About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Has Fox News' Baier boarded the Bush legacy bandwagon?

December 18, 2008 1:33 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: During an interview with President Bush that aired on Fox News' Special Report, Bret Baier asked Bush, "Do you believe that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?" The question tracked a talking point reportedly contained in a "two-page memo" that the Los Angeles Times reported "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency."

31 Comments

On the December 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier aired an interview he conducted with President Bush, in which he asked Bush: "Do you believe that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?" Baier's question tracked a talking point that the Los Angeles Times reported was in a "two-page memo" that was sent by the White House "to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials" and that "offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches." The Times reported on December 9 that "the talking points state that Bush 'kept the American people safe' after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained 'the honor and the dignity of his office.' "

The memo also reportedly "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib."

Baier's question also echoed comments Vice President Dick Cheney made on the December 15 broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show. Cheney stated: "Well, I think probably the most significant thing during our time here, Rush, has been the fact that we've been able to stop or disrupt all further Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. homeland. That doesn't mean there won't be some in the future, but I think the extent to which we've kept the country safe and secure now for the last seven and a half years has been probably the achievement that I'm proudest of. I think it required some very tough decisions by the president, and some remarkable work by some very capable military and intelligence folks who've worked with us."

As Media Matters for America has also noted, on the December 15 edition of Special Report, Fox News contributor and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson echoed Bush's talking points regarding his legacy in Iraq, saying of Bush's handling of the war there, "I think that history will judge him pretty kindly." She later stated that Bush leaves "a war that's pretty manageable, if not almost won, to his successor."

From the December 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BAIER: As for his public approval ratings, President Bush said he simply does not care about the polls.

BUSH: Look, everybody likes to be popular. Everybody wants to be liked, but what do you expect? We're in -- we've got a major economic problem, and I'm the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No, I don't approve of the economy. So, you know, Bret, if you make decisions based upon polls, you'll be a failure as president. And I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, you know, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy.

BAIER: Do you believe that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?

BUSH: I -- yeah, I believe the policies that we worked with Congress on to better protect America are paying off. Now, the problem is, is that there's still an enemy, and they still want to attack, and -- but we have been successful, thanks to a lot of people.

BAIER: And you've heard the critics of the administration. You said the policies on interrogation techniques were -- amounted to torture, and the policies for surveillance amounted to illegal wiretapping --

BUSH: Yeah.

BAIER: -- and that America's image was hurt around the world and that made us less safe.

BUSH: Yeah.

BAIER: How do you respond now looking back to all of that?

BUSH: We always stay within the law, that we consulted with members of Congress, and that we have an obligation to put tools in place so that future presidents can better protect the country.

You know, I know there's a lot of urban myths about certain decisions I have made, but when the truth comes out, you know, people will say, "Oh, I see what he did." And -- but the idea, for example, of listening to a phone call from a known terrorist sure makes a lot of sense to me, or the idea of using enhanced interrogation techniques on the man that ordered the September the 11th attacks makes a lot of sense to me, and it makes a lot of sense to other Americans as well.

BAIER: Do you worry at all that the incoming administration will undo some of the things that you say have kept America safe?

BUSH: Well, I think the incoming administration is going to have to fully analyze the risks and the tools and come to their own conclusion. But one thing is for certain, I'm confident that President-elect Obama knows that one of his most solemn duties is to protect the American people.

From the December 15 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: What are you most proud of? I mean, everybody's focusing right now on negative things. We find ourselves in the midst of an economic circumstance that has people unsettled because they don't know yet where it's going in terms of where it's going to bottom out. In times like this, though, I mean, when you get reflective -- I have a theory that people, when they look back on times in their past, that they tend to remember the good things. What are those for you?

CHENEY: Well, I think probably the most significant thing during our time here, Rush, has been the fact that we've been able to stop or disrupt all further Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. homeland. That doesn't mean there won't be some in the future, but I think the extent to which we've kept the country safe and secure now for the last seven and a half years has been probably the achievement that I'm proudest of. I think it required some very tough decisions by the president, and some remarkable work by some very capable military and intelligence folks who've worked with us.

LIMBAUGH: Does it bother you that that achievement is largely missing in present-day historical reflection, that, in fact, maybe it's mischaracterized as not the way you just said it? Does that bother you? Or you let -- you confident and content to let history handle things like this?

CHENEY: Well, I think you have to let history handle things like that. You know, we're -- we didn't do it because we thought we were going to be loved; we did it because we believed very deeply in our obligations to protect the country. And after 9-11, that next morning --

LIMBAUGH: See, I would expect to be loved for doing it. I would expect to be appreciated for saving my country from evil like we face.

CHENEY: Yeah, but it's hard to get credit for things that don't happen. And in a sense, that's what we had here. I think -- I hark back to that day. I was sitting at the same desk I'm at now here in the West Wing of the White House when we got word that there was a plane headed at 500 miles an hour toward the airspace here over the city, after the two buildings had already been hit in New York. And you never forget those moments.

