SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (24322)12/4/2006 4:44:54 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Post Objectivity

John J. Miller
The Corner

Why does the Wash Post — or any media outlet, for that matter — look to Douglas Brinkley as an objective "author and historian" for commentary on President Bush? This is a guy who formally tried out for the role of court historian to the Kerry administration. The only reason he didn't get the job is because his man lost. Yesterday, in the Post, he wrote:


<<< "barring a couple of miracles, it's safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. ... There isn't much that Bush can do now to salvage his reputation. ... Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock ... He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president." >>>


Today, of course, Brinkley will be an exemplar of evenhanded objectivity.

corner.nationalreview.com

washingtonpost.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24322)12/4/2006 4:51:22 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
History V. Bush

Jonah Goldberg
The Corner

Related to John Miller's post below, Vincent Cannato (that old friend I mentioned last week ) is back and swinging as well amidst the Post's bullpen of historians. Vin is the only one willing to say "wait and see" on history's verdict about whether Bush is the worst president ever (though Michael Lind does say Bush is only the 5th worst), though he hardly sounds like he's about to buy a lot of long term Bush bonds. I'd say Vin has it exactly right: Nobody knows. He writes:

<<< Historical and popular judgments about presidents are always in flux. Dwight D. Eisenhower used to be considered a banal and lazy chief executive who embodied the "conformist" 1950s. Today, his reputation has improved because of more positive appraisals of his Cold War stewardship. Ronald Reagan, whom many historians dismissed as an amiable dunce, has also had his stock rise. On the flip side, Bill Clinton's presidency looks somewhat different after Monica Lewinsky, the bursting of the dot-com bubble and 9/11 than it did in 1997.

Perhaps Bush can take solace in the case of Harry S. Truman, who was reviled at the end of his presidency, with approval numbers hovering around 30 percent. Too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals, Truman was saddled with an unpopular stalemate in the Korean War and accusations of corruption at home. Many saw him as a belligerent rube, too unsophisticated for the White House.

Today, however, many historians have revised their estimate of his presidency upward. There certainly are echoes of Truman in the current carping about Bush. >>>

And, later he adds:

<<< What is disheartening is the tendency of many historians to rate presidents based on their support for liberal social policies. Just as frustrating is the inability to acknowledge the deep debates over law enforcement measures, such as the USA Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11. Rather than acknowledge the tough tradeoffs between security and privacy, we are left with the hyperbole that this administration is "trampling on civil liberties." Sometimes wisely and sometimes rashly, Bush has steered the nation through the post-9/11 world. It has been an uneven trip so far, but the country has not suffered another attack in more than five years. >>>

But I also think there's room for Bush to be remembered very well, even as "great." I'm not personally making that case for Bush nor am I predicting this. But it's worth at least pondering how much events drive our understanding of the past. The war on terror and Iraq have added even more shine to Reagan's image — for liberals — because the Gipper negotiated ("talked" to the Soviets, in the parlance of today's ISG-fueled argy-bargy). 9/11 drained much of the historical significance from the founding of the Soviet Union, and greatly increased the importance of the founding of Saudi Arabia.

Consider FDR. If it had not been for Pearl Harbor, my guess is that FDR's status in the popular imagination would be at least one rank lower (how historians would see him is a different matter considering how many of them equate greatness with the passage of their preferred social policies). FDR's — often dishonest — efforts to steer us into war, his court-packing scheme, his excesses on numerous scores, his violation of the two-term tradition, would all get more prominent treatment if it were not for the fact that "Dr. New Deal" was replaced by "Dr. Win-the-war." Prior to Pearl Harbor, Americans were profoundly and deeply opposed to U.S. involvement in the war.

If you take the assumptions of the war on terror seriously — an existential, generational struggle, etc etc — there may well be another Pearl Harbor in our future. If that's the case, then it's possible Bush will look Churchillian in his steadfastness (it's also possible he'll be blamed). It's also possible, by the way, that liberals will adopt compassionate conservatism as their own, and as such Bush will look pioneering. Regardless, my point, much like Cannato's, is that our understanding of the past depends heavily on the future.

corner.nationalreview.com

corner.nationalreview.com

findarticles.com

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (24322)12/4/2006 4:59:03 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
That sounds very much like Helen Thomas talking.



To: Sully- who wrote (24322)12/5/2006 2:21:56 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Foner baloney, Part Two

Power Line

Yesterday, I commented on the assessment of the respected (at least at one time) radical-leftist historian Eric Foner that George W. Bush is undoubtedly the worst president in American history. Foner was so anxious to "mail in" that assessment that he neglected to mention the one issue that, depending on future developments, actually could cause objective historians to give President Bush low marks -- the war in Iraq. But let's compare Bush to some other post-World War II presidents when it comes to waging, or not waging, war.

