Bush’s absence…
Another factor is disillusionment with his successor. Some of us, of course, were never illusioned in the first place.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Another factor is disillusionment with his successor. Some of us, of course, were never illusioned in the first place.
If you read enough history, you’ll see that it takes years–sometimes decades–to see events with clarity. Today’s hero is history’s bum, and vice versa. What many of us can see is that the man has a degree of character few of us can claim.
Bush will be like Lincoln, vilified during his tenure and honored in the light of history.
His next door neighbors in Wrentham are quoted in the Boston Herald saying “what you see is what you get with Scott.”
I was particularly rankled when Obama started dissing Brown and his truck while stumping for Coakley in MA a few days ago. What a pompous jerk (even more so than usual).
I get the distinct impression that Brown means what he says and says what he means, which sure is a refreshing change of pace. Whether he has a future on the national political stage remains to be seen, but he is off to a great start. More like him, please!
Oops, I meant to comment on the previous post. At any rate, here’s the Herald link!:
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100121hometown_dishes_on_guy_next-door_what_you_see_is_what_you_get/srvc=home&position=0
my family has a similar saying….
“Absynth makes the tart grow fonder”
🙂
The wasn’t such a bad fella.
Poor G.W. He came into office with three goals: fix Social Security, which was about to go broke, pass some tax cuts to stimulate business, and inaugurate some more free trade zones. Very simple, discrete goals. Also get out of the business of nation-building, which in practice had degenerated to the U.S. Army handling mail delivery and trash collection in Haiti.
I think future historians may be very gentle with GW, maybe even laudatory. He came to office to address some structural and bureaucratic problems. The Soviet Union had fractured into its component parts. Defense was not an issue.
Then came 9/11 and Bush turned on a dime. Most of his presidency was focused on issues he had no interest in and never addressed during his campaign.
Obama, on the other hand, came into office with an agenda. He was given great credit for not rushing off to Washington to work on the financial meltdown. He shouldn’t have been, because he didn’t care. He was going to make green jobs, even if they required technology that didn’t exist, he was going to give America his Health Care Plan, even if American didn’t want it, and he was going to Make The Oceans Recede. As the economy grew worse and worse he never changed focus.
After all, He Won, didn’t he. So what is all the fuss about?
I proudly display a “I Miss W” sticker on my two cars’ back windshields.
Concerning his accomplishments while in office, as a ex Navy officer I simply say “Well done, President Bush”.
I didn’t recognize the author of the report you linked to so I clicked his name for his bio. A lawyer who served on John Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election wrote that?
As for Bush, I give him alot of credit for the emerging revolution in Iran. The Iranian shia see the 30 millon shia, sunni and kurds in Iraq starting to come together to govern themselves in a real, functioning democracy. Iranians want that for themselves.
If the Iraqi democracy flourishes, and democracy breaks out in Iran, in 50 years Bush may be viewed as one of the top 10 presidents of all time, maybe even top 5. Two big “ifs”, but certainly not impossible.
It took twenty years for people to appreciateTruman.
Outstanding commentary and that it came from a former member of Kerry’s legal team is astonishing.
I felt moved by the piece to comment and here is what I said:
“Let me add my voice to those supporting George Bush and, my support I’m proud to say, never wavered. I lost ‘friends’ over it and would not hesitate to do it again. Half this country wasn’t worthy of Bush’s leadership and many on the other side, remained far too silent in their tacit approval.
Perhaps a harsh assessment but an accurate one.
Then again, which of us has not, feet of clay?
Some sacrifices, like Bush’s, are so noble that none, save possibly the very youngest, may be said to be truly worthy of that sacrifice.”
And yes, in agreement with the comments above; “a ‘prophet’ is not honored in his own land”
GW had something Sharansky called moral compass, which we could call depth. Oh well. people do not appreciate what they have until it is gone.
It is America’s curse that GW was a poor speaker and BHO a good one.
New Distracting Story Injection WARNING!!!!
the wackaloons are being called to get their torches and go after OBAMA!!!!!! by transferring bush false image to him.
