Bush bashing: time for Tom to let it go?

First, the truth is an absolute defense. But more to the point, I might suggest that there is more objective evidence now by which to judge the Bush presidency than there was for the Reagan presidency at the point we began naming public edifices for him.

History will always sharpen perspective as more data emerge. But Lincoln's major effects on the country were known the day his presidency ended; so were Roosevelt's and Nixon's. Bush's are little less profound, and no less evident -- as the grunts remind us every day.

Personally, I think there's a distinction to be made here between Bush-bashing and bashing Bush's policies.

To me, "Bush-bashing" doesn't mean "pointing out things that George W. Bush did wrong." It means saying things like "George W. Bush was an incurious moron who couldn't even keep a Segway upright." In other words, bashing the deficiencies of the *man* rather than of the decisions he made.

Now that Bush is off the political scene, it probably is not worth anybody's time to lambaste him personally. Critiquing his *decisions*, though, is still entirely in-bounds, especially since in so many ways those decisions created the constraints that policymakers have to work within today.

He should be tried for war crimes and sent to prison.

I say no, not til the mess is cleaned up, if ever. In his eight years, there was a massive attack on US soil, two wars were launched -- one of choice which starved the other -- and a major US city was all but destroyed. This was a failure of leadership and imagination at the very top of the administration.

In the eight years after JFK's challenge, the US put men on the moon. In the 1941-1945 period the US and its allies fought and won a massive war across two oceans and led/funded the recovery of the rest of the world.

(My captcha at registration was "condi-" and "outcome.")

You are not bashing the man, as someone else said, you are reminding us of the long-term consequences of the decisions he made, and considering we are now in a similar situation vis-a-vis Iran, it is wise to remind us of those consequences.

You know, I recently listened to a debate that was germane to this post: Is Bush 43 the Worst President of the Past 50 Years?

Argued by Jacob Weisberg and Simon Jenkins in favour of the resolution, and Bill Kristol and Karl Rove against, the text of the debate essentially hit all the highs and lows of Bush's career in under an hour. And there were a lot of lows--a lot of lows even for which even Rove couldn't offer a reasonable defense (without resorting to obfuscation or revisionist history). And even granting that the debate took place in Manhattan, likely with a constituency of particular politics, 65% of the audience were in favour of the motion at the beginning, and 68% were in favour by the end.

That being said, I do not think it is outside the realm of current politics to address the failings of the previous administration. The actions of the previous two terms contributed directly, and in many cases obviously and publicly generated, the myriad international struggles the US (and its Allies) face today. And since the politics of 2000-2008 have closer and more direct bearing on the contemporary lives of the citizens of the United States, it is not outside the realm of criticism to reflect on the failings of he who directly or indirectly is responsible.

So let it be resolved: Bush 43 was the worst president of the last fifty years, and Tom Ricks should keep giving him hell about it.

Here's an interesting question based on Paul's post. He says the war in Iraq starved the other war. Is that really true? I'm not denying that Afghanistan was poorly resourced, but if we had never gone to war in Iraq, would the Rumsfeld Pentagon - operating according to the idea that its best to just transition control of security and governance immediately to the locals - really have completely changed their mindset and fully resourced a robust nation building (and if necessary COIN) effort?

Afghanistan was not starved because of Iraq. It was starved because the administration was operating according to faulty assumptions that led to an incorrect conceptual framework about how to do nation building and COIN.

Where to start? What will history say:
1. About a President who told people to shop instead of sacrifice after a surprise attack on the WTC and Washington by terrorists?
2. About a President who already had his mind made up about Iraq, and because of that mindset, his DIA and CIA Intelligence briefings were fatally biased with bad data and analysis?
3. About Colin Powell's discredited U.N. speech about Iraqi WMDs and other disinformation given the American public and the world?
4. About Bush's geopolitical error in attacking Iraq and altering Middle East regional politics in favor of Iran?
5. About the billions, if not trillions, of dollars wasted on the Iraq War?
6. About the continued deregulation of the national and international financial regulatory structures thus allowing the U.S. financial system to fail and cause the global economy to collapse like a house of cards?
7. About the willful blindness by the administration to mortgage and ratings fraud by the financial industry from 2002-2007 that was foretold by the FBI?
8. About the social safety net given to the financial system while ordinary Americans lose their homes and jobs?
9. About an administration that let Goldman Sachs, a private party with a conflict of interest, help decide whether AIG, who owed Goldman Sachs money, should be saved?
10. About an administration that cared more about its image and perception than about its foreign and domestic policies and duty to the American people?

