The Right Standard for Judging George W. Bush
by Michael Medved
As he prepares to leave the White House after
eight monumentally eventful years, what's the right standard for judging
the performance of George W. Bush?
The basis for answering that question has changed radically over the
course of the last seven years, very much to the president's detriment.
After the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, and Bush's almost
instantaneous rebirth as a determined "War President," most Americans
expressed clear ideas of what they expected of the commander in chief.
The conventional wisdom of the time declared that his presidency would
rise or fall based on his ability to keep the nation safe.
If the United States sustained a series of crippling new attacks the world
understood that history would judge Bush as a failure. If, against all
odds, he succeeded in turning the tide against our terrorist adversaries
and managed to keep the nation secure from homeland assaults, then
the president would emerge from his terms of office as a successful, and
probably heroic, chief executive.
The concentration on the Iraq War after March of 2003 altered the criteria
for evaluating the Bush Presidency. The conflict in Iraq, like all wars,
proved messy, unpredictable, frustrating and often mishandled. For
better or for worse, the American people identified the struggle as the
defining gamble of the Bush administration and leading commentators
declared that the president would provoke either contempt or gratitude
based on the outcome of that war. If the United States failed in its
mission of establishing a durable, pro-western government in Iraq, Mr.
Bush stood no more chance of a favorable judgment by history than did
Johnson or Nixon after the collapse of the U.S. investment in Vietnam. If,
on the other hand, Mr. Bush defied the fanatical anti-war (and often anti-
American) protesters and all the media nay-sayers, and somehow
managed to produce a positive outcome in Iraq, then that alone seemed
to guarantee a positive verdict by posterity on his presidency.
Despite all the passion and confusion surrounding this issue, numerical
measures at the end of 2008 provide an undeniable indicator of the
spectacular turnaround in Iraqi affairs and the level of the president's
historic success.
Since the beginning of the war, the New York Times called on Jason
Campbell and Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal-leaning Brookings
Institution to gather statistics for a series of presentations under the
heading, "The State of Iraq: An Update." In December, they presented
numbers comparing the situation in November, 2008 with November,
2006.
US troop deaths, for instance, went down to 12, from 69 two years before
(and from 137 in November, 2004). Iraqi Security Forces deaths went
down from 123 to 27. Iraqi civilian deaths from the war plummeted at a
similar rate?from 3,475 to 500.
Non-military figures also indicated impressive progress. Electricity
production (in average gigawatts) increased in two years from 3.7 to 5.1
(and well above its pre-war rate of 4.0 under Saddam Hussein). Oil
production (in millions of barrels per day) rose from 2.1 to 2.4, with
exports soaring from 1.4 to 1.9 (and contributing to the decline in global
oil prices). Most significantly, the Brookings measure of "Political
Progress Achieved" (reflecting 11 "Iraq Index" criteria) surged in just two
years from 0.5 to 7.
As the authors declare: "On the whole we feel that the Iraqi government
has met 7 of the 11 "Iraq Index" benchmarks we have laid out, which
include steps like establishing provincial election laws, reaching an accord
on sharing oil revenue and enacting pension and amnesty laws?.As 2008
and the Bush presidency conclude, Iraq has settled into a kind of violent
semi-peace. The population-protection strategy initiated by Gen. David
Petraeus has been a remarkable success on balance. Its logic continues
even though American force numbers in Iraq have nearly returned to pre-
surge levels."
Even President-elect Barack Obama has acknowledged this recent and
unexpected turnaround, despite basing his early primary campaign
almost entirely on his opposition to a war that is now clearly succeeding.
The universal expectation in Washington suggests that Obama will follow
the Bush time-table for the further draw down of U.S. forces, meeting the
current administrations commitments under the Status of Forces
agreement, rather than imposing the arbitrary (and unconditional)
withdrawal he promised in his campaign.
Of course, arguments will continue to rage over the price paid to achieve
the undeniable progress in Iraq. Opponents of the war suggest that the
removal of Saddam Hussein, while a positive development for the world,
in no way justifies the lavish expenditure of American blood and
treasure.
In truth, however, media accounts greatly exaggerate the human cost of
the war through the failure to provide an appropriate context in recent
history.
While every military death constitutes a profound tragedy for the families
of the fallen and the nation at large, the level of sacrifice in Iraq and
Afghanistan has remained remarkably (and blessedly) low when
compared to tragic losses under recent "peace-time" presidents.
In fact, measuring the number of annual military deaths (most of them
through accidents and illness, rather than combat) since 1980, the toll for
the Bush administration remains sharply below the 28 year average.
Final numbers are not yet available for 2008, but total military deaths
under eight years of President George W. Bush will total below 12,000.
The comparable number for eight years of Ronald Reagan (with no major
war or military campaign) was 17,201. The eight years of Bill Clinton
claimed 7,500 military lives.
The single worst year of the Bush presidency saw 1,942 active-duty
fatalities from all causes ? including hostile action, accidents, illness,
homicides, and suicides. Thus compares to 2,392 deaths in the last year
of the presidency of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter.