Too Terrible To Be True? Why aren’t we talking about the new accusations of murder at Gitmo?
By Dahlia Lithwick http://www.slate.com/id/2241948/
Its a classic propaganda job, and the rubes are starting to respond as they are programmed to do. Below is the first paragraph..
let me show yall what passes for journalism [my comments will be boxed like this]
Some torture stories are just too horrible to contemplate, while others are too complicated to understand. [floating fact we are to assume is connected to the article – never assume]
But Scott Horton’s devastating new exposĂ© [when you want to sound smart, just say the word in french. have an idea, call it a meme. have something to expose, call it an exposĂ©] of the possible murders of three prisoners at Guantanamo in 2006 [but make sure you say nothing DEFINITIVE] is neither:
It’s simply too terrible to allow to be true. [WHAT is? ah the mystery] Which is why it has been mostly ignored [mostly ignored is kind of like mostly pregnant – ie, it was not ignored] this week in the mainstream American media and paid little attention by the usual crew of torture apologists on the right [so would that speak for the validity of it?].
[read this next paragraph carefully, its a classic]
The fact that three Guantanamo prisoners–none of whom had any links to terrorism and two of whom had already been cleared for release–may have been killed there and the [MAYBE] deaths covered up, should be front-page news.
[let me write an article now about lithwick. we must really accept the fact that lithwick could be a whore specializing in copraphilia. she also could be a pregnant goldfish but until i put it this way, you might actually MISSinterpret the phrasing to mean that she might actually be a copraphile and anything else that i said maybe to]
That brand-new evidence [implies that there is old evidence too] of this possible atrocity from military guards was given only the most cursory investigation by the Obama administration should warrant some kind of blowback. [and there you have your assignment useful idiots. to assume that there is past evidence, and new evidence that OBAMA has let them kill people in Guantanamo (MAYBE). as i commented a bit on, they eat their own]
[left field alert!]
But changing what we allow ourselves to believe [we allow? beleifs vs facts? anyone else see this nonsense?] about torture would change the way we have reconciled ourselves to torture. [and this mish mosh is supposed to mean what? that you have your own beleifs and that she is protecting them? and that your beleifs are fixed and should not be allowed to change in light of actual evidence?]
Nobody in this country is prepared to do that. So we have opted to ignore it. [ignoring a maybe is like ignoring a nothing, when maybe turns to definitely, then perhaps people all over would be upset, not just the useful idiots she has been tasked to mobilized]
they then go into a lot of stuff that if true would be huge… and yet, for some reason… its makes about as much sense given the form its taking as america still making anthrax (which it doesnt need), instead of biopreparat, which has been making it since the 70s… (after the treaties against it were ratified)
it has all the feel and similarity as the winter soldier stuff from vietnam… the winter soldier redux for iraq, and even the kerry swiftboat crud.
The Guanté¡namo “Suicides”: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368
in all these other things later known to be a form of dysinformatsia by american progressives… follow the same form.
they use the lefts useful idiots lack of any trust for anything but their side, as a way to foment a revisioned history through presenting the argument as a simalcrum of what such would be if it was true. (also, the fact that its fake gives the state no reason or target to go after… and so helps the narrative that its part of it all because it didnt launch a huge investigatin into something that from its perspective (holding the facts), is a nothing)
the horton piece does an even better job of transferring the created crims of bush to obama!!! he tells the story of three who committed suicide. he says they were not bad people, even though they were located where?
