While there are many things about George W. Bush that I disagree with, they all relate to his FAILURE to BE a CONSERVATIVE!!
From Immigration to Harriet Meiers to Dubai Ports to the bailout and profligate spending, Bush has abandoned Conservative principles on numerous occasions, and THIS is responsible for his approval ratings falling below 38%. There are not more liberal thinkers out there; there are large numbers of conservatives who were disenchanted with Bush's swerves to the left that brought his numbers down.
With that said, George W. Bush has accomplished a couple of positive things. The tax cuts DID what they always do... They stimulated the economy and increased revenues. Bush inherited a recession, and the events of 9/11 could have tanked the economy - and the tax cuts averted that.
Unfortunately he was not so successful averting the economic effects of the sub-prime housing market when the red flag of Fannie and Freddie was waved in 2004 by REPUBLICANS and efforts to get a handle on the problem were resisted by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. These DEMOCRATS who CAUSED the problem are the same ones who claim to be in charge of FIXING it! The problem began with the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter, and was magnified under Clinton as there was more pressure brought to bear to make more loans to less qualified people! But BUSH is catching the blame again!
Bush has had his share of faults and foibles. No doubt. But the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the left is unfounded. Bush was the object of hate from the left ever since the 2000 election, and they never got over it. He was blamed for everything that ever went wrong in this country for 8 years.
Look at Katrina! The problem in New Orleans was the result of Nagin's failure to implement his own disaster plan, and the RESISTANCE by Gov Blanco to PERMIT feds INTO the state to help (ever hear of Posse Commitatus?) It was only after Bush threatened her with implementation of the INSURRECTION ACT to allow federal troops to cross into LA did she relent and PERMIT Federal assistance!
After the storm passed, FEMA took a lot of heat... But remember that FEMA was not set up as a First-Responder agency! The first responders in New Orleans were PARTICIPATING in the looting!!
FEMA is the "Federal Emergency Management Agency". They are supposed to come into a disaster area AFTER the fact, and help by organizing and financing the cleanup. They are a coordinating agency set up to work with local officials. The breakdown in New Orleans was the local officials. Funding for levy upgrades etc had been misappropriated by New Orleans politicians for generations! Nagin, Blanco, Landreau were the problem - but Bush caught the heat.
But what about Iraq?
Let's see. In 1991 we established a CEASE-FIRE - with provisions that Iraq failed to keep. After 17 UN resolutions against Iraq which they also failed to keep, resumption of hostilities was justified on that very basis alone.
There has been much made of the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, but the entire world had the same intelligence and Saddam himself DESIRED to foster the notion that he possessed them as it made his neighbors fearful to mess with him. He never believed we would invade because he had the French and Russians and a lot of Germans in his pocket due to corruption in the Oil for Food program. He thought they could restrain the US.
Regime change in Iraq had long been the policy of the US - including the administration of liberal hero, Bill Clinton.
What is rarely discussed in the Iraq issue is the strategic importance of Iraq - and we're not talking about a war for oil. Iraq is a buffer between Iran and more moderate states. Iraq borders Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. A functioning secular democracy in that region would stabilize the middle east. A laudable goal. Afghanistan, Pakistan and other potential hotspots are a short hop from Iraq, and again, a de-radicalized Iraq would stabilize the region.
The initial handling of the post-combat insurgency was poorly administered. Granted. But there are errors in ANY military action. Over 1000 men were lost in a single failed training exercise in WWII!! Considering the loss of over 50,000 soldiers, mostly draftees, in Vietnam - Iraq has been a very low casualty action and every one a volunteer. Not that the loss of any soldier can be minimized or is any less a tragedy, however the casualties in the pursuit of a mission which ultimately IS in the best interests of the United States cannot be called a waste.
Since the Surge and the installation of Petraeus as commander, our tactics changed and the general Iraqi populace became more secure, and came to trust our forces. Their popular support turned toward us and away from the radicals. They began providing more actionable intelligence. Their police and security forces began to become trained and efficient forces capable to assuming more responsibility for their own security. Free elections were held. The fledgeling Iraqi government is becoming more self sufficient. A Jeffersonian Democracy? No, but a constitutional republic has been established and is functioning.
While a couple years ago, Harry Reid was declaring the war LOST and demanding a CUT AND RUN... Bush held on, adjusted tactics, and has overseen a subsequent success to the point the a realistic withdrawal of troops can be contemplated due to the successful completion of the mission!
Unfortunately, Americans have become impatient, spoiled children - expecting instant gratification with little effort or cost, and they are shortsighted accepting short term satisfaction over long term gains. Wars are not supposed to have casualties, setbacks or last more than 100 hours! If there is resistance and goals cannot be accomplished within a year, the cause is lost and not worth pursuing!
Thankfully, George W Bush did not concede to these thoughts. And now we stand on the verge of true victory in Iraq.
Bush lied? BULL! He REPORTED the same intelligence the rest of the world believed. He was willing to act on it in defense of our nation's interests.
Bush was waging a war for oil? Bull! If that was so we'd be CONFISCATING it now! We're not!
Bush was just in it for his cronies? (ie Halliburton)? BULL! The Dubai Ports deal came about because there are only a couple entities CAPABLE of handling the ports concession. Halliburton was one of them. Bush was trying NOT to give it to them!!
History will sort it all out. Bush will be judged neither as a success nor a failure. He did good. He made mistakes. He had failings. But I can still name a number of stronger contenders for "worst President ever" than Bush. Carter, Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur, come to mind right off the top of my head. Carter facilitated the radical Islamic resurgence. He presided over double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment. And Liberals say Bush is worse?
And so, the Bush era ends in a few weeks. Barack Obama ascends to the Presidency swept in on a wave of discontent with the current administration and ethnic identity pride. Good luck to him. He'll need it. Meantime, Hail and Farewell to the Chief, George W. Bush. For all his successes and failures; for all his controversies and stubbornness; he was our 43rd President.
Copyright © 2008 by Doug Edelman
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.