Bush and Future Historians
In his farewell address yesterday, George W. Bush pointed out that America has gone seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. That is an important fact, but future historians will have to judge the extent to which Bush caused it, and whether it could have been achieved by less costly means. They must also weigh it against the other facts that he leaves two unfinished wars, an economic crisis, and global polls showing a loss of American soft power. Will the enduring icons of the 43rd presidency be Iraq, Guantanamo and Katrina? Or will they be 9/11 and his "freedom agenda?"
As I wrote in The Powers to Lead, Bush had faith and perseverance in pursuing a Wilsonian vision that history is moving toward democracy. But even if we take him at his word that he followed his conscience in pursuit of his vision, unfortunately, he lacked the intellectual curiosity and contextual intelligence necessary to implement it. David McCullough suggests that it takes about 50 years to allow the dust to settle in judging a presidency, and Bush likes to compare himself to Truman who left office with a low rating half a century ago. But Truman had institutional accomplishments like the Marshall Plan and NATO under his belt by the end of his term, and Bush has nothing comparable. Whether his lofty vision led us up the mountain or over a cliff remains to be judged in the long run, but at this point, the odds that future historians will give Bush a good grade do not look favorable.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
About loss of soft power, I just came back from a visit in Kurdistan. I had a nice surprise waiting for me there, a lot of open minded people in that country while I was expecting the standard side-taking mentality of Arab countries. Among other discussions, they frequently tried to open the Gaza subject. At first I was reluctant to give my position on the subject, as I always refrain from talking religion, sex or politics in those countries. But, when I finally acknowledged to fall into the trap, I found to my surprise that they were not on Hamas side. Actually, most of them were blaming Hamas, not Israel, for the huge number of killed, their suicidal decision to push innocent civilians into locations previously announced by the Israeli army as targets.
This was a good sign of an open mind (not that they had to agree with the Israeli action no matter what, but at least they gave some space to logical and moral thinking instead of taking sides). And the same people that took advantage from the fall of Saddam and had these ideas on the Gaza situation surprised me again: "It is Bush and the Americans the terrorists now, not al-Qaeda".
I wonder, how much of your credibility and soft power you have to lose to be called a terrorist by somebody that overcame his traditions and profits from your actions (think about the emotional gradient in such a person).
I found my-self asking tonight just what GWB would actually do after Tuesday? How much do you think he could command in speaking fees? Of course he' s actually going to have to learn to, well you know....sp
The Bush grade is D-. I mean, I guess he could have exploded our country up with a nuclear bomb by mistake and he did not, so that is saying something.
Ask the average citizen what they remember about Nixon.
Is it Vietnam, Relations with China, Soviet Union??
No.
It's Watergate.
What does that tell you about Bush's legacy??
"But even if we take him at his word that he followed his conscience in pursuit of his vision, unfortunately, he lacked the intellectual curiosity and contextual intelligence necessary to implement it."
His whole foreign policy was based on the following statement:
"He tried to kill my daddy".
It is as simple and as frustrating as that.
It was a pissing contest with Saddam.
Bush lied.
People died.
Four words tell his sordid tale.
It is his epitaph.
I'm tired about hearing that Bush prevented attacks on US soil. Terrorists didn't need to kill Americans on US soil because Bush shipped Americans overseas to be killed on a daily basis for the last six years. All he did was save the terrorists the price of a plane ticket. It's far less expensive and more convenient to let the US government deliver the victims to your doorstep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was Bush successful because it's OK to kill an American once you've put a uniform on him or her? I think this explains the great "protection" record of Bush.
I would argue that we haven't had another terroist attack in America DESPITE Bush not because of him. It's common knowledge that the insurgency in Iraq is made up of the ex-Iraqi army who Bush put out of a job for no reason (an example of his awesome tactical abilities). We aren't fighting terrorism in Iraq. So what has Bush done exactly to fight terrorism? Not a whole lot that makes sense that's for sure.