They were being held in a cell block, known as Alpha Block, reserved for particularly troublesome or high-value prisoners.
the next paragraph is hearsay reported as fact. it may be true, and it amy not, much like the evidence. however you can see the process that it first appears in X paper… then anotehr picks it up to bring it to those who dont read X paper, but are waiting to be angry and upset at something
the rear admiral basically put forth that these were suicides and, that they were planned to be done the same as an act of asymetric warfare by jihadis (you know the guys selecvted for a willingness todie for the cause)
The Pentagon declined to make the NCIS report public, and only when pressed with Freedom of Information Act demands did it disclose parts of the report, some 1,700 pages of documents so heavily redacted as to be nearly incomprehensible. The NCIS documents were carefully cross-referenced and deciphered by students and faculty at the law school of Seton Hall University in New Jersey, and their findings, released in November 2009, made clear why the Pentagon had been unwilling to make its conclusions public. The official story of the prisoners’ deaths was full of unacknowledged contradictions, and the centerpiece of the report–a reconstruction of the events–was simply unbelievable.
an incomprehensible docyument was reconstructed by students at a liberal college. so their evidence is a student reconstruction.. NOT the NCIS report that the article i start this off with pretends to quote!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is, when its quoting NCIS, its really quoting the students recreation of a report “so heavily redacted as to be nearly incomprehensible.” so after he tells you this, and that the orignal information is redacted so bad, and that its a students project reconstruction… he then starts talkiing as if he is reading directly from the actual ncis report NOT the reconstruction.
According to the NCIS documents, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.
for a document that was supposed to be almost inconprehensible, they sure got a whole lot of detail out of it. kind of like mad libs… fill in the blanks… then he goes through a complete analsyis much like those who thought they were analysing 9/11 and so could nto accept facts. (that to those who know more physics and such, there was nothing at all unusual. and in fact those are suprised that it stood as long as it did).
in one paragraph he asks how did they get so much material. then in a later paragraph, an informal investigation by the admiral shows that the rules as far as prisoner comfort were realzed and a general permissive environment was allowed. which makes sense since treating them like prisoners would have resulting in a different article today!!! it woudl have resulted instad of wondering about a maybe murder, to complaining how they were treated for so long and not giving comforts.
either way, those who play with the tar baby get tarred and dirty. they never realize not to play.
then comes the moment of truth….the false witnesses to give the whole story veracity
Now four members of the Military Intelligence unit assigned to guard Camp Delta, including a decorated non-commissioned Army officer who was on duty as sergeant of the guard the night of June 9, have furnished an account dramatically at odds with the NCIS report–a report for which they were neither interviewed nor approached.
same exact set up as winter soldier.
All four soldiers say they were ordered by their commanding officer not to speak out, and all four soldiers provide evidence that authorities initiated a cover-up within hours of the prisoners’ deaths. Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman and men under his supervision have disclosed evidence in interviews with Harper’s Magazine that strongly suggests the three prisoners who died on June 9 had been transported to another location prior to their deaths. The guards’ accounts also reveal the existence of a previously unreported black site at Guanté¡namo where the deaths, or at least the events that led directly to the deaths, most likely occurred.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
Fonder indeed… It was a pleasure to see him on the White House lawn recently even though he had to pose with those other two guys…for the Haiti relief effort. He’s a great man with a generous heart and a humble soul.
I miss W.
I’ve maintained for a while now that History will be kind to President Bush. His freeing over 50 million people should have won him a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead the Nobel Committee gave the Peas Prize to Obie for being the anti-Bush. History will remember that, too, and not quite so kindly, either.
I’m that rara avis, someone who became a fan of Bush because of his decisions after 9/11. Bush/Gore was a coin flip for me, but Bush’s handling of 9/11 and aftermath – and in particular, his decision to go after the malefactors on their home turf, instead of just blowing up a few jungle gyms – won my loyalty. His steadfastness and serenity throughout seven years of the most vitriolic Red-organized vituperation I’ve ever seen won my admiration. I think history will judge him as a near-great President of the Truman ilk.
I miss him too. He is a man of honor and he genuinely cares about people and our country. It is sad that so many were unable to recognize character, but perhaps someday they will grow up.
Occam . . .
I’m the same kind of rara avis. Seeing how Bush responded after 9/11 made me thank God that he was our President.
