Weighing in on Bush
George W. Bush will be regarded one day…long after most of us are dead (at least I)…as an extraordinarily gifted president. Just how I will detail later. Oh, not that he didn’t have faults. As Ben Jonson wrote of Shakespeare: “Players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing whatever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been-would he had blotted a thousand.”
I wish Bush had blotted many things. For one, his record of not vetoing a single bill in his first term. I hated his excessive spending, his weakening education reform in deference to Teddy Kennedy, his very strange alliance with Richard M. Daley (giving the mayor all the federal money he needed for O’Hare expansion instead of supporting a third airport, while getting nothing in return), his definition of “compassionate conservatism” as encompassing higher federal expenditures and aping liberal excess, I am still waiting for Bush to redeem himself in my eyes by granting a full pardon to Scooter Libby since Pat Fitzgerald’s conclusion he lied (that the late Tim Russert told him about Valerie Plame’s employment with the CIA) when Russert’s memory could well have been as fallible as Libby’s.
But all this Byzantine stuff was far beyond the purview of Fitzgerald’s quest (since the prosecutor knew WHO leaked the news and in fact told everyone who also knew to shut up about it)…a bizarre circumstance. Still, despite all this, Bush managed on a commutation of Libby’s prison term: also bizarre. In that connection I hope in the short time he has remaining as president, Bush pardons Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, border agents who have served 2-1/2 years thus far for discharging their weapons during a struggle with a real criminal, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila who left behind 743 pounds of marijuana as he fled back to Mexico.
Indeed, I fault Bush for naming an AG like Alberto Gonzales who sanctioned the outrage of listing Patrick Fitzgerald with other district attorneys who were purportedly doing a “mediocre” job-an outrage since Fitzgerald is genuinely one of the greatest and most fearless prosecutors of our time. I fault Bush’s retreat from Reagan’s goal of reduction of farm subsidies. I profoundly regret his support of an expanded prescription drug feature of Medicare which is leading critics to predict this program alone will be $8 trillion in the red over the next 75 years.
That Having Been Said…
That’s all the blotting I can think of at the moment-but these things are greatly overbalanced by Bush’s resoluteness and courage as a wartime president and…not any less important…as a fearless supporter of pro-life initiatives which to my way of thinking defines the titanic battle to restore traditional god-cognizant culture in the United States. The first job of a president is to preserve the peace and liberty of the United States. No other president…I do not exclude Ronald Reagan from this…could have measured up better than George W. Bush. The WMD issue should be brushed aside-because WMDs WERE there…undeniably…in the form of biological weaponry. At such a time following September 11 you want a president who is firm, not equivocating. No less an authority than Bernard Lewis, the unrivaled expert on the Middle East, has said that until Bush made his decision on Iraq, the consensus among Arabs and Islamics was that they could perpetrate anything and get away with it. No more, wrote Lewis. No more. Which is certifiably the reason why for the remainder of Bush’s two terms, this country suffered no further attacks on its mainland.
Unlike many, I do not fault his conduct of the war. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, was impotent in early forays: the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole. The most impressive event in our national defense in my own lifetime of 80 years was Bush’s brilliant reconstituting of the American strategy vis-à-vis the Islamic world. Was the Iraq War brilliantly prosecuted? Not at first-but at the end, decidedly yes.
All wars are run as an untidy business. Dwight Eisenhower was called back to Washington, D.C. to account for short-sightedness in the North African campaign…before he went on to become the architect of the greatest invasion force in history. I well remember when I was 17 and fully cognizant of the conduct of World War II, the German counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge in December, 1944 through January, 1945. The Christmas of 1944 was a dismal one for this country. We would gather by the radio to hear Gabriel Heatter begin his news commentary on Mutual Broadcasting, “ah, there’s good news tonight.”
I remember when he began his commentary, “oh, I’m afraid there’s bad news tonight!” And bad news it was. Allied forces were overconfident and relied on sloppy reconnaissance. Nineteen thousand Americans died, an unsurpassed death toll in U.S. history for one battle. For a time it looked like the Germans would succeed in their goal in the forested Ardennes mountains in Belgium, France and Luxembourg…their goal being to split British and U.S. forces in half, to encircle and destroy four allied armies and capture Antwerp-triggering a pressure in the West to negotiate a peace treaty favorable to Nazi Germany.
I remember the talk then in behalf of cutting and running and negotiated peace. There was talk in some quarters of impeaching Franklin Roosevelt and pressuring him to recall Eisenhower who critics said was “responsible for this disaster.” But no wars run smoothly. Just as Lincoln found his general only after firing incompetents one by one until he came upon a relatively underrated general with a drinking problem, Ulysses Grant only in 1864, a year before victory, Bush had to let Donald Rumsfeld (a friend of mine) go and turn to another defense secretary…only after he secured a pledge from a skeptical Robert Gates that Gates would support a surge (something Gates was on record as opposing earlier)-leading Gates to find a new general, David Petraeus…one who prosecuted the war with diligence-even though the news media, disinterested because we are winning, focuses away from it.
The salient point is this: it looks very much like Iraq will become a democracy and the foremost ally of the U.S. which could well be a turning point in the war on terror. Therefore, rising to the challenge when we were attacked and providing a courageous defense of our country will give George W. Bush extraordinary status in years to come. If you compartmentalize presidents by accomplishments as does the historian Alvin Stephen Felzenberg does in “The Leaders We Deserved” [Basic Books, 2008], you will find that in the future Bush will rank with Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt in prosecution of war-topping Harry Truman whose effort in Korea led to a futile, negotiated peace by others. Now to other compartments…
The Economy
Bush tax cuts initially turned a near-recession inherited from Bill Clinton to prosperity. His income tax rates went down for the first time since 1986. In addition he cut taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates and enlarged the child tax credit. These steps led to prosperity for most of his two terms. The recession…which may well become depression…occurred on his watch for which he will receive largely undeserved blame-but it is a fact, largely unobserved by the bitterly biased mainstream media, but this is the 11th recession of the World War II postwar period and the 33rd in U.S. history.
While it is undeniable that Herbert Hoover worsened the economic climate by a tax hike and protectionism, a case cannot be made…no matter what Barack Obama has stated…that the reason for the severe downturn was caused by George W. Bush. If as Obama charges “deregulation” caused it…which it did NOT…deregulation was in effect before the advent of George Bush. Alan Greenspan who failed to see the crisis was in office as Fed chairman before Bush came on the scene. Beyond this, there is no doubt that Bush tried to avert the crisis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only to meet steadfast opposition from the Democratic majorities in Congress-including Barney Frank.
It is too early to judge whether Henry Paulson or Ben Bernanke have worsened the crisis-although there is no doubt in my book that Paulson’s stop-go tactics have not helped. We simply don’t know whether the recession will worsen to depression. If it does, assuredly Bush…whether he deserves it or not…will wear the collar. Until that judgment is made, Bush’s reputation…as prime defender of the U.S. against global terrorism…will dominate his legacy.
Largely uncovered by the secular media, however, is another great accomplishment-uncovered because the media are hugely unsympathetic. That is the slow redemption of the possibility of American cultural traditionalism reflected in wise and courageous pro-life steps taken by this president.
Pro-Life Accomplishments.
One must start off by marveling at the pro-life consistency that the president has shown-a greater consistency than was demonstrated by Ronald Reagan, assuredly. It begins with his fore-square appointment of two magnificent justices to the Supreme Court-Sam Alito and John Roberts. Bush’s record is , as Edward Whelan (president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center) has said, 2 for 2. Reagan’s was only 1 for 3 (Antonin Scalia being a very good pick)…and frankly with all deference to Reagan, there was an ample opportunity for the 40th president to avoid choosing Sandra Day O’Connor whom everyone alert knew was a pro-choice leader in the Arizona legislature.
(Mike Deaver and others saw the opportunity in appeasing the secular media by becoming the first president to nominate a woman to the high court. The liberal media never credit things like that when they are done by a conservative president…anymore than it has noted that Reagan was the first to have an African American national security adviser or that Bush II was the first to have a African American woman secretary of state. It means nothing to the media which only celebrate actions done by Democrats. In fact the media believe that the natural custodians of the federal government are Democrats and when Republicans take over, they are temporary usurpers.) Earlier this year I asked Ed Meese how Anthony Kennedy…a keen disappointment…made it through. Meese answered that Kennedy had attested to and insisted he was a pro-lifer. The blandishments of the media…stating that “Kennedy is capable of growth”…known as the Greenhouse effect, named after the Times’ Linda Greenhouse…was responsible.
