Friday, November 7, 2008

How will history judge George Bush?

Part I - Keeping the homeland safe. 

Seeing as how dubya has one of the lowest approval ratings ever for a sitting President it would be safe to assume that history couldn’t possible judge him any worse that he currently is. The criticism of Bush has been well publicized both nationally and internationally so it would be too easy to rehash his Bushism’s, his blunders, his failures (of which there are many). For now I wanted to give credit where credit it due to a man that I believe history will judge in a kinder light one day.

There was a time when Bush had a 90% approval rating and for good reason. 2001 seems like ages ago, but it’s a shame that we so easily forget what our country went through in the years immediately after 9/11. America wanted a cowboy from Texas to take charge and keep our homeland safe and that’s what we got and we loved him for it.

 

I find it almost humorous that most of the people cheering and partying in the streets Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning voted for Obama, yet have no real memories of 9/11. No recollection of the real dangers this country faced (and are still facing). There was a legitimate fear that a suitcase nuke or anthrax or smallpox or a chemical attack were right around the corner. After all, if the WTC could be brought down so quickly, so easily, weren’t we all vulnerable? Has America ever been more vulnerable?

To give credit where credit is due the country has been safe for the past 7 years. Dozen of equally sophisticated terror plots have been foiled, both in American and abroad thanks to the complete overhaul of our intelligence organizations. Bush had to dismantle the walls that blocked communication between the FBI, CIA and law enforcement, walls that were constructed by his predecessor, walls that prevented the early warnings of 9/11. For that we should be thankful.

Bush may now be a bit of a walking caricature in world circles (a caricature that we created to be sure), but there was a time when countries that didn’t have our best interests in mind were scared to death of America. Some would argue we should speak softly and carry a big stick, but I don’t think Bush subscribed to that, instead he chose to bomb everything and speak loudly (albeit unintelligibly at times). Sure hindsight is 20/20, but at the time it was this bold, take charge, aggressive action that this country needed. 7 years later we have been kept so safe that we have completely forgotten the danger we were(are) in. How quickly we forget…

… and then there was Iraq. This debate is so tiresome now that I will sum it up like this: Bush’s greatest attribute and greatest failure was being a cowboy when we needed him, but not knowing when to stop. I hope history judges him fairly in this regard. I truly hope that something positive will eventually come from Iraq, though I highly doubt any success will ever be large enough to make this whole war was worth it.

This concludes Part I. 

5 comments:

  1. I agree that Bush is judged a bit too harshly. I'm not touching Iraq, but my biggest problem with him has always been his attempts at consolidating power in the executive branch by removing, or simply ignoring, our checks and balances.

    ReplyDelete
  2. >>or simply ignoring, our checks and balances.

    Conversely, liberals are legislating from the bench completely ignoring the will of the people and the Constitutions. Bush probably didn't help the matter though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah... Legislating from the bench. Another brilliant marketing phrase courtesy of GOP, Inc.

    A quiz question: In recent years, which SCOTUS justices have voted most often to strike down acts of Congress?

    Answer: Justices Scalia and Thomas, whom President Bush has singled out for special praise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>Another brilliant marketing phrase courtesy of GOP, Inc.
    Yes, but not half as good as "3rd term of Bush" or "Change" or "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, legislating from the bench is done on both sides, and arguably part of their job anyways. That's a whole nother can of worms. We could have a whole blog just about the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete