TAS Live
Learning From the Bush Legacy
Conservatives sold their soul to back George W. Bush. Eight years later, can they get it back?
(This article first ran in the November 2008 issue
of The American
Spectator.)
IN HIS EXCELLENT BIOGRAPHY of Abraham Lincoln, David Herbert Donald recalls a meeting he had with John F. Kennedy in February 1962, in which the young president complained about the way scholars ranked his predecessors. "No one has a right to grade a president -- not even poor James Buchanan -- who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions," Kennedy said.
With President Bush's days in office coming to an end, the inevitable debate about his legacy is upon us. To critics, his record of failure is self-evident: a costly and unnecessary war launched under false pretenses, an economy in tatters, and the protection of civil liberties eroded. To his defenders, Bush deserves credit for keeping America safe after the September 11 attacks by treating terrorism as part of a broader war rather than a criminal matter, and targeting the state sponsors of terror rather than merely individual terrorists. Much like Harry Truman was maligned during his time only to be vindicated later for his early leadership during the Cold War, in this view, Bush will be remembered as the president who set the stage for the long struggle against Islamic extremism, and who toppled tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Despite the mountain of words that have accumulated over the two terms of the Bush presidency, journalists have not had the time, perspective, or access to key documents that would allow them to conduct the type of thorough examination that Kennedy spoke about. And the historical assessment of Bush's time in office will be influenced by factors that may not be known for decades. For instance, if Iraq is a reliable, democratic, U.S. ally 20 years from now, Bush will be remembered a lot differently than if it is an unstable nation state posing a threat to American national security. But Iraq has made fools of too many smart people on both sides of the debate to predict with any degree of confidence how things will turn out.
While the benefit of hindsight will be required to assess the Bush presidency in its broadest sense, this is nonetheless an important time for conservatives to reflect on what the past eight years has meant for conservatism itself. Part of this has been done already. Conservatives have applauded President Bush for his tax cuts and the appointments of Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Sam Alito, but have been mostly disappointed by the tremendous expansion of government under his watch. Bush's remaining defenders will try to pin the blame for his spendthrift ways on increased defense spending in response to September 11, but in reality, non-defense spending grew at a faster rate under Bush than it did during the Clinton administration. Though Congressional earmarks soared out of control, Bush did not use his veto pen until late in his second term. While he led a charge for Social Security reform, in the end, his only contribution to entitlements will have been the largest expansion of them since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan. He leaves office just a few years before the first Baby Boomers start to retire, and now the long-term entitlement deficit has soared to $53 trillion. Bush also expanded the role of the federal government in education through the No Child Left Behind law and in September, he was asking Congress to fork over $700 billion to avert the collapse of the U.S. financial system as part of an unprecedented government intervention into the private market.
WHILE IT HAS BEEN important to keep a ledger of the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of the Bush years, it is now time for the discussion to move a step further, so that conservatives can begin to examine their own behavior during this time, and thus draw lessons from their own mistakes and false assumptions. This will be a critical part of the broader conversation about what's in store for the future of conservatism -- a conversation that will be necessary no matter who succeeds President Bush.
President Bush, for starters, was able to win over conservatives for the simple reason that everybody likes to be on the side of a winner. Back in 2000, conservatives had endured two terms of the Clinton presidency, and were eager to return to power and to keep Al Gore out of the White House. After the Bush-Cheney team made it through the debacle in Florida, they came to Washington and created the impression that grown-ups were again in charge who would restore dignity to the Oval Office that the Clintons had dragged through the mud. To economic conservatives, he offered tax cuts; to social conservatives, he offered faith-based initiatives and a promise to promote the culture of life; and to national security conservatives, he promised to rebuild a military that had been depleted during the 1990s in the name of the post-Cold War "peace dividend."
Although Bush came to power as a polarizing figure, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the nation rallied around their president, and Bush's approval rating shot up to 90 percent -- the highest ever recorded by Gallup. When he stood on the rubble of Ground Zero and declared, megaphone in hand, "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us real soon," he emerged as a wartime leader.
In the years that followed, this initial support eroded as the Iraq War dragged on and controversies erupted over civil liberties, executive powers, and the treatment of detainees, all of which were rooted in the underlying question: How far is the United States willing to go in the name of fighting terrorism?
With the media on the attack and liberal criticism of Bush degenerating into visceral hatred that in some quarters prompted absurd comparisons to Hitler, conservatives naturally rallied behind their wartime president, and more tempered criticism was tossed aside as anti-American.
In 2004, President Bush delivered another victory over the forces of liberalism by beating John Kerry and helping to build a solid Republican majority in the Senate. In the days that followed, Dick Cheney declared the election results a "mandate," and with a renewed swagger, President Bush boasted that "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." There was talk of a permanent Republican majority, and Bush was dubbed "Rebel in Chief" by the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes. In all of the euphoria, criticism of Bush among other conservatives was hard to find.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST mistakes conservatives made was to assume that just because Bush appealed to their own cultural sensibilities and angered liberals so much, that he must be one of them. Part of this harkens back to the experience of Ronald Reagan.