Bush's legacy was a direct reflection of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Every move he made, every word he spoke was and is to this day calculated for political effect only. No underlying beliefs or principles at all except a vaguely Rightwing cynicism and disregard for the Common Weal in favor of maintainig the Wealth and Power of the Overclass.
Perhaps there were no attacks on US soil because Bush put so many convenient targets in Iraq.
Keith Olbermann had a brilliant 8 minute summary of Bush's "legacy" yesterday.
Among the highlights was an enumeration of Bush's complete lack of interest in the threat terrorists posed to our country.
He left us vulnerable on 9/ll by ignoring each and every intelligence warning. (Then he idiotically was out of sight during the entire day, jetting frantically in panic mode around the country on Air Force One).
He let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora.
There is NOTHING positive historians will say about Bush other than the financial aid to fight AIDS in Africa.
Zero. Zip. Nada. He's unquestionably, without any doubt whatsoever, "The Worst President In History".
Why does he get credit for fighting Aids in Africa? I heard an expert on this say he prevented family planning and condoms in Africa, and therefore did more to INCREASE the spread of Aids.
His failure so much a part of his being. He is not capable at anything of significance. Those who chose him to run are the same who raped and pillage America and left us in shambles.
He is the current worst president in the history of the world.
In fifty years there will be written about this period, but his name will not be uttered or written.
One comment about Katrina. I went to New Orleans--I did hurricane relief work. I traveled around the City. I spoke with its residents, FEMA employees and others. The situation in New Orleans was a disaster primarily because of an abject failure by state and local officials to do their jobs. Blaming Bush is easy but very WRONG. For example, telling people to turn off pumps and go home was criminal. If Ray Naggin and Mary Blanco were Republicans, they would have been indicted. In fact, Naggin's actions were beyond gross negligence and he should be in jail. Six months after Katrina hit, stoplights were not working, garbage was piled everywhere, house trailers sat on railroad cars and no one at City Hall was coordinating any relief efforts. Unlike the situation in Iowa this past summer, the worst flooding there ever, the people in New Orleans did little but complain.
Just once I wish columnists like you would repeat facts instead of lies.
we're just lucky we have you, rockne, to save New Orleans and keep us straight on the facts.
Truman also pushed for the GI Bill. That made it possible for intelligent youths from poor or lower middle class families to go to college and buy their own homes.
Prior to that time there was lots of room for the marginal or stupid scions of wealth (such as GWB) to sleep right through and get a "degree".
That GI Bill fueled a big post-war boom that Reagan began the destruction of. Bush seems to have finished it.
Remembered as Truman is!? Ha! Give me a break!
He ended segregation in the military and dropped the a bombs, a mixed bag.
1. Still better than Carter
2. If you think Obama is going to close Gitmo and leave Iraq/Afganistan in the next 4 years, you're in for a surprise.
Carter had by far the most principle and least corruption of any Presidency since and almost all before.
The old Rightwing mantra: Carter was a bad President. He was prescient on the need for improving fuel efficiency, favored World Peace and all the economic and educational policies destroyed by Republicans.
He also was the unfortunate victim of Republican collusion with Iran, which might have given the Presidency to Reagan in regard to the Hostage Crisis. It sure is funny how Iran got all those weapons from Reagan after his relection in exchange for the release of the hostages AFTER he was elected.
Bush's legacy? : War, cronyism, dishonesty; a destruction of the faith in our governmental instituions; an attempt to fuse state and church functions; a near destruction of our economy; the near complete politization of our government agencies; the abject corruption of our Department of Justice; attempts to destroy or at least trample on our Constitution; the destruction of the honor of the United States of America; the depletion of our military readiness; the despoiling of our environment; the establish of Soviet style secret prisons; and the establishment of a Soviet style Gulag at Guantanamo Bay.
Quite a laundry list for eight years. Germany had twelve years of Hitler; the United States at eight years of George W. Bush.
Actually, Bush is totally comparable to Wilson: racism, colonialism, anticommunism (that last one no longer applies internationally, but I'm sure that George hasn't eschewed his Cold War views).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
