You're No Harry Truman

In his speech to the nation Thursday evening, President George Bush defiantly asserted his list of accomplishments during his eight years in office. But there were hints of wistfulness and melancholy in his tone. And he admitted a few setbacks while in office conceding, "There are a few things I would do differently if given a chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interest of our country in mind."

In February 2003 I traveled with a Telemundo news team to the White House to interview President Bush, one month before the Iraq invasion. War fever had built to a crescendo in Washington, and the White House wanted to make its case to Hispanic Americans.

President Bush entered our interview location, a room on the ground floor of the White House, with a swagger and a smile. He was imperious and proud. During the interview he went through his justifications for an invasion, but said the final decision had not been made.

Following the interview the President Bush hung around for a few minutes of banter. I raised the issue of opposition to the pending war from the French, asking him, "What about President Jacques Chirac?" President Bush slapped me on the shoulder with the back of his hand, cocked his head and said, "Don't worry, he'll come around." With that, he quickly said his goodbyes and confidently departed. I turned to my team and said, "We're going to war."

In his speech last night, President Bush said, "I hope you can agree that I was willing to make tough decisions." Well, yes, he has made tough decisions. The problem is that he often made the wrong decisions. And worse, once decided, the decisions he made were poorly executed.

The Iraq war is a classic case of the wrong decision that was also poorly executed. Deregulation of the financial industry is another example. And, in the aftermath of Katrina, wrong decisions were made and the execution was painfully inept. The violation of civil liberties and his authorization of harsh interrogation techniques were terrible decisions that have undermined America's core values and founding principles. These are but a few examples.

"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions," President Bush said, "but there can be little debate about the results, America has gone seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil." I felt a back handed slap against my shoulder as he spoke these words. President Bush seemed to be saying, "let's see what the next guy can do."

Today there is much debate about America's future. The country is mired in two wars, a devastating financial collapse, a recession, the Middle East is in turmoil, Osama bin Laden is still loose, and America's moral standing in the world has been severely eroded.

Most Americans support President-elect Barack Obama. He has already displayed intelligence, thoughtfulness, and a willingness to listen to strong voices and diverse opinions. His calm and cool style of leadership is reassuring. Hopefully we are entering a period of smart decisions, accountability and well-executed management. America's future is at stake.

President Bush apparently wants to be compared to President Harry Truman, who was also very unpopular when he left office. Yet after his retirement scholars came to judge Truman more positively. He made tough decisions and, as a result, he is now considered one of America's finest presidents.

Mr. Bush, you are no Harry Truman.

Comments

[Oonagh]

The man is delusional... amazing how the propaganda got a lot of the country to believe in him.

[leeman79]

He's not even a Herbert Hoover.

[darter22]

How about a comparison to Nero. Bush fiddled while New Orleans drowned.

[TheBaffler]

The only difference between Truman and Bush is Truman's body count wasn't quite as high.

Obama, on the other hand, instead of being the new FDR this country desperately needs, is instead another triangulating, Clintonian neoliberal who will carry on unabated with the failed trickle down policies of the last three decades.

[pgsteward]

You mean that two atomic bombs dropped on and wiping out two cities in Japan as well as all the other deaths in the Pacific during WWII produced less casualties than Iraq? What spin doctor have you been listening to? Pray tell me how many deaths you hold Bush responsible for?

[TheBaffler]

Bush is responsible for over a million innocent deaths, definitely more than Truman. Though I fail to see how you think I'm being soft of Truman. If you reread my posts about him on this blog, you'll find I think he's being treated much too kindly.

[leeman79]

Big difference. The world was a war. A real war with real threat, not a war of choice. This decision was agonized, but ultimately executed because it prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of more U.S. servicemen.

Harry Truman ended the war in the pacific, and prevented escalation in Korea. Those are two of the reasons he'll be remembered as an effective leader.

[dgerzeeboy]

Bush also enjoys comparing himself to Lincoln, although I've never heard anyone characterize number 16 as delusional.

Truman famously displayed a plaque on his Oval Office desk that read, “The buck stops here.” In these last few days of W's train-wreck administration, as he and Cheney wrapped up their Revisionist History Tour, it's pretty clear that Bush, Jr. is as familiar with personal responsibility as he is with hard facts.

No, George. Warren Harding (arguably the worst US President) would be a more fitting parallel. Or maybe not. At least he had the wherewithal to publicly admit that he didn't really have the aptitude for the job.

[lisakaz2]

For sure. And I love C-Span showing Truman's speaking in Baltimore where he spoke of ideals about following law and guaranteeing individual rights. Well, if we all are going to respect the law, then no man can be above it FOR ANY REASON. Hence, the Bou$heees MUST be prosecuted for law breaking where applicable. It cannot be otherwise or else the neos will do it again.

[wm1066]

When a Republican President wants to be remembered as fondly as a Democratic President that had the worst ratings in the twentieth century you gotta believe somethings very wrong in the Republican Party!

[pgsteward]

Yes! And Barack Obama wants to be compared to Lincoln, and he hasn't yet served a day in office. To paraphrase Senator Benson and referring to Obama "I knew Abe Lincoln, and you are not an Abe Lincoln". YET!!!

[sticksnstones]

So, let me get this straight .... you are slammin' an elected ( unlike 2000 and 2004...those two were stolen ) Democratic President-Elect by using a comment made by a Democratic Senator, who slammed a Republican Senator for comparing himself to a Democratic President. Do I have that right ?

Even Abe Lincoln would have had to scratch his head over this one ...