Liberals and their allies in the media routinely savaged Reagan for being an intellectual lightweight, a lazy man who spent a year of his presidency at his ranch, and an actor who bluffed his way through office. Of course, over time, Reagan was credited with winning the Cold War, and the subsequent release of his personal diaries and correspondences left little doubt that he was a thoughtful man, something that would have been apparent to anybody paying attention to the substance of his speeches dating back to 1964, or the radio commentaries that he personally wrote in the 1970s.
Neither Bush's rhetoric nor his interviews demonstrated any similar understanding of conservative philosophy, but because so many of his liberal critics attacked him in similar ways, conservatives reacted by insisting, "they said the same things about Reagan." Just because Reagan ended up proving his critics wrong, however, it didn't logically follow that those who were criticizing Bush were necessarily mistaken.
As it turns out, in many cases, President Bush's critics were proven correct in their assessments of his flaws as a leader. Bush was lampooned for his poor communication skills -- an inability to pronounce "nuclear," statements such as "is our children learning," and mangled words including, "misunderestimated." Many conservatives excused this as an endearing characteristic that was evidence of his anti-elitism.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Letter to the Editor View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Philip Klein
More Articles From TAS Live
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/02/learning-from-the-bush-legacy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Background to the Financial Crisis
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
roy cohansen| 12.2.08 @ 7:55AM
"For instance, if Iraq is a reliable, democratic, U.S. ally 20 years from now, Bush will be remembered a lot differently than if it is an unstable nation state posing a threat to American national security. But"
Typical Bush apologist and obfuscation crap. I don't have to wait for 20 years to recognize that Bush is a failed president.
P Aaronson| 12.2.08 @ 9:04AM
This is the first, and perhaps only, perceptive analysis of the Bush administration by a conservative which I have read since the election. It's a pity more conservatives were not similarly perceptive before the Right dug itself into such a difficult situation. Not only will conservatives need to come up with new ideas to retool their ideology to face the issues of the 21st century, but they will need the center-Left government of Obama to be seen to fail. And, considering the state in which America now finds itself, the Democrats can plausibly argue that simply preventing things from getting worse would constitute success. If I didn't feel that conservatives, by allying themselves to the most retrogressive elements in society, amply deserved to be where they were now, I would probably feel sorry for them. As it is, I can enjoy their plight.
Bob D| 12.2.08 @ 9:12AM
Roy re-read the article! It is hardly an apology for Bush. As a conservative I view this as more of an indictment of his presidency. By seizing one of the few lines in the piece that is at all optmistic about his legacy (and by the way true-history will likely be kinder to him if Iraq is in good shape in 20 years. That's how these things go!) you reveal yourself to be the type of pre-pubescent liberal that prefers heated rhetoric over rational, fact-based discussion.
john| 12.2.08 @ 9:13AM
From the end of WW II to 2000 the US essentially followed the same liberal/internationalist/realist foreign policy whether Republicans or Democrats were in power. It was essentially one of enlightened self interest conceived by Acheson/Marshall/Harriman/Kennan et al and was built around three basic principles. Containment of adversaries, resolution of disputes through global institutions wherever possible, and building alliance systems. On the whole it was a fairly respectable endeavor and produced generally satisfactory results although occasionally the bus went off the road, most notably in Vietnam. Two classic examples of its operation, one by a Democratic president and one by a Republican and separated by forty years, were the Berlin airlift and ejecting Hussein from Kuwait. In 2000 there really was a quantum shift when we moved to policy of disregarding the opinions of allies, ignoring international institutions and treaties, using pre-emptive wars as an instrument of policy, supporting the most extreme Israeli position in the middle east, and trying however incompetently to export democracy by force. It is my personal belief that this was primarily dictated by domestic political considerations but whatever the underlying reasons the results of this suicidal statecraft have proved uniformly disastrous for the US interest. This was so blatantly obvious by late in Bush's second term that even his administration was force to make some adjustments which annoyed his neoconservative supporters who seem primarily motivated by simplistic nationalism and just made his administration look more weak and incompetent. Now a reaction is setting in with a return to liberal/internationalist/realist policies which are basically supported by not only the vast majority of democratic policy makers but by most moderate leading Republicans. Dick Lugar and Colin Powell are far closer to Hillary Clinton and Biden than they ever were to John Bolton, Addington, Cheney, Kristol and the ed page of the WSJ. Some of the damage will be repaired quickly, in Europe for example, but I never see us regaining our primacy in the middle east and Latin America. The price the US has paid for the Neoconservative interlude will be costly and in some cases permanent.
