Bush bashing: We have a winner

Fri, 10/02/2009 - 12:31pm

In the contest for the best comment on whether I should stop bashing Bush, this is the winning entry:

Bush Bashing in it's own place

by astral swamper on Thu, 10/01/2009 - 2:52pm

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

I am picking it not because I agree with it, nor even because it persuaded me. More, it struck me as a well-reasoned approach. I tend to learn more from people with whom I disagree. So even if I do bash Bush again (and I suspect I will), when I do, this will be in the back of my mind -- that is, is this comment really necessary? Is there a more constructive way to go at this?

I've e-mailed Mr. Hardee to ask him whether he wants a signed copy of one of my books, or my extra copy of Horne's The Price of Glory.

Now, what is an "astral swamper"? This must be one of the few phrases in the world for which you could get no Google results -- until now.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Do not post this picture ever again

by Norwegian Shooter on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 5:01pm

Bash or don't bash him, I don't care, but I don't want to see his mug up that close ever again.

War Criminal

by admiral on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 7:49pm

Beltway crooks and liars can't bring themselves to admit that Bush is an international war criminal. He waged aggressive war in Iraq. One need not be a lawyer to understand this fact. The Nuremberg tribunal tried and executed Germans for this horrible crime. Ricks doesn't "Bash" Bush at all, he gives him a pass for his war crimes by calling them "mistakes."

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Justice Robert H. Jackson

Bash the sin, the not the sinner

by mathguy on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 3:11pm

With respect, I disagree, in part, with both of you (Ricks & Hardee). First, in judging Obama's decisions, why not compare him with how our best and most effective leaders who faced similar situations? Frankly, I don't think is useful to damn him with the faint praise of being better than Bush, given Ricks's assessment of Bush.

Second, at most one of your readers is Barack Obama, and he has lots of people advising him. I hope you're writing for the great mass of us who do not have your connections or experience, so we can be more informed about the Iraq war and the military generally.

Finally, besides the Bush-haters, there is a vocal group that is constantly defending Bush's policies and decisions and, more to the point, advocating their resumption. If Iraq unravels, they will proclaim it all Obama's fault, because the Surge "worked". If Iran goes nuclear or North Korea implodes messily, it will be Obama's fault for talking to them or not building non-functional missle intereceptors. If a terrorist attacks the homeland, it will because Obama doesn't support torture. And so on. This group, with its dysfunctional relationship with reality, does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Moreover, having created or worsened these problems, the same people are talking as if resuming their failed policies would fix them. Stupid policies should be bashed until they are abandoned--a Sisyphean labor, perhaps, but a necessary one.

lower your aim

by Walking Wounded on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 10:54am

The US presidency is a collective, corporate entity. A WH and its administrations should always be referenced and discussed as such, not in the personality cult singular.

Perhaps the future election of another inept governor or legislator is inevitable. But the staffing of the top jobs allows for scrutiny and vetting. There's no reason why another Doug Feith or Michael Brown should be slotted into high office with such questionable resumes.

I thought the essay winner a good choice, and the 'what, me worry?' pic a priceless reminder.