Or, we could quote Ronald Reagan, and ask the question, "Are you better off today than you were a year ago?" By that criteria alone, the Bush Administration might be seen as a failure.

Your commentary on this issue was one of the first to make me recognize that we really have a problem here. I don't think anyone will associate you with the traditional anti-war group because your language is completely different.

It is your different language and thorough analysis which makes this so necessary.

When Bush came to power there was a budget surplus, growing economy and America's standing in the world was as high as ever. When he left there was a record deficit, economic crisis, worst depression since the great depression, 2 wars neither of which an ending or victory is in sight and America's soft and hard power dramatically reduced. When has there ever been such a huge change for the worse during a president's time in office. I know this has all been said before but it pretty much guarantees Bush's place in the list of worst presidents ever and arguably the worst and to not continue to look back and learn from his immense errors would be a mistake

The reasons to stop Bashing Bush are many and varied, but in the end they all come down to one thing: polarizing distraction. While you may get folks to argue about "wither Iraq" or "wither the surge" and so on, the moment someone says "he was an idiot and screwed up by going into Iraq" all normal cogent thought and discussion ceases and partisan shield go up and minds slam shut.

For the same reasons that conservatives needed to let go of the Clinton presidency in order to focus on Bush and his direction, we should all move past the bashing and focus on the acts and deeds. Too much is at stake now to let the unneeded adjectives distract us from the important discussions that need to be had.

Sure, dig into the thoughts, motives, method, and decisions of the "why" over 8 years in office...but epithets and dismissive adjectives only sully the argument. Something both sides need to remember.

wow ... that's a tempting prize Tom, and a highly relevant one - Horne's excellent history of Verdun 1916 illustrates how command incompetence led to a battle that cost about 1,000,000 lives.

Detailing incompetence, and the catastrophic consequences of incompetence, doesn't amount to "bashing", in my opinion. Partisans of any stripe demonstrate their partisanship by complaining that valid, fact-based criticism of their heroes is somehow implicitly partisan - since they see the world through that partisan lens.

We need more "bashing" of the kind you specialize in. The American republic has saved itself from blunders before by virtue of honest self-examination.

I disagree with some of your comments about Obama - I think it's too soon to tell - but I don't believe I qualify for the 'amen corner' - and I hope you keep it up. One of Obama's virtues over Bush43 is his capacity to listen to conflicting arguments (I hope he keeps it up).

We're in a hell of a mess in AfPak, as you know. There are no simple answers. We need alot of honest discussion, with plenty of fact-based, intellectually honest "bashing" when indicated, to find our way as a republic, and reach consensus on the sacrifices that will be required on any path we choose.

I hope you will continue to call them as you see them. Reagan National Airport (and countless other names on federal buildings and bridges and schools) exemplifies the insidious rewriting of history. Especially in this partisan, cable TV fueled environment documenting Bush's failures (when relevant to the subject under examination) is critical.

Thank you also for calling my attention to a book I want to read. I know I won't win the prize, but I will read the book.

The guilty and their buds always prefer that their deficiencies be ruled out of further discussion. Buish had certain strnengths and it is unfortunate that these seldom come up for discussion and the appropriate applause. I think particularly of his little-sung national investments in banishing malaria and other diseases now found mainly in foreign nations.

There's no need here to add to the list of thinmgs he didn't do so well. That's laid out pretty often, and should be -- forever. How are future presidents to learn their trade if predecessors' failures ain't out there to warn them of potential error?

that any continuing discussion of the disaster created by Bush is ipso facto a denial that we should expect the Obama Administration to be responsible to deal with that reality as it was handed to them is an absurd straw man. Tom Ricks is smart enough to know this, and his selection of a response to this little debate will reflect that.

First of all, I excuse my English, my computer insist in correcting words and turning them in Spanish.

I think it is time to drop the Bush bashing. But let me just start my argument with an introduction.