Daniel Weir| 12.2.08 @ 9:16AM
Perhaps the most important sentence in Mr. Klein's essay is the following: "[I]t isn't really fair to call [Bush's deviation from conservatism] a 'betrayal,' as some critics on the right have [done]."
Yesterday, Deroy Murdock, following in the tradition of the extreme right-wing, anti-Semitic John Birch Society, implied that Bush is a Communist, branding him "Comrade."
The Birchers did the same thing in 1958 - the year I was born - with President Eisenhower.
Where are the Birchers today?
Conservatives should celebrate their accomplishments during the Bush years - including a fact not mentioned in Mr. Klein's essay, that Bush has been the most pro-Israel U.S. President since Harry Truman, and learn from theirs, and Bush's mistakes, and move forward.
George True| 12.2.08 @ 9:19AM
What an astoundingly ignorant and infantile comment from the previous commenter Roy Cohansen (If that's his real name). This was the most sobering, rational, and even-handed critique of the Bush years I have seen to date. (I am curious, if Mr Klein would simply acknowledge that Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler, that Bush actually CAUSED the hurricanes, that Bush singlehandedly and purposely engineered the meltdown of financial markets worldwide, and that Bush is in fact the Anti-Christ, THEN would Mr Cohansen finally be satisfied that Mr Klein is not a Bush apologist?)
As for the ' where do we go from here' part of the article, my reaction is, "Sure, but how?" How do we as conservatives advance the common sense philosophy of conservativism outside of the Republican party? How do we win the war of ideas while keeping the Republican Party at arms length? We saw where that got us in 1992 and 1996 with Ross Perot. We got eight years of Bill Clinton. I would love to advance the cause without the Republican Party. They have, over the years demonstrated an astounding lack of leadership, lack of basic competency, and a willingness to cut true conservatives off at the knees while supporting their RINO rivals in the primaries. But they are still unfortunately the only viable game in town. Flirting with third parties, at least at the national level, will only bring more defeats.
We cannot force a change in the Republican party from the top down. The country club Republicans who are in charge do not want to change and they do not want to relinquish control. But we can begin to force a change from the bottom up if we all get involved and start supporting true conservatives for the state legislature, for secretary of state, for governor, and for congress in the respective states where we are all living.
Susan F| 12.2.08 @ 9:23AM
The President is hated by the media, academia and the intellectual class - including some conservatives - because he is shares the worldview of many evangelical Christians (and also faithful Catholics).
baseballguy2001| 12.2.08 @ 9:31AM
The first thing to do is figure out what went wrong then correct it. Admit it: The Bush years have been a disaster for low tax, smaller, less intrusive government, strong defense types. I emphasize the less intrusive govt part. By any reasonable accounting, the Bush years have increased the size, scope, and intrusive nature of the federal govt. For example, should parents have control of their kids education or should the feds in D.C.? The Bush years gave us the "No Child Left Behind" law that transfers your tax dollars from your local economy to another hundreds or even thousands of miles away at the the direction of the powers in D.C.. How about not a single veto on any spending bill in the entire first four years in office. That inaction expanded the size of govt at levels not seen since the 1960's. How about the federal govt stepping in on a family dispute that had been up and down the Florida courts? Talk about infringing on states rights! Another killer issue has to be the years of foreign nation building that is costing the country billions of dollars. The ultimate govt intrusion has to be the nationalizing of the banking, insurance, and the manufacturing sectors. All done with the blessing of this Republican president who wants to be remembered by history as a 'Liberator'. Someone please explain to me how a freedom loving American can liberate foreign peoples but take away freedoms of his own countrymen? The fix? That's easy. Any politician who says the govt knows better than me doesn't get my vote. A Government that can do everything for you, can easily take everything away.
star| 12.2.08 @ 9:35AM
Respectfully, you neglected to mention Bush and his administration's utter lack of an ethical or moral compass for the most part, and their law breaking, coupled with a blatently arrogant above-the-law insistance that accountability dosen't apply to them. History will not be kind to Mr. Bush, and deservedly so. God save us all if any future president DARE try to emulate him.
Anthony| 12.2.08 @ 9:39AM
You spend an entire article chastising conservatives for embracing Mr. Bush and his less than conservative bona fides, and then, in the last paragraph, inform us that we must practice political pragmatism. Yeah, I think we've known about this problem for decades, but thanks for the reminder. Our embrace of Mr. Bush was warranted, given all the circumstances. And all in all, as your article highlights, his presidency will be judged favorably by history. The same factors that imploded the McCain presidential run were at play back with Bush as well, but the schism wasn't so great then. The problem was not so much Mr. Bush's lurches to the left, but rather, the combination with the lurchs to the left by the entire Republican Party and its intellectual elites in the media. Add to this the rising tide of the rabid Left, their allies in the MSM, and the cultural rot within our society. It's hard for conservatives to deal with such a systemic failure within our own party and country, given all these circumstances, so cut us some slack. Otherwise, your article is an excellent summation of the Bush presidency. We conservatives do have our work cut out for us, and frankly, it will take time. Undoing decades of a relentless march to the left will not come overnight, and the sober reflection you mentioned will need to come more from the Republican establishment and the rest of our society; which the effects of an Obama presidency, once it's understood by those who are under the spell of "change", will happen rather quickly. Frankly, it's not conservatism that's dead, but rather, under Obama, liberalism's stance on the precipice of what might be its last act in American politics.
