Clare Boothe Luce liked to say that “a great man is one sentence.” Presidents, in particular. The most common “one sentence” for George W. Bush is: “He kept us safe.”
Not quite right. With Bush’s legacy being reassessed as his presidential library opens in Dallas, it’s important to note that he did not just keep us safe. He created the entire anti-terror infrastructure that continues to keep us safe.
That homage was paid, wordlessly, by Barack Obama, who vilified Bush’s anti-terror policies as a candidate, then continued them as president: indefinite detention, rendition, warrantless wiretaps, special forces and drone warfare, and, most notoriously, Guantanamo, which Obama so ostentatiously denounced — until he found it indispensable.
Quite a list. Which is why there was not one successful terror bombing on U.S. soil from 9/11 until last week. The Boston Marathon attack was an obvious security failure, but there is a difference between 3,000 dead and three. And on the other side of the ledger are the innumerable plots broken up since 9/11. Moreover, Bush’s achievement was not just infrastructure. It was war. The Afghan campaign overthrew the Taliban, decimated al-Qaeda and expelled it from its haven. Yet that success is today derogated with the cheap and lazy catchphrase — “He got us into two wars” — intended to spread to Afghanistan the opprobrium associated with Iraq.
As if Afghanistan was some unilateral Bush adventure foisted on the American people. As if Obama himself did not call it a “war of necessity” and Joe Biden, the most just war since World War II.
The dilemma in Afghanistan was what to do after the brilliant, nine-week victory. There was no good answer. Even with the benefit of seven years’ grinding experience under his predecessor, Obama got it wrong. His Afghan “surge” cost hundreds of American lives without having changed the country’s prospects.
It turned out to be a land too primitive to democratize, too fractured to unify. The final withdrawal will come after Obama’s own six years of futility.
Iraq was, of course, far more problematic. Critics conveniently forget that the invasion had broad support from the public and Congress, including from those who became the highest-ranking foreign-policy figures in the Obama administration — Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Biden.
And they forget the context — crumbling sanctions that would, in short order, have restored Saddam Hussein to full economic and regional power, well positioning him, post-sanctions, to again threaten his neighbors and restart his WMD program.
Was the war worth it? Inconclusive wars never yield a good answer. Was Korea worth it? It ended with a restoration of the status quo ante. Now 60 years later, we face nuclear threats from the same regime that was not defeated in a war that cost 10 times as many American lives as Iraq.
The Iraq War had three parts. The initial toppling of the regime was a remarkable success — like Afghanistan, rapid and with relatively few U.S. casualties.
The occupation was a disaster, rooted in the fundamental contradiction between means and ends, between the “light footprint” chosen by Gen. George Casey and the grand reformation attempted by Paul Bremer, who tried to change everything down to the coinage.
Finally, the surge, a courageous Bush decision taken against near-universal opposition, that produced the greatest U.S. military turnaround since the Inchon landing. And inflicted the single most significant defeat for al-Qaeda (save Afghanistan) — a humiliating rout at the hands of Iraqi Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the American infidel.
As with Lincoln, it took Bush years of agonizing bloody stalemate before he finally found his general and his strategy. Yet, for all the terrible cost, Bush bequeathed to Obama a strategically won war. Obama had one task: Conclude a status-of-forces agreement and thus secure Iraq as a major regional ally. He failed utterly. Iraq today is more fragile, sectarian and Iranian-influenced than it was when Bush left office — and than it had to be.
Like Bush, Harry Truman left office widely scorned, largely because of the inconclusive war he left behind. In time, however, Korea came to be seen as but one battle in a much larger Cold War that Truman was instrumental in winning. He established the institutional and policy infrastructure (CIA, NATO, the Truman Doctrine, etc.) that made possible ultimate victory almost a half-century later. I suspect history will similarly see Bush as the man who, by trial and error but also with prescience and principle, established the structures that will take us through another long twilight struggle and enable us to prevail.
