“As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us.” Lam 4:17
I listened to President Bush’s farewell address last night.
When I distill the speach, it comes down to a simple premise. “I vowed to defend the country against a second terrorist attack. That goal justified all the actions I took. I was successful and history will someday vindicate me because I was willing to make the hard decisions.”
I don’t buy it.
History will document that in eight short years, Bush presided over the decline of America from a pre-eminent unchallenged superpower to a bankrupt debtor nation giving way to China on the world stage.
The only hope for redemption is if a miracle happens and Iraq emerges as a transformative force for democracy and moderation in the Middle East. If that does happen, I would attribute it more to divine intervention.
The more likely scenario is a cautionary tale of how politics, ideology, and religion can create an administration so convinced of their righteous destiny that they were blind to their own shocking incompetence.
What failures he was willing to admit, he defended on the basis of good intentions.
GOOD INTENTIONS?
That reflects remarkable hubris.
His administration behaved as if they knew best how to protect the American people. They insisted that they had access to information that allowed them to make better decisions than anyone else. They claimed that they were willing and able to make the difficult decisions to defend this country that others were unwilling to make. They asked for our trust with the implication that they themselves could be trusted.
But when it comes to being held accountable for the decisions that they made, they abdicate responsibility. They claim that their good intentions should absolve them of any consequences for the inability to execute the actions that they chose.
They can’t be held accountable for the phantom WMD’s because the intelligence community failed to provide good information.
They can’t be held accountable for the death and destruction caused by Katrina because state and local governments didn’t function as well as they should have.
They can’t be held accountable for the financial meltdown because CEO’s behaved irresponsibly in the unregulated market they created.
It is reasonable for the American voter to expect more of their elected officials, and in particular the expectation of competency should have been higher for the Bush administration because they claimed so much MORE unfettered power than previous Presidents.
It is reasonable to expect that Presidents would rigorously question every bit of intelligence, explore every possible alternative, and, once convinced, demand a complete battle plan that addressed the well known risks of instability and insurgency before committing our country to war.
It is reasonable to expect that our government would have good plans in place to deal with known vulnerabilities in our infrastructure (a strong hurricane striking New Orleans) and that those plans would be regularly tested and updated to reflect current capabilities. It is also reasonable to expect that when those plans are actually needed, we have enough experienced people to carry them out. Finally, it is also reasonable to expect that those plans would be sophisticated enough and the people experienced enough to escalate and expand the effort when the full scope of disaster became obvious.
It is reasonable to expect that those who are in charge of managing our financial infrastructure would regularly evaluate the risks that are introduced into that structure through government action (or inaction) regardless of their faith in a particular ideology.
It is also reasonable to expect that in an organization as large as the Federal government, there is sufficient oversight to insure that those tasked with doing a job are in fact doing it. When they are found lacking, it is reasonable to expect that an administration would hold its own accountable.
Mr. Bush and his administration failed this country at every level.
Mr. Bush’s good intentions won’t improve history’s view of his failures any more than they prevented flood waters from inundating the lower 9th ward.
Hey Jeff,
I am done having any discussion about Bush with you. You simply have rendered yourself unable with this post. I can defend that position several ways.
He’s leaving office and you are now calling for the country to come together behind Obama, which I agree with. Instead of looking forward hopefully forward you write a commentary that basicly kicks the guy as he’s walking out the door. It was classless for those to boo him yesterday at the inauguration and a poor reflection upon you for your articule.
Your, I’m not sure what to call it, is most visible when you write, “The only hope for redemption is if a miracle happans and Iraq emerges as a transformative force for for democracy and moderation in the middle east. If that does happen, I would attibute it more to divine intervention.” You can’t find anything anything he did that was good, “He failed us at every level.” Then to further your point you say even if Iraq turns out well, it has nothing to do with him therefore pre-empting any positive achivement that may occur. This is silly Jeff. Your comments are not accepted now as they are simply those of a very blind and partisain hack. (Though a good guy who’s posts I mostly enjoy and who’s running conversation I certianly do)
You are so blinded by something, I’m assuming is ISN’T hatered, that you can’t find a single thing he did to speak positively about. Many have interviewed him in the last three weeks. Everyone I have heard interviewed about their interview has said the same thing; “He believed above and beyond all else that keeping us from another attack always was the most important thing to him. Everything else came in second.” Jeff we weren’t attacked again. He did not fail us at EVERY LEVEL!!! (I could name many sucesses that even libral commentators agree with)
Your point by point critique is laughable. From the belief He could have stopped a hurricane and the distruction that followed, to not assuming every intelligence agency in the WORLD had it wrong on WMD.