I wrote him a thank you letter when he left office. I hope he received it.
if market share can make stocks go up, i would advise buying fox stock. after beck puts his documentary up the fireworks are going to be very interesting. he knows the history i know, and he is going to present it. tonight he had jonah goldberg on and was playing a bit more of bernard shaws film clips…
people havent learned this history. it wasnt in their text books. it wasnt in their movie choices. it was not brought up in discussion while other things were..
given how many people i have met that has known much of the same history i know, its going to be quite big for a main stream news show with such a high volume of viewers to outright tell them the truth about the progressive movement, and how hitler, stalin, mao, were all following the same ideological plan when they were doing what they did!!!!
i have brought up ruta to give a contrast and perhaps bring up discussion as to the other side of the history no one talks about. to try is to be attacked and made clear that only the german stuff is allowed, stuff that shows the history is pushed back. its so across the board you can tell much, reasoning is always different, the point is different the end is always the same…
anyway.. i had no other place to post this and bring it up. its going to be real interesting given the discussions and arguments here over time.
i have seen his trailer, and this image is in it
http://www.sovietstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stalin-hitler.jpg
just that alone is enough to start a brouhaha…
but seeing fabian shaw tonight also give that same hand signal is quite telling too…
anyway… between the directing of forces towards obama… and this documentary.. and his getting the debt up 1.9 trillion more.. and on and on..
when a huge market share sees a documentary that rips the blinds off their eyes… a certain percentage of them are not going to behave.
both sides are going to go wackaloon…
oy…
I also changed my mind about Bush after 9/11. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 because I didn’t like the way he made his personal fortune via government subsidy of the Texas Rangers’ stadium.
I had abandoned the Democrats years ago, but except for 1988, voted Third Party. Gore’s conduct after the 2000 election disgusted me: wanting ballot counting rules changed in Democratic-controlled counties, for example. So by 9/11 I was definitely leaning towards the Pubs.
For all the brouhaha about inept war performance, many forget how adept the US was in toppling the Taliban from power in 2001.
For the most part, Bush made the right decisions after 9/11. I doubt very much that Gore would have, judging by his subsequent performance.
Bush will be much more kindly judged by history than by opinion polls. IMHO, we will not say the same about Obama.
I love the man. Steadfast, resolute, tough, focused, optimistic, possessing tremendous moral clarity & personal integrity, faithful, unafraid of enlisting great men & women to advise him & lead the Govt’s Depts, humble, balanced, faithful and the owner of a world class heart. A Giant pecked at by midgets.
Harry Truman would have felt a kinship with this Republican.
I have had this picture on my computer desktop for quite some time now.
How appropriate to again give Bush recognition for his character, courage, and competency at this time — as the Savior of the liberal intelligentsia crashes, burns, and lights the scene.
As was Harry Truman, George W Bush proved, “under fire,” so to speak, to be a decent man, a courageous man, and rather effective, else why would his policies still be the operating manual for the Federal Government, except, of course in such cases as closing Gitmo and declaring the crotch-bomber an ordinary felon.
I sure am glad to have seen the light in time to vote for W in 2000 & 2004 — partial excuses for previous votes on the D-side!
One thing about Bush–I didn’t vote for him either time and knowing what I know now, I’m not sure I would have if I had to do it again–is his response to the constant litany of blame-Bush from Obama and his supporters.
His response is a dignified silence; if he’s said anything mildly critical of Obama using him as his Emmanuel Goldstein I have missed it. I also remember that despite experiencing a storm of viciousness unprecedented within my lifetime, he never lashed out, apparently believing that the First Amendment protects even hateful and unhinged speech, and that if you’re the president it comes with the territory.
I don’t recall him urging people to avoid a particular tv news channel, and I can imagine the uproar if he had…approaching fascism, etc. Bush has evidenced a dignity that should be applauded.
Occam’s Beard:
“I’m that rara avis, someone who became a fan of Bush because of his decisions after 9/11…
Me, too. I actually went to Yale with Bush (though he was ’68, I was ’69), and because of rumors about him I had always had a negative take on the man (which was based on falsehood, I now know)…
I ended up being particularly fond of him, and endured many a calumny from friends and acquaintances for my “bizarre, neo-con views”…
Jamie Irons
http://neoneocon.com/2009/01/16/farewell-from-bush-farewell-to-bush/#comments
– Oblio Says:
January 17th, 2009 at 12:01 am
A good man. A kind man. A brave man. A patriot. A man strong enough to bear the abuse of smaller, I should say meaner, men and women. A stubborn man, at times, and sometimes stubborn about the wrong things. A flexible and patient man, sometimes too patient and too loyal to his subordinates. A high-minded man. A man who freed millions and spoke for the future of freedom to the end.
