…who thinks history will look kindly on President Bush.
Comments
Here’s one historian… — 20 Comments
My Grandmother adored Harry Truman, even when he was down, and stood firm in her assessment while waiting for the day that ‘historians’ would come to recognize what she saw in him. I feel the same about George W. Bush. I stand in a small minority it seems of those who continue to see him as an admirable, honest, good man who will be vindicated much the same as my Granny’s ‘President’ was. God bless this man. There are few among us these days who will continue to stand firmly behind their principles and beliefs, no matter the disdain thrown their way. I am certain history will view his as a great Presidency and my grandchildren will praise him as I do Truman now.
The Bush haters are kind of like the old Clinton haters – only multiplied by a factor of 1000 or more.
It’s the current vogue to disparage him as a horrible president, but such judgements are based entirely upon one’s political perspective – and the only ones getting air time in the MSM at the moment are the Bush haters.
As such, their views are perceived by the majority of viewers as being the majority view itself, whether that’s actually the case or not.
Exacerbate this perception with the very real fact that anyone defending the Bush record is going to be lambasted as a fool, thereby intimidating anyone else of like mind from speaking out, and it only magnifies the very loudly expressed views of the Bush haters as being the majority opinion.
I agree with the author – history will be far kinder to Bush in the long run than currently is being shown in the MSM.
He had an incredibly difficult task (inheriting a recession from Clinton, then a poisoned atmosphere from the 2000 elections that never went away and was in fact fanned by the democrats for years, plus the 9-11 terrorist attacks on top of all that, plus the latest financial mess that has democrats Dodd’s and Frank’s fingerprints all over it) and it’s a credit to his administration that things have turned out as well as they have.
By way of example, one need only look back to the Reagan years and remember the hatred expressed towards him at the time, and the disparaging views of his intelligence that were promulgated in the media and on the left, and contrast that with the current view that he was one of the greatest presidents this country has been graced with to realize that history has a way of balancing out things in the end – whether political hacks want it to turn out that way or not.
NOW – the real interesting thing is, will The Messiah carry on the good works Bush has left him, or will he squander it all and leave a mess for the post-Obama administration to clean up?
Thank you, Neo, and also Dustoffmom and Scottie.
I looked through the comments on the article, and while a few seemed balanced and objective, the naked hatred in the majority of them make me despair for the human race.
I try to remind myself that people like those will be heard from disproportionately because they have more time on their hands than the rest of us.
I am one of those who would not hesitate to repeat my votes for George Bush, given the alternatives we had at the time.
I, too, am an historian who feels that once the political passions have subsided President Bush will be seen in a better light. In conversations with other historians I have often been struck by the intensity of their dislike for Bush, a passion that goes far beyond any political or ideological differences. It is more cultural than rational. To many of them Bush represents the last remnant of an old WASP aristocracy against whom their parents and grandparents struggled. For those who rose through academic ranks and whose sense of worth is measured by lines on vitae, Bush’s disdain for conventional meritocracy is a personal affront. For some it is simply the fact that he has rejected the urban, cosmopolitan, Europhile values that inform their lives, choosing to identify with small town Texas. But whatever, a convincing explanation for their hostility lies more in the realms of psychology and culture studies than in the conventional political, legal, or ideological arguments with which they rationalize their hatred [and no, I don’t think that is too strong a term].
The author of the article is quite wrong about the WMD issue. They were there. We found some, including thousands of tons of yellowcake undergoing a process to help Saddam rebuild his nuclear program. Plus, in the weeks and months before the invasion the Russians were removing their contributions to the biological and chemical weapons programs. The proof is pretty conclusive, if not inconvenient for the mainstream media and the Left.
The rest of the article is pretty good and is balanced.
It will be many, many years before President Bush gets a fair shake – if there is still a country by the time there is enough distance for most of his vitriolic critics to be dead.
Sometimes I think that with Obonga’s ascendancy we are reaping divine retribution, being given over to our worst impulses, for the eight years we savaged this good and decent man. We were lucky to have him at that moment in history.
I must admit that I am rather pessimistic these days. In my Leftist days, years ago, I was anthropologically an optimist. When I left the Left I was realist. And now I am pessimistic about humanity and about the long term endurance of our civilization when I look at what most of humanity has done to this man. It shows most people have very bad judgment and even worse morals.
