There is a litany of criticisms out there that have been launched at the 43rd President of the United States over the years, and the things that went wrong during his administration—some of them founded, but many more of them not. Frankly, the accusations against former President George W. Bush are too numerous and lengthy to go into here. I would have to write a novel to address each and every one of them. Besides, a lot of the attacks on Bush are so baseless anyway that they do not deserve the extra attention.
The Bush haters are so hell-bent on portraying the man in a negative light for those things that he did wrong, or that went wrong, that they purposely ignore what he did right and what went right during his eight years in office.
So, without further delay, I will spell out in clear, concise English what President George W. Bush got right.
After Sept. 11, 2001 there has not been another international terrorist attack on American soil. There was not another domestic terrorism act on American soil since the D.C. sniper shootings of 2002. Period. Bottom line. End of story.
Commander-in-Chief Bush, with the support of the United States military and counterterrorism intelligence, managed to keep al-Qaeda and its allies at bay in the Middle East by taking the war to them, instead of waiting for our enemies to come at us again. In spite of pitfalls experienced during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one stroke of brilliance of the offensive strategy is that it has kept al-Qaeda from wreaking further havoc on American soil. The United States selected ground of its choosing—Iraq—from which to conduct the “War On Terror” and engage our terrorist enemies. Instead of chasing terrorists all around the globe in an effort to engage them on ground of their choosing, the U.S. Armed Forces enticed them to crawl out of their caves and come to it.
While there have been terrorist attacks in other countries since Sept. 11, 2001 the United States of America has not been touched since. The credit for this is due in large part to the strategy of the Bush Administration. Under former President George W. Bush’s watch, the American republic has been kept safe to continue practicing its freedom and spreading its liberty to the tired, huddled and weary masses of the world.
If you are capable of acknowledging anything positive from the past eight years under George W. Bush, then at least acknowledge that.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bush in review
Every president has a legacy, whether he wants it or not. A legacy isn’t just what people remember; it is also the judgment of history. Presidents have always been, and will always be, remembered by people for their accomplishments, their failures, and for things that happened during their administrations. History remembers them on a greater moral plane of right versus wrong.
No doubt if George W. Bush’s haters have their way, history will only judge the 43rd President of the United States on the things that he did wrong or that went wrong during his presidency. But a more objective examination of the legacy of George W. Bush reveals some things that he got right as well as some things that he got wrong during his eight years in office.
As with the 42 previous commanders-in-chief before him, George W. Bush didn’t always do the right thing; but he didn’t always do the wrong thing, either. He ought to be judged fairly as a president, rather than with subjective bias.
Since the very day George W. Bush was first sworn in as President, the political left has been leveling an unceasing litany of criticisms against him; some justified, but most not so much. He could never do anything right as far as the haters were concerned. He might as well have been a dead president walking, and treated as though he was on death row, because he was condemned long before he even took the oath of office and had a chance to do anything—right or wrong.
It all started during the 2000 Republican presidential primary when the haters compared George W. to his father and former President George H.W. Bush, our nation’s 41st commander-in-chief. I remember distinctly that candidate Bush’s critics called him “wishy-washy” like his father. They said he would never be able to make decisions on his own and that the elder Bush would always be looking over his son’s shoulder.
From there, he went from being called his father’s clone to a corrupt oil man who paid off the United States Supreme Court and bought the 2000 General Election. This, of course, was in response to a weeks-long challenge by the Gore Campaign over Florida’s contested 25 electoral votes. Despite multiple recounts, the request for still another was finally denied by then-Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who had determined that there had been enough recounts and it was time to certify the election. Her decision, though, was then appealed by the Gore Campaign to the Florida Supreme Court, which sided with Gore and overruled the Secretary of State, allowing yet another recount to proceed. At that point, the state Supreme Court’s decision was appealed by the Bush Campaign to the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the directive of the Florida Secretary of State to certify the election should stand. And, viola, George W. Bush received Florida’s hotly contested 25 electoral votes, which put him over the 270 votes required to win the presidency. And he was sworn in as President No. 43 instead of then-Vice President Al “I created the Internet” Gore.