I said it before and I'll say it again; if Bush would have effectively defended and promoted the good stuff he did like Krouty enumerated, it would have totally glossed over the crappy decisions he made. No one dwells on Reagan's missteps. We all remember the victories because he and his team reminded everyone tirelessly.
This post has been underwritten by the Mobil Corporation and viewers like you.
Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #2I said it before and I'll say it again; if Bush would have effectively defended and promoted the good stuff he did like Krouty enumerated, it would have totally glossed over the crappy decisions he made. No one dwells on Reagan's missteps. We all remember the victories because he and his team reminded everyone tirelessly.
Very true, Frank BUT it was never his style ......He was always a very humble man that never needed the adoration of others and still doesn't !! He is at peace with himself and that is all that matters. He did the best he could and realizes ...no one can ever be perfect !! I appreciate him because he was a good man with a good heart !!
And I appreciate you, Frank, for your very nice comment about him. So thank you (because I know you could have trashed my thread and broken my heart - LOL) !!
ZitatAnd I appreciate you, Frank, for your very nice comment about him. So thank you (because I know you could have trashed my thread and broken my heart - LOL) !!
Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #2I said it before and I'll say it again; if Bush would have effectively defended and promoted the good stuff he did like Krouty enumerated, it would have totally glossed over the crappy decisions he made. No one dwells on Reagan's missteps. We all remember the victories because he and his team reminded everyone tirelessly.
Very true, Frank BUT it was never his style ......He was always a very humble man that never needed the adoration of others and still doesn't !! He is at peace with himself and that is all that matters. He did the best he could and realizes ...no one can ever be perfect !! I appreciate him because he was a good man with a good heart !!
Thanks for the thread W-Girl.
George W Bush chose not to self-promote his accomplishments either while in office or thereafter.
That was his choice to make.......HE WAS PRESIDENT.
It should not have altered peoples' perceptions of the FACT that he is a good man with many fine achievements and that he was infinitely superior to either his unspeakably corrupt predecessor or his opponents in 2000 and 2004.
Adding to the plus side, Laura Bush was a wonderful and classy first lady. She was a compliment to President Bush the entire eight years he was president.
G. W. Bush was a fine, decent man who served two terms as president and loves his country. (I thought I'd throw that last part in there just to contrast him with his successor.)
The problem is (was) he was not a "movement" conservative. So we didn't see conservatism being advanced during his presidency. Heck - if anything, statism was barely slowed down if it was at all. Granted, we had a GOP Congress to mostly thank for that, but I'm pretty sure the POTUS is granted veto powers.
A movement conservative would have advanced conservatism - but he wasn't, so he didn't. Que sera sera.
Former President Bush personifies the problems we face (as conservatives) in putting our hope in the GOP. Yes, they're mostly "nice" people, and they say the right things. But they don't seem to see politics as the "blood sport" the democrats and their lackeys in the media do.
They bring knives to the proverbial gun fight.
So while it's right and proper to praise Mr. Bush for being the fine and decent man he is, it does us no good to paper over the serious deficiencies of his presidency.
Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #7G. W. Bush was a fine, decent man who served two terms as president and loves his country. (I thought I'd throw that last part in there just to contrast him with his successor.)
The problem is (was) he was not a "movement" conservative. So we didn't see conservatism being advanced during his presidency. Heck - if anything, statism was barely slowed down if it was at all. Granted, we had a GOP Congress to mostly thank for that, but I'm pretty sure the POTUS is granted veto powers.
A movement conservative would have advanced conservatism - but he wasn't, so he didn't. Que sera sera.
Former President Bush personifies the problems we face (as conservatives) in putting our hope in the GOP. Yes, they're mostly "nice" people, and they say the right things. But they don't seem to see politics as the "blood sport" the democrats and their lackeys in the media do.
They bring knives to the proverbial gun fight.
So while it's right and proper to praise Mr. Bush for being the fine and decent man he is, it does us no good to paper over the serious deficiencies of his presidency.