DB Light: well-written, making some of my favorite claims in much more interesting language. than I do myself. I will be over to visit your site.
Fred, you might google “Sarindar” to find some information from Ion Pacepa much to your liking.
I will note that even I would have complained about Bush’s regulatory, big-government impulses. The historian wisely knows that it is sometimes better to focus on a few related issues rather than attempt to cover the waterfront.
It will be to the deep, long-lasting shame of the History News Network and whatever people it calls upon as “professional historians” that they ballyhooed this poll and this article: HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst.
One may vehemently disagree with and dislike Bush, but anyone calling himself or herself a professional historian should know better than to make such an extravagant claim before the president’s term is even over. There’s no excuse for this.
Assistant Village Idiot,
Already know about Operation Sarindar and Ion Pacepa’s exposition of it. I first heard about this op weeks before the kick off of OIF, from debka.com, an Israeli site that specializes in news about terrorism and military affairs. One of President Bush’s failures, in my opinion, was to take this information right to the American people. I heard that the government decided not to do this because it was deemed not a wise move to piss off the Russians by exposing what they did. And yet, given how little cooperation Russia has rendered on the matter of Iran, that decision was boneheaded. Russia is not our friend. Never was and never will be. Me… I would have told the Russkies to stick it up their asses. Good thing I’m not a diplomat. A poor fit for one of my character and disposition.
huxley,
IF the majority of historians had access to and were not biased against the full range of details which Pres. Bush had to cope with, perhaps they would find it difficult to be so preliminary in their definitive judgment.
At my own academic institution, they are planning next week to have multiple video feeds all around campus so faculty can take their poor little charges out of class to “witness this historic and wonderful event”; a real quote.
It was started by a history prof, who did put in the caveat that “all inaugurations are important”, but damned if I can remember her doing the same thing 4 or eight years ago. I may just have to miss this Second Coming.
Good to hear Bush getting props.
He has been steadfast in making and implementing decisions that he thought were in the best interests of the country, rather than in the best interests of GWB, despite vitriolic criticism.
In that, he deserves the same sort of recognition now accorded to Truman and Lincoln, who comported themselves in the same way. Few now appreciate the vituperation to which Lincoln was subjected right up to the day of his assassination. Even members of his own Cabinet initially doubted his intelligence and capacity for the job.
Bush will be judged by Iraq. If Iraq continues to come right and becomes a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be viewed as a visionary, and one of the greatest American Presidents for having changed the course of history, for the betterment of America and the world.
Mr. Bush deserves considerably more credit than he gets for his foreign policy in East and South Asia. The US ends his term in close cooperation with its allies, and with a much closer relationship with India. China sees more value in trading and allowing investment than in threatening its neighbors.
Mr. Bush’s major domestic political failures reflect brave attempts at statesmanship. In 2005, he took up the cause of Social Security reform. In 2006, he took up immigration reform. Whether or not one agreed with his programs, attempting either required rare political courage and the belief that political capital exists to be used solving the most difficult problems. Mr. Bush signally failed to use his bully pulpit to attack his political critics, I suspect out of concern for adding to the toxicity of the political environment.
Mr. Bush was a very poor political leader for the Republicans. I presume that he did not see it as his role only to advance the party cause. I always believed that he would not shirk the hard decisions, and that he would act responsibly on behalf of the greater good, even if it made him unpopular. I regret that he surrendered the public stage to his adversaries.
Mr. Bush’s Presidency was consequential along many dimensions. I do not regret having voted for him twice or being a campaign contributor in both 2000 and 2004. I am grateful for his service and wish him Godspeed.
It was the people, the policy wonks, the journalists, the blogs, and the Democrats who poisoned the political climate, not Pres. Bush. I have never seen anything like what was done to an American President in my lifetime thus far. I will not forgive these people for it. Never. I’ve got nothing but hard feelings for those people and I hope every single one of them reap what they have sown. In spades.
I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home – midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened – each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said “We Stand United”. This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.
On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president – running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President – despite his father’s foreign policy credentials.
Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.
And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.
People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President’s record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this ‘safety’. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 – same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.
Love him or hate him, this much is clear: “He kept us safe”. And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.
Bush got some things wrong, but much right. How that balances depends on how Iraq turns out.
