Goodbye, President Bush; We Will Miss You

I do not name this post sarcastically. I know I am in the minority, but I will miss President Bush. Yes, he was hard to watch and listen to at times, with his less than perfect execution of the English language (and won't the liberal comedians miss him for this?!). And yes, he was bullheaded and stubborn and overly loyal to his friends; and he could stick too long to his conservative principles when pragmatism suggested otherwise. But that is also why I liked President Bush. Like every human, he was fallible. But unlike most politicians, he was humble and able to laugh at himself. He knew he was not very polished and he reveled in his imperfections.

I just read a great piece on President Bush's retirement from the Presidency by Karl Rove. Yes, it is biased as Rove was Bush's right hand man for many years. But it is also honest and true. Read the article below. I think regardless of your political orientation, you will appreciate the great human being that is George W. Bush. And note his accomplishments. Did anyone besides me and Karl Rove get the irony of President Barak Obama warning terrorists that "you cannot outlast us"? This statement was only made possible by the unpopular policies of President George W. Bush. In the unvarnished re-examination of historians, he will be remembered for protecting us at one of our darkest times.


OPINION
JANUARY 21, 2009, 10:48 P.M. ET

Bush Was Right When It Mattered Most

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258532378704477.html

By KARL ROVE

Its call sign has always been Air Force One. But on Tuesday, it was Special Air Mission 28000, as former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura returned home to Texas on a plane full of family, friends, former staff and memories of eight years in the White House.

The former president and his wife thanked each passenger, showing the thoughtfulness and grace so characteristic of this wonderful American family.

A video tribute produced warm laughter and inevitable tears. There was no bitterness, but rather a sense of gratitude -- gratitude for the opportunity to serve, for able and loyal colleagues, and above all for our country and its people.

Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval
Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.

To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.

A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."

Mr. Bush was right to establish a doctrine that holds those who harbor, train and support terrorists as responsible as the terrorists themselves. He was right to take the war on terror abroad instead of waiting until dangers fully materialize here at home. He was right to strengthen the military and intelligence and to create the new tools to monitor the communications of terrorists, freeze their assets, foil their plots, and kill and capture their operators.

These tough decisions -- which became unpopular in certain quarters only when memories of 9/11 began to fade -- kept America safe for seven years and made it possible for Mr. Obama to tell the terrorists on Tuesday "we will defeat you."

Mr. Bush was right to be a unilateralist when it came to combating AIDS in Africa. While world leaders dithered, his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief initiative brought lifesaving antiretroviral drugs to millions of Africans.

At home, Mr. Bush cut income taxes for every American who pays taxes. He also cut taxes on capital, investment and savings. The result was 52 months of growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.

Mr. Bush was right to match tax cuts with spending restraint. This is a source of dispute, especially among conservatives, but the record is there to see. Bill Clinton's last budget increased domestic nonsecurity discretionary spending by 16%. Mr. Bush cut that to 6.2% growth in his first budget, 5.5% in his second, 4.3% in his third, 2.2% in his fourth, and then below inflation, on average, since. That isn't the sum total of the fiscal record, of course -- but it's a key part of it.

He was right to have modernized Medicare with prescription drug benefits provided through competition, not delivered by government. The program is costing 40% less than projected because market forces dominate and people -- not government -- are making the decisions.

Mr. Bush was right to pass No Child Left Behind (NCLB), requiring states to set up tough accountability systems that measure every child's progress at school. As a result, reading and math scores have risen more in the last five years since NCLB than in the prior 28 years.

He was right to stand for a culture of life. And he was right to appoint conservative judges who strictly interpret the Constitution.

Few presidents had as many challenges arise during their eight years, had as many tough calls to make in such a partisan-charged environment, or had to act in the face of such hostile media and elite opinion.

On board Special Air Mission 28000, I remembered the picture I carried in my pocket on my first Air Force One flight eight years ago. It was an old black-and-white snapshot with scalloped edges. It showed Lyndon Johnson in the Cabinet Room, head in hand, weeping over a Vietnam casualty report. George Christian, LBJ's press secretary, gave it to me as a reminder that the job could break anyone, no matter how big and tough.