A man who has carried too great a burden for too long and has earned his rest.
I believe Mr. Bush’s reputation one day will be rehabilitated, but not within the lifetime of the Boomers.
Three years ago Rep. Conyers and Kucinich were calling for the impeachment of President Bush specifically for the use of NSA wiretapping.
Yet now that Obama is using that very same program these hacks are silent.
Will just one reputable reporter ask these two if they would support the impeachment of Obama on the same grounds? And, if not, why not?
I believe Mr. Bush’s reputation one day will be rehabilitated, but not within the lifetime of the Boomers.
Oblio: Wonderful to see you back again!
However, I beg gently to differ. One of the few genuine accomplishments of the current Reptile-in-Chief is the rehabilitation of George W. Bush. From the Public Policy Polling:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor.
This was in early December. I imagine it’s gotten even worse for Obama since then.
I’ve never really thought Bush was a good President nor do I think he was a a bad one. I generally find it hard to classify him. IMO he let too many things slide domestically and didn’t fight for domestic approval. His lack of veto over a number of things that *should* have been vetoed the instant it hit his desk (say, campaign finance reform that Congress passed assuming either Bush or the Supremes would kill but didn’t) was one of the worst things IMO.
But I also think History will see him as one of our great. I would also agree that in a historical sense this would be true. My gripes were day to day things with governance, in the realm of vision and holding to that goal he ranks up there with the top we have had. His tenacity in Iraq will go down as a historical milestone and his long term handling of 9/11 will go well too. 30 years from now that will not matter much, only his vision and legacy will and that is what he will be judged on.
I think we would be MUCH worse off if we hadn’t of had someone like that. I also think he has acted with class (unlike some in his cabinet) with respect to Obama.
So, as I say I neither liked or disliked him over all. I do have a great deal of respect for what he endured for what he thought was right. In some cases I think one couldn’t have found a better and – well – in other places we did find worse that’s for sure.
huxley, you could be right about Bush’s rehabilitation. The comment above is copied unchanged from exactly 1 year, 5 days ago.
Still, I’m wondering, What’s Next? Obama is gearing up to demagogue the banks again, if only to distract people from the health care flop. The Democrats have had a bad fright, but they will rally. They will do their best to cover their tracks and keep changing the subject.
And you never know what events will intrude and distract the public. You couldn’t have predicted the Haiti earthquake would happen when it did and how it did.
Look out for China. I suspect that the Far East is where we will end up missing Bush the most.
I thought Bush did a great job under very trying circumstances. The sniping and vilification were an echo of the way Lincoln was treated.
As was mentioned he changed course after 9/11 and his instincts were spot on. He knew he had to take the war to the Middle East and he was willing to gamble that taking Saddam down could give birth to a Muslim democracy.
To understand his decision to put Petraeus in command and surge in Iraq read “The War Within” by Bob Woodward. General Casey and most of the other high brass wanted to just declare victory and get out of Iraq. Bush wanted to win. He put up with Casey for two unproductive years (Bush’s MCClellan?) Few in the Pentagon and the administration believed they could win. It finally took the counsel of Retired General Jack Keane who advised Bush to put Petraeus (Bush’s Grant?) in charge. Bush was ready for someone who could make some headway. He appointed Petraeus, authorized the surge and the rest, as they say, is history.
There are so many stories of the way W. interacted with the troops, particularly the wounded and families of the dead. He suffered with the families and did his best to comfort them. Great heart, compassion and common decency distinguished his service as Commander-in-Chief.