Invading was the right thing to do. Then we screwed it up, but finally got it right. Let’s hope it holds, and that Obama is wise enough to listen to Petraeus and Odierno on what to do now.
There as a post over at NRO’s The Corner not too long ago, in which Mark Steyn recalled that a few years ago some of his colleagues were complaining that “Bush should have done this” and “Bush should have done that” (not just Iraq, but on various WOT things).
Then John O’Sullivan came along and wrote (I go from memory) “What none of you realize is that Bush is as good as it was going to get.”
And he was right. Bush hasn’t done nearly enough to win the WOT, and it took him too long to get Iraq right, but it’s hard to think of any other (electable) person who would have done better.
Say what you want. I liked him. I’m disgusted by the attacks upon him. I wonder where all the hate will go, all that bile won’t just evaporate. My good and decent friends who came down with Bush derangement syndrome aren’t just going to magically be ‘over it’ tomorrow.
They chose to focus their hate on their own person, and not where it belonged, on Islamic extremists who kill their own women and children, strap bombs on their teenagers and declare that there are no gays in their country, people who riot over cartoons who think nothing of firebombing entire neighborhoods in paris, who behead people on camera and broadcast it all over the internet.
My friends, who are against ‘organized’ religion are strangely silent when it comes to the islamic bad guys. But they sure can hate Bush. It’ll be a relief not to hear every conversation started with the phrase ‘our appointed President.’
But I wish, I hope he knows that we appreciate the difficulty of the job, and the courage he has shown, in just putting his head down and keeping on, doing what is right. Perfect? No. No one ever is. But there’s blame to go around. When the republicans had the majority they should have made those Goddam tax cuts permanent. Nevertheless, people will be wishing they had him back, I’ll bet money on it.
And FredHjr It was the people, the policy wonks, the journalists, the blogs, and the Democrats who poisoned the political climate, not Pres. Bush. I have never seen anything like what was done to an American President in my lifetime thus far. I will not forgive these people for it. Never. I’ve got nothing but hard feelings for those people and I hope every single one of them reap what they have sown. In spades. I agree with you 100 thousand percent.
President Bush has courage. Honestly, who knew better than he of the (lack of) popularity of the majority of his decisions? I imagine much of what he knows, and is / has been dealing with needs to remain quiet for years to come, still. That is a guess. But nothing else seems to make sense to me as to why he would not defend himself and many of his decisions when he otherwise should have.
It is my hope he is able to write “that” book. One that opens all this up. I can’t help but believe parts would take people’s breath away. The left would spew nasties in defense of themselves and continue the liar, liar, pants on fire stuff. One hell of a web has been spun.
br549,
Agree with your points. There is a certain satisfaction in being able to show just how shallow and self centered the political opposition was during a time of war – only problem is it will be years before it comes out fully and completely and Bush is vindicated.
At that point the very visible critics, many of whom are currently in Congress and in positions to know better, will be shown to have acted out of self serving interests rather than national interests – but it will be too late to hold many of them to account as they will have long ago passed from the scene by the time the full story comes out.
So, they can have their cake at the moment and for some years to come, basking in their “success” at hamstringing Bush at every opportunity and thereby gaining power for themselves, but eventually the full story will come out and their names will be written down along with many others as fools who sold out their country for the sake of their own greed.
Tom the Redhunter,
Agree with you as well. In spite of my support for Bush, there are many things he did that I did not agree with and there are many things he did that were mistakes – politically, socially, and militarily.
However, you’re never going to find any 2 people who agree on every single conversation. So I give him credit for at least trying to improve things even if I disagree with some of his actions in trying to do so.
On the whole, he got more right than he got wrong as far as the nation’s interests are concerned and we were lucky to have him in that position at this time in our history.
There are some things he did that I hope can eventually be reversed – but I have to content myself with being patient for at least 4 more years before that’s going to even have a chance to happen.
I fully subscribe to all of the positive comments above re Bush. He made mistakes, but every President – every human – does. (Reading a history of Lincoln and his mistakes makes Bush look like a paragon of perfection.) I think he’s a good man, a decent man, who did his best as he saw it for the people of this country (putting their interests above that of his personal political aggrandizement), and for the most part, got it right.