GWB never held himself out as a "movement" conservative. Your first clue should've been when W heeded Rove's advice and put an adjective before the "c" word to describe himself.
ZitatGWB never held himself out as a "movement" conservative. Your first clue should've been when W heeded Rove's advice and put an adjective before the "c" word to describe himself.
I'm just thankful he got elected.
The alternative was Gore.
Personally I never thought he was a movement conservative (so I didn't need a first clue), but others did. And, in a field of several other primary candidates in late 1999 and early 2000, he WAS sold as the most conservative that could win.
And it WAS said he wasn't the same as his dad - we were told he WAS more conservative than Bush sr.
As to Gore - I wonder, would he have been the train wreck that Zero is? While I agree he would have been a disaster, had he succeeded we might have been spared the current mess.
Quote: Justme wrote in post #9He was the Keynote speaker at our conference a few days ago. I was so disappointed I couldn't go this year. Friends said he was terrific.
I will always be a fan
Me, too. I am a big fan of GWB, the man. I think he is honest, decent and classy. He worked hard for us.
I have my criticisms of his presidency, but that does not diminish the respect I have for the man himself.
Quote: Cedric wrote in post #5 George W Bush chose not to self-promote his accomplishments either while in office or thereafter.
That was his choice to make.......HE WAS PRESIDENT.
It should not have altered peoples' perceptions of the FACT that he is a good man with many fine achievements and that he was infinitely superior to either his unspeakably corrupt predecessor or his opponents in 2000 and 2004.
We are dealing with many different issues here:
1.) Competency versus Incompetency
2.) Pro-active Leadership versus Passivity or Following the political tide
3.) Inspirational communication versus Silence or Demoralizing communication (Inspirational to the majority of voters. The fact that Reagan made liberals gag and Clinton made conservatives gag is irrelevant)
4.) Nice guy versus Jerk
5.) Long-term vision versus Short-term vision
With those categories in mind (as perceived by the majority of Americans and not just by a particular faction), how would History rate different Presidents with a number representing the bolded quality? In my opinion, it is as follows:
George Washington: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 LBJ: 2 Richard Nixon: 1, 2, 5 Gerald Ford: 4 Jimmy Carter: 4 Ronald Reagan: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 George H. W. Bush: 1, 2, 4, 5 Bill Clinton: 1, 3, George W. Bush: 4 Barack Obama: 3
Other than head into war in Iraq and Afghanistan, how was George W. Bush a leader? What was his long-term vision for the Persian Gulf region? How was he pro-active and a leader in anything?
Other than to capture and hang Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush gave the impression of having no idea what to do with Iraq after he conquered it. For years, all he could offer the American public was, “Stay the course” when the USS Bush War Policy seemed to be a ship without a rudder. No long-term vision was offered or explained. The “Surge” idea did not come from Bush. It came from John McCain and it was resisted right up until the time that the American Home Front was so sick of a “No-Win” war that America just wanted to bug out.
And that is just what Barak Obama promised America, even after the Iraq War was definitely won ….. An Iraq bug out.
Now what?
What was the long-term effect of the Iraq War?
Islamist Iran has been left as the 800 pound gorilla in the region and is well on it’s way towards developing nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. The winner of the Iraq War was Iran.
The Iraq War was just like World War One for the U.S.:
1.) Go “over there”. 2.) Kick butt. 3.) Declare Victory. 4.) Bug out and wash your hands of the matter. (Utter lack of long-term vision) 5.) Pay very deadly consequences in the future. (World War II)
Truman and Eisenhower had long-term vision. They saw that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were problems of equal severity. They did not repeat the naïve World War One mistake of believing that the World would live happily and peacefully ever after once Kaiser Wilhelm was gone.
Other than a vision of ridding History of a mere mortal Bad Guy (Kaiser Wilhem II exiled, Adolf Hitler dead, Stalin drops dead, Saddam Hussein hanged) what was George W. Bush's long-term strategic vision in Iraq?
George W. Bush had no long-term vision.