At that point, the political left’s hatred of Bush had become embedded. And from then on, his enemies pursued a relentless campaign to either have him impeached or impugned beyond repair. They made it their mission in life.
What followed were the accusations that George W. Bush was not a legitimate president; that he was de facto, winning by default, instead of by popular vote. Most on the left—many of the same ones demanding that we recognize Barack Obama as our president—never recognized Bush as the President of the United States.
But then, not even eight months into his presidency, history was thrust upon George W. Bush with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. How the leftists seethed over those first somber days in the aftermath where the country appeared united behind President Bush and his vow to hunt down those responsible for the attacks, as well as those in support of them. Their only chance to thwart a war legacy for Bush was to make that war look bad; that is, worse than it actually was.
And so began Plan B of Operation Bush-wacker, which was to sabotage the war effort and make “Dubya” come out of it all with egg on his face.
Since Day One of the “War On Terror,” the Bush haters lambasted his every move. Things only got worse when Bush decided to invade Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein from power and implement a democratic government. His enemies literally charged him with treason for going to war under false pretenses, and lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s link to al-Qaeda.
The Bush haters called it an unnecessary war. And yet, they conveniently forgot how many United Nations sanctions the former Iraqi dictator violated prior to the Allied invasion that brought an end to his reign of terror. The war’s critics forgot just how many chances former President Bush gave Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and how long it took from Bush’s first warning to his last. As I recall, the entire diplomatic effort lasted several months before the president decided it was time to put an end to Saddam’s defiance for good.
The Bush haters also have conveniently forgotten that President Bush received Congressional approval for the invasion. That is, the members of Congress—both Republican and Democrat—had access to and reviewed the same intelligence information that the White House did and apparently came to the same conclusion of Bush: That the probability Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was not only sound, but also evidence-based. As a result, Congress endorsed the invasion and Bush was given the green light.
Now, of course, we know that no WMDs were found in Iraq. This doesn’t mean there weren’t any there; just that they were never found. Chances are good that Saddam probably got rid of any WMDs before the invasion. He had, after all, plenty of time—several months, in fact—to move them during the diplomatic sanctions and appeals placed by the U.N. to admit weapons inspectors.
Nonetheless, Bush was called a liar for misleading the American public about WMDs in Iraq, even though the invasion was a joint effort between the executive and legislative branches of government. The intelligence was shared between the two branches and both reached the same conclusion. So, why didn’t the critics also level the same accusations at Congress that they had toward Bush?
The reason is because Bush was easier to hate. He was a single person, who could more easily be singled out. Plus, he was the president, and like the coach of a team, he gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. Furthermore, the critics did not want to call attention to those politicians who voted for the invasion and who happened to be their political and ideological allies. That would have been self-defeating. So, it was much more convenient, and served their political agendas better just to blame Bush for everything.
Forget the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed, for the most part, to keep al-Qaeda corralled in its own part of the world. President Bush and the United States military have taken the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the terrorists to bring the fight back to us. Forget that the United States has not suffered another international terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11/01. And forget that our own intelligence efforts since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have thwarted multiple plans for more attacks, including the exposure of al-Qaeda cells right here in America.
I’m sure the Bush haters could write a litany of pages detailing everything that the man did wrong during his eight-year tenure as the President of the United States. Certainly, he made his share of faux-pas and is not without fault on some things that have gone wrong.
But the one thing George W. Bush did right, the one thing that his enemies cannot take away from him, and the one thing that objective, unbiased history will recall about the 43rd Chief Executive is that the United States of America was not attacked again after Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush White House, in spite of all of its faults, kept the nation safe from further terrorism. That much he said he would do, and that much, at least, he did.
No doubt if George W. Bush’s haters have their way, history will only judge the 43rd President of the United States on the things that he did wrong or that went wrong during his presidency. But a more objective examination of the legacy of George W. Bush reveals some things that he got right as well as some things that he got wrong during his eight years in office.
As with the 42 previous commanders-in-chief before him, George W. Bush didn’t always do the right thing; but he didn’t always do the wrong thing, either. He ought to be judged fairly as a president, rather than with subjective bias.