My fantasy is that some document or event surfaces that makes clear either the danger that Bush averted, and/or the perfidy of his vitriolic critics. A latter-day Zimmermann telegram or Venona Project would be perfect.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
My Grandmother adored Harry Truman, even when he was down, and stood firm in her assessment while waiting for the day that ‘historians’ would come to recognize what she saw in him. I feel the same about George W. Bush. I stand in a small minority it seems of those who continue to see him as an admirable, honest, good man who will be vindicated much the same as my Granny’s ‘President’ was. God bless this man. There are few among us these days who will continue to stand firmly behind their principles and beliefs, no matter the disdain thrown their way. I am certain history will view his as a great Presidency and my grandchildren will praise him as I do Truman now.
The Bush haters are kind of like the old Clinton haters – only multiplied by a factor of 1000 or more.
It’s the current vogue to disparage him as a horrible president, but such judgements are based entirely upon one’s political perspective – and the only ones getting air time in the MSM at the moment are the Bush haters.
As such, their views are perceived by the majority of viewers as being the majority view itself, whether that’s actually the case or not.
Exacerbate this perception with the very real fact that anyone defending the Bush record is going to be lambasted as a fool, thereby intimidating anyone else of like mind from speaking out, and it only magnifies the very loudly expressed views of the Bush haters as being the majority opinion.
I agree with the author – history will be far kinder to Bush in the long run than currently is being shown in the MSM.
He had an incredibly difficult task (inheriting a recession from Clinton, then a poisoned atmosphere from the 2000 elections that never went away and was in fact fanned by the democrats for years, plus the 9-11 terrorist attacks on top of all that, plus the latest financial mess that has democrats Dodd’s and Frank’s fingerprints all over it) and it’s a credit to his administration that things have turned out as well as they have.
By way of example, one need only look back to the Reagan years and remember the hatred expressed towards him at the time, and the disparaging views of his intelligence that were promulgated in the media and on the left, and contrast that with the current view that he was one of the greatest presidents this country has been graced with to realize that history has a way of balancing out things in the end – whether political hacks want it to turn out that way or not.
NOW – the real interesting thing is, will The Messiah carry on the good works Bush has left him, or will he squander it all and leave a mess for the post-Obama administration to clean up?
Thank you, Neo, and also Dustoffmom and Scottie.
I looked through the comments on the article, and while a few seemed balanced and objective, the naked hatred in the majority of them make me despair for the human race.
I try to remind myself that people like those will be heard from disproportionately because they have more time on their hands than the rest of us.
I am one of those who would not hesitate to repeat my votes for George Bush, given the alternatives we had at the time.
I, too, am an historian who feels that once the political passions have subsided President Bush will be seen in a better light. In conversations with other historians I have often been struck by the intensity of their dislike for Bush, a passion that goes far beyond any political or ideological differences. It is more cultural than rational. To many of them Bush represents the last remnant of an old WASP aristocracy against whom their parents and grandparents struggled. For those who rose through academic ranks and whose sense of worth is measured by lines on vitae, Bush’s disdain for conventional meritocracy is a personal affront. For some it is simply the fact that he has rejected the urban, cosmopolitan, Europhile values that inform their lives, choosing to identify with small town Texas. But whatever, a convincing explanation for their hostility lies more in the realms of psychology and culture studies than in the conventional political, legal, or ideological arguments with which they rationalize their hatred [and no, I don’t think that is too strong a term].
The author of the article is quite wrong about the WMD issue. They were there. We found some, including thousands of tons of yellowcake undergoing a process to help Saddam rebuild his nuclear program. Plus, in the weeks and months before the invasion the Russians were removing their contributions to the biological and chemical weapons programs. The proof is pretty conclusive, if not inconvenient for the mainstream media and the Left.
The rest of the article is pretty good and is balanced.
It will be many, many years before President Bush gets a fair shake – if there is still a country by the time there is enough distance for most of his vitriolic critics to be dead.
Sometimes I think that with Obonga’s ascendancy we are reaping divine retribution, being given over to our worst impulses, for the eight years we savaged this good and decent man. We were lucky to have him at that moment in history.
I must admit that I am rather pessimistic these days. In my Leftist days, years ago, I was anthropologically an optimist. When I left the Left I was realist. And now I am pessimistic about humanity and about the long term endurance of our civilization when I look at what most of humanity has done to this man. It shows most people have very bad judgment and even worse morals.
DB Light: well-written, making some of my favorite claims in much more interesting language. than I do myself. I will be over to visit your site.