Michael Roush| 12.2.08 @ 9:48AM
Mr. Klein writes: "In other words, conservatives should maintain a healthy distance from the Republican Party, and stop allowing the party leader to become the de facto head of the conservative movement, a habit that was the outgrowth of the Reagan years."
What ever is the matter, Mr Klein? Don't you just adore Sarah Palin?
dave| 12.2.08 @ 11:16AM
As a conservative who is completely disgusted with Bush II's performance on many significant issues, I have four words for Jeb: No way, no how!
Howard| 12.2.08 @ 11:43AM
I agree with several writers here about our giving the President a pass on too many issues. I do think his inarticulateness is equally as important as some of his flawed policies. He is bumbling and unable to present a clear policy. Listening to Obama speak and then listening to Bush is like comparing William F. Buckley to Foster Brooks. Communication skills are part of the job description. However, we have consistently nominated verbal stiffs such as Ford, Dole, McCain and both Bushes. Great article.
Archon| 12.2.08 @ 11:54AM
Finally an intellectually honest opinion piece from a conservative that admits that they were complicit in Bush's failures as president. You can still see signs that even this author is conflicted between the standard "Bush will be vindicated in the future" line, and the "Bush was never really a conservative" rhetoric that we hear now after major electoral defeats. Unfortuately for conservatism, democrats will be running against "Bush conservatism" for the next 25 years.
Thomas| 12.2.08 @ 12:25PM
Allow me to make a few points here.
First, G.W. Bush, today, is what he has always been. It should have been no surprise to anyone who took the time to look into his background as Governor of Texas. He is an adherent of the lower taxes stimulate the economy and produce larger tax revenues school. He was also an adherent of the expansion of government services school. No big surprise. He was packaged as a "compassionate" conservative before anyone knew what that meant. It must also be remembered that Bush ran against two extremely liberal Democrats and barely squeaked by. Now Ronald Reagan presided over a government that was not very conservative either. But he had to deal with a strong Democrat controlled Congress and was forced to deal to accomplish those things he deemed most important to the nation. Bush presided over Republican controlled Congress and still governed as a moderate.
As to allowing the leader of the Republican Party be the leader of the Conservative movement [whatever that is] is absurd. In the first place, conservatives don't look for leadership and do not particularly want anyone to lead them. Conservatives pretty much know what they want and the only thing they are looking for is someone in Washington to represent their interests and philosophies. Conservative politicians inevitable succumb to the lure of continued power in Washington and they fall back on the time honored political tradition of attempting to buy votes with money and promises of money. At that point they become just another Washington politician.
One last thing before I go. This really sticks in my craw, but there has not been any instance of a preemptive war during the Bush administration. The THREAT of preemptive war has been around since about the time of the 1st Egyptian dynasty, but the Bush administration never engaged in a preemptive war. I see the hands going up and shouts of "What about Iraq?". The invasion of Iraq in 2003, irregardless of the propaganda of the media and the ill-advised claims of the Bush administration of the presence of huge stockpiles of WMD in-country, was not an independent action. It was the end of the Gulf War of 1991. The Gulf war never ended. There was no surrender, no armistice; simply a cease fire. During the twelve years between the cessation of hostilities in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated virtually every article of the cease fire agreement, including actively attacking U.S. military aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. I apologize for this long winded explanation, but it bugs me when people ignore historical fact.
Roger McKinney| 12.2.08 @ 1:24PM
A few of us saw it coming but hoped we were wrong. Bush I was a disastrous presidency for conservatives. We all knew that "compassionate conservative" meant big gov socialism. We suspected that Bush II would be like father but hoped he wouldn't. We could either vote for him or let Gore win. Some choice. This time around McCain seemd even worse. We had a choice between a young black socialist or an old white socialist. Some choice.
dgdc| 12.2.08 @ 3:14PM
Instead of removing planks, however controversal, from the conservative platform how about adding a few. Large segments of the movement want to keep/get rid of issues like abortion, big military, and welfare. Like them or not, and tweaking and adjustment are undoubtably needed, the positions are viable.
But conservatives can take additional position that could successfully oppose the opposition. Such as conservationism vs environmentalism and more research vs big education.
Many moderates have no choice but to vote liberal because the republican conservatives do not take very real concerns about environmental wastage and gross scientific incompetence (points of pride for the bush administration) seriously.
