George W. Bush - His Legacy

It's kind of funny how people tend to bandwagon jump on others, particularly if they do not agree with them. I see this all the time in business and outside of business. It is the person with a lot of guts (and a lot of balls) who will go against the grain to defend their convictions, whether they are popular or not. There are a number of people with whom I may disagree philosophically, politically, and theologically, but I highly respect them for taking a position that may not be popular, or an easy one to take.

So all that being said, I turn my attention to the embattled U.S. President George W. Bush, whose term is going to end at the end of next year. I actually like the U.S. constitutions provision for presidential term limits, since it will ensure that there's a new face in there at the maximum every eight years. It also has helped ensure that popular, but morally suspect Presidents like Bill Clinton don't stay on for longer than they should.

Has George W. been the greatest U.S. President? Probably not. Has he made some mistakes? I believe he has. Does he deserve all the criticism he is getting by left wingers and some right wingers in the States? No. Has he been a good president overall? Given the climate and the environment that he has had to work with, I would say yes, as unpopular as it is to say that these days.

Bush has served pretty much his whole term under the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and aftermath. He has really had to make some tough decisions, especially in going into war. Should he have gone into Iraq? Who knows - I can say one way or another, but hindsight is 20/20, right? The whole weapons of mass destruction thing was a bit of a fiasco. They did capture Saddam Hussein, who has since been executed - so he did a good service to the Iraqi people by removing a dictator, but as the war as drawn on, it sort of reminds you of Vietnam in a sense, as the U.S. stuck their nose in someone else's business. In this case, I think that it was the right decision, even though it has cost many soldier and civilian lives. Personally, I would have preferred if they put more troops in Afghanistan, which is probably where Osama Bin Laden is still hiding. But then again, I don't work for the government, the Pentagon, the CIA, or NSA, so again, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest anything here.

Now, I know what you may think - Jeremy, what have you been smoking? Have you see any of the Michael Moore films? Well, let me just say that Michael Moore is hardly an unbiased, objective authority on anything. I've watched a few of his movies, and I am more than happy to challenge some of the "facts", since some of the topics and scenarios he enacted in his movie, I know a little about. The problem is when Moore goes on and appeals to left wingers or those on the fence and just shoves endless anti-Bush propaganda on them, these people assume he is the authority and eats it up (just like when Al Gore or any other environmental wannabe throws facts and statistics out, people don't know any better but they assume it's true - there are many scientists and studies who show that the idea of global warming is inconsistent at best - email me if you want some sources here). Anyway, people think that Bush is some heartless guy who has no backbone, etc., and has Tony Blair (not anymore) on a leash.

Say what you want about Bush's decisions - I don't agree with all of them, but I know that they were hard to make, so I applaud him for at least taking a stance and making a decision (just like his veto of embryonic stem cell research - something which I am against, and I highly respect the fact that Bush has the guts to take a stand and put the sanctity of human life before scientific breakthroughs (as beneficial as some of the research may result). He has had all sorts of groups lobbying for him to allow this research and even in the face of Hollywood celebrities and the like (who to me, have no more sway than anyone else), he made some tough decisions.

People mention how the U.S. economy is down the crapper for many years now and they blame Bush. I don't think that Bush is directly responsible for the U.S. economy's current long-standing funk. Remember, the tech bubble burst at the turn of the century (and millenium), so stocks were starting to spiral downward anyway. Add to that the terrorist attacks and the constant uncertainty of potentially new attacks, the U.S. economy has never recovered fully. I don't expect to see any growth in the U.S. economy for the next 8-10 years, actually, no matter who is President. No doubt if a Democrat is elected in 2008, there may be a slight jump in the economy, but I think it will go back to slumping after.

Compare Bush to Bill Clinton, from a people perspective. Bush was not involved in any sexual scandals. The first lady, Laura Bush, never got in any controversy and is pretty well respected across the board (unlike Hillary Clinton, who is a love-her-or-hate-her character). Clinton was very popular among voters because he had good schmoozing techniques (being a lawyer and all). But the record has also shown that Clinton has been engaged in many bold-face lies, and I'm not just talking about Monica Lewinsky. Bush - well, I don't recall of any instance where he told a bold-faced lie (and I'm not talking about him not being fed accurate information, but I'm talking about him deliberately misleading people). Granted, Bush may not have all the people skills Clinton has, but I'd rather choose someone who can make tough decisions and live by convictions rather than someone who goes around trying to please everyone.

Even though I'm not an American citizen, in 2004 I managed to buy a Bush-Cheney campaign golf shirt, which I wore everywhere (and yes, I drew my fair share of stares and hostile body language from people I came across). While I think Bush has made some mistakes, I don't believe he deserves to be considered the worst president that the U.S. has ever had. I believe in 20-30 years, the commentators will realize that he was put in a tough position and did the best that he could, under the circumstances.