In fact, more military personnel died from accidents in that one year under
Carter than perished from combat and terrorism in any year under Bush.
In short, this President clearly succeeded in both undertakings most often
cited as the make-or-break challenges for his presidency ? keeping the
nation safe from new terror attacks and achieving his announced war
goals in Iraq.
Why, then, does he leave office with historically low approval ratings
and mainstream media deriding his presidency
as "disastrous," "incompetent," "embarrassing" and "a fiasco"?
The obvious answer echoes James Carville's famous slogan for the
Clinton campaign of '92: "It's the Economy, Stupid." With near-universal
agreement that we face greatest financial crisis since the great
Depression (another misleading and exaggerated evaluation, by the way)
the President inevitably takes the blame.
Bush and his advisors seemed utterly unprepared for the disastrous
breakdown of the banking system, and signed on to a meaningless,
ineffective and hugely wasteful "stimulus package" promoted by the
Democrats who dominate Congress. After six years of steady, robust
economic growth, the final year of the Bush presidency saw gut-
wrenching increases in the unemployment rate combined with similarly
alarming declines in the value of U.S. investments.
The deficit (well below the post war average as a percentage of our gross
domestic product) nearly quadrupled in the last budget prepared by
Bush, and promises to rise to even more alarming heights under Barack
Obama.
But while 2008 certainly witnessed an avalanche of bad economic new
s for President Bush, it's worth nothing that pronouncements that he
represented the nadir of incompetence and wrong-headedness, and "the
worst president in American history," long preceded the current economic
crisis.
Impassioned Bush-bashing reached feverish levels even during the
President's most successful years (including his solid re-election victory
in 2004). In fact, tracing the sorry history of "Bush Derangement
Syndrome," it actually began before he even took the oath of office, and
stemmed from indignation of the purportedly "stolen" election of 2000.
For his most determined critics, George W. Bush always represented
the "Commander in Thief" and an unworthy occupant of the nation's
highest office. They always derided him as a slacker, a dunce, a religious
fanatic, and a bumbling tool of malevolent forces bent on imposing some
narrow-minded theocratic rule or a cultic New World Order.
These paranoid charges should dissipate in the face of the obvious fact
that the president hands over a nation that maintains untrammeled
freedom of religion (and of non-belief), with constitutional guarantees
intact (and more assured because of the presence of Roberts and Alito
on the Supreme Court), and with sovereignty proudly undiminished by
submersion into any globalist conspiracy.
The most sensible standards for judging George W. Bush remain the
criteria most frequently discussed during his presidency: the imperative
of protecting U.S. security and achieving the primary war aims in Iraq.
Those benchmarks should impress and influence the evaluation of future
historians, who will look upon the departing president far more
generously than most of his sullen and ungrateful contemporaries.
The George W. Bush Legacy
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
The George W. Bush Legacy
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Yes, I thought that was a very strategic move to pardon those wrongfully imprisoned heroes at the 11th hour. It's a very positive act to go out on. Also to his credit is the fact that he didn't pardon Libby or that other one (who was that again?) Very good for the history books and Bush's legacy.
And the disrespectful booers should have kept their composure and been more polite. I really dislike a sore winner.
I wonder if attack dog Pelosi will pursue a lawsuit against some in the former administration for what they are calling "war crimes," the firing of the supreme court justices, etc. Seems like a waste of time and money to me.
Enjoy your retirements, George and Dick. We've got work to do.
And the disrespectful booers should have kept their composure and been more polite. I really dislike a sore winner.
I wonder if attack dog Pelosi will pursue a lawsuit against some in the former administration for what they are calling "war crimes," the firing of the supreme court justices, etc. Seems like a waste of time and money to me.
Enjoy your retirements, George and Dick. We've got work to do.
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
I'm gonna say NO, simply because Madame Pelosi and most of the others voted YES to half of the above.Big Blue Owl wrote:I wonder if attack dog Pelosi will pursue a lawsuit against some in the former administration for what they are calling "war crimes," the firing of the supreme court justices, etc. Seems like a waste of time and money to me.
Pelosi and the others would be defending THEMSELVES in the process, so
no point in digging one's own political grave.
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
From Bill O'Reilly
(Like him or not)
Partisan blather aside, let's take a no spin look at President Bush's two
biggest legacy items: the terror war and the economy.
Bush leaves office with a 34 percent approval rating, according to a
recent Gallup poll. That ties him with Jimmy Carter's approval rating
when he left office in 1981, not exactly a place you want to be.
However, the war on terror issue is still being defined and will likely help
Bush when history is written down the line.
Immediately after the attack on 9/11, Muslim jihadists had a big wind at
their backs. We saw TV images of Muslims dancing in the streets as the
great Satan America was humbled by al-Qaida. Almost instantly, the
invincibility of the United States was challenged and the physical safety of
Americans, at risk. It was very possible that further attacks were close.