I am from Puerto Rico. Yes, the archipelago (it is not an island) that’s been an U.S. territory since 1898 (the year of the Spanish-American War, the same war that gave the US control over Guam, Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Cuba). As you all might know, and if you don’t, it is time to find it out, puertorricans living in the country (some call it a colony, others commonwealth or non-incorporated territory) are living tough times, economically and politically. You might say, yes, we all are, but wether you believe Barack Obama’s words when he says "We've begun to put the brakes on this recession and … the worst may be behind us”(#1)or not, as the resident of a colony I’m pretty sure my country (legally, I’m a US citizen (#2), but I feel puertorrican) is far from being able the declare that the worst may be behind us.

Why do I say all of this? Well, our economy is highly dependable on the United States’ economy and federal aid, we import over 80% of our food (#3), and as of 1999 90.3% of our exports went to the U.S. . Another important fact comes from the Bill Clinton administration, which cut Section 936 (#4), an exemption of taxes for U.S. companies, and replaced it with Section 30A; Section 936 over a 100,000 puertorricans were employed by U.S. companies, over 200,000 were indirectly employed. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) complicated things over here, we no longer had a federal exemption of taxes for U.S. companies, exemptions were and are being made by the commonwealth (which governs itself in a semi-autonomous way), and we top all that with labour competition overseas, where there is no minimum wage. Outsourcing in its glorious ways.

So we have a semi-autonomous Government that not only is giving tax exemptions so companies wont move to Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but that is employing, as of 2007, over 235,724 workers, 33% of its labour force (#5). Top all of this with another ingredient, politics. I hate to generalize as I stated on link #6, and as political science graduate I hate to present things with a backup, but I must say that even tough you ask a boricua about politics and he might make an eww face, he’ll speak his heart out. The thing is, most of our problems are political, from the fact that we’re a colony to the fact that we are deeply divided over political lines. We have two major political parties, el Partido Popular Democrático (Popular Democratic Party, or PDP) and el Partido Nuevo Progresista (New Progressive Party, or NPP). The PDP defends the status quo, while some sectors within the party want more autonomy or even want Puerto Rico to be am Associated Republic; the NPP’s goal is to make Puerto Rico the 51st state of the Union.

But lets add more ingredients to this sancocho (#7), lets spice up a bit with some more ideological mix. While we are politically divided over the future status of the island (I’m not counting the third, which is an Independence Party), we have the same left v.s. right dichotomy of the political spectrum. The PDP was originally a leftist party, its logo still read “Pan, Tierra y Libertad” (Bread, Land and Freedom), and while it has become a centrist party that defends the status quo, it still has some minimal leftist ingredient. The NPP was founded by Luis A. Ferré, president of the Republican Party of Puerto Rico in the time, so you can expect it to be the right, but not entirely, because while all of the PDP members are democrats, some of the NPP are republicans and others are democrats; they’re in different parties, locally, by means of Puerto Rico’s future status, while they can agree in certain politics. Picture it this way, our governor, Luis Fortuño, is republican, while our Secretary of State (vice-governor), Keneth McClintock, is democrat.

Former governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, was one of the first governors to openly endorse Barack Obama. He found a disaster, and instead of laying off workers, he approved a tax on products and services (it is called “IVU”, Impuestos a la Venta y el Uso in spanish). During 2008’s Puerto Rico’s election’s campaign, NPP candidate declared he was reducing Government withot firing workers, only Acevedo Vilá (#8), while Acevedo Vila, candidate for the PDP, campaigned that his adversary was planning to fire over 30,000 workers (#9). (I’m sorry all of this is in Spanish.)

To make things short, Luis Fortuño won, he encountered a mess, last Thursday the announced he’s laying-off over 17,000 public workers (#10), saying, every single time he can, that the current situation is not his fault, but the former administration’s. Do you see Barack Obama bashing over George W. Bush every single time he’s asked about Afghanistan and Irak? No. Because leaders are not elected to point fingers or hand responsibilities, but to take the burden, theirs or not, and make things go better. Is bashing the former president going to make things better? I don’t think so, because this is not about knowing what he did wrong, but about knowing what Americans did wrong by letting him go his way. Bashing over what the Military Junta did in Argentina went wrong, it allowed thousands of complaints in courts all over the country, it made the system inoperable, pretending nothing happened would had went wrong too. The solution? What the president is doing, saying to the world, not literally, but with some of his actions, “Guys, we screwed up in the past.”, see, he’s bashing while taking the burden, while adding, “But we’ll make sure to do the right thing now.” We’re about to see if he keeps this action

Another example can be taken from my country as of why bashing former administrations instead of doing the right thing won’t do any good. Just take our current governor’s words: says about the former governor, Acevedo Vilá, “él es el principal responsable” (#11), or, “he is the principal responsible.” for the crisis, and about an expected National March next October 15th against the laying-off of public workers, he said, “no marchen a la Fortaleza, sino a Puerta de Tierra.”, “do not march to the Fortaleza”, where the governor lives, “but to Puerta de Tierra.”, where there is the PDP central committee.