Fred, you might google “Sarindar” to find some information from Ion Pacepa much to your liking.
I will note that even I would have complained about Bush’s regulatory, big-government impulses. The historian wisely knows that it is sometimes better to focus on a few related issues rather than attempt to cover the waterfront.
It will be to the deep, long-lasting shame of the History News Network and whatever people it calls upon as “professional historians” that they ballyhooed this poll and this article: HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst.
One may vehemently disagree with and dislike Bush, but anyone calling himself or herself a professional historian should know better than to make such an extravagant claim before the president’s term is even over. There’s no excuse for this.
Assistant Village Idiot,
Already know about Operation Sarindar and Ion Pacepa’s exposition of it. I first heard about this op weeks before the kick off of OIF, from debka.com, an Israeli site that specializes in news about terrorism and military affairs. One of President Bush’s failures, in my opinion, was to take this information right to the American people. I heard that the government decided not to do this because it was deemed not a wise move to piss off the Russians by exposing what they did. And yet, given how little cooperation Russia has rendered on the matter of Iran, that decision was boneheaded. Russia is not our friend. Never was and never will be. Me… I would have told the Russkies to stick it up their asses. Good thing I’m not a diplomat. A poor fit for one of my character and disposition.
huxley,
IF the majority of historians had access to and were not biased against the full range of details which Pres. Bush had to cope with, perhaps they would find it difficult to be so preliminary in their definitive judgment.
At my own academic institution, they are planning next week to have multiple video feeds all around campus so faculty can take their poor little charges out of class to “witness this historic and wonderful event”; a real quote.
It was started by a history prof, who did put in the caveat that “all inaugurations are important”, but damned if I can remember her doing the same thing 4 or eight years ago. I may just have to miss this Second Coming.
Good to hear Bush getting props.
He has been steadfast in making and implementing decisions that he thought were in the best interests of the country, rather than in the best interests of GWB, despite vitriolic criticism.
In that, he deserves the same sort of recognition now accorded to Truman and Lincoln, who comported themselves in the same way. Few now appreciate the vituperation to which Lincoln was subjected right up to the day of his assassination. Even members of his own Cabinet initially doubted his intelligence and capacity for the job.
Bush will be judged by Iraq. If Iraq continues to come right and becomes a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Bush will be viewed as a visionary, and one of the greatest American Presidents for having changed the course of history, for the betterment of America and the world.
Mr. Bush deserves considerably more credit than he gets for his foreign policy in East and South Asia. The US ends his term in close cooperation with its allies, and with a much closer relationship with India. China sees more value in trading and allowing investment than in threatening its neighbors.
Mr. Bush’s major domestic political failures reflect brave attempts at statesmanship. In 2005, he took up the cause of Social Security reform. In 2006, he took up immigration reform. Whether or not one agreed with his programs, attempting either required rare political courage and the belief that political capital exists to be used solving the most difficult problems. Mr. Bush signally failed to use his bully pulpit to attack his political critics, I suspect out of concern for adding to the toxicity of the political environment.
Mr. Bush was a very poor political leader for the Republicans. I presume that he did not see it as his role only to advance the party cause. I always believed that he would not shirk the hard decisions, and that he would act responsibly on behalf of the greater good, even if it made him unpopular. I regret that he surrendered the public stage to his adversaries.
Mr. Bush’s Presidency was consequential along many dimensions. I do not regret having voted for him twice or being a campaign contributor in both 2000 and 2004. I am grateful for his service and wish him Godspeed.
It was the people, the policy wonks, the journalists, the blogs, and the Democrats who poisoned the political climate, not Pres. Bush. I have never seen anything like what was done to an American President in my lifetime thus far. I will not forgive these people for it. Never. I’ve got nothing but hard feelings for those people and I hope every single one of them reap what they have sown. In spades.
I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home – midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened – each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said “We Stand United”. This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.
On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president – running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President – despite his father’s foreign policy credentials.
Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.
And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.
People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President’s record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this ‘safety’. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 – same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.
Love him or hate him, this much is clear: “He kept us safe”. And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.
Bush got some things wrong, but much right. How that balances depends on how Iraq turns out.
Invading was the right thing to do. Then we screwed it up, but finally got it right. Let’s hope it holds, and that Obama is wise enough to listen to Petraeus and Odierno on what to do now.
