The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

In Defense of Bush

Chris Wallace of Fox News stood up last night after a screening of Ron Howard’s new “Frost/Nixon” movie (opening Friday) to refute the notion put forth by the moviemakers that President Bush is guilty of abuses of power similar to (or even worse than) those of the former president.

Chris Wallace of Fox News stood up last night after a screening of Ron Howard’s new “Frost/Nixon” movie (opening Friday) to refute the notion put forth by the moviemakers that President Bush is guilty of abuses of power similar to (or even worse than) those of the former president. The Washington Times reports:

“Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed purely in the interest of his own political gain,” Mr. Wallace told Mr. Howard before an audience of a few hundred after viewing the filmmakers new film “Frost/Nixon,” which is about the only U.S. president to resign from office.

“I think to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country — even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding — it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now,” Mr. Wallace said.

If you can stomach it, watch for similar allegations later this week when CNN airs Christiane Amanpour’s special series on genocide, in which she likens the atrocities committed by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge in the 1970s to the present-day U.S. practice of waterboarding.

topics:
genocide

View all comments (15) |

WendyG| 12.2.08 @ 9:55AM

Oh please. Ron Howard is just another pampered limousine liberal with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Mary| 12.2.08 @ 10:10AM

Presdient Bush will be regarded as a man who dared to go where many others wouldn't. If Iraq is successful, and if that success has the power to unleash an appreciation for and attachment to liberty in surrounding areas, a transformation of the region will occur, and it will have had its genesis in our invasion of Iraq.

The advance of civilization follows upon martial prowess. The military has been the source of technological progress from man's earliest days.

Our military is the best part of our society.

You can argue we went into Iraq under erroneous pretenses, but you can't argue that once there it became imperative we succeed.

History will be good to President Bush, a decent and forward looking man. As Victor Davis Hanson put it recently, Obama might just be the man to do President Bush's legacy a world of good as he follows suit, more or less.

Captain America| 12.2.08 @ 11:24AM

I've long since removed myself from viewing anything associated with Christiane Amanpour morality plays, or CNN in general.

Kudos to Chris Wallace for stating the obvious. President Bush gets condemned in any event, whether it be protecting our back sides or our encountering another terrorist attack.

The difficulty with one directional communications is that people are generally fed up with viewing blatant bias without adequate response. All the cable news channels can go the way of the dinosaur.

Kathy| 12.2.08 @ 11:52AM

Many of our own soldiers underwent waterboarding in their training and to the best of my knowledge, it was used three times by the CIA. When I have asked opponents of the practice if they would want it used if their loved one was being held by terrorists, if it could possibly save their loved ones life I never recieved a straight answer. I wish that there was never a need for the practice but believe that it's use in saving innocent lives can sometimes be justified.

Larry K.| 12.2.08 @ 1:28PM

Now, Opie, what did Aunt Bea and I teach you about not being truthful.

M. T. Trask| 12.2.08 @ 2:44PM

We did not go into Iraq under "erroneous pretenses." Rather, we went there based on the best intelligence we had at the time. I believe that President Bush will be vindicated by history, perhaps not in the next five years, but certainly in the next twenty.

That is, unless the Islamofascists win and we fall under sharia law.

Mary| 12.2.08 @ 3:44PM

We did not go into Iraq under "erroneous pretenses."

Point taken about my use of pretenses. Didn't mean to imply deceit by it.

I also think President Bush will be vindicated and think my original comment points to that as well.

When I hear people say so and so is "my" president, I really can't get next to that. I've never looked at any president and thought of him as "my" president. I think of him as THE president. That said, I have affection for President Bush because I think he is a man of principle.

I think Obama is a misanthrope and have thought so from the beginning. I'm not impressed by his words or by the way he speaks.

President Bush embodies what it means to be an individual. It doesn't usually mean approval, unity or sunshine and rainbows. It usually means loneliness and suffering. See Kipling's If.

Orwell, who thought Kipling's jingoism problematic, admitted that while propaganda and rhetoric retain some shelf life, Kipling remains forever. I agree.

Thanks for the correction.

ruth| 12.2.08 @ 10:24PM

Opie is still stupid as a stump.

biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:54PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

Related Blog Posts

More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/12/02/in-defense-of-bush

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT