On Bush-Hatred and the Bush Legacy
One of the most amusing things about the past eight years has been watching certain people on the left launch into paroxysms of outrage every time the name, “George W. Bush,” is mentioned. They even got upset that, at the close of his tenure in office, he reminded the American people of his accomplishments instead of apologizing for his mistakes. In their eyes, that good man could do no right.
And yes, despite his many flaws, he is a good man. Even his Democratic successor has said as much. But, for many of his supporters, “to trash Bush was to belong,” as if expressing animosity toward the president were the sacrament of their faith.
George W. Bush, however, is anything but the demon or clown of their caricatures. He was — and remains — a complex man who, to be sure, made many mistakes as president, but, who pretty much got the big things right. I say, “pretty much,” because while he did shift strategy in Iraq he was slow in doing so.
Above all, he kept us safe. Since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Let us hope the determination in his decisive reaction to the attacks defines his legacy, an example of how a leader should react in time of crisis:
Bush showed America’s enemies a country that does not retreat in fear, does not bomb with impunity, and most important, does not desert civilians or foreign governments that trust us. If you think that doesn’t matter, look at Libya, which disarmed its weapons program. And see how much easier Obama’s presidency will be, because Bush kept the faith.
In the process of looking out for our country, George W. Bush, overthrew two tyrannous regimes and liberated fifty million people.
Just as we remember Harry S Truman today more for his strong stance against the expansion of Communism in the immediate aftermath of World War II rather than his blundering economic policies, notably his attempt to nationalize the steel mills, so will people remember Bush’s resolve against the violent expression of Islamic fanaticism rather than his failure to show similar resolve against the financial shenanigans of unregulated government sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
In his first months in office, Bush was aware of the problem which would spark the crisis, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were too “large and overleveraged.”  As Karl Rove recounts, Bush’s first budget, issued in April 2001, warned that their “failure ‘could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity’ well beyond housing.”
But, when those GSEs fought back, the Administration did not press the issue, all but abandoning its reform proposals when Democrats and, yes, some Republicans, blocked them in Congress.
Throughout his tenure in office, Bush would attempt to rein Fannie and Freddie, offering 17 proposals for reform in 2008 alone, but didn’t work hard enough to overcome Democratic opposition.  That said, I would rather he show determination against global terrorism than financial malfeasance.
In a previous post, I outlined, what I believe to be, his major flaws . Reader V the K added three more which seem about right.
As George W. Bush leaves office, he leaves behind a mixed record. On the most important issue facing a Commander in Chief, he acquitted himself quite well, showing admirable determination when our nation was under attack. Would he had shown similar resolve in facing the financial crisis.
Given the choices we had in 2000 and 2004, I know I made the right decision in voting for George W. Bush. He was not just the better of the two candidates, he was also a good man. He proved a steady hand in responding to an unexpected attack on civilian targets on American soil. That response helped keep us safe as it helped free tens of millions of oppressed citizens of other lands.
For that alone, he merits our respect. And our thanks.
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
George W. Bush, however, is anything but the demon or clown of their caricatures.
The hatred came first. The left then developed the caricatures to justify it.
Bush was a mediocrity, no doubt about it. But he was not the bumbling-idiot-evil-boogeyman of their fevered imaginings.
Comment by V the K — January 19, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - January 19, 2009
Above all, he kept us safe.
Statements like this make my skin crawl. This gives a President and the presidency far too much power and credit and implies a superhuman, supernatural, Providential aspect reserved for the subjects of regimes who are brainwashed to believe their leaders are god-like. No doubt there are millions who think Kim Jong Il keeps them safe.
Bush may have put in place policies and structures that have contributed to an increase in public safety, but I think it’s too soon to assess their effectiveness. Considering the level of nihilism displayed on 9/11, would Clinton have simply shrugged and continued diddling female flunkies? He may have wanted to use to event to mug for the camera and get our sympathy and burnish his tawdry legacy, but he wouldn’t have been allowed to do anything less than set up the likes of a Homeland Security dept. Hardly visionary, that.
This is one of those ‘Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you’ issues. Have Bush’s policies been successful enough for me to feel gratitude? No; he’s doing his job. Do I think he likely did the best he could with the knowledge he had? I don’t know, but I’m willing to give him part of the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Ignatius — January 19, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - January 19, 2009
Thanks for the nice link. This president will one day be vindicated.
Comment by Sissy Willis — January 19, 2009 @ 3:21 pm - January 19, 2009
“One of the most amusing things about the past eight years has been watching certain people on the left launch into paroxysms of outrage every time the name, “George W. Bush,†is mentioned.”
They sure have raised the bar on hatred with Bush, but that’s been their stock-in-trade like, forever. Reagan? H.W. Bush? Newt Gingrich? Sarah Palin? And it doesn’t matter how bad anyone on the left is they’ve always gotten a pass, now they are vigorously *defended*.
It’s gotten so bad I’ve withdrawn from discussing anything with “them,” they’ve entirely lost their minds.
It’s only recently that I’ve read some comments from the left acknowledging Reagan as something less than a boob, it’ll take as least as long for Bush’s accomplishments to be ackowledged.