But I think the response is -- speaks for itself. The Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Patriot Act, the interrogation program of high-value detainees -- all has made it possible for us to defend the nation.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2008 1:39 pm ET)
         

      I'm glad to see that both Limbaugh and Cheney have a rosy, non-biased appraisal of the last 8 years.

      And hopefully, the administration has left the "talking points" somewhere where the historians in the future will be able to access them in order for them to write their history. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 18, 2008 1:42 pm ET)
         

      BUSH: "...I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."

      No, you just compromised the integrity of the United States and its Constitution. Good riddance...get rich, have a nice life. Goodbye...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 18, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
         

      One more thought...  I honestly believe history will judge the actions of the Bush Adminstration fairly. But I doubt if history will be able to effectively capture how unqualified George W. Bush was to serve as President...you had to have been here to see it for yourself.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 18, 2008 2:01 pm ET)
           

        Baier is apparently unaware of the Anti-terrorist hat that I bought shortly after 9/11 and have been wearing ever since.It's been as effective as Lisa Simpson's Anti-tiger rock, or the elephant dogs that a poster mentioned here recently.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 18, 2008 2:05 pm ET)
             

          How much for your "anti-tiger rock"

          And let the bears pay the bear tax.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2008 2:06 pm ET)
             

          Elephant dogs?

          I've got to start paying more attention. That one slipped right by me. I'd hate to have to clean up after one of those.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 18, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
               

            Sorry, King, they were "anti-elephant" dogs. A poster was mentioning a relative who had them, and would point out the absence of elephants as proof of their effectiveness. Ol Ben obviously has seen Lisa Simpson sell her tiger rock to Homer after giving up on using it as a demonstration of the specious reasoning of the Bear Patrol proponents.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 18, 2008 2:16 pm ET)
                 

              Natch.

              We're here

              We're Queer

              We don't want anymore bears!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 18, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 

              You know, that whole thing with the Bear Patrol and how since it was instituted there were no more bear attacks is remarkably similar to this bandwagon of "no terrorist attacks since 9/11" (of course not including the anthrax letters and the increase in terrorism around the world).  Specious reasoning indeed.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 18, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
                   

                Amazing how many times I catch an old Simpsons rerun, and there's superior commentary to anything on our "News" channels.

                BTW, I recently had to drive through the nearby city of Irvine to a job, and judging by the number of campaign signs, the front-runner in the mayoral race was named Kang. I hate to admit how badly I  was hoping to see a rival named anything close to Konos. No luck, it was Choi.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2008 2:48 pm ET)
                     

                  I agree about the commentary bering superior.

                  Kent Brockman is the Walter Cronkite of cartoon news.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Craig (December 18, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
                     

                  Several year ago we had a state legislature election where the two candidates were named D1cks and Cox. I thought it was a bit on-the-nose.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 18, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
                     

                   No luck, it was Choi. - col

                  If you had looked more closely, you would have noticed it was Kodos CHOI...

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (December 18, 2008 2:06 pm ET)
         
      I think this guy is missing the whole point of terrorism, which is to breed fear amongst the populace of the terrorists' political enemies. If you look at the true objective of terrorism, then Bush and the Republicans have been furthering the terrorists' goals for years now.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (December 18, 2008 3:10 pm ET)
         

      This is but another barely concealed attempt by the BDS crowd at MMFA to try and make the case that anything that is not extremely critical of Bush is somehow supposedly "misinformation". 

      My guess is that someone here at what should be called SharkJumperPersonified wanted to get that LATimes memo mentioned and this was all they could come up with.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 18, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
           

        someone here at what should be called SharkJumperPersonified

        You can call your house whatever you want to, Tara, Green Acres or SharkJumperPersonified.And id you're happy with the media recycling the government's own talking points back at them, you have that right as well.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (December 18, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
           

        the only bush derangement syndrome is among those who think this fool was anything but a disaster for this country.   we should never have had the 9-11 attack to begin with.  we had numerous attacks thwarted under clinton, who made counterterrorism a priority.   the hijackers were not exactly rocket scientists.  the flight school owners, who last time i checked were not involved in counterintelligence, were smart enough to figure out that there was something up with foreign students who insisted that they wanted licenses, but didn't need to learn to take off and land.  the owners contacted the fbi and agent colleen rowley tried to get higherups to listen.  they weren't interested, because the tone was set from bush on down.  that's why bush tried to stop the 9-11 investigation, tried to limit it's scope, tried to limit funding, and tried to get the report delayed until january 2005.  there was a good chance 9-11 could have been stopped, and bush didn't care.  or, as he told bob woodward, he was "not on point" about bin laden prior to the attack.  or after, because he said he wasn't concerned about where he was.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 18, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
             

          Right, we're the deranged ones but on September 10, 2001 Bush's Attorney General denied more than fifty million dollars in funding for counter-terrorism because he wanted to fight the "drug war". I know that's just my "pre-9/11" thinking. His rejecting the request for funds in no way caused or enabled the hijackers but it most definitely shows where these criminals minds were back then.