Against this average…and that of his father who scored 1 for 1 (Clarence Thomas, an excellent appointment and David Souter a bad one), Bush performed very well-signally, in fact. Unfortunately Bush was not given any further opportunities to name Justices so the social conservatives (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) are outnumbered by one with the feckless Anthony Kennedy bouncing like a rubber ball between the factions. Bush can count himself lucky that he was spared Harriet Miers-and only the engendered opposition of social conservatives and talk radio prevented it. She was chosen just as Sandy O’Connor was-based on preconception that an appointment must be a woman.
Finally there can be no doubt that a heroic…I use that word unqualifiedly…stand was made in defense of life beyond judicial appointments. He signed the ban of partial birth abortion and the Born Alive bill which Obama wantonly killed as judiciary chairman in the Illinois senate. He stood off very strong pressures from the left on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and by doing so, stalled for enough time that science developed alternative means.
There is no doubt that since abortion and the exploitation of innocent unborn life has become an issue, George W. Bush…of all the presidents…has compiled the finest record.
This is long enough for now. More evaluations later.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Chicago Daily Observer Editorial Board
Mr. Roeser, my hat is off to you, sir. I could not agree with you more on all points. My only two regrets are that:
1) I will probably not live to see the day that George W. Bush receives his due regard as an “extraordinarily gifted president.”
2) That President George W. Bush won’t either.
Aside from his prolife actions-which stem from personal convictions, not knowledge or judgement- Bush, IMO is an abysmal failure. The foray into Iraq was promoted by the Project for a New American Century(your friend Rumsfeld is/was a member). Bush and his apparatchiks drew a connection with 9/11 and the supposed WWD in Iraq when they damn well knew that there wasn’t. They used this tragedy as a precipitent for their master plan of remaking the Arabic world. Bush ( and Rumsfeld and the PNAC group) has the blood of our brave men and women of the military on his hands.
LG,
There were many tons of weapons grade uranium removed from Iraq by the US Military. It was no secret, and the UN was well aware of the “Yellow Cake” in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin
I am of the opinion that Nuclear Material in the hands of a crackpot dictator is close enough to WMD to consider military intrevention without charges of having sacrificed troops in some willy-nilly way.
I don’t think the Iraq War was perfectly thought out or executed, but it was thought out and executed better than the Mexican War or WW1 (and certainly Vietnam) for example.
JBP
JP: The correction on the 7/08 article that you posted says it all:
Correction: August 13, 2008
An article on July 7 about the American military’s removal of remaining uranium from Iraq’s main nuclear site at Tuwaitha, the last vestige of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program, misidentified the potential nuclear threat once believed to have been posed there by the Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israeli warplanes destroyed in 1981. While detailed information about Osirak’s operations and purpose was never revealed, the reactor theoretically produced plutonium, which can fuel an atomic bomb; it did not produce weapons-grade uranium, a highly enriched form of uranium, which is not a byproduct of nuclear reactors. A reader pointed out the error in an e-mail message on July 8 and this correction was delayed for research.
LG
what do you think Saddam would have done with his oil money if, as the left had pushed for, the United Nations had removed the sanctions? Would he have tried to rebuild his Nuclear Program?
Why is it that Saddam is immune from blame by not following the details of his surrender in the Gulf war? He was openly defying the United Nations sanctions and repeatedly halting searches anywhere anytime the United Nations wanted to have them. Bush did not lie in the 19 United Nations sanctions voted during the 12 years after the Gulf war. Nobody denies that Kurds were gassed by Saddam. So where is the lie? Didn’t W give Saddam a three month warning with a unanimous vote in the UN Security council? All Saddam had to do was allow the inspectors to do their jobs and there would have been no war. The war was the fault of Saddam not anyone Else’s.
OBL used the fact that America was allowing Saddam to get away with thumbing his nose at the west to attack us on Sep 11th. Remember “America is a paper tiger”
George W Bush regained Americas position as world leader and he did what is the main job of the POTUS and that is protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Jim:
Why don’t we review the facts?