Clearly the unemployment level will skyrocket, but whoever comes next needs to rebuild the economy without pointing fingers, that is what kids do, men and women take responsibilities.

Links (because I tried to hyperlink, but I’m getting “errors”):

#1)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/08/obama-recessions-worst-may-be-behind-us/

#2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones-Shafroth_Act

#3)

http://encantada2006.blogspot.com/2009/09/eating-local-organic-food.html

#4)

http://www.topuertorico.org/economy.shtml

#5)

Third page here

http://www.grupocne.org/pdf/HTT_ClaseMediayEmpleoGubernamental.pdf

#6)

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/29/the_benefits_of_live_summitry

#7)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancocho

#8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmWsZz49moc

#9)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnN9qvtL1zs&feature=related

#10)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/25/business/AP-CB-Puerto-Rico-Government-Layoffs.html

#11)

http://www.elnuevodia.com/gobernadorperdonoahombrequeletirohuevo-621233.html

Your honest interpretation is the only obligation you have in occupying the role of a public intellectual. Insofar as the Bush legacy is relevant to your perception of current debates, bash the hell out of him. There's no disrespect in identifying failure and its consequences.

I would suggest that the issue here is tone rather than content. Particularly when dealing with a war that lasts multiple Presidential administrations, understanding differences in Presidential temperament and attitudes are crucial to understanding the conduct and outcome of the war. Things like Truman's inexperience and lack of confidence in dealing with the Soviets at the end of the Second World War, or LBJ's fear of being thought weak in his conduct of Vietnam are crucial to understanding their decisions. Similarly, the situation handed to them by their predecessors matters a great deal. Truman felt obligated to continue to pursue unconditional surrender in large measure because he did not feel comfortable overturning Roosevelt's decision. In the same way, an informed analysis of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot ignore the decisions and attitudes of the previous administration. If you, as you clearly do, feel that these decisions were disastrous and continue to have disastrous consequences, you have an obligation to point out their effects and implications so these mistakes can be learned from. There is something to be said for the incompleteness of the historical record at this point, but it seems myopic to simply place off limits the mistakes of the Bush administration because these wars are now Obama's responsibility. We must make do with what we have, and that includes looking at Bush's mistakes.
That said, I think that your reader does have a point about the tone of the post in question. It felt snide, and dismissive in a way that seems uncharacteristic of you. It was less a reasoned examination of a difference in how Presidential temperament affects policy, and more a 'Thank goodness we got rid of that jackass'. It felt out of place on a blog that maintains such a high standard of discourse (your commenters are civil enough that I read through the threads here, which is a rarity) and seemed detrimental to promoting reasoned debate.
In brief, I think you should go full out on well reasoned, well argued, well articulated criticism of President Bush. Avoid like the plague cheap partisan shots and snarky comments.

Once asked about the impact of the French Revolution, some hundred years after the fact, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said, “it’s too early to tell.” Whereas you have made a solid reputation as a commentator on current affairs, if you want your reputation to be essentially that of early commentator, specifically about Bush – continue to write about that. You have a loyal following and there is obviously much grist for the mill yet to be chewed on.

But ultimately, if you desire a reputation that builds upon the intellectual capital you have developed as a thoughtful commentator on current problems, look forward in an objective and bipartisan fashion, giving warning about current trends and conditions. Certainly the past can serve as warning for our present condition, and some relevant comments on the Bush administration’s decisions can inform our looming problems. Nevertheless, ‘the price of glory’ is not in forgetting the past, but giving greater emphasis to what lies before us. Greater credibility and influence will follow this choice. JFK is quoted as saying, “history is a relentless master. It has no present, only the past rushing into the future. To try and hold fast is to be swept aside.”