I wrote him letters frequently expressing my support for his policies in the GWOT. I also wrote a final letter as he was stepping down thanking him for all he had done and all he had suffered in service to the country. About six months ago I received a letter from him thanking me for my steadfast support. It is one of my prized possessions.
Yes, I miss him.
So many great comments above re: Bush and it is really nice to see such commendations in print!
I agree with almost all of them. Voted for him twice and believed he was doing the right thing most of the time and admired him for his courage, his moral compass, and his unwavering integrity — something so rare in the political world.
He was also amazing loyal to those who worked for him — another rarity in politics. No throws under the bus for him!
I was aghast as the viciousness grew, and as it went undefended. Plenty of his fellow Republicans jumped ship — at the very least, verbally — something I was none too proud of.
There is not a single perfect person in the world, and so we’ll never have a perfect President. I never would expect one.
But Occam’s Beard is right:
His steadfastness and serenity throughout seven years of the most vitriolic Red-organized vituperation I’ve ever seen won my admiration.
The ginning of the political mill was horrific, and so many swallowed the bait (pun intended) hook, line, and sinker. The Left repeated lies so often — and the strategy worked. (I still shudder when I hear people declare that we went into Iraq “because of 9/11.” (But then it’s a lot easier to what people say on TV than to learn about real facts.) (In this Internet age, however, when a couple of clicks can lead you to almost any information in as many minutes, I have a low tolerance for ignorance).
Promethea, kudos to you for writing that letter. I thought about that so often, but was so sure it would never get to him, I wimped out. I sure hope he knows there a lot of people who do respect him for the many hard and unpopular choices he had to make, and for his and the (former) First Lady’s enduring class. (A recent example was their MSM-ignored almost immediate visit to Ft. Hood after Hasan’s attack).
You know, it’s not to late too write that letter….
I came late to an appreciation, even an admiration, of Bush, but I sure do miss him now.
Below isn’t really an accurate portrayal of Bush but in my tiny heart this song from Pippin sums up my feelings for George W. Bush.
I Guess I’ll Miss the Man
I guess I’ll miss the man
Explain it if you can
His face was far from fine
But still I’ll miss his face
And wonder if he’s missing mine
Some days he wouldn’t say
A pleasant word all day
Some days he’d scowl and curse
But there were other days
When he was really even worse
Some men are heroes
Some men outshine the sun
Some men are simple, good men
This man wasn’t one
And I won’t miss his moods
His gloomy solitudes
His blunt abrasive style
But please don’t get me wrong
He was the best to come along
In a long, long while….
Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder
A nice pun.
Huxley, great allusion! (not just because of my admiration for George W. Bush, but because “Pippin” is one of my all time musicals! (especially w/ Vereen!)
You can still support the Bush Presidential Library.
Many (not only or even primarily here at Neo-neocon) have noted the things Bush could have done better, but I have always wondered how many compromises may have been made to ensure that he could continue to protect the country. We will probabably never know what was needed to keep a certain line in a funding bill for the military. Bush set priorities, and I believe he did that well. Until we are able to outfit our presidents with a magic wand, we will have to continue cleaning up the messes they leave behind. In real life, there are no clean slates. Our founding fathers opted for the messiness of divided governance.
Perhaps the most insightful moment of my life was a response to a question about the difference between Americans and Germans: Off the top of my head, I said that Americans deal with chaos better. Shit happens, and somehow we have learned we can deal with it. Meanwhile, we should be grateful that the current group of social planners in Washington don’t have that magic wand.
Since we’re making Truman comparisons, I’ll make the one I made a year or two back, possibly on this blog. I believe history will show, after a sufficient amount of time has passed, that Bush, like Truman, got the big things right. The decision to drop the A-Bomb, the recognition of Israel, the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, the defense of South Korea, even the integration of our Armed Forces, were pivotal events in history that could have turned out very differently had Truman vacillated or taken counsel of his or others’ fears. But he didn’t, and we’re better off for it. I believe that in the fullness of time, Bush will be appreciated in much the same way.
expat, I think that’s the right note between strcpy’s (relatively mild) criticism and the lauding of his character. Many things we do not know, and governing is hard. That he got some important priorities right may have come at the cost of those things he got wrong, such as domestic spending programs which threaten to provide very little payback per dollar.