Since the very day George W. Bush was first sworn in as President, the political left has been leveling an unceasing litany of criticisms against him; some justified, but most not so much. He could never do anything right as far as the haters were concerned. He might as well have been a dead president walking, and treated as though he was on death row, because he was condemned long before he even took the oath of office and had a chance to do anything—right or wrong.
It all started during the 2000 Republican presidential primary when the haters compared George W. to his father and former President George H.W. Bush, our nation’s 41st commander-in-chief. I remember distinctly that candidate Bush’s critics called him “wishy-washy” like his father. They said he would never be able to make decisions on his own and that the elder Bush would always be looking over his son’s shoulder.
From there, he went from being called his father’s clone to a corrupt oil man who paid off the United States Supreme Court and bought the 2000 General Election. This, of course, was in response to a weeks-long challenge by the Gore Campaign over Florida’s contested 25 electoral votes. Despite multiple recounts, the request for still another was finally denied by then-Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who had determined that there had been enough recounts and it was time to certify the election. Her decision, though, was then appealed by the Gore Campaign to the Florida Supreme Court, which sided with Gore and overruled the Secretary of State, allowing yet another recount to proceed. At that point, the state Supreme Court’s decision was appealed by the Bush Campaign to the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the directive of the Florida Secretary of State to certify the election should stand. And, viola, George W. Bush received Florida’s hotly contested 25 electoral votes, which put him over the 270 votes required to win the presidency. And he was sworn in as President No. 43 instead of then-Vice President Al “I created the Internet” Gore.
At that point, the political left’s hatred of Bush had become embedded. And from then on, his enemies pursued a relentless campaign to either have him impeached or impugned beyond repair. They made it their mission in life.
What followed were the accusations that George W. Bush was not a legitimate president; that he was de facto, winning by default, instead of by popular vote. Most on the left—many of the same ones demanding that we recognize Barack Obama as our president—never recognized Bush as the President of the United States.
But then, not even eight months into his presidency, history was thrust upon George W. Bush with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. How the leftists seethed over those first somber days in the aftermath where the country appeared united behind President Bush and his vow to hunt down those responsible for the attacks, as well as those in support of them. Their only chance to thwart a war legacy for Bush was to make that war look bad; that is, worse than it actually was.
And so began Plan B of Operation Bush-wacker, which was to sabotage the war effort and make “Dubya” come out of it all with egg on his face.
Since Day One of the “War On Terror,” the Bush haters lambasted his every move. Things only got worse when Bush decided to invade Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein from power and implement a democratic government. His enemies literally charged him with treason for going to war under false pretenses, and lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s link to al-Qaeda.
The Bush haters called it an unnecessary war. And yet, they conveniently forgot how many United Nations sanctions the former Iraqi dictator violated prior to the Allied invasion that brought an end to his reign of terror. The war’s critics forgot just how many chances former President Bush gave Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and how long it took from Bush’s first warning to his last. As I recall, the entire diplomatic effort lasted several months before the president decided it was time to put an end to Saddam’s defiance for good.
The Bush haters also have conveniently forgotten that President Bush received Congressional approval for the invasion. That is, the members of Congress—both Republican and Democrat—had access to and reviewed the same intelligence information that the White House did and apparently came to the same conclusion of Bush: That the probability Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was not only sound, but also evidence-based. As a result, Congress endorsed the invasion and Bush was given the green light.
Now, of course, we know that no WMDs were found in Iraq. This doesn’t mean there weren’t any there; just that they were never found. Chances are good that Saddam probably got rid of any WMDs before the invasion. He had, after all, plenty of time—several months, in fact—to move them during the diplomatic sanctions and appeals placed by the U.N. to admit weapons inspectors.
Nonetheless, Bush was called a liar for misleading the American public about WMDs in Iraq, even though the invasion was a joint effort between the executive and legislative branches of government. The intelligence was shared between the two branches and both reached the same conclusion. So, why didn’t the critics also level the same accusations at Congress that they had toward Bush?
The reason is because Bush was easier to hate. He was a single person, who could more easily be singled out. Plus, he was the president, and like the coach of a team, he gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. Furthermore, the critics did not want to call attention to those politicians who voted for the invasion and who happened to be their political and ideological allies. That would have been self-defeating. So, it was much more convenient, and served their political agendas better just to blame Bush for everything.