Comment by DoorHold — January 19, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - January 19, 2009
Unfortunately, most of my “lefty” friends are total believers in every conspiracy theory they read on the Internet. Not only do they “know” that Cheney planned 9/11, they suspect aliens were involved. I’m starting to associate left-leaning politics with cult-like behavior. It’s sad really.
Comment by MikeInSedona — January 19, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - January 19, 2009
Obama worship is the flip side of Bush hatred, neither are very pretty.
Comment by Leah — January 19, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - January 19, 2009
[...] On Bush-Hatred and the Bush Legacy [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » What Obama can learn from Captain Sullenberger — January 19, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - January 19, 2009
[...] On Bush-Hatred and the Bush Legacy [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama Worship: Flip Side of Bush Hatred — January 19, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - January 19, 2009
[...] On Bush-Hatred and the Bush Legacy [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Mary Cheney’s Legacy — January 20, 2009 @ 12:31 am - January 20, 2009
Well, of course Obama is going to say Bush is a good guy. Bush made Obama’s presidency possible. LOL
For if Bush hadn’t been such an abject failure, America would have never taken the chance on a first term Senator – a skinny, black guy named Barack Obama. If things hadn’t been so bad, Democrats would have gone with an establishment choice, like Hillary Clinton or Evan Bayh. (Least you forget, Bayh did run for President for about 2 weeks, until he realized that Obama was sucking up all the oxygen.)
Obama owes a lot to Bush.
Comment by Erik — January 20, 2009 @ 1:02 am - January 20, 2009
It’s sad that we have “leaders” in this country who demanded that we retreat in fear while deserting civilians and foreign governments that trust us. Not only that, but the slandered and smeared our military along the way. And who could forget their desire to put union interests above national security?
Worse than that, they screamed that they were being “patriotic” all the while.
Well, we know he did after 2/26, after the SF slaughter in the Mog, the bombings in Kenya & Tanzania, burning down the Branch Davidians, kidnapping a Cuban kid at gunpoint, the USS Cole bombing etc. etc. etc. I think it’s safe to say “yes, he would have”.
And who could forget Algore scuttling his revamp of airport/airline security after a hefty donation to the DNC by the airlines and Mrs. Tom Daschle?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 20, 2009 @ 1:31 am - January 20, 2009
BWAHAHAHA. I’m home in Texas right now and I can’t turn on the radio without hearing rabid, insane Obama-hatred. (In fact if Ruch keeps this up I think he’s going to have a stroke.) Yes there was over the top Bush-hating just like there was over the top Clinton-hating before that. I wouldn’t expect any less from the opposition to Obama. I’m neither surprised nor outraged. Mostly I’m amused. Please keep on talking about the madrasa and the birth certificate. It accomplishes nothing as those of us appalled at the Bush administration learned (well, some of us anyway). So enjoy the bitter pill. Engaging in real substantive debate could lead to a GOP comeback in 2010. Bitching and moaning will keep you in the minority.
Comment by Houndentenor — January 20, 2009 @ 10:26 am - January 20, 2009
Except: The point happens to be true. And the President deserves credit. Of course, it was our military and CIA people and many others working in the War on Terror that actually kept us safe. But Bush supported them. Bush not only set, but defended policies where they could do their work. Bush insisted that Iraq be an American victory, at a time when Democratic leaders actively wanted to make Iraq an American defeat. All that was to the good, and is to Bush’s credit.
On the morning after 9-11, did you expect us to go 7+ years without another terrorist attack in the 50 States? I know I didn’t. And if seven years later is too soon to *begin* assessing his policies’ effectiveness, well, when would be the proper time?
Clinton would have done less, yes. Remember, Clinton began his Administration with a 9-11 also, just one where fewer people died: the first WTC attack, in 1993. And terrorist attacks (with American deaths) in 1996, 1998, 2000. The Islamists war on us did not begin on 9-11 and Clinton had done jack squat about it. He famously passed up a clear shot at bin Ladin.
As you point out, Clinton would have seized all the good chances to expand government bureaucracy that 9-11 presented. And I believe that Clinton may well have invaded Iraq, because the Iraq Liberation Act (mandating a policy of regime change) was after all passed on his watch. The attitude of Democrats toward “doing something” about Saddam Hussein was once drastically different. But Clinton would not have seen it through. When Iran and al Qaeda started pouring resources into Iraq in 2005 and 2006, Clinton would have accepted U.S. defeat. Remember, he gave us the disastrous retreat in Somalia, disastrous because it partly inspired the 9-11 terrorists.
Which is more than Clinton did.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 20, 2009 @ 10:41 am - January 20, 2009
#11
My, you do have an imagination, don’t you?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 21, 2009 @ 2:14 am - January 21, 2009
[...] more about those who feel them than the men at which they are directed,” Berkowitz, like Leah, calls the two seemingly different phenomena, “opposite sides of the same coin:” Both [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » The Passions of our Liberal Elites:Hating Bush and Loving Obama with Similar Fervor — January 31, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - January 31, 2009