Replies

I appreciate your post. Here’s where I think we see things differently: I respect the “hearts and minds” doctrine behind counterinsurgency. However, it has limited application. I would argue that, in the long haul, it is doomed to succeed in the Muslim world in most cases. This is because you NEVER win over the heart or the mind of Muslims. Underneath any veneer of friendship or cooperation, they ultimately are loyal only to their religious ideology and tribalism.

Does this mean there is no place to try to maintain good relations with an indigenous population while targeting the armed insurgents? No. It is a valid policy, but we should never become complacent in the belief that the populace is now loyal to us and won’t turn into enemies at the drop of a hat.

What I was really criticizing Bush for was two-fold: one, in many speeches to and about Muslims in America, he kept up this drivel about Islam being a religion of peace. He could just as well have left the issue alone or said some nice things about Muslims generally without resorting to an out-right poisonous lie which has not befriended the Muslims but emboldened them to exploit this perceived naivete. Now, every time someone wants to suggest that maybe Islam is not so peaceful (such as the Peter King hearings) they are relentlessly savaged as racists bigots and Islamophobes. Bush greatly contributed to that. Debate is squelched and our people are hampered in rooting out the terrorist cells that are forming right now in American mosques.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I liked George Bush as a person and I appreciated the good things that he did; while they were few, they were important and good. I agree with you that he deserves a lot of credit for waging the war on terror vigorously and successfully for the most part (Only “for the most part” because his success in preventing attacks here is not matched by the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, obliterate the Taliban and confront Iran and its proxies). I also think he hit grand slams with his nominations of Roberts and Alito. His tax cuts were good as was his generally solid support for Israel against the Palis.

Let me just give you a few top examples of why I think W booted things in general:

1. No child left behind;
2. Prescription drug benefit;
3. Amnesty;
4. Lost his veto pen for 7 years;
5. Dubai ports;
6. Harriet Myers;
7. Failure to fight back against the vicious campaign of lies and distortion about Iraq war;
8. Failure to fight vigorously for his federal judicial appointments;
9. Failure to pardon Scooter Libby the day after he was convicted;
10. Failure to call out the Republican Congress he had from 2002 for their drunken spending and earmark binge.

One last point: despite my criticism, no one should think for a moment that I would even mention him in the same sentence with the present occupant of the Oval Office. George Bush is a decent person who loves his country, but simply turned out to be a misguided mushy RINO. Hussein is an arrogant jerk who hates America and is not screwing things up accidentally, but because of a very deliberate life long ideology. He is not just a bad president, but a truly bad person.

I appreciate your detailed answer. Certainly, I don't believe that President Bush is above criticism.

You think he laid it on too thick, and that's fine. From what I remember, al-Qai'da not only had presences in the Middle East but also in Africa. I think the fear of al-Qai'da setting up hidden bases all over the world made the Bush team go out of their way to push the "RoP" line.

What I was really criticizing Bush for was two-fold: one, in many speeches to and about Muslims in America, he kept up this drivel about Islam being a religion of peace. He could just as well have left the issue alone or said some nice things about Muslims generally without resorting to an out-right poisonous lie which has not befriended the Muslims but emboldened them to exploit this perceived naivete. Now, every time someone wants to suggest that maybe Islam is not so peaceful (such as the Peter King hearings) they are relentlessly savaged as racists bigots and Islamophobes. Bush greatly contributed to that. Debate is squelched and our people are hampered in rooting out the terrorist cells that are forming right now in American mosques.

I think he learned that the hard way. Bush was notorious for not responding to the hatred of him during his terms; you mentioned it yourself. That was one of his miscalculations. I think he underestimated the strength of the anti-war movement and overestimated the strength of what Washington insiders like to call "nationalism."

In fact, I think he went out of his way in the RoP department to euchre out a policy of internment. For whatever reasons they highlighted, he and his team decided that internment would make things worse on balance. As a result, as you mentioned, certain questions have been cut off at the knees and debate has been squelched.

In domestic policy, his mistakes were that of a war President. I think he tried to run what the Brits call a "National Government" out of the Oval Office. (In times of war, all major parties get seats in the Cabinet to fortify national unity.) Trouble is, the national-government approach doesn't fit well onto the American system. Certainly, the Dems didn't reciprocate.

Unfortunately, through his domestic policy, he wound up adding to America's fiscal woes. That's part of his legacy too, as you implied.

Again, thanks for your detailed reply.