*Sadam gassed the Kurds in March 1988.
*Sept. 11, 2001-bombing of World Trade Towers.
*Hans Blix,UN Weapons inspector, who oversaw the inspection re: WMD in Iraq stated,”
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.”I think they chose to ignore us,” Blix said. “Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said he had been “pretty convinced” that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.(CNN 3/2004).
*In May 2003 the U.S. and a small group of allies invaded Iraq.
It was clear in February of 2003, that there were no WMD, but the Vulcans from PNAC wanted to start their master plan for remaking the arab world into a democracy and they skewed the truth in order to sell a war to Congress and the public. They used Colin Powell to accommplish their means as he was highly respected.
*Bush stated later in an interview that there never was a connection with 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.
FYI, Americans are hated abroad and the animosity of the rest of the world for the U.S. has intensified as a result of the Bush presidency.
For anyone here who is Catholic, there was no justification from the Church’s standpoint for the invasion of Iraq; it does not meet the criteria for just war.
LG
Nothing you said has any bearing on the facts. The facts are Saddam lost a war. Saddam signed an agreement to end the war. In that agreement the UN had every right to go ANYWHERE it wanted to go. Your explanation skipped every fact and spouted the Bush lied mantra. To go so far as to say Colin Powell was a dupe and was used shows to me that hatred of Bush colors your opinion.
How many attacks were perpetrated on the US after 9/11? How many during Clinton? Does more attacks mean we were hated more? Every time a Republican becomes President the media push the Hatred of American abroad. Remember the millions marching in Europe because of the missile’s Reagan was going to put into western Europe? How about the millions in the streets marching against American imperialism and the Nuclear freeze? Any time America is strong the lefties in the world hate us. SO WHAT! How many more millions are free today because we didn’t care about the marchers? Do you think the people of Iraq or eastern Europe care that some lefties in Europe marched? The one time America caved in and listened to people like you millions of people died in South East Asia. Remember how hated we were then? Do you think those millions wish we would have stayed and finished instead of caring what the rest of the world thought? No LG your problem is you want the world to like us and what I want is for the world to respect us. There is no doubt while George W is in office where America stands and what we will do to keep the peace in the world. Can you say the same about Obama? Look at Drudge today. Russia in Cuba, India and Pakistan getting ready for war. It is better to be feared in international politics than it is to be loved.
BTW I am Catholic and I have to say that you are wrong about justification. We did not attack in the middle of the night or using airliners. We didn’t attack on the spur of the moment. We put our own people at risk by telling Saddam the exact time we would attack, not only the time but the date. We didn’t go after the enemy when they hid their guns in civilian areas.
I would put the freeing of millions and stopping hundreds of thousands of tortures and raping in front of my GOD and your allowing them to stay in their situations and allow him to choose.
I have no doubt where he would stand. America is here because of GOD and his planting the need for human freedom inside us.
LG,
I am a bit lost on the reason here.
So it was questionable even after the US took over the nuclear material whether it was weapons grade or not.
Shouldn’t error on the side of safety be a consideration here?
Having tons of uranium, which it is noted “can fuel an atomic bomb” doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. There may have been a few different alternatives to the War in Iraq, but I don’t think anyone in their right might can reject the path President Bush chose outright.
JBP
JBP:
(1)the Isrealis already destroyed this site (2) its purpose was misidentified-not uranium, but ‘theoretical’ plutonium (3) the experts who investigated (Blix,ElBaradei)Iraq for WMD/nuclear stated per their investigation the the information that Powell was presenting as a rationale(to Congress) for going in was shaky. Why was does this meet the critieria for war and U.S. involvement? It doesn’t. If one reads the plan by PNAC, starting a war with Iraq does. Here is a quote from Bush’s speech the night the US began bombing Iraq:
“at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.”
“Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
I consider myself someone with “a right mind” and at the time I was against the invasion because there was no evidence of WMD and I maintain that it was a mistake to have gone in. I also maintain that there were other motives… we know that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. Please tell me where are the revenues from this oil? If freedom from tyranny is the issue why can’t Iraq fund it’s own war with all of their oil revenue? Why are we sending billions of $ into Iraq and bankrupting this country? Anh why is Halliburton, Cheney’s old company, controlling the Iraq oil fields? I have lots of questions and there are no answers.