Mark Oberle| 12.2.08 @ 4:44PM
Although a thoughtful and more honest analysis than much of what I see from conservative pundits, the author reveals the same delusions about Reagan and conservatism that plague the Movement. Lets stop lying to ourselves, Reagan raised taxes and enlarged government. Bush represents Reagan on steroids. Clinton behaved more like a movement conservative than either of the above Republicans.
Conservatives who have been so unyielding in their support of both Reagan and Bush show that their movement has no idealogy that can be trusted by the American people. We have sold out ourselves for the sake of the illusion of power.
It is time to start over and develop leaders who can reconcile the Nations desire for effective government with conservative principles of individual liberty, free markets, personal responsibility, and fiscal efficiency.
roy conansen| 12.2.08 @ 6:10PM
In response to my critics, I STILL say I don't have to wait 20 years to see if Iraq stabilizes or otherwise to recognize that Bush is a failed president. I along with most logical people and historians see that right now.
Jan| 12.2.08 @ 6:38PM
Bush's "defenders"????
Is that a joke or something?
"To his defenders, Bush deserves credit for keeping America safe after the September 11 attacks..."
A few weeks after President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the World Trade Center was attacked by Al Qaeda and we weren't hit on U.S. soil again for the next eight years.
That's what Presidents DO.
Why would Bush get any credit for "keeping America safe"? He didn't keep America safe.
After being warned in January 2000 by Richard Clark that Al Qaeda was America's enemy, Bush fired him.
We should have never been attacked on 9/11 in the first place. Before giving George W. Bush a minute of credit for doing anything right, first list the stuff at which he's completely failed.
One of them is "keeping America safe."
Bill Clinton kept us safe for eight years after an attack in the first few weeks of his Presidency.
And Bill Clinton wasn't warned about Al Qaeda from GHW Bush's Sec of Def (Dick Cheney) the way Dick Cheney was warned about Al Qaeda from Bill Clinton's Sec of Def.
In 1992, Bill Clinton was warned by the out-going Sec of Defense to keep his eye on... (drum roll, please)... Iraq.
Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were utterly incompetent at solving the problems that faced America under their watch.
That Bush is trying to re-write his legacy in the face of accomplishing nothing and destroying a lot is nearly comical, except for how much he has hurt our nation.
George W. Bush:
The Worst President Ever.
dgdc| 12.2.08 @ 7:04PM
Bush's legacy will be for the future historians to consider. But if Iraq does turn into a freewheeling middle east democracy it will have very litte to do with bush and a whole lot to do with the people who have to clean up the mess.
Dai Alanye| 12.2.08 @ 7:25PM
Biggest problem with Phil Klein's analysis? Failing to realize that Dubya's biggest fault was believing he could work with the Democrats; instead he was co-opted by them.
Biggest problem with Jan's analysis? Failing to realize that Clinton did practically nothing positive to keep the nation safe, unless you consider letting bin Laden get away three times as being positive.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 8:05PM
Bush is a vicious, dishonest person-- but that makes him a great Commander in Chief.
Bush is lucky 9-11 occurred, it saved his from being a Gerald Ford caretaker administration.
Ron M| 12.2.08 @ 9:36PM
It will not take historians to decide nthat Bush invaded Iraq by over interpreting intelligence and misinterpreting it as well and presenting this misinformation to the UN. By doing so Bush conceded that the rest of the world had a say in this matter. Since he misinformed it implies that he did not think that he had sufficient reason to attack without this misinformation.
Bush may be somewhat vindicated in the future but nothing will change the fact that he was the cause of the murder of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war.
Secondly, he was too lazy to familiarize himself with the culture of Iraq and had no understanding of the consequences of unseating the government. Whether there will be benefits from this has yet to be determined. His incompetence as a commander in chief is well documented.
royconasen| 12.2.08 @ 9:49PM
Can you believe all these people on this board who can come up with no better reason to excuse Bush than to bring up Clinton?
Who ignored repeated warnings about Al Queda from Richard Clarke, held not a single meeting about Al Queda in his first year of office, and then shooed away during his vacation the secret serviceman who attempted to present to him the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike America" memo a month before 9-11? Why that would be... George Dunderhead Bush.
Who oversaw with the universally even more hated Dick Cheney the treasonous outing of a CIA agent in yet another cover-up of his administration's horrendous mistakes and lies? Why that would be...George Blunderhead Bush.
Who lied the country into a totally disasterous war and now admits in an interview today he had regrets about invading Iraq after telling us the last several years he would have done it again?
Why that would be...George W. -- The Absolute Worst President in U.S. History Not to Mention a Lifelong Failure in Business and Government Who Managed to Drag the Entire Country Down Along With Him and His Colossol Unspeakable Failure -- Bush.
There. I think I was too kind.
Who despite all the failure and disaster this horrible president has wrought upon the U.S. and the World continues to unbelievably amazingly continue to find reasons to defend him?
Why that would be...Those Bushie Apologists.