But despite facing challenges and crises few others have, the job did not break George W. Bush. Though older and grayer, his brows more furrowed, he is the same man he was, a person of integrity who did what he believed was right. And he exits knowing he summoned all of his energy and talents to defend America and advance its ideals at home and abroad. He didn't get everything right -- no president does -- but he got the most important things right. And that is enough.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

The Surge, The Will Of The People, & Mission Accomplished

From a posting at Reuters Blog (see for entire post: http://uk.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/worldNews?type=worldNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B8Tgv4vF1HcJz7ZVwXFoGVva&src=blogBurst_UKworldNews&bbPostId=Cz89Owv0CZGgjB1mPkWEe6qbwBzjcujZdqmLnBEKYcqHoPXlT&bbParentWidgetId=B8Tgv4vF1HcJz7ZVwXFoGVva)

"While I’m inclined to agree with the Senator (McCain) that it may take decades to complete George Bush’s mission in Iraq, I believe it is quite clear that it’s a mission we shouldn’t have undertaken. It’s also a mission that must end. Neither George Bush or John McCain can will the Iraqi people to adopt the outcome we imagine would best serve our interests. Even if both men believe they can, reality should tell us we can’t afford the cost.

The 2008 election is our opportunity to send an important message…a message of restoration that reconnects us with our defining principles. Consistent with the intentions of our founding fathers, it should be the will of the American people that determines whether the war in Iraq should proceed. Likewise, it must be the will of the Iraqi people that determines the defining principles that will guide their future. Only then will our mission be accomplished." - Daniel DiRito


The author of the referenced piece, and others with the same political message always seem to miss the central objective of "The Surge". This strategy was conceived not so much to save American lives, although that was an important and necessary by-product, as much to save Iraqi lives (who have been killed in a ratio of more than 10:1 that of American soldiers), stabilize Iraq and allow a new nation to grow where there was none before.

The histoy of Iraq is that it was never a nation, but a province of a greater Arabia. It was variously adminsitered by the Mufti of Istanbul and after the British defeated the Ottoman Empire during WW1, by the British and their appointed Arabic princes. In 1921, this included Faisal who ruled Iraq as a British "colony" or emirate, as an extension of a fading British Empire. Iraq never experienced popular (majority) rule and so never experienced any semblance of stability or national prosperity. After coming to power by coup in 1979, it can be argued that Saddam Hussein himself was an "occupier" of Iraq. His minority Baath/Sunni party was sponsored by Syria. The coup was possible due to Iraq's unstable history of monarchies and military dictatorships that did not reflect the will of its peoples (Sunni,Shia and Kurd). Hussein's rule was therefore unjust and in need of removal in order for Iraq to become a place of peace and prosperity.

The author, and others like him, try to politicize the current status of Iraq to advocate for a "withdrawal" by American and other allied forces, as if that is an answer to the problem. Criticizing American financial support for those who help create security by identifying insurgents and terrorists, the author openly acknowledges that what many Iraqis need most is an income so they can survive and thrive. This is true of all peoples at all points in time, and is the ultimate goal of "The Surge". How does American withdrawal help the Iraqi people achieve economic stability and provide them "an income"?

To become a nation, Iraq needs an economy that can offer a promise of employment to most people, as does any nation that hopes for stability. Where there is civil unrest, destruction and violence, there is inevitably economic trouble for a significant portion of the population. America chose the path of "nation-builder" when it began the regime change in 2003. While the reasoning and wisdom of that decision will be excellent fodder for academics for generations to come, it does not change the reality on the ground in Iraq today.

It has been demonstrated that nations can be rebuilit or built from scratch through the intelligent and selfless effort of other peoples. Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WW2 in this way and are still today, good friends of the American people after once being bitter rivals. After WW1, there was no specific Allied effort to rebuild a defeated Germany, and the result was a spiritually broken, impoverished people that made poor political decisions leading to WW2. Today, many governments, including America, are trying to rebuild a broken Yugoslavia into nations that are ruled by popular decision, and not by minority dictate and military oppression. How is this different than the goal for Iraq?

The world has learned from the lessons of the Marshall Plan that nation building can succeed if done for truly unselfish (non-imperialist) reasons, as opposed to the purely political objective of Vietnam, which was to stop the advance of Communism without regard to the needs of its people. But reconstruction does require a long term commitment and significant investment. All peoples everywhere want peace and prosperity. That is what is at stake for the Iraqi people. Should the anti-Iraqi left wing of the American public be allowed to deny this ideal from the Iraqi people? And what alternatives does the author, Daniel DiRito and other liberals, offer other than to walk away from the Iraqi people leaving them with no hope for the future? This defective strategy plays right into the hands of anti-American terrorists. It will show a people who have suffered greatly, they cannot depend on Americans to stay the course, a mistake too many times repeated by a weak-willed American public.