They are talking points because they are, well...talking points.
No, they are called talking points by people who don't want to give them any legitimacy.
A couple things you can't get past:
1) Bush is gone. We don't do any good by keeping worrying about him. Even conservatives have mostly abandoned him now what his presidency proved to be a failure and it's embarrassing to defend him.
Thank Gawd! That does not mean these issues still have no impact on us. Our servicemen and women are still dying in a war that shouldn't have been.
2) Most of your claims are guesses. They may be true, I even suspect some to be true. They are not provable, not going to be proven, and keeping harping on them serves no piurpose.
I have provided evidence to back up every claim I ever made here, some multiple times. They are all over this forum. These come up now because of the announcement of Bush's book coming out. Same as if Clinton were to come out with a new book. His issues would arise again, to the ever grateful right.
Let's look at your points:
Unprovable at best. Cheney had a lot of input, but it's unlikely he made the big decisions.
That's your guess. Cheney made decisions that were not his to make. He drove the torture agenda. He gave two shoot down orders, after 9/11 , without talking to Bush. This is against the law.
see:
Cheney Authorized Shooting Down Planes - washingtonpost.com
Being on vacation for a president does not mean they are not working. Far from it, they are always at work. Leave this kind of hysterics to those who want to bitch about Obama playing golf.
Come on. Bush was on vacation when he was in the white house. His day ended much sooner than any other president. Yes, all take vacations but, 33% of his presidency he was either at Camp David or his ranch. Obama golfing isn't even in the same category.
I'm not hysterical on this. I'm not even emotional. If anyone takes it that way, that is on them. Continually arguing a particular side is not hysterical. Name calling, personal attacks, attack the messenger type posts would fall into that category.
Like it or not, he was smart enough to win 2 presidential elections. Further, there is evidence that you cannot refute that Bush did read a fair amount. You have a supposition based on no evidence.
Show me any evidence that Bush read a lot... even some. His most trusted confidant, Condi-the-liar-Rice, knew it and warned people around Bush of it.
Winning an election is no indicator of intelligence. Please. He lied thru his teeth to get elected. Is that a sign of intelligence?
Do not get me wrong. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime, and he did untold damage to this country. There are plenty of things to complain about Bush doing. Legitimate things. But it needs to be done in a rational manner, not hysterics.
Our politicians, on both sides, don't have the balls to do what should be done to the Bush regime. This is a political debate forum. When people twist what Bush really was, what he really did, I'm not going to let it gain any traction. That's how rightees think. They continue to repeat the same lies until over time some people start believing they are true. Too many people died because of him. Some I knew. Too many people's lives were disrupted because of him.
Bush belongs in jail. Then he can read all the comics he wants to.