Cheney’s old company is the only company that does that type of work. If Cheney wanted to make millions he would have stayed at Halliburton and passed on VP. Seeing that by taking the VP job it cost him $100 million at least. He had to give up his holdings in the company and he gave his stock options back! He didn’t want to be POTUS so being VP was totally out of Patriotism, and people like you make up some BS about this all being about money for Cheney.
It was Clinton who gave us the Nuclear Iraq scenario and Bush being in office only a short time with the bulk of people in the CIA and state still being Clinton people he went with the people who’s job it was to inform him. EVERYONE in the Senate and most in congress, and the UN agreed with the view of Saddam and Iraq. You still did not answer the question; “why do you blame anyone but Saddam”? He could have averted all of this by abiding by the UN agreements. It was not our job to prove Saddam had the WMD it was Saddam’s job to prove he didn’t. It is that simple. By allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at the UN and the US for 8 years and allowing Saddam to illegally sell oil for bribes money (While letting his people die , remember the thousands of children without medicine?) instead of using the oil money for the people. As well as the non reactions to the other attacks Clinton gave the impression that the US would not respond. Above I reminded you of Bin Laden’s own words that America was a “Paper Tiger” and it as OK to attack us. If Clinton had responded to the first WTC bombing or any of the subsequent attacks, there would not have been a 9/11.
So in the the geopolitical world 9/11 and Iraq were one in the same
Jim:
Since you are so convinced that this war is a good idea, get yourself and your family over there. I have already had three family members serve multiple tours and one more to go.
I have served. I volunteered for the marine corps in 1979 I was a Democrat then. Ronald Reagan became POTUS in 1980 and I saw the light. If Jimmy Carter had let us do what I joined to do we would not have the problems we have today. I joined then so my children would not have to fight these people (Islamic terrorists)by not doing something in 79 when we could have we now have a huge problem on our hands. That is why Bush will be remembered as a great President he saw what had to be done and did it.
In 1979, what ‘opportunity’ was there to serve in combat…Granada? Good for you that you and your kids haven’t gone into combat–I guess that’s for others to do.
Two additional points. I find it disingenuous when someone creates facts to support their position–eg., it’s fiction that only Halliburton is qualified to manage the Iraq oil fields. FYI, my recollection is that this was (surprise) a no bid job. Secondly,I sincerely doubt that you are an informed Catholic and even know what constitutes just war criteria per the Catholic faith.
LG,
For someone who usually offers valuable comments here, you are way off base. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on Iraq policy without mocking the other’s religious convictions or military service.
Jim is a frequent contributor to the Chicago Daily Observer, and his views on Religion and Politics are well documented. May I suggest a few simple searches before leaping to criticism?
JBP
JP:
Jim may be a frequent poster, but his posts are rife with error, and he frankly makes things up to support his view. For example, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned U.S. involvement in Iraq. This has been widely published in the media.It does not meet the criteria for just war. Jim also stated,” Nothing you(meaning myself)has any bearing on the facts.” In other words, instead of having an intelligent discussion, he dismisses what I have said. I see that you have leap to his defense and have stated that I am the issue. Why not chastise Jim for making the statement that he posted? Frankly, I will leave you boys to yourselves.
Now I get it…
The Republican Assembly
Founder: Tom Roeser
Executive Director: James Leahy
Yes LG,
Jim is rather easy to chastise on the phone, since I talk to him most every day, while you are using an assumed (are rather unique) name in your posts.
Jim is Republican activist. There are a lot of political minded folks who write articles here.
The Catholic Church has not condemned the Iraq War as “unjust”, by the way. There have been criticisms (and some praise) but no condemnation under the “just war” criteria.
I was looking this up a few months ago…the Catholic Church has not condemned very many wars as being unjust, let alone one with such a huge gray area as the Iraq war.
As much as you read the CD Observer, I think you get our point that much of what the media says about things like Religion is utter nonsense.
JBP
Leave your response!
Everybody Wishes Obama Would Just Go Away For A While
Recent Comments
Archives
Recent Posts
Tags
Subscribe
Most Commented
about cdo