I for one hope that you continue to provide useful commentary on where the rush of history is sweeping us today, not be swept aside, along with the Bush legacy.

I think Bush probably will land somewhere in the middle of the pack when his presidency is viewed from not to distant future. Many of his falures have been discussed, lets look at some other aspects and start with forign policy.
Iraq was a mistake, no doubt, but how do you look at his other policies. Aids in Africa, and the creation of U.S. African Command, those two policies have given us strong access to the region, something we lacked and the Chinese are still competing for.
In Europe, the expansion of NATO, in addition to expanding NATO the mission in Afghanistan became a NATO mission, not ust a U.S. mission. One of the oddest things to come out of the McKiernan firing was the lack of response from NATO countries. In an era where we are trying to determine the relvance of NATO, Bush pressed for expansion and its inclusion in ur military missions.
In the Pacific, the response to natural disaters in Pakistan, the response to the Tsunami, again, humaitarian missions that gave us access to the region and further enhanced U.S. credibility. How about the fight against Abu Sayef in the Phillipeans? For the first time in years the U.S. has a footprint in that area...not to metion the rescue of hostages there.
Domestic policy:
While Obama's response to the Swine flu crises has been lauded, good thing we had stockpiles of the vaccine, an initutive of the Bush administration. This is a byproduct of the creation of the department of Homeland Defense, in addition the creation of U.S. NORTHCOM.
Defense transformation. Very successful, although FCS and other weapons systems are still a topic of debate, 2 new combatant commands wee created, and the Army went from a Division Centric fighting force to a Brigade Centric fighting force while fighting the war on terror.
Hurricane Katrina, absolute disaster.
Then there is the economy, hard to judge, 7 and a half years of prosperity, then it all came crashing down. Is deregulation to blame, or buisness cycles? What about the bailouts? The first was done by the Bush administration. If Obama claims that bailouts worked, where do you rate Bush's response.
He attempted to fix social security, but gets an F in leadership as he could not push that though a republican congress.
No child left behind, great work in a bipartison effort...but really, have you seen today's kids, some need to be left behind.
And the worst decesion ever made on the homefront by Bush actually occured prior to his presidency...trading Sammy Sosa from the Rangers to the Cubs before he reached his prime. Really, if you look at that aspect of his decesion making in the 2000 election, how could you trust him to make decesions to run the country?

Thomas,
Here's my main point. Let's pretend that I, Douglas Hardee, am
Commander-in-Chief of the US military. I call you in for a briefing on
Afghanistan based on your reputation as a renowned author and military
expert. I begin by saying to you, "Thomas, as a military historian,
you know that when a commander finds himself in a "shit storm" with no
easy answers, a reluctant public and reticent allies, as I do, you
need the best possible council. Hell, right now, all of America needs
the best possible information we can get. What's your take on the
situation on in Afghanistan, Thomas?" Well, If you make bashing Bush
part of your briefing, I know right away you're blowing smoke up my
skirt. When you're in a foxhole Thomas, you don't waste complaining
about the SOB that got us into it, you find ways to effectively fight
our way out of the situation. If you were briefing me "not to dither"
in that blog, and you pull the old Bush-Bashing routine, I would
assume, as President, that you had an axe to grind, and I would assume
it would only be a matter of time before you turned on
me.
As I said, it's not that Bush doesn't need a retroactive butt kicking,
it's just it doesn't belong in the same blog as a "tough love" note to
Obama. It comes off as ass-kissing to the WaPo Dinner party set.
Thomas, I'll make it simple for you you; A little more Keegan &
Morrison, a little less Olberman & Mathews.
All the best,
Semper Fi

Keep on commenting away. George W. Bush is the least self-reflective man in U.S. History. His personal philosophy, as witnessed at one of his valedictory press conferences, is je ne regrette rien. He has always said that history will judge his presidency. You're a historian - so judge.

To keep from repeating mistakes, it is necessary to remember what the mistakes were. As such, I think it is necessary to keep in active memory the mistakes that got us into this mess. As far as targeting Bush, I think that is necessary but maybe somewhat incomplete. How about reminders of going in without enough troops in the first place (and "sacking" Shinski for advocating correct numbers of troops). How about letting the looting go on during initial weeks? Disbanding the Iraqi army? Cutting out the technocratic classes from the new government by purging the Bath Party?