If stopping Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons was so important, why was stopping the even crazier Iranian Islamist nutjobs from acquiring nuclear weapons not as equally important?
Long-term strategic thinkers consider that but George W. Bush did not. If he did think about it, George W. Bush demonstrated no leadership abilities to get the problem dealt with and solved.
Now, what is to stop Iran from having nuclear tipped ICBM’s capable of reaching New York 10 years from now?
Barack Obama?
The Israeli Air Force?
The military reality is that stopping the Iranian nuclear development at hardened sites (with short-term localized conquest of specific sites with boots on the ground to ensure military engineers totally destroy the complexes) would require a sustained “Shock and Awe” air campaign along the lines of Iraq War air campaign which involved 1,801 coalition aircraft that flew 20,753 combat sorties which delivered 18,467 smart bombs and missiles and 9,251 dumb bombs.
Here is the reality for the years 2013 – 2016 in regards to such an operation against Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities:
1.) Barack Obama has neither the guts nor the will
2.) Israel has the guts and the will but not the logistical capabilities
If George W. Bush waged the Iraq War to prevent a nutjob in the Persian Gulf region from developing nuclear weapons and controlling the Persian Gulf oil supply in the future, then Geroge W. Bush failed miserably in the long-term. George W. Bush and Obama dealt with the danger of both Saddam Hussein and radical Islamist Iran by killing the former, ignoring the latter and then bugging out.
In contrast, Truman and Eisenhower dealt with the dangers of BOTH Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in Europe and had a long-term vision. If Truman and Eisenhower had dealt with Europe like Bush and Obama dealt with the Persian Gulf, the Soviet Union would still be alive and well today with the Soviet Empire stretching from Portugal to Eastern Siberia.
The time to deal with the future danger of a nuclear armed Iran was BEFORE Barak Obama took over American policy. But George W. Bush did nothing. We are not paying for this now. We will be paying for this 15 years from now.
How about domestic policy?
In regards to the Toxic Mortgage fiasco that sank the U.S. economy, it is true that George W. Bush recognized the problem and urged action. ….. Up to a point. Then Bush did nothing. He did not show leadership. He did not push the matter. He was “Nice” and “Polite”. He did not take control of the situation. He just drifted along with the current until the current took the American economy right over the waterfall.
In regards to the Katrina fiasco that killed so many and captured the imagination of America, it is true that George W. Bush recognized the problem (a predicted Category 5 hurricane headed straight for a city below sea level with levees rated for a Category 3 storm) and urged action (begged and pleaded with an incompetent Democratic Governor to evacuate the city) . ….. Up to a point. Then Bush did nothing. He did not show leadership. He did not push the matter. He was “Nice” and “Polite”. He did not take control of the situation. He just drifted along with the current until the death toll and misery of New Orleans was on the news 24/7 as Bush’s Fault. Even then, Bush was so “Nice” and “Polite” that he did not even attempt to communicate the reality of New Orleans.
The result is the George W. Bush handed the Presidency of the United States to Barack Obama on a silver platter and that will have devastating consequences for America. The result is that Ronald Reagan left the future a safer place and George W. Bush the future a more dangerous place.
Yes, George W. Bush was “Nice”. But there is more to the Presidency of the United States than just “Nice”.
A combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is what you get in a great President.
A combination of at least 1, 2, 5 is the minumum that you need in a competent President.
The quality of 4, and very little else, is what your mother wants from her pet cat.
RE: Your numbering system "as perceived by the majority of Americans" Who cares? Clinton "focus grouped" every night so he could hoodwink "the majority of Americans" the next day.
RE: The Katrina Myth Go look up how long it took Clinton to deal with hurricane Floyd and don't even get me started about "super storm" Sandy!
RE:"The result is the George W. Bush handed the Presidency of the United States to Barack Obama on a silver platter and that will have devastating consequences for America. The result is that Ronald Reagan left the future a safer place and George W. Bush the future a more dangerous place."
RIGHT'S RIGHT 
Print view
Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:29 am
reply