[pgsteward]

I think of you had seen the actual comment by Benson, you would modify your contempt. First of all, Dan Quail did NOT compare himself to John Kennedy. During their debate, Benson stated that Quail did not have the necessary experience to become VP. (Does that sound familiar Sarah?) All Dan the Man said was that he had more experience as an elected Senator than Kennedy had when he (Kennedy) became President. He NEVER compared himself as an equal to Kennedy in any other way. And by the way, the Bush victory of 2000 has about the same credence as Franken's of 2008. Theft is theft no matter who is the perpetrator.

[RButler]

Bush wants to postpone the verdict of history so he can be in denial as long as he lives. For that reason, historians should immediately start assessing his presidency instead of waiting so he gets the full impact. Are people still contributing to his presidential library or have they given up? Somehow, he needs to get the feedback since he's so good at deflecting any criticism.

[LDnearthesea]

25% of Amerikans think that Bush is a great president, all that 'he didn't allow another 9/11 to happen' kept us safe crap! These are the people that John Dean refers to as those who need authoritarian figures to run school, work, governments, and would be quite comfortable living in a police state. Historians by and large are not people in need of authoritarians like Bush telling them what to write.
We can't say now what history books will say of Bush in the future, but it is up to Real Americans to put pressure on Obama and the Congress to investigate, indict, and then prosecute and find guilty Bush/Cheney, and that'll slam dump any historian writing anything positive about them!

[leopoldmozart]

No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? I'm sorry, but that's not the purpose of bin Laden's jihad, and that's not what he and other terrorists are pursuing. The jihad is to kill Americans. Has Bush protected us from terrorists? As the families of the THOUSANDS of American servicemen and women, contractors, diplomats, government workers, and newsmen who have been blown up, murdered, or beheaded in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

[camper65]

You're right! He's no Harry Truman. GWB's administration hasn't been full of Communists and Communist sympathizers. Idiots, perhaps, but no commies.

[sticksnstones]

Thank you for your comments, Joseph ( Tail Gunner Joe ) McCarthy. I'm dizzy here ... Time warp, Time warp ...

[wm1066]

I don't know, they emulated the KGB and turned our own FBI against us, they outed a CIA because of revenge. They torture like the Red Chinese. They have used the same methods as some of our worst enemies, and have gotten away with it. Harry never did that.

[cactusgal]

That's because GW looked into their eyes and saw their souls-- as he did with Putin-- and saw they were good, honest people--like Putin-- and not commies--like Putin.

[SantaFeStars]

Bush is truly in a class all by himself! There's never been a more incompetent president in the entire history of the US. Some of his classmates were so dumbfounded that he reach the highest office in the land. They were literally blown away that this man, who is not the brightest, could achieve this goal. So much for money and name recognition!

[GatoPreto]

In a strange, paradoxical way, Shrub may very well be remembered as the one who blew the lid off on the whole scam, however unwillingly.

I know I thank him for being so transparently a stooge I just HAD to get off my butt and fight back.

[jylnc]

I don't think this post proved the premise. We cannot determine what historians will say years from now regarding the Bush administration. We have to wait for time to pass and speculations are just speculations.

History has a way of adding a perspective not available in the moment. A President's term in office is judged on his total accomplishments, failures, and the long term consequences resulting from actions taken by the President. America likes to remember the good times because we have very short attention spans and we don't like to be wrong. Historians spin history just like the media spins the news.

Roosevelt placed Japanese Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor. Japanese AMERICANS who were citizens were placed in concentration camps and an apology was not formally given until Ronald Reagan's administration. Talk about violating civil rights and civil liberties. I have seen comments complimenting Truman for ending the war with Japan. However, almost 200,000 Japanese were killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski which ended the war.

And yet, historians look at the administrations of Truman and Roosevelt and view them in a kind light. Who knows how historians will view George Bush and his tenure in the White House because only time will tell us the answers.

[sticksnstones]

Refer to my comment below. It still applies. And your premise still stinks ....

[jhamm1]

"We cannot determine what historians will say years from now regarding the Bush administration."

Indeed, we can't determine whether or not historians of the future will largely consist of complete idiots, which is not too farfetched a prospect considering the progressive lapse of academic standards and increasing faliure to implement the scientific method.

" A President's term in office is judged on his total accomplishments, failures, and the long term consequences resulting from actions taken by the President. "

Indeed, and with President Bush, there are absolutely no accomplishments whatsoever to list.

[lisakaz2]

I am a historian. Trust me, he won't be rehabilitated.

[kimleehan]

Like Bush once said, " time will rewrite history, but what difference will it make, we'll all be dead by than.

[DuPageDem]

Those who live through historical events often have a better grasp of them than that espoused in later revisionism. Look no futher than your comment about Japanese a-bomb deaths. How many more would have been killed in a land invasion? Where is your concern for the far higher numbers killed in conventional firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden? That said, interment was indeed an unconstitutional crime, and Roosevelt should have paid for it -- except he had the good fortune of dying before any reckoning could take place.

[jylnc]

I understand that a land invasion would have cost more lives on both sides. That has been the standard justification for dropping the atom bombs. An atom bomb causes slow, painful deaths if the victim doesn't die in the initial blast. It is the only time, I believe, that an atom bomb was used in war. It has always seemed like over kill.

I'm not a fan of war. My father was in the Navy on an LST in the Pacific during WWII. Until he was in his sixties, he refused to purchase anything made in Japan or Germany. He harbored deep resentment for the years he felt he lost in the war. But today, Japan and Germany are not enemies and we've even warmed towards Viet Nam. My niece just spent a year teaching in Viet Nam.

It is astounding how enemies become friends. It makes all the lives lost even more tragic. War is obscene no matter how it's conducted.

[jotunloki]

Japan started the war. Japan killed MILLIONS of Chinese civilians prior to the war. Japan REFUSED to surrender even though they were defeated on all fronts. Yes, the imprisonment of the Nisei was wrong, but better that than attacks by enraged civilians.