In attempting to save face, they would just assume drag down the entire country with them than to admit they were wrong in working to get this unspeakable failure as president elected twice.
Heaven help us it will never happen again.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 10:23PM
in this world its not what you do, it is winning that counts; Bush overthrew Saddam and he gets his name in the history books.
Now if things turn out very very badly, then maybe the history books wont be written because we'll all be dead.
Yes, we ARE in big trouble, but not just because of Bush or Cheney or Halliburton or controlled demolition or Jack Ruby.
You can't blame everything on Bush.
Yesterday Jeremiah wrote he understands why *we* should be angry at terrorists (or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them. I have to be so careful what i write these days). But maybe he thinks we shouldn't be angry with them at all. Maybe we should crucify Bush. That will solve all our war problems.
Daphne would maybe (who knows what she thinks) like to kill the Jews, at least the Jews in Israel.
That too will solve all our war problems.
Calling Bush the worst president ever will solve all our problems, every single problem related to the war.
Let's get into our time machines and fight the wars of the past 7 years over.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 10:29PM
P.S.
Ron, you wrote that Bush may be "somewhat vindicated in the future".
But the rest of your post writes the diametric opposite-- that he wont be vindicated at all!
royconansen| 12.2.08 @ 11:20PM
Why is it always with the Bush apologists this erroneous and delusional inference that whatever Bush "accomplished" in overthrowing Sadaam made the U.S. and the world a safer place from terrorism?
Wrong.
There exists no evidence to suggest dealing with Sadaam in other ways while staying out of Iraq altogether might not have accomplished similar objectives.
In fact, most international and national global security experts, and even divisions within the U.S. government, have repeatedly found Bush follies in Iraq have strengthened and empowered Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and elsewhere and Al Queda against the U.S. and overall bellowed the flames of hatred of the U.S. abroad.
It was Bush administration incompetence in the aftermath of the Sadaam overthrow that resulted in creating our enemies banding with Al Queda we fought there. See the acclaimed non-partisan flick "No End in Sight" for proof. Anyone that finds reason to validate Bush needs to rent that movie pronto.
As one example, the deadly London subway bombing by Al Queda terrorists was a direct result of retaliation for U.S. misadventures in Iraq.
So please, it is not now, nor ever was, a choice between Bush and more terrorism.
Got anything else, apologists and revisionists?
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 11:49PM
so you do admit there's no chance Bush will be "somewhat" vindicated.
OF COURSE overthrowing Saddam never kept terrorists (aka "freedom fighters") out of Iraq. quite the opposite.
But Bush does get his name in the history books.
Alan Brooks| 12.2.08 @ 11:54PM
Ron did write Bush might be somewhat vindicated, so there's wiggle room amongst non-apologists and nonrevisionists.
you gotta leave yourselves some leeway
Ben| 12.3.08 @ 1:34AM
Going into Iraq was a brilliant move by Bush. I'm sick and tired of retarded people saying otherwise. You would rather have us fight in Afghanistan where no army in history has ever succeeded in controlling. The tribal regions in Pakistan and the mountains in Afghanistan have never been under the control of a central government. You would rather have let Saddam keep breaking every agreement he signed in the cease fire from Desert Storm, violated how many UN resolutions, all while targeting our airmen, supporting terrorism, killing his people and threatening our allies. Don't forget Saddam attacked Iran twice and Kuwait once as well. Of course we couldve just kept extending the deadline with him indefinitely - try that with a child when you threaten punishment for their actions - if you keep putting off the punishment they will never deviate their actions. You would rather not have the pressure put on Iran from being surrounded by 2 representative governments. You don't like the growing dissent and opposition movement in Iran brought about by Iraq, Afghanistan and sanctions. You would rather show the middle east what's possible with democracy through a poor country with no natural resources or wealth to speak of. You would rather send our troops on a suicide mission in Afghanistan than fight the terrorists in a place we can win. Who are the chief sponsors of terrorism? Iran and Syria. With Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan we now have them surrounded. The terrorists would come and fight us wherever we go. We could have waited for them here in the US, or waited for them in Afghanistan where we could never win, or we could fight them in Iraq, dispose of a murdering tyrant, install a representative government in a land with resources, wealth and educated professionals. Iraq will become a beacon for democracy throughout the middle east. Brilliant. Oh, and Jan, Bush didn't take office until January 2001. And we were attacked by terrorists 12 times between 1992 and 2000, just not on US soil.
As far as Bush's Presidency is concerned, the Libs hate him because he's a Republican. The Conservatives hate him because he worked with the Democrats. News Flash. Conservatives are not correct every time, and Liberals aren't wrong every time (just most of it). A President has to make tough decisions and Bush did that. Do I agree with every decision? Of course not, but I wasn't there when he made those decisions, and I don't have all of the information he had when making those decisions. I read as much news and commentary as I can, but most of the information given to any POTUS will never make it to the public. The fact is we all fail most of the time, as we are all human. Bush is no different. I believe Bush did what he thought was best given the information available to him at the time. Anyone who calls him and idiot or criticizes his decisions without the full knowledge he used in making those decisions is the true idiot. I will withhold my judgement of his performance until all of the information is available.