Bush raised the revenue to the treasury…a sucess, he spent like a drunken sailor…a failure. HOw about his unmatched sucess in Africa as it pertains to AIDS? Come on, even you should be able to give him credit for this. I really hope you come to grips about your blindness as it relates to GW.
As I watched all the events last night and with high hopes Obama does a good job, I was reminded of the blindness the left has towards the democratic process and “supporting one another.” Only one network carried GW’s comments as he spoke to friends in Midland Texes last night, Fox.
Eight years ago all the networks followed every step Bill Clinton took AFTER GW was sworn in. They all televised live his marathon speach he gave an hour or so later from the hanger before he flew off. They even followed the plane as it dissapeared into the sky. Last night, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. simply ignored Gw’s speach. Today I am quite sure they haven’t given a second thought to this.
Today you, as well as me, are hopeful we can come togather and get something done, togather. For the past eight years, and six in particular the dems have refused to come togather. YOU with this post and posts over the past two years have failed to COME TOGATHER. After reading this one it occured to me, politically, you really don’t want to; to the point you won’t even be civil. Yet now you will expect it in return.
When I first started writing you a few years ago we were looking for common ground. As it pertains to Bush the only common ground we can reach is on what he did wrong.
I’m all for calling out the other side. LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!!!!!!! But I always understood your hopes to be that it could be done in a way that does not tear us appart. Now with the dems in charge you want civility and respect and a coming toagther. Your post above tells me you really don’t.
Keith,
My post concerned Mr. Bush’s speech.
If he had given a different speech, I might have had a different reaction.
I strongly disagreed with his arguments and listed my reasons for doing so.
I agree with you that the booing he received during the inaugural was disrespectful. As he has said, he tried his best, and I believe he deserves respect for that effort and the office that he held.
I’m not alone, by the way, in my assessment of Iraq as being the balance point for history’s future assessment of this presidency.
Here’s just one example:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE50I0YY20090119
As far as Iraq’s future, at this point it is going to be determined by the Iraqi people because President Obama is going to withdraw our troops. I sincerely hope that they are able to resolve their historical differences and build a new country. If they are able to do that, though, IMHO it will be as a result of what happens in the next five years rather than what happened in last five. I think that we can both agree that the odds are not in their favor. It’s because of their challenges that I pray for their future.
As for the rest, I am also looking forward to new topics of conversation.
We as a country have to turn the page. That is one of our great strengths.
I look forward to doing that with you.
Jeff
Jeff,
Its only one week but there are some troubling things I see occuring.
#1 Timothy Ghitner, Treasury Sec. He has tax issues. How can the head tax collector have tax issues. I am not concerned with the gal who worked for him who’s green card ran out for her last threee months. i would not have caught that either. (however it is of note that NO ONE has ever been confirmed who had a similar problem.) This guy didn’t pay his taxes….twice. After he was found to have a problem four years in a row, he only paid the taxes that the satute of limitaions, seven years, had not run out, 2003 and 2004. after he was nominated by obama he went back and paid 2001 & 2002 taxes, which he didn’t not legally have to. This is very troubling.
#2 Obama said all algong he would not allow lobiests. within the first week he has one in his administration. not good.
#3 though i will reserve judgement the press secratary is not proving to be competant.
#4 they were elceted on 11-4-08, two months later many things are still up in the air, except the excutive order funding abortion across the world.
too many cabinet positions unfilled.
#5 “in one year gitmo will be closed.” after much applause even librals want to know what is going to be done with guys being held there. why would obama make the statement if he doesn’t yet know what is going to happen to those guys. (just a hunch, but i think he’s going to find out that many things the librals screamed about are actually good ideas. gitmo was created, i believe, because NO ONE KNEW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM SVEN YEARS AGO. they still dont’, thus gitmo.0
#6 after two months no real plan for the economy. i will give them a pass because no one has this answer. but he said he had one. i’m watching guys on t.v. admit they can say that even one job will be created.
#7 nancy said, contraceptives are a “stimulas” for the economy and theat’s why $350 million is set aside for this in her plan…….what can i say about this?????? it’s ok if you disown her and say she doesn’t represent you party if you like and i’ll give you a pass on that.
hope all is well Jeff
Keith,
Obama has received high marks from all sides (except Rush and Fox) for his transition team and his nominations. Perhaps even a more impressive barometer is his approval ratings.
He has done more in a shorter period of time given the enormity of the problems that we’re facing than any previous administration. FDR for example, let the Depression worsen so that he could be guaranteed widespread support when he took office.
As far as Geitner is concerned, I was bothered more by the fact that he didn’t repay all his back taxes, only those that he could be prosecuted for. From what I’ve read, he isn’t the first one to run afoul of this regulation. Also the $30K or so he owed is really chump change for this sort of guy, so it wasn’t because he was trying to scam anyone. Other than that, he appears to be a capable person in a very important job.