Moving quickly, the Bush administration reorganized the FBI into a terror-
fighting organization and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, disrupting al-
Qaida's command and control. Those successful tactics blunted a number
of active terror plots and resulted in the capture of a number of al-Qaida
big shots, all of whom broke under coerced interrogation. The
information they gave up allowed the Bush administration to further
damage the terrorist infrastructure.
Then came Iraq, an operation designed to cleanse the Muslim world of the
huge terrorist enabler Saddam Hussein. The price of that war is still being
debated, but what honest people don't dispute is that the al-Qaida foot
soldiers who invaded Iraq hoping to defeat the U.S. military were
eventually decimated.
The price for America in Iraq has been enormous, but al-Qaida has also
paid big.
Today, the terror threat still exists, but is no longer centralized and has
lost most of its momentum. In short, the United States is winning the
shooting war, and President Bush should get credit for that.
On the economic front, however, the picture is different. The dramatic rise
in oil prices last spring was artificially driven by greedy speculators,
some of whom worked out of brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley and
Goldman Sachs. The oil company chieftains quickly realized they could
make billions raising their prices to reflect the upward price speculation
and did so with gusto. Thus, millions of consumer dollars were diverted to
gas bills instead of other obligations. That lighted the fuse of the
recession.
At the same time, banks were making risky home loans to unqualified
consumers. The banks then sold many of those loans to quick-buck
artists at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. When
consumers began to default because money became tight, panic ensued
and the recession roared in.
Where was President Bush while all this was happening? He continued to
put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not.
That is on the president. If his economic advisers misled him, he should
have said so. But Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for
the collapse.
The Democratic Congress also stood by and did nothing to protect the
folks. Last July, Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, told the world Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were "in good shape going forward."
A few weeks later those mortgage entities collapsed. Frank is now
blaming the Republicans, but he is being flat-out dishonest in not taking
any responsibility.
Like a sports team that loses big, the head coach is the main guy. After
Iraq and the wobbling economy, the folks lost confidence in President
Bush, and Barack Obama capitalized on that.
The truth is that the Bush administration did very well in protecting us
against terrorist killers -- but not so well in protecting us against Wall
Street greed heads.
(Like him or not)
Partisan blather aside, let's take a no spin look at President Bush's two
biggest legacy items: the terror war and the economy.
Bush leaves office with a 34 percent approval rating, according to a
recent Gallup poll. That ties him with Jimmy Carter's approval rating
when he left office in 1981, not exactly a place you want to be.
However, the war on terror issue is still being defined and will likely help
Bush when history is written down the line.
Immediately after the attack on 9/11, Muslim jihadists had a big wind at
their backs. We saw TV images of Muslims dancing in the streets as the
great Satan America was humbled by al-Qaida. Almost instantly, the
invincibility of the United States was challenged and the physical safety of
Americans, at risk. It was very possible that further attacks were close.
Moving quickly, the Bush administration reorganized the FBI into a terror-
fighting organization and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, disrupting al-
Qaida's command and control. Those successful tactics blunted a number
of active terror plots and resulted in the capture of a number of al-Qaida
big shots, all of whom broke under coerced interrogation. The
information they gave up allowed the Bush administration to further
damage the terrorist infrastructure.
Then came Iraq, an operation designed to cleanse the Muslim world of the
huge terrorist enabler Saddam Hussein. The price of that war is still being
debated, but what honest people don't dispute is that the al-Qaida foot
soldiers who invaded Iraq hoping to defeat the U.S. military were
eventually decimated.
The price for America in Iraq has been enormous, but al-Qaida has also
paid big.
Today, the terror threat still exists, but is no longer centralized and has
lost most of its momentum. In short, the United States is winning the
shooting war, and President Bush should get credit for that.
On the economic front, however, the picture is different. The dramatic rise
in oil prices last spring was artificially driven by greedy speculators,
some of whom worked out of brokerage houses like Morgan Stanley and
Goldman Sachs. The oil company chieftains quickly realized they could
make billions raising their prices to reflect the upward price speculation
and did so with gusto. Thus, millions of consumer dollars were diverted to
gas bills instead of other obligations. That lighted the fuse of the
recession.
At the same time, banks were making risky home loans to unqualified
consumers. The banks then sold many of those loans to quick-buck
artists at places like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. When
consumers began to default because money became tight, panic ensued
and the recession roared in.
Where was President Bush while all this was happening? He continued to
put forth that the economy was fundamentally strong when it was not.
That is on the president. If his economic advisers misled him, he should
have said so. But Bush is leaving office with no credible explanation for
the collapse.
The Democratic Congress also stood by and did nothing to protect the
folks. Last July, Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, told the world Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were "in good shape going forward."
A few weeks later those mortgage entities collapsed. Frank is now
blaming the Republicans, but he is being flat-out dishonest in not taking
any responsibility.
Like a sports team that loses big, the head coach is the main guy. After
Iraq and the wobbling economy, the folks lost confidence in President
Bush, and Barack Obama capitalized on that.
The truth is that the Bush administration did very well in protecting us
against terrorist killers -- but not so well in protecting us against Wall
Street greed heads.
Don't start none...won't be none.