Alan Brooks| 12.3.08 @ 3:01AM
i became a conservative recently because of my stupid, very stupid previous belief that because liberals are supposed to be tolerant they therefore are kind.
i should have known as my family are angry libs, angry because they are confused.
Dumping on Bush is not fair. Even if Bush is a very bad person, so was LBJ, and IMO the disgustingly smarmy Jimmuh Carter.
I reserve my anger here for Daphne.
To Hell with all Arabs, Daphne, to hell with those wearing rags on their heads.
ron conansen| 12.3.08 @ 9:26AM
The decision to go into Iraq was not only a bad, ill-informed and rash decision that put American treasure and LIVES on the line, but WAS ALSO incompetently and poorly executed to even further put American treasure and LIVES on the line.
What's even worse, Bush manipulated and exploited the fears of 9-11 as an excuse to drag this country into Iraq in what could be considered one of the largest most deceptive mass propaganda campaigns ever heaved upon a population in human history.
There's plenty of evidence that has surfaced that Bush KNEW Sadaam did not have WMD's and used 9-11 to carry-out the long, pre-determined destined-for-failure strategy of the neocons: The country be damned.
Yes, I am angry a president could be so extremely callous, deceitful and incompetent about something of such critical importance as waging a war against another country.
Then we have torture and all those multiple violations against the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, War Crimes, etc. etc.
The only good conclusion is that the U.S. already befuddled by Vietnam NOW finally has learned its lesson.
Mark Oberle| 12.3.08 @ 1:07PM
The blunders in Iraq and Afganistan aside, the topic here is what can conservatives do to reclaim their movement from the dishonesty of the Republican Party, who pays lip service to conservative ideals, then proceeds to do the opposite in office.
I have two suggestions: First divorce the social conservatives whose main goal is less freedom and more government control of private lives. Second, embrace the Ron Paul libretarians who most closely follow conservative tenants.
Let the corporatists and dixicrats have what is left of the Republican Party.
The Emperor| 12.3.08 @ 6:58PM
Having democracy in Iraq is not as great as it sounds. Lets not forget what happened with the Palestinians and their free elections, which resulted in Hamas winning.
Morons like Sean Hannity were touting the Iraqi elections as a success in Iraq, however what Fox News forgot to mention was that the people we wanted to win came in dead last while the pro-Iran, anti-US politicians came in first place and it was because of the foundation of democracy, popular sovereignty.
Democracy is not a cure all. If public sentiment is "Death to America" the people will elect a anti-US leader. Look at the election of 2008. Wanting to continue Bush's disasterous policies helped cost McCain the election among the people.
ruth| 12.3.08 @ 8:06PM
Say what you want about President Bush, but I still prefer him to Clinton: Our Fornicator-in-chief. If Clinton had dealt with Bin Laden when he had the chance we wouldn't have had 9/11. You've got your Obamassiah in office now, let's see how you clowns do.
whynot| 12.3.08 @ 11:11PM
The worst president in US History - you cannot spin reality.
Good Riddance
ruth| 12.5.08 @ 4:55PM
Oh, baloney. What do you know about reality with the cacophony of confusing voices you hear in your head?
Bob| 12.5.08 @ 8:35PM
Thank God for years I have been doubting my conservativeness watching friends marching lock step behind this incompetent short sighted screwup I have told anyone that would listen this man can destroy the GOP incompetence and bullheadedness are the legacy he left us with what a big toll this has taken set the country back decades it is America first not GOP first liberals will be shoving this president back at conservatives for 100 years no wonder they look at Obama the way they do cohesiveness competence and Content of character self made not daddy made Bush 1 was an American hero Bush 2 wrecked everything in his path
chucky| 12.5.08 @ 9:18PM
Rats always leave a sinking ship first.
Ms. Know| 12.6.08 @ 9:55PM
The left-wing illuminati have a leg up if they have to face Jed, because sadly, he will be a part of the legacy Bush 2 left, and it's not a good one.
Tom Anderson| 12.15.08 @ 4:02PM
Good article. Got me to thinking about the merits of someone like Senator Edward Kennedy for liberals. Kennedy is esteemed because he constantly sought to advance the cause of welfare statism, no matter who the President, no matter which party ran the House and Senate. He would work with anyone to advance his cause and he would take part of a loaf repeadedly, knowing that eventually he would get the whole loaf.
He worked with McCain, and Bush, Clinton of course, Bush I, even Reagan and before him Carter. God, the man has been there forever! But he has been the Happy Warrior for socialism.
Why do you suppose the Republicans or the conservatives have failed to foster such dedication in its politicians? Is it because Republicans have no intellectual foundation for their beliefs? If they do, then why haven't they tried to advance them?