The Obama rule regarding lobbyists says that they must recuse themselves from decisions which involve their previous employers. There is also a provision for waivers approved by the Chief White House Council if President feels that this is the most qualified person for the job. From all that I’ve read the two people currently in question at Defense and Treasury are eminently qualified. The real affect of this rule will be to discourage those in the Obama administration now from trading on their influence in private industry at some point in the future. That will go a long way to cleaning up the process and making it easier for future Presidents to find qualified people with no history of lobbying.
The current problem in Guantanimo was created by the Bush administration. Many of the prisoners left there are “tainted” because they have been tortured. So it is going to be difficult to try them in either a civil or military court. Some are considered dangerous, so their native countries don’t want them back. Were this a conventional war, you could negotiate with the opposing force to exchange prisoners, but even that option doesn’t exist because “Terror” has no boundary or identifiable hierarchy. It is a very difficult problem that is going to require internatioinal cooperation. I suspect that Military trials will be held, and most of the current prisoners will be released to their home countries (more willing to accommodate Obama’s requests).
Finally, when you plan on spending $800B, you can easily pick out smaller amounts that out of context make no sense. The Bridge to Nowhere is a good example. What the Obama administration is doing right is making the process transparent so both parties and the public can be involved in getting it done. Newt Gingrich had an interesting observation. He said if the Republicans ever hope to regain the confidence of the electorate, they are going to have to demonstrate that they have BETTER ideas than the Democrats and then sell those to the public. According to Newt, if the best the Republicans can come up with is standing in opposition to the Democrats and beating the worn-out tax cut drum, they will lose. So far, I haven’t seen anything new or different from the Republicans.
You might enjoy a new site at politifact.org tracking progress on the 500+ promises that Obama made during his campaign.
only real disagreement is with the transition. he is behind both bushes and clinton in getting people through.
the treasuary sec is still a sore spot. you are correct it should have been chump change and he only repaid what he HAD too. he should have been disqualified. and i do think he is capable and i do give him a pass on the nanny who’s green card expired. but to only repay what he we LEGALLY required to pay back just smells terrible. I think we have agreement here????
Also, Newt currently is the only conservitive with a brain…(only half joking)
you can quote him as much as you’d like
Newt has a serious ethical issues in his background too.
I agree though, that his intellect continues to position him as a thought leader even though he is likely never to win another election.
Newt’s ethical issues are enormus. Really, He and Bill Clinton are very much alike. That are the two best presentors of their parties beliefs and are very smart and crafty pol’s. However both are terrible flawed individuals, more so then most. This brings us to the question of Grace. Both there actions would be similar to David who God said “had a heart after me.” The old Testiment is filled with flawed me just like them. We need to learn to see others as Christ see them which is “unflawed.”
End the end we are all flawed. We shouldn’t demand flawless leaders as we’ll end up with one body. However, there is a difference between a flawed individual and one who claims their flaws aren’t real of they really aren’t flaws at all.
I am even more bother today by the approval of the Sec of Treasury then I was the other day.
Jeff,
It seems republicans want to lower taxes and Dem leaders simply don’t want to pay them….. (a broad statement i’ll admit)
Dashcle should go and the teasury guy NEVER should have been confirmed. This is becoming a joke!!!!!!!
Daschle did go.
The problem is that we are worried about the wrong stuff. What we need to be worried about is the economy – not whether or not somebody did something stupid on his tax return.
I agree that in an ideal world we would be able to find qualified people who have never made a mistake. Honestly, though, I wouldn’t want to put someone like that in charge of anything. Mistakes are our best teachers. They remind us that we aren’t perfect, and they encourage us to be more generous when others fail.
Even though it was Obama’s team that discovered the problems, I still blame him for allowing this process to become front page news and take up his time. We need this rescue package, and we need it NOW!
i believe its now four or more with tax issues……
i know i’m ok and hope you are…thats two in the country.
are we along in paying our taxes??????
Keith,
We aren’t alone in paying our taxes – and these people paid their taxes too. But the tax system is so complicated that there is a whole industry of tax lawyers who advise high income people on ways they can reduce their tax burden. That creates a culture of tax avoidance that erodes the fundamental ethic of everyone paying their fair share. Combine that with Obama’s promise to run a cleaner administration than those that preceeded him, and you could have pretty much predicted the outcome.
Obama’s mistake was to assume that he could compromise his values based on the upside of the people that he nominated. So what we will end up with is less capable people who have “cleaner” histories.
Don’t know whether that is better bargain for the country or not.