It is not difficult to make the case against George Bush. There have been mistakes. But in their abuse of him, many of his liberal critics demonstrate their own weak hold on reality. In trying to belittle him, they merely reveal their own littleness. George Bush is a much more considerable figure than the caricature version. As he has set great events in motion, it will be impossible to judge his Presidency for many years. It is not impossible that history will offer a partial vindication.
The outgoing President did have one problem, especially in Europe. He may have finished off his father's war against Saddam Hussein. He was not able to avenge his father's defeat at the hands of the English language. Although some of George Bush junior's speeches will rank high in the annals of political oratory, once he was without a text, he often went adrift. But this was not due to lack of ability.
Early on, a friend of mine on the National Security Council went to a Bush Cabinet meeting. He had heard the reports that George Bush was a constitutional monarch with Dick Cheney as his prime minister, so he was interested to see what would happen. He watched as Mr Bush ran proceedings like a strong chief executive, while Mr Cheney did not say a word.
But it all comes back to the Iraq War, which was a tragedy, for a reason worthy of a great tragedian. It was fought in a spirit of excessive idealism. After 11 September, the US Administration asked itself one repeated and agonised question. Why do these people hate us? The Bush team came up with their answer: because they live in failed states, which offer their young no hope in this world and thus leave them open to the temptations of fanaticism and a better deal in another world.
Baghdad was one of the foremost cities in the Muslim world. Iraq was a rich country with a large educated middle class. Yet it had become a police state and many of its ablest people had fled into exile. Moreover, Saddam had been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We could not be certain that his quest had failed. So should we wait until the certainty of a mushroom cloud? It seemed that all the routes to progress in the Middle East and safety in the West led to Iraq.
....
And of course the comments are revealing.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
raffred wrote:sheikjabooti wrote:Frist "Saddam had been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We could not be certain that his quest had failed". If I recall weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for some years, turning the place upside down. As we all know from the Iran, North Korean and Syrian experiences, WMD, in particular nuclear weapons cannot be manufactured without common knowledge. It was quite clear the country had no significant WMD capability.
Secondly, Powell the only reasonable member of the Bush administration was the only one who had a clue about Iraq. He knew that any invasion and occupation would take in excess of 400k men. The fact that Bush sidelined him displays unequivocally what a poor leader he was.
Bush blundered his way through 8 years of poor policy and wayward leadership. Like several billion other people I will be glad when he finally retires to ponder the death and destruction he brought to the world.
tonysmyth wrote:'one unfortunate side effect of the war on terror: Guantanamo'. One!! Bruce go and write fore the Telegraph, or maybe a some National Front publication. You'd be right at home there. Your articles get worse as each week passes.
