Opinion> William Murchison> Bush And The Firing Squad

	14 Feb 2012 Power Vs. Liberty "Compromise," in President Obama's lexicon, has a funny meaning. It means — with respect to … Read More.
	7 Feb 2012 Planned Parenthood's Grand Delusion Go the website PlannedParenthood.org. You know, Planned Parenthood, around whose rippling banner enlightened … Read More.
	31 Jan 2012 How to Split and Spoil a Party What's all this "Republican establishment" vs. "grassroots populist" business; would … Read More.

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 cliché 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 OIbermann 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. (SET ITALS) Errare humanum est. (END ITALS)

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 (BEGIN ITALS) will (END ITALS) 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. To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Mr. Murchison;

You wrote the following :” 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”

How do you explain that statement in light of the following facts.

Date on which the United Nation's chief weapons inspector, Han Blix, informed the U.N. Security Council that he had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although inspection and monitoring efforts would continue: 3/7/2003

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Date that United States invaded Iraq: 3/19/2003

It is also known that Paul Pillar the head of the CIA in Europe told liar bush Sadam had no WMD before the invasion. So there is documented prove of 2 different sources each corroborating no WMD prior to the invasion and the administration knew it. Am I to believe you were unaware of these facts or are you simply a liar? Also show me in the inspectors report where it indicates Iraq was not cooperating.

You also wrote “Federal confusion when Katrina inundated New Orleans further diminished Bush's popularity ratings.”

Date on which a FEMA report warned that Hurricane Katrina could “could greatly overtop levees and protective systems” in New Orleans, displacing more than a million residents, a warning which came when the President was again on a month-long vacation: 8/27/2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

Date of a second warning, from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, that Katrina would “likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching”: 8/29/2005

Date that President Bush told ABC “I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”: 9/1/2005

Seems to me the documentation indicates there was no federal confusion they told liar bush what to expect and just like pre 9/11 the simple minded dolt did nothing. Again are you unaware of these facts or simply a liar?

You called the charge that liar bush's anti-terror policies amounted somehow to a secret war on civil liberties silly. The FISA law says to tap the phone of an American requires a warrant it doesn't say anything at all about time of war or if one of the callers is overseas.

Up until the feckless democratic Congress passed telecom immunity I was optimistic that liar bush would be impeached over this. While Congress passed telecom immunity no immunity was granted to any members of liar bush's administration hence they can still be tried for violations of FISA. If memory serves FISA violations carry a prison term of 5 years for each count. Given that liar bush has already admitted to ordering warrant less wiretaps; the only real question is how many violations of FISA he should be charged with 100,. 500 a million??

While we are on the subject of law breaking it has come out that liar bush's administration ordered water boarding of prisoners ( hell liar cheney bragged about it). At the end of WW11 the U.S. charged members of the Japanese military with war crimes for water boarding American POWs. Why shouldn't members of liar bush's administration be charged for the same act? Indeed liar bush's invasion of Iraq is in and of itself a war crime since he knew there were no WMD.

Given the statements of President elect Obama's choice to head up the Office of Legal Counsel, inside the Justice Department one Dawn Johnsen prosecuting liar bush is a real possibility. See a quote from Ms. Johnsen ( a real American patriot) under my name.
Seeing liar bush and members of his administration brought to justice is what I will be working to until the day I die.

John J. Leonard

felt the sense of shame and responsibility for my government's behavior especially acutely in the summer of 2004, with the leaking of the infamous and outrageous Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel Torture Memo. . . .
The same question, of what we are to do in the face of national dishonor, also occurred to me a few weeks ago, as I listened to President Bush describe his visit to a Rwandan memorial to the 1994 genocide there. . . .
But President Bush spoke there, too, of the power of the reminder the memorial provides and the need to protect against recurrences there, or elsewhere. That brought to mind that whenever any government or people act lawlessly, on whatever scale, questions of atonement and remedy and prevention must be confronted. And fundamental to any meaningful answer is transparency about the wrong committed. . . .
The question how we restore our nation's honor takes on new urgency and promise as we approach the end of this administration. We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists. . . .
Here is a partial answer to my own question of how should we behave, directed especially to the next president and members of his or her administration but also to all of use who will be relieved by the change: We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

Comment: #1
Posted by: John J. Leonard
Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:20 PM