There as a post over at NRO’s The Corner not too long ago, in which Mark Steyn recalled that a few years ago some of his colleagues were complaining that “Bush should have done this” and “Bush should have done that” (not just Iraq, but on various WOT things).
Then John O’Sullivan came along and wrote (I go from memory) “What none of you realize is that Bush is as good as it was going to get.”
And he was right. Bush hasn’t done nearly enough to win the WOT, and it took him too long to get Iraq right, but it’s hard to think of any other (electable) person who would have done better.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022562.php
Bush was right
Say what you want. I liked him. I’m disgusted by the attacks upon him. I wonder where all the hate will go, all that bile won’t just evaporate. My good and decent friends who came down with Bush derangement syndrome aren’t just going to magically be ‘over it’ tomorrow.
They chose to focus their hate on their own person, and not where it belonged, on Islamic extremists who kill their own women and children, strap bombs on their teenagers and declare that there are no gays in their country, people who riot over cartoons who think nothing of firebombing entire neighborhoods in paris, who behead people on camera and broadcast it all over the internet.
My friends, who are against ‘organized’ religion are strangely silent when it comes to the islamic bad guys. But they sure can hate Bush. It’ll be a relief not to hear every conversation started with the phrase ‘our appointed President.’
But I wish, I hope he knows that we appreciate the difficulty of the job, and the courage he has shown, in just putting his head down and keeping on, doing what is right. Perfect? No. No one ever is. But there’s blame to go around. When the republicans had the majority they should have made those Goddam tax cuts permanent. Nevertheless, people will be wishing they had him back, I’ll bet money on it.
And FredHjr It was the people, the policy wonks, the journalists, the blogs, and the Democrats who poisoned the political climate, not Pres. Bush. I have never seen anything like what was done to an American President in my lifetime thus far. I will not forgive these people for it. Never. I’ve got nothing but hard feelings for those people and I hope every single one of them reap what they have sown. In spades. I agree with you 100 thousand percent.
President Bush has courage. Honestly, who knew better than he of the (lack of) popularity of the majority of his decisions? I imagine much of what he knows, and is / has been dealing with needs to remain quiet for years to come, still. That is a guess. But nothing else seems to make sense to me as to why he would not defend himself and many of his decisions when he otherwise should have.
It is my hope he is able to write “that” book. One that opens all this up. I can’t help but believe parts would take people’s breath away. The left would spew nasties in defense of themselves and continue the liar, liar, pants on fire stuff. One hell of a web has been spun.
br549,
Agree with your points. There is a certain satisfaction in being able to show just how shallow and self centered the political opposition was during a time of war – only problem is it will be years before it comes out fully and completely and Bush is vindicated.
At that point the very visible critics, many of whom are currently in Congress and in positions to know better, will be shown to have acted out of self serving interests rather than national interests – but it will be too late to hold many of them to account as they will have long ago passed from the scene by the time the full story comes out.
So, they can have their cake at the moment and for some years to come, basking in their “success” at hamstringing Bush at every opportunity and thereby gaining power for themselves, but eventually the full story will come out and their names will be written down along with many others as fools who sold out their country for the sake of their own greed.
Tom the Redhunter,
Agree with you as well. In spite of my support for Bush, there are many things he did that I did not agree with and there are many things he did that were mistakes – politically, socially, and militarily.
However, you’re never going to find any 2 people who agree on every single conversation. So I give him credit for at least trying to improve things even if I disagree with some of his actions in trying to do so.
On the whole, he got more right than he got wrong as far as the nation’s interests are concerned and we were lucky to have him in that position at this time in our history.
There are some things he did that I hope can eventually be reversed – but I have to content myself with being patient for at least 4 more years before that’s going to even have a chance to happen.
I fully subscribe to all of the positive comments above re Bush. He made mistakes, but every President – every human – does. (Reading a history of Lincoln and his mistakes makes Bush look like a paragon of perfection.) I think he’s a good man, a decent man, who did his best as he saw it for the people of this country (putting their interests above that of his personal political aggrandizement), and for the most part, got it right.
My fantasy is that some document or event surfaces that makes clear either the danger that Bush averted, and/or the perfidy of his vitriolic critics. A latter-day Zimmermann telegram or Venona Project would be perfect.