Forget the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed, for the most part, to keep al-Qaeda corralled in its own part of the world. President Bush and the United States military have taken the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the terrorists to bring the fight back to us. Forget that the United States has not suffered another international terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11/01. And forget that our own intelligence efforts since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have thwarted multiple plans for more attacks, including the exposure of al-Qaeda cells right here in America.
I’m sure the Bush haters could write a litany of pages detailing everything that the man did wrong during his eight-year tenure as the President of the United States. Certainly, he made his share of faux-pas and is not without fault on some things that have gone wrong.
But the one thing George W. Bush did right, the one thing that his enemies cannot take away from him, and the one thing that objective, unbiased history will recall about the 43rd Chief Executive is that the United States of America was not attacked again after Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush White House, in spite of all of its faults, kept the nation safe from further terrorism. That much he said he would do, and that much, at least, he did.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Knighthood not what it used to be
In the middle ages, men were knighted by the nobility for their acts of courage and bravery. Being of sound moral character helped a great deal, too.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times, but being knighted today just doesn't seem to mean as much anymore as it once did. The people being knighted these days are simply razing the bar too low and are redefining knighthood as a trendy status symbol instead of being a distinguished honor and a position of distinction.
Take, for example, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, who was knighted last week by the British Empire for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process. In all likelihood, all Old Kennedy probably did was get the two sides to sit down in a pub with him and then proceed to drink them into such intoxication that they'd sign anything just to run to the men's room to throw up.
Truth be told, the knighting of Sir Edward Kennedy was for political distinction, and little else. I mean, the man is 77 years old and battling brain cancer. What else can the British do but knight the guy out of sympathy for his unfortunate condition and declining health.
He certainly wasn't knighted for the traditional acts of courage and bravery. His entire life has been one lived in sheltered cowardice.
I certainly wouldn't count the July 1969 incident at the Chappaquiddick River as a sterling example of Ted's courage. The Massachusetts senator was drunk and driving home from a party with a young woman in his passenger seat. He ended up driving off a bridge and into a pond. Although he escaped to safety, the young woman in the car, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. She drowned, and Sir Edward left the scene of the accident without notifying authorities until the next day...after the victim's body was discovered. For that breach of character and trust, Teddy boy should have been thrown out of the U.S. Senate. Instead, he got what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the vast fortune of the Kennedy Estate paid the victim's family handsomely in hush money to avoid what would undoubtedly have led to a very lengthy and public criminal and/or civil trial that might have permanently damaged the Camelot reputation built and maintained by the Kennedys.
And let's not forget about Sir Edward's two older brothers who fell victim to an assassin's bullet. After brother Robert's assassination, Ted was the last surviving son of bootlegger Joe. It is a fact that the Kennedy fortune was built upon illegal and criminal activity during the Prohibition years. It is also a fact that old Joe Kennedy dealt frequently with the mob as part of his bootlegging activities. The Kennedys were knee-deep in mob corruption.
So, when Jack and Bobby went to Washington as the nation's highest ranking military commander and the highest ranking law enforcement officer, respectively, the mob naturally became very concerned.
In fact, there is speculation by some conspiracists and even historians that the deaths of JFK and RFK were contracted out by the mob.
I've always found it fascinating that Sir Edward has never had an attempt on his life, despite what happened to his older brothers and in spite of his higher political aspirations. The conclusion I've come to is that Sir Edward was confronted by his brothers' enemies at one point and given a choice: Either die like the other two, or keep his mouth shut tight and live. My hunch is that Ted knew as much about the mob as his older brothers did. He holds between his ears information that would have him killed if he ever breathed a word of it. He knew this, and he chose to save his own neck yet again. Ted's reward, in turn, has been a long, fruitful 47-year career in the U.S. Senate that has also included a few runs for the Democratic Presidential nomination. His re-election every term since his first in 1962 has been virtually guaranteed by the political--and perhaps even criminal--powers that be. Another shining example of Sir Edward's bravery and courage.
Finally, the piece de resistance of courage has to be Sir Edward's reputation as a real party guy.
