Bush and the firing squad

So in a matter of days it’s bye-bye, Bush. Then it’s bye-bye, gradually, to the cottage industry dedicated to ridiculing, castigating, smearing and trashing the 43rd president of the United States, who couldn’t have pleased this surly gang save by expiring in office (even if his expiry would have vaulted Dick Cheney to the White House).

One of the gang, indeed, worked out his obvious frustrations by making a movie depicting Bush as victim of an assassin’s bullet. Not a few have proclaimed “W” the worst president in American history, in spite of Jimmy Carter’s longstanding and tenacious claim to that honor.

What are such folks going to do without Bush to kick around? Maybe cultivate nasturtiums, watch Mark Phelps exercise tapes, or learn to play the contra bassoon. I wouldn’t give long odds on the survival rate for nasturtiums whose color or progress displeases the gang. Bush-despisers (think Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann, Frank Rich, etc.,) aren’t famous for patience with viewpoints different from their own.

A popular cliche has it that “history will judge” whatever at a given moment requires judging. On that expectation the whole flap about Bush and his merits may impress the next generation as just plain weird. Bush hasn’t by any means been the greatest chief executive since Washington, but then Keith Olbermann isn’t the most astute commentator since Socrates.

In assessing the Bush stewardship we need to calm down — get a grip. As president, as commander in chief, Bush might have performed better. So might Ronald Reagan. So might John Kennedy. Errare humanum est.

Where did Bush err? Well, clearly, in the weighting of causes to invade Iraq. There weren’t any “weapons of mass destruction.” On the other hand, 1) nearly everyone else thought there were, and that Saddam was willing to use them, 2) Saddam sealed his own doom by refusing cooperation with inspectors, and 3) Saddamite Iraq was a moral and political cesspool urgently requiring cleanup by someone some time.

Then anger over Iraq led to the silly but oft-repeated charge that Bush’s anti-terror policies amounted somehow to a secret war on civil liberties.

Federal confusion when Katrina inundated New Orleans further diminished Bush’s popularity ratings. Just why it did is hard to say in objective terms. America hadn’t seen such a storm since Galveston, 1900. Both city and state officials behaved incompetently.

The federal response might have been more immediate and energetic, but hindsight, as we know, is always perfect. Moreover, Bush directed to New Orleans vast amounts of money and supplies. The worst I can see he deserves, on Katrina, is a B minus.

So what is the deal with the Bush-despisers? Here’s my own theory, preliminary in the way theories ought to be: All the malice and unforgivingness directed Bush’s way grew from the Florida vote count, and from the persistent feeling among liberals and Gore partisans that “We wuz robbed,” on account of which larcenous act the Bush administration was somehow illegitimate.

Defeat (adjudicated in the end by five conservative Supreme Court justices) stuck in the losers’ craws, and they hadn’t the desire to dislodge it. Revenge was what they wanted. They were the political equivalent of the baleful Confederate veteran on the cigarette lighter of some decades ago: “Forget, Hell.”

I don’t say the lynch party set out to take down the president. I say they cut him no slack when stuff happened, demanded of him a perfection to which no politician could rise or aspire. On such terms the Bush presidency was doomed from the start: not least because the talking heads and writing hands of today belong largely to Democrats and other nonconservatives.

Maybe “W” wasn’t the right man to start with, even for the GOP nomination. Still, he wasn’t half as bad as his enemies seem to think. Question: How many terrorist attacks has America sustained since September 2001? Right, and yet there’s more to offer in extenuation of “W” — more that will be offered when the tumult and shouting die, as in time they always do.

[William Murchison is a senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.] COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Revisionism 101

Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 12:59pm.

“2) Saddam sealed his own doom by refusing cooperation with inspectors”

I have started to see this a lot. Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors to the point that they dug up fountain in one of his palaces. Bush ordered the inspectors out so he could invade.

“...the silly but oft-repeated charge that Bush’s anti-terror policies amounted somehow to a secret war on civil liberties.” Let's disregard the five (and counting) rulings by that silly Supreme Court against Bush's assault on civil liberties.

“... when Katrina inundated New Orleans further diminished Bush’s popularity ratings. Just why it did is hard to say in objective terms...” It's Brownies fault, he was doing a heck'uv'a job!

“How many terrorist attacks has America sustained since September 2001?” How many since the beginning of Bush's term through September 2001?

Column space was obviously short but I'm awaiting Murchinson's apologia for Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghraib, that torture thing, North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons, the economic meltdown, the trillions added to the deficit...

Maybe it would be easier (and shorter) if Murchinson just wrote a column reminding us if all of Bush's successes.

login to post comments

Mr. Murchison. Waaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Submitted by diva on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 11:15am.

In the words of a future President:

"Ours is an ownership society. OWN YOUR FAILURES!" And try it without the sour grapes. I am a George Bush critique who thinks he has brilliant humor, great parenting, and a refreshing willingness to be himself in front of the camera. I wish I could be a cheerleader for his foreign policy, economic, and domestic policy successes, but they are not there. That's how it is, and it isn't due to any President Bush bashing. It is a result of the decisions he made and did not make. Now, can we get on with life already?

login to post comments

Murchison

Submitted by sniffles5 on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 11:22am.

I find it ironic that Bill Murchison now admits Bush wasn't the right guy for the job. In April 2004, Murchison wrote a scorched-earth commentary entitled "THE RIGHT MAN AT THE RIGHT TIME".

Murchison has also stated that disagreeing with a President while there are troops on the ground in Iraq is very close to treason "but sadly, permissible". I wonder if he'll continue to hew to his self-proclaimed edict once Obama is sworn in. Somehow I doubt it....he's like a national version of our own "Fred Garvin", i.e. one set of standards for Republicans, another for Democrats.

login to post comments

Sniffles, when people stick to rationed out, issued opinions

Submitted by diva on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 11:35am.

They do all begin to become the same person. Read one and you've read 'em all.

That's unfortunate, because I find original, critical thought (mixed with humor) much more interesting.

login to post comments