-
Re: Regrets Over Could-Have-Been GOP Contenders
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
-
The Paul Ryan Primer
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
-
Tim Pawlenty: Govt Unions Are a Silent Coup
December 13, 2010 | 10 comments
-
Re: Fey Still Isn't Funny
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
-
The Anatomy of Losing Control
November 3, 2010 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This isn't the best way to start a post but let me first concede: Someone more intelligent than me should probably write about this. I welcome those who believe they are to comment (really, I'm not being sardonic).
This op-ed in the Buffalo News takes on the task of trying to describe the Bush Legacy by basically saying: There have been ups and downs. Some people like him, some don't. But it'll take years for 'historians/us' to decide what the Legacy really is.
The piece describes those ups and downs in detail but what stuck out to me is his repetition on what historians. scholars and intellectuals think of the President and the rush to figure out what they think.
While it is way too soon to make a final judgment on his presidency, at this early writing we can say that he had some minor domestic successes, two major domestic mistakes and an ambiguous legacy on foreign policy that will likely take decades to play out. Bush is leaving a mixed record that will likely be very complicated for historians to sort out.
I suppose, at the end of eight years, it's normal to do that, to sum up two terms in a paragraph fit for history books. Especially with a Presidency like Bush's that is mixed.
But what exactly is the rush? History is still unfolding. Iraq is still blooming/failing depending on who you ask. Whose deadline are these guys on anyway?
And what, can someone please explain to me, is the obsession with what all the scholars think? (Especially the one who said Bush was the 'worst President ever.'). The reflexive Republican in me wants to say, "Really, you try it," but that sounds as defensive as it is.
Still: I tend to agree with Col Carl von Clausewitz'--the Prussian soldier and historian himself:
There is danger in theoretical speculation of battle, in prejudice, in false reasoning, in pride, in braggadicio. There is one safe resource, the return to nature.
Bush, for better or worse, has never failed to do that.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Nicole Russell
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/12/16/the-bush-legacy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- The Pearls of Pauline
- Useless Wonks
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Florida Universities| 12.16.08 @ 4:28PM
Very bold article. Thank you for posting!
Alan Brooks| 12.16.08 @ 5:09PM
well, Bush is better than Jimmuh Carter and that crap-eating smile on his face.
Even if Bush tried to mess everything up in Iraq and Afghanistan, he couldnt do worse than Jimmuh.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.08 @ 12:37AM
Jimmuh '77-'80.
when did Iran go bad? 1979.
when did Soviets invade Afghanistan? 1979.
rogelio el contrario| 12.17.08 @ 1:59AM
Regarding the "Bush Legacy" question:
Living outside the USA for many years now, I focus on the Bush legacy in its foreign policy aspect. That Legacy can be fairly judged already.
On the major issues:
Iraq: The US whooped Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy AND Imperial Japan in less time than Bush has been fighting in Iraq. Whatever the outcome there, we can conclude this is failure in its most abysmal form.
Afghanistan: Same conclusion as Iraq.
Iran: Bush promised he would not allow Iran to have nuclear arms "under his watch". They will get a nuke just after he leaves. In addition Bush (he IS the C in C, right?) has stood by and done nothing while Iran sends arms and fighters into Iraq and Afghanistan to kill US soldiers. An Act of War. Another grave, multifaceted Bush failure.
Bin Laden: The forgotten author of 9/11 is still roaming around somewhere; yet another sickening Bush failure.
Syria: This terrorist dictatorship is also at war with the US; has been sending arms and jihadists into Iraq for years. Bush has done nothing. Recently Syria tried to build a nuclear weapons production facility with N. Korean help. Yet another dangerous Bush failure.
North Korea: Bush promised N. Korea would not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons, and we know the result of that promise. Now N. Korea is caught trying to proliferate to Syria and others. Terrible and dangerous Bush failure.
Pakistan: Bush helped prop up the boob dictator Musharaf, against the return of democracy there. Musharaf sheltered islamists and made a mockery of US Afghan policy, which was itself a mockery. Yet another double Bush policy failure. Not only did Al Queda and the Taliban prosper under Musharaf, Bush tarnished American values.
The list goes on and on. If you would like the full article on "The Bush Legacy" and the dangers Bush will leave us for the future, send me an email.
Alan Brooks is right that Carter was a disaster, but Bush may yet prove to be a rival in the presidential basement of terrible leaders.
R. Dittmar| 12.17.08 @ 8:23AM
[blockquote]“Iraq: The US whooped Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy AND Imperial Japan in less time than Bush has been fighting in Iraq. Whatever the outcome there, we can conclude this is failure in its most abysmal form. Iraq: The US whooped Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy AND Imperial Japan in less time than Bush has been fighting in Iraq. Whatever the outcome there, we can conclude this is failure in its most abysmal form.”[/blockquote]
This is a very good point and in fact I’d argue that because of Bush’s playing P.C. pattycake the outcome in Iraq is clear. At least, I would argue there is a best case and worst case scenario and neither will do anything for Bush’s reputation among future historians. Obama’s election is partially if not largely a complete repudiation of Bush’s war in Iraq. Obama will withdraw the troops and in a best case scenario leave Iraq with a dysfunctional kleptocratic government that the U.S. will prop up to the tune of billions in foreign aid each year just like we do Egypt. If this happens, the whole Bush presidency will be a footnote as the Iraq fiasco becomes all but forgotten. In a worst case scenario, the U.S. is hit by another terrible attack and the leftie historians and journalists will direct all the blame towards Bush. Whether it’s fair or not, a lot of this mud will stick and conventional wisdom will be that Bush’s foreign policy failures caused further attacks on the U.S.
Andrew| 12.17.08 @ 9:38AM
"P.C. pattycake"? Yeah, it was totally us liberals' fault that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ignored the advice of all their own generals and didn't prepare for the occupation of Iraq.
Good lord. Oversimplify much?
R. Dittmar| 12.17.08 @ 10:06AM
""P.C. pattycake"? Yeah, it was totally us liberals' fault that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ignored the advice of all their own generals and didn't prepare for the occupation of Iraq. "
How in the world did you read what I wrote as displacing the blame from Bush and Co. to liberals in general? I think we can reach across the aisle and agree that the responsibility for his bungling is his alone.
On the other hand, given how he's governed maybe libs will want to claim Bush for their own. I'm sure his tradition of flat-footed foreign policy failures and socializing commerce will be taken up with relish by the new administration.
Andrew| 12.17.08 @ 10:24AM
If that's what you're saying -- that Bush bungled -- then I misread you, and my bad.
See? We can all get along. This reaching across the aisle stuff works for me.
Andrew| 12.17.08 @ 10:28AM
Though I could do without the insinuation that us liberals love foreign policy failure, which makes very little sense. But hell, I'll take my moments of unity where I can get them.
For this one second, the left and right are united... in their belief that Bush screwed up.
biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:37PM
bikini
bikini swimwear