Tonight, New York's channel 21 will broadcast the Watergate portion of the David Frost interviews of Richard Nixon. This seems as good a time as any to ask if we'll ever get the equivalent from George W. Bush.
Of course, Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment, and Bush left office after completing his second term. Nixon spent two years in seclusion, and then agreed to be interviewed by a man he considered (with ample evidence) to be a lightweight in exchange for $600,000. Bush will probably never be in need of money.
Though he will, eventually, have a book of some kind to promote. And once he does, he'll be pushing, as Nixon was, for a public reevaluation of his time in office. So we can dream!
The Nixon interviews are great television (though not quite as HEY DRAMATIC ACTING OVER HERE GUYS as Ron Howard would have you believe). But would the Bush interviews even be worth it?
If you asked our former President about torture, for an hour straight, he'd still just say "we don't torture." If you asked him about warrantless wiretapping he'd say he'd do anything to keep America safe.
Wouldn't we, as a still broken and angry nation, rather just have someone yell at Bush for two days than hear the same idiotic cliches? Do we judge this man capable of any kind of self-reflection? Nixon had that grand paranoia. Bush is oblivious.
Bush has faced "tough" questions before. He gets petulant, but reveals nothing. Nixon was operatic in his self-pity, cunning in his politics, and actually genuinely interesting. Bush is just a dumb shit.
A Frost/Cheney might be more interesting, but he would just relentlessly lie until you lured him to the Fortress of Solitude and immersed him in Red Kryptonite.