into the dialogue not necessarily where they might have been historically but to fit the demands of film and keep the tone true to what happened. The film stars Josh Brolin, who captures Bush's strengths and weaknesses. It is not a caricature, and really is an astonishing portrayal considering how the real man is still around for us to compare.

I suppose a lot of right wingers won't see the film because it's directed by Stone (on some of their enemy lists); but it's not a film to be feared on distortion of the record. I would say it's fair to Bush (which some lefties doubtless won't like). It presents the view that he wanted to do right. That he did try, thought he had, but his own personality flaws were particularly destructive in this situation.

The story of his father and their relationship was beautiful and also sad. And yet for those difficulties, there was and is much love there. I understand people like them as I came from a family that didn't find love easy to express in words. I worked to do better with my own children.

I recommend the movie to both those who do and don't like Bush. It makes him human and the story Shakespearean. I have said it many times. I think if Republicans had held Bush more accountable, he'd have been a better president. By the time, they did, it was probably too late to turn any of it around. We should not make the same mistake with Obama.

As people, we all have this tendency to rewrite even our own history, make excuses for ourselves, justify others. We do ourselves a disservice when we do. Better is to face the truth of what has and is happening and learn from it. Power is a poor substitute for truth.