Harry Truman

In early 1950, the Secretary of State fails to include South Korea in his statement of what comprises America's Pacific defense rim. A few months later, Joseph Stalin, who had vetoed a North Korean invasion of South Korea earlier, gives North Korea the go-ahead. The North Koreans invade. The U.S. is surprised and unprepared. Indeed, the Secretary of State had recently told Congress that no such invasion would likely occur.

The North Korean invaders rout the South Koreans and capture Seoul. U.S. forces intervene and eventually turn the tide, creating the prospect that North Korea can successfully be invaded. The president believes that China won't enter the war, but China does enter, forcing U.S. troops to retreat. The commander of our forces in Korea (a legendary general) wants to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese, but the president refuses and removes the commander. A long stalemate ensues. Domestic support for the war evaporates and a new president makes the peace. North Korea remains intact and now has nuclear weapons making it, nearly everyone agrees, a serious threat to the security of the region and of the U.S. In three years of combat, approximately 40,000 Americans are killed.

John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon

Not long after his botched invasion of Cuba, a young president begins a substantial U.S. involvement in South Vietnam in order to save a friendly government from being overthrown by communists. His successor escalates the war substantially, and that president's successor continues to wage war for more than five additional years. By the time it is over, approximately 60,000 Americans have been killed and South Vietnam has fallen to the communists.

Jimmy Carter

Iran, a staunch ally of the U.S., faces revolutionary pressure, the most vigorous of which is exerted by Islamic fanatics. The Shah of Iran looks to his long-time friend, the U.S., for support. The president shows nothing but comtempt and appears indifferent at best to the Shah's survival. The government, totally demoralized, loses its will to remain in power. The Shah falls and, predictably, the Islamic fanatics end up in control.

The new regime takes U.S. embassy personnel as hostages. Now it is the U.S. president who is demoralized and lacking will. Eventually, he orders an absurd rescue plan that fails utterly, bringing even further humiliation on our country. Almost 30 years later, the Islamic fanatics remain in control. They sponsor terrorists and deadly anti-western militias throughout the Middle East. They apparently are close to developing nuclear weapons.

Bill Clinton

Yet another group of anti-western Islamic fanatics is training thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan, and we know it. Terrorists launch a series of strikes against the U.S. -- the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorists training in Afghanistan are behind most if not all of these attacks. The president does essentially nothing in response. Offered several opportunities to take out the leader of the terrorist group, he declines. Later he will blame his inaction on various U.S. agencies under his control, and on the fact that taking action would have engendered criticism, since he had evaded the draft. Soon after the president leaves office, the Afghan based terrorists launch an attack on U.S. soil that kills approximately 3,000 American.

George W. Bush

Following the deadly attack against the U.S., the new president quickly brings down the regime in Afghanistan that allowed the terrorists to flourish, and routs the terrorist group there. Next, he turns to the regime in Iraq. That regime has been sponsoring terrorism for years and has engaged in the mass murder of its own citizens. It has invaded two of its neighbors, one of which is a U.S. ally. Our intelligence community believes with near unanimity that the regime possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also believes that it is capable of developing nuclear weapons in short order.

The president, strongly supported by Congress, orders an invasion. It proves to be one of the most successful military operations in our history. After toppling the regime and quickly rounding up many of its leaders, the president declares that the **mission is accomplished** and that major combat operations have ended. He is wrong. An insurgency develops. Although the U.S. enables the Iraqis to hold unprecedented democratic elections, enact a constitution, and elect a government of their choosing, the U.S. has not been able to quell the violence caused by the insurgency and by sectarian conflicts. So far approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed. The deaths continue at a rate of about 50 to 100 per month.

* * * * *

The fate of Iraq has not been settled and the broader consequences of our action there are not yet clear. But based on what we know now, it's difficult to argue that events in Iraq prove President Bush to be, comparatively speaking, even a bad modern-day president, much less our worst president ever.

To discuss this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com

CORRECTION: President Bush didn't declare "mission accomplished." He stood near a banner that said that.

Some readers have also said that "mission accomplished" referred to the mission of overthrowing Saddam which had (and has) been accomplished. Perhaps. But it certainly was not the case that major combat operations had ended.

** NOTE ** Both the original assertion & the CORRECTION are wrong. The Mission Accomplished banner was there to honor the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln who had just completed a lengthy deployment & were scheduled to return home - even President Bush's speech that day establishes this fact (see at link below).

whitehouse.gov

powerlineblog.com

powerlineblog.com

washingtonpost.com