          For Bush to proclaim that there can be no debate, that he's made us safer since 9/11, a sane person would have to conclude that he also failed miserably at protecting the "homeland" prior to 9/12/2001. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (December 18, 2008 8:15 pm ET)
               

            quite true.  and as this link from 2002 shows, ashcroft did at times give lip service to fighting domestic terrorism.  but when it came to listing the goals of his department in that first year, he did not list counterterrorism.  

            under clinton and janet reno, the funds were increased every year.  clinton was accused of being obsessed with bin laden.  maybe bush should have been too.  as the 9-11 commission quoted richard clarke in a jan. 25. 2001 memo to his boss, condi rice:  "we urgently [underlined] need a principals level review on the al qaeda network".  and as the commission noted on page 201:   "no principals committee meeting on al qaeda was held until sept. 4, 2001..".

            http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

            Report Abuse
      • Author by sportsguydave (December 19, 2008 1:28 am ET)
           

        Yawn. Your schtick is wearing thin, AA.

        Your so-called  "BDS" apparently inflicted about 53 million people this year. Whatever ... Maybe people finally got tired of what you people have done to our country...

        But hey, if clinging to a nonexistent malady helps you explain two beatings in a row .. .whatever gets ya through the night, pal ..

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (December 18, 2008 4:12 pm ET)
         
      Has Fox News' Baier boarded the Bush legacy bandwagon? Just a W is falling off the wagon =>
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (December 18, 2008 5:23 pm ET)
         

      Legacy?  Did someone say "legacy"?  My neighbor's dog just left HIS legacy on my front step.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (December 18, 2008 6:10 pm ET)
         

      When considering Bush's legacy on security, it might help to mention that he presided over the biggest security failure in our history.

      Much like how Reagan's economy didn't start in 1984, Bush's security record didn't start in 2002.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (December 19, 2008 10:11 am ET)
         

      If only the rest of us could work under the bizarre qualifications for greatness that Bush does.  We'd all be allowed one monumentally huge screw up as long as we didn't let it happen again.  (Actually I think Bush got to have one screw up per field of expertise.  There also hasn't been a massively botched disaster recovery operation since Katrina so clearly he is a most awesome President.)

      No wonder the Hannibots are so quick to pass out the "great American" label.  Their threshhold for greatness is so very very low.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (December 19, 2008 12:30 pm ET)
           

        And, if we ever recover from this economic meltdown, he'll take credit for that, too. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jflz201884 (December 19, 2008 4:40 pm ET)
         

      George W. Bush brags ad nauseam about  fulfilling his solemn duty to protect the people of the United States. One of these days, someone in the corporate news media will check the presidential oath of office and see that the president's duty is to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States -- period.  It says nothing about providing fatherly protection for the masses. As for the sacred document he has sworn to protect,  Bush instead has shredded it.

      Nor does the oath say anything about being an elected commander in chief.  The U.S. president is commander in chief of the armed forces assembled -- not a commander who tells civilians that since he has the situation in hand,  they can do their part by going shopping, thus keeping the economic engines running.

      As a self-proclaimed "war president," Bush has used his phony "protector of the people" and "commander in chief of all" mantle as an excuse to let everything else go, including the obligation to pay (not borrow) for warmaking. Hence the legacy tour, which finds him citing "no attacks since 911" as  evidence of this effectiveness. As if the anthrax and DC sniper attacks weren't terrorist action stateside. As if terrorism hasn't increased worldwide, notably in the Middle East tinderbox Bush primed for ignition.

      All of which echoes the "Rule Through Fear Doctrine" of Grand Moff Tarkin in the "Star Wars" fantasy.  Part of that protection in the real world gone mad has been  imprisonment (and torture) of suspected terrorists, drivers of taxi cabs for suspected terrorists, and luckless youth captured by warlords in Afghanistan and sold into captivity.

      What better time to examine that oath of office than on Jan.20, when Barack Obama swears fealty to it? Two gloomy scenarios: (1) Bush supporters will claim that

      the new Democratic president somehow does not enjoy the powers seized and employed by the Republican Bush. Or (2) the new president will quietly claim those powers and no one will protest. Chillingly, the second outcome seems more likely, because five years ago, select congressional leaders were let in on the torture plan. Thus examination of the "Star Wars" Empire come to life would implicate Democrats as well as Republicans.

      Jerry Elsea

      preserve, protect and defend

      Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (December 20, 2008 1:53 am ET)
         

      I guess we can understand why the Bush legacy warriors might have forgotten the $4.1  TRILLION in debt they ran up in the first 7 years of the Bush administration.

      I also wonder why the honor of the presidency does not include the loss habeas corpus, abrogating the Geneva convention protections, and allowing torture not merely at Abu Graib, but under our name around the world, just to select a few.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.