I'm talking, of course, about his rather well-known and even better documented propensity for womanizing and hard drinking. Besides the scarlet letter of Chappaquiddick, Kennedy's drunken escapades have included numerous parties, where he'd enjoyed the company of loose women. Much of this occurring as a married man. Truly courageous, I must say.
Sir Edward is a long-time alcohol abuser, who passed this trait onto his son, Patrick, who, as a U.S. Congressman from Rhode Island, has had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Now, that takes courage to drown yourself in a bottle for the sheer hell of it, then sit back and watch your own child follow in your footsteps.
Yes, sir, they are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel for knights these days.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times, but being knighted today just doesn't seem to mean as much anymore as it once did. The people being knighted these days are simply razing the bar too low and are redefining knighthood as a trendy status symbol instead of being a distinguished honor and a position of distinction.
Take, for example, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, who was knighted last week by the British Empire for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process. In all likelihood, all Old Kennedy probably did was get the two sides to sit down in a pub with him and then proceed to drink them into such intoxication that they'd sign anything just to run to the men's room to throw up.
Truth be told, the knighting of Sir Edward Kennedy was for political distinction, and little else. I mean, the man is 77 years old and battling brain cancer. What else can the British do but knight the guy out of sympathy for his unfortunate condition and declining health.
He certainly wasn't knighted for the traditional acts of courage and bravery. His entire life has been one lived in sheltered cowardice.
I certainly wouldn't count the July 1969 incident at the Chappaquiddick River as a sterling example of Ted's courage. The Massachusetts senator was drunk and driving home from a party with a young woman in his passenger seat. He ended up driving off a bridge and into a pond. Although he escaped to safety, the young woman in the car, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. She drowned, and Sir Edward left the scene of the accident without notifying authorities until the next day...after the victim's body was discovered. For that breach of character and trust, Teddy boy should have been thrown out of the U.S. Senate. Instead, he got what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the vast fortune of the Kennedy Estate paid the victim's family handsomely in hush money to avoid what would undoubtedly have led to a very lengthy and public criminal and/or civil trial that might have permanently damaged the Camelot reputation built and maintained by the Kennedys.
And let's not forget about Sir Edward's two older brothers who fell victim to an assassin's bullet. After brother Robert's assassination, Ted was the last surviving son of bootlegger Joe. It is a fact that the Kennedy fortune was built upon illegal and criminal activity during the Prohibition years. It is also a fact that old Joe Kennedy dealt frequently with the mob as part of his bootlegging activities. The Kennedys were knee-deep in mob corruption.
So, when Jack and Bobby went to Washington as the nation's highest ranking military commander and the highest ranking law enforcement officer, respectively, the mob naturally became very concerned.
In fact, there is speculation by some conspiracists and even historians that the deaths of JFK and RFK were contracted out by the mob.
I've always found it fascinating that Sir Edward has never had an attempt on his life, despite what happened to his older brothers and in spite of his higher political aspirations. The conclusion I've come to is that Sir Edward was confronted by his brothers' enemies at one point and given a choice: Either die like the other two, or keep his mouth shut tight and live. My hunch is that Ted knew as much about the mob as his older brothers did. He holds between his ears information that would have him killed if he ever breathed a word of it. He knew this, and he chose to save his own neck yet again. Ted's reward, in turn, has been a long, fruitful 47-year career in the U.S. Senate that has also included a few runs for the Democratic Presidential nomination. His re-election every term since his first in 1962 has been virtually guaranteed by the political--and perhaps even criminal--powers that be. Another shining example of Sir Edward's bravery and courage.
Finally, the piece de resistance of courage has to be Sir Edward's reputation as a real party guy.
I'm talking, of course, about his rather well-known and even better documented propensity for womanizing and hard drinking. Besides the scarlet letter of Chappaquiddick, Kennedy's drunken escapades have included numerous parties, where he'd enjoyed the company of loose women. Much of this occurring as a married man. Truly courageous, I must say.
Sir Edward is a long-time alcohol abuser, who passed this trait onto his son, Patrick, who, as a U.S. Congressman from Rhode Island, has had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Now, that takes courage to drown yourself in a bottle for the sheer hell of it, then sit back and watch your own child follow in your footsteps.
Yes, sir, they are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel for knights these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
