Thank you for that. This is kinda what I want to get across. If you look at GWB's actual record, he was actually a pretty decent president. I believe that the left's obsession with his oil ties clouded thier views on his motives in the mideast.
Looking at the iraq war, I believe that there were somewhat hidden purposes that were definitely tied to national security, but not in the sense that we were afraid of WMDs. When Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11, they changed the way of war. They are a group that is not defined by national boundaries so it is pretty difficult to bring the battle to them. So we had to find a way to bring them to us. Saddam Hussein by his refusal to follow earlier treaties provided the U.S. with a battleground. Since 9/11 there has not been one successful attack on U.S. soil. We were shown how easy it is to launch a terrorist attack here in the U.S. So either all of the terrorists have been wiped out (which I don't believe) or they are preoccupied elsewhere. That elsewhere is Iraq. Instead of terrorists coming to the U.S. and killing unarmed civilians, they are over in Iraq fighting against an armed and armored trained military. I think that if GWB had been open about this tactic he would have had much more public support. However, if he had been open about it, the enemy would also know that we baited a trap and would find a different strategy. So Bush was stuck with a deception and looking like he didn't know what he was talking about on the WMD thing and he would know that his reputation would suffer for it. But he did what was right, which was to ensure the national security.
My bet is that Obama is going to keep our military in place in Iraq throughout his term once he sees the logic of the strategy.
So what about the Energy policy? Well....Bush is being blamed for the high oil prices. Which I don't necessarily buy into. But if you do, it was a brilliant strategy for getting the U.S. to be energy independent. Have you seen all of those Hybrids out there? Do you think they would be as popular with $1.00/gal gasoline? What about the move to alternate sources of energy? This has really happened under his watch. Does he get credit for it? If he gets the blame for the high oil prices was truly a bubble that popped at a much greater rate than our equity and credit markets, does he get the credit for being a brilliant tactician when it comes to fighting an economic war? Al Qaeda made it perfectly clear that they were fighting an economic war with the U.S. Could it be that Bush did the same thing? What do you think is happening to all of the infrastructure expansion in the mideast now that the price of oil has been cut in half while at the same time, demand has been reduced through more efficient vehicles and alternate energy sources? Seems to me like we are going to be getting cheaper oil while at the same time becoming more energy independent. But most of that he won't get any credit for.
And the Economy?
Well, Clinton was given a lot of credit for the tech boom of the 90s. Yet, the implosion of the market also happened on his watch in 2000. Bush had two pretty incredible booms happen on his watch (Dow 14,000+ and housing)...with two pretty incredible busts. Personally, I think that economic policies have longer term effects and what happens during a president's watch is probably not due to his policies. Rather, the blame for the booms is partly cyclical (as in, it was going to happen anyway) and then partly the fault of the Fed. Greenspan became fed head in 1987 and ended his reign in 2006. Where everyone loves the boom periods, they are always followed by a bust. So if he engineered the booms, he is equally responsible for the busts. And the presidents don't get much credit, but they also get a pass on the blame. We'll know if Bush's economic policies were any good in the years after his presidency.
On Environmental issues GWB refused to be bullied into affixing the blame for global warming on manmade greenhouse gases. There is very strong evidence that manmade greenhouse gases have little to do with global warming and that solar cycles do. In fact, the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere through natural sources (such as volcanic activity) is 20 times greater than the manmade inputs. GWB is pretty much vilified for his environmental views that conflict with the "Green" religion.
Bush was against the Kyoto protocol which was probably another notch against him. But this was due to the fact that it exempted 80% of the worlds population from having to reduce greenhouse gases.
So I am not sure he gets a lot of pluses in the environmental category, but I don't think he should be vilified either.
I believe that through the luck of the draw, GWB had the most challenging presidency in many years. He was handed an economy that was already in shambles after the implosion of the tech boom. And the country was attacked by a worldwide organization with no definable geographic boundaries. And he did what was right in spite of public opinion. |