The only working Republican politician I can think of who has tried to advance ideas is Newt Gingrich, and he is no longer a member of Congress.
In my opinion, Republicans do not really believe in individual rights, or the limited government that would protect rights. Everyone understands it will take another hundred years at least of consistent leadership to abolish the accumulated detritus and harmful laws that have passed since about the first term of TR's administration. Why is it that Republicans can not take this longer view of things? Why can't they learn from Senator Kennedy?
John Lofton| 1.2.09 @ 12:58AM
The Bush Legacy: Eight Years Of Un-Godly, Un-Constitutional Government; How So? Let Us Count Some Of The Ways…
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1231&PHPSESSID=cffec1cc72a591311905f378b8bfd546
Rogelio El Contrario| 1.2.09 @ 1:55PM
Regarding "Learning From the Bush Legacy" by Philip Klein on 12.2.08, the important failures of the Bush presidency will come to haunt us later.
Here is a short list.
Iran: Will soon have a nuke. Bush said he wouldn't allow it, but did nothing.
Iraq: An in-limbo failure that will be resolved by Bush's successor.
Afghanistan: Ditto to Iraq.
Bin Laden: Grotesque Bush Failure.
Pakistan: Bush propped up a dictator, but still failed to achieve US goals. The Taliban rise, Al Queda strengthens. Utter failure.
Syria: Armed, trained, financed and infiltrated jihadists into Iraq to kill US soldiers. Bush did nothing. Disasterous failure.
North Korea: Bush said he wouldn't let this bloody regime get nukes, but did. Now they try to proliferate: examples include Syria and Libya.
Libya: Kadafi has killed far more Americans than Saddam, but Bush helped him regain legitimacy. A terrible failure that will result in more American blood lost. I will think of Bush when Kadafi kills Americans later.
China: Bush allowed them to join the WTO without preconditions. What preconditions? North Korea and Taiwan, for 2 good examples.
Russia: Bush looked into Putin's eyes and googled. All the while Putin was engaged in genocidal war in Chechnya.
Etc, etc, etc.
Bush has been not only a catastrophy for conservatism in the narrow sense, but a tragedy for America and the cause of liberty in the world.
Such is the real Bush legacy.
Relcontrario@hotmail.fr
Pingback| 7.6.09 @ 3:47PM
Palin’s Legacy: Week One - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
H. Stone| 7.6.09 @ 7:39PM
"The distinction between the conservative movement and the Republican Party became blurred, and consequently Bush's failures came to be identified as failures of conservatism even though they were nothing of the sort."
how can it be that bush "got the big things right" yet if he was correctly following through on the movement then his big failures of policy seem to indict conservatism as a whole.
As a young person and former bush supporter i have watched our nations seedcorn "conserved" in two wars, the strength of my peers in the armed forces "conserved" by stop-loss redeployments, and my family's savings "conserved" in the stock market collapse.
If i was a "conservative" home-builder, i would build my house in a way that was cautious, traditional and with minimal risk.
This kind of conservatism does not lead to my house collapsing, unlike Bush's.
Heather Robinson| 7.8.09 @ 6:31PM
What an extraordinarily fine analysis, written with the objectivity and scrupulous thoroughness of the best kind of historian. Remarkable that you could do this so soon, Mr. Klein; I think your piece gives serious and respectful examination to every possible truth that deserves consideration.
As you wrote, "[I]f Iraq is a reliable, democratic, U.S. ally 20 years from now, Bush will be remembered a lot differently than if it is an unstable nation state posing a threat to American national security," I was nodding in complete agreement. Victory has a thousand fathers, and this commenter hopes to live long enough to see a good portion of those liberals who excoriated this President and did what they could to undermine him in wartime claim paternity of a modern, developing, brighter mideast and world in several decades' time. Whatever happens, though, I am certain this remarkable piece will stand up as an valuable contribution to the historical record. Bravo, Mr. Klein.
Heather Robinson| 7.8.09 @ 6:32PM
What an extraordinarily fine analysis, written with the objectivity and scrupulous thoroughness of the best kind of historian. Remarkable that you could do this so soon, Mr. Klein; I think your piece gives serious and respectful examination to every possible truth that deserves consideration.
As you wrote, "[I]f Iraq is a reliable, democratic, U.S. ally 20 years from now, Bush will be remembered a lot differently than if it is an unstable nation state posing a threat to American national security," I was nodding in complete agreement. Victory has a thousand fathers, and this commenter hopes to live long enough to see a good portion of those liberals who excoriated this President and did what they could to undermine him in wartime claim paternity of a modern, developing, brighter mideast and world in several decades' time. Whatever happens, though, I am certain this remarkable piece will stand up as a valuable contribution to the historical record. Bravo, Mr. Klein.
links of london| 9.10.09 @ 11:09PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！