Many of us wished often that Bush would fight back against his political enemies more, using veto, bully pulpit, and status punishment. In the short run, I have little doubt that we would be better off for it. But his instincts, fundamentally decent and with a great respect for the office, kept him from descending to that level. Many of his most vicious critics revealed their own characters as much as his in the attacks.
I don’t think his instinctive values were far-right, and certainly not libertarian. Mid-right. But more essentially, his instincts were to be decent and American. Even his supporters were not always worthy of him in that way.
Peggy Noonan writes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017503811443526.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
People only realize their mistakes when everything has been said and done. And that a person only receives credit for what he has done after he is gone.That’s probably what happened to Bush.
I did not vote for Bush either time (during the 2004 election, I had not yet spit out the academic Koolaid.) But between 2004 and 2008, I came to appreciate him–and even more now that I see what we’ve got in the Oval Office. His inarticulateness, his refusal to fight back against the press, I think were flaws that hampered his ability to work in today’s political climate. But his stubbornness, his steadfastness, his resoluteness, and his insistence that the fight against Islamic extremism was vital and had to be seen through, are all qualities I wish his successor demonstrated. There was one quote I remember reading from him, back in 2007–something to the effect that he’d keep going with the surge even if the only ones that supported him were his wife and his dog. I remember hearing that and thinking, “Thank god.”
Was he a great man? I’ll wait for the judgement of history on that (and like other commentors here, I think the judgement of history will be far kinder to him than the current day press was). But I will say that I think he was the right man for the right time. I don’t even want to think about what it would have been like if President Gore had been in office when the towers came down.
Few people have the historical context to render informed judgments of a President’s performance.
For example, most people today think that Lincoln was beloved as a President. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln was vilified – by everyone – right up to the day he was assassinated. He went through seven commanding generals of the Army of the Potomac, and hundreds of thousands of dead, before hitting on Grant. One of his own Cabinet members (Sewell? not sure) publicly questioned whether this backwoods bumpkin had the brains to do the job. Copperhead Democrats (Dems again!) offered him every calumny imaginable. Lincoln looked set to lose re-election until Sherman captured Atlanta, which gave hope that the war would soon end.
The vitriol only ended with his assassination, when even the South realized what they’d lost, and people turned out in their thousands to pay homage as his funeral train passed by.
Similarly with Truman. To waltj’s excellent list above, let me add another extremely unpopular but critical decision: relieving MacArthur for insubordination, thereby reaffirming the principle of civilian control over the military.
Colagirl, here is a nightmare, imagine if Obama was president when the towers came down, or worse imagine if it were up to Obama to stop the Iranians from getting the A-bomb, oh wait.
Bush was and is always the gentleman. He did not respond to his critics although I thought he owed it to the troops in the field to restate from time to time why they were there. Although the Democrats initially voted in support of the war in Iraq, they soon adopted the big lie that “Bush Lied, people Died!” And, if you repeat a big lie often enough and no one speaks in opposition, it takes on the aura of truth. The leaders of the Democrat party were willing to undermine Bush even though to do so also put our troops at increased risk. (Who knows, if they supported the war consistently from the outset it might have been over much sooner and with greater finality.)
Anyway, what is very, very troubling is that Tonedef bought the big lie, hook, line and sinker. Is he really that gullible? If so, he will continue to act out of spite (and stupidity) and can never become presidential.
Heck, not only do I find myself missing George W. Bush, I even miss Bill Clinton. When the American people were in a bad place, he told them “I feel your pain.”
Lots of folks on the other side of the aisle derided Clinton for the mushy sentiment, but hey – it’s better than Obama’s defiance. Not only does he not feel our pain – he thinks we ARE a pain.
With an attitude like that, it’s no wonder his daily approval index has been in negative territory since June 30. Check Rasmussen’d daily approval index history to see the trend:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history