|
Presidency of George W. Bush -- the first 44 months
|
 President Bush signing a federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion
|
U.S. Forces In Baghdad
Posted on 09/01/2004 9:45:37 AM PDT by dplinn
At this ultimate political moment, what can be said about the First Term of the Bush II Presidency, politics aside.
It is the most important issue of several generations. Quite obviously, terrorism came of age during the First Term. It set the stage for the First Term - but did not define it. Bush's reaction to the challenge defined him, his first term and the course of history.
With the luxury time, Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan, the safe-haven of al Qaeda, seems manifestly correct and carried out with great success. Al Qaeda's operation was dealt a severe blow, the Taliban deposed and freedom delivered to a people devastated by Islamic fascism. Unquestionably, on that most important initiative, President Bush acted decisively and adroitly. But that decision and its execution should not be taken for granted.
You would do well to remember that, at the time, the naysayers (read the Major Media and the Dems), questioned the policy and its possibility for success - openly pondering...
Please add, dignity, respect, honor, responsiblity and 100% pure leadership restored to the White House. I also say, remember the tax rebate we received and a note(never received one from a democrat in office.) "President Bush, the Right Choice For America." Bush/cheney 2004
It seems to be one issue, not a refreshingly accurate assessment of his accomplishments thus far.
An First Term Assessment
by Thomas G. Del Beccaro
At the ultimate political moment, what can be said about the First Term of the Bush II Presidency, politics aside.
It is the most important issue of several generations. Quite obviously, terrorism came of age during the First Term. It set the stage for the First Term - but did not define it. Bush's reaction to the challenge defined him, his first term and the course of history.
With the luxury time, Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan, the safe-haven of al Qaeda, seems manifestly correct and carried out with great success. Al Qaeda's operation was dealt a severe blow, the Taliban deposed and freedom delivered to a people devastated by Islamic fascism. Unquestionably, on that most important initiative, President Bush acted decisively and adroitly. But that decision and its execution should not be taken for granted.
You would do well to remember that, at the time, the naysayers (read the Major Media and the Dems), questioned the policy and its possibility for success - openly pondering the possibility of the US becoming bogged down in the Afghan winter and replaying Russia's Viet Nam - its failed occupation of Afghanistan.
Pointedly, if either Gore or Kerry had been President at that time, it is likely that neither one of them would have invaded Afghanistan. Instead, either or both probably would have chosen to bomb Afghanistan in much the same way the Clinton/Gore administration bombed Iraq the last 18 months of Clinton's Presidency - thereby leaving the Taliban in place.
The irony of such a policy, of course, is that it would have driven bin Laden further underground than he is now. The US would, even more vainly, be searching for him because it would not have thousands of troops in the area. Further, that policy would not give Pakistan the comfort and additional resources, let alone the on-the-ground presence of US troops in the area, it has needed to take on al Qaeda in the fairly aggressive manner it has.
In other words, the Dems complaint that Bush diverted resources from finding bin Laden, by invading Iraq, is historically dishonest because the likely path they would have followed would have faired even worse.
Bush, on the other hand, in the face of such doubt chose action over vacillation. He took bold actions in the face of criticism and thereby defined the war on terror instead of letting it define him or his Presidency.
Based on the foregoing, it must be said that Bush Presidency is a success with respect to the most important issue of the day, and, given the alternative, Bush was certainly the right man at the right time. That makes the First Term an overall success because that issue outweighs all other issues combined.
But what of Iraq you say? Once again, one must consider the alternative. Bush certainly could have sat on his Afghan laurels. He could have looked the other way and/or bombed from afar like Clinton. But where would we be if Bush chose inaction? Well you have to think back and remember, because the Media and the Dems won't.
In 2002, we were dealing with the following dynamics: (1) a permanent occupation of Iraq via an inspection regime - which turned Arabs against us because all they saw were Arabs being suppressed for which the US was blamed by the Arab media and which policy was being undermined by some European countries, (2) the uncertainty and the danger of Saddam, (3) a failed UN oil-for-food-policy, (4) Iraqi meddling in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and (5) a growing, unchecked, Iranian nuclear threat. Importantly, there was no end in site to those any of those dynamics.
Bush ended all of those dynamics by deposing Saddam. All of them.
In doing so, Bush did something that was not politically smart. He easily could have passed them on to the next President. Instead, Bush chose to battle now instead of later - when it would have been more difficult and Iran's danger greater. He took action fraught with risk and a still uncertain outcome and, most importantly, as he confirmed to me, was thinking fifty years ahead about world security.
History will judge the overall success of his undertaking, but this is certain. President Bush acted for a reason other than short term political gain. That is leadership.
Beyond that, Iraqis, if not the region, now have a chance at freedom. Iran's nuclear program is in the spotlight and the US troops in the area have slowed their ambitions. Additionally, Libya divested itself of weapons and Saudi Arabia is turning on al Qaeda. That dynamic, in my view, is a remarkably better dynamic than the dynamic which Clinton left.
There are great problems left to surmount in Iraq to be sure. I am not at all certain, however, that they are worse problems than those that the US would have faced in the future if Bush chose inaction. To the contrary, I think the future would have been more dangerous. For that reason, Iraq remains a long term success of this Administration despite the short term detractors.
In my view, those issues trump the domestic issues which present a mixed bag for Bush.
Domestically, Bush did two dramatic things: (1) he cut taxes and (2) he raised spending. The first was essential to bring the nation out of the Clinton recession. The latter also helped bring the country out of recession but the pace of the growth is simply wrong. Government was already too large and despite 20 years of a war on poverty Government has not "solved the problem." That is because it can't. As Reagan said, government is not the solution but he problem. In other words, every time that government grows, our freedoms don't.
In sum, that growth in government is not a success of the First Term. But despite my principled objection to Bush on that spending issue, and notwithstanding any problems in Iraq, the First Term remains a success. It is a success because the President is succeeding on the most important issue of several generations, the War on Terror.
Good essay.
|
Presidency of George W. Bush -- the first 44 months
|
President Bush signing a federal ban on Partial Birth Abortion
|
U.S. Forces In Baghdad
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.