Bush's Legacy
First of all let me just state that this post is for humor only. I don't really believe the following, I just always enjoy cockamamie theories and I thought this one was good for a laugh. (Though I do believe everything I'm going to say about Reagan and I really don't care for him as a president.)
My mother recently brought up the point that Bush seems to not care about the type of legacy he is leaving behind. With the disastrous Iraq War still going on, the gap between the rich and poor reaching new unbelievable heights, and global warming finally starting to be believed to be a real threat that Bush has ignored his whole administration, groups of historians have already started proclaiming him the worst president in history.
But why would a man not care what type of legacy he left behind as president. Does he really want to go down in the history books as the worst leader our country has ever had?
It doesn't seem to make much sense until you insert my ridiculous theory into the equation.
Here's my thought. Bush knows it's too late to change how people remember him. But it's not to late to change how people remember a certain fellow president of ours, one who he's always admired and wished to emulate.
I think Bush is trying to improve Ronald Reagan's image.
You see, Reagan is dead now and it's started to come closer to the time where people will be allowed to more closely scrutinize what he did while he was in office. And if those who have no memory of what the country was like under Reagan start to look at his actual record, there are things there to find that could tarnish the former president's image. (I really hope my father and my friend Pi don't read the following or I fear they'll never forgive me.)
After all, Reagan supported numerous ruthless dictators in his fervor to prevent communism from spreading. A case could even be made that after Nixon and Carter's work in the presidency, the Cold War could have ended in the beginning of the 80s if not for Ronald Reagan stretching it out for another decade. Reagan stirred up anti-communist paranoia again and gave the country an old bogeyman to be desperately afraid of for another 8 years. Then there's how Reaganomics really seemed to have injured the country's economic situation and drive it into a stagnant state that wasn't corrected until 8 years of Clinton's fiscal policy. And if we read the encyclopedia it tells how during the Iran/Iraq War, we were the ones who gave money and weapons to Saddam Hussein, effectively putting him into power.
What would happen to conservatives everywhere if the image of their most beloved president ever became damaged when fully put under the microscope? It would be more than many of them could bear.
But never fear. Bush has devised a foolproof strategy. He may not be able to save his own image but he can at least save Reagan's.
After all, when you compare all the the things Bush has done to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the old movie star looks pretty darn impressive doesn't he? Sure there were a few things he did that weren't that great, but he was a political genius compared to Bush!
So fear not President Bush. We may remember you with disdain and loathing and you may go down as the worst president in history, but your ineptitude has saved the reputation of your idol. Compared to you, Ronald Reagan will always be remembered as a Saint and a National Hero.
At least by everyone but me and my mom. ;)
posted by Jess @ 9:33 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
You wonder why Bush doesn't care aboutleaving a legacy? It is because he, unlike all other Democrats and most Republicans, does not care what people think about him. He swore to uphold the constitution and defend America, and he has made every effort to do so. His goal is that at the end of the day, America will emerge victorious from this war on terror, and that because of that victory, we may buy several more years of peace. His "Legacy" is always under attack because the Democrats do not want him to succeed. Of course you will hear the worst spin on every good thing coming out of Iraq, the economy, and national security. The Democrats and the media are ivested in his defeat. You see things through the filter of what the liberal press feeds you; open up your eyes!
Look guys, George W. Bush has actually read my blog!
Well Mr. Bush, I am very sorry that you feel this way. I would first of all disagree with your statement that the press is liberal. I truly believe that the press is reactionary, because a truly liberal press would not have been as hard on Al Gore as it was or have railed Clinton and his administration for every single thing he tried to do. I do not consider myself liberal, but an Independent and a moderate who gets her information and ideas not just from the press but from fellow citizens who are concerned about the affairs of today and are willing to discuss with me how they feel about the events happening in our country.
Mr. Bush, I do see the value in not caring what people think about you, but I disagree with you that Bush has used that attitude to uphold the Constitution. In fact I believe that attitude in him is deadly dangerous because he flouts our Constitutional Rights! He has restricted or taken away many of our civil liberties in the name of protecting us against terrorism. The discrepancy here is that terrorism has always been a problem, and he has used it, like Reagan used communism, as a bogeyman to frighten us into submission. Well I won't be frightened. The CIA report shows that under Bush's reign, terrorism has actually increased. This is not the results of a man who upholds the Constitution. Bill Clinton often didn't care what people thought about him, but he did it in a way I respect, and used that attitude to improve the economy, to decrease abortions and poverty, and to attack Bin Laden even when under criticism for the Lewinsky affair. If you're not going to care what people think about you, you should do something positive with that attitude, and not let your confidence turn into believing you are entitled to do whatever you want whether it is good for the American people or not.
I also don't think it's "spin" to report bad things if those bad things truly are happening. It's not unpatriotic to report on evil things-it's unpatriotic to let those evil things happen without comment or protest.
I doubt that you and I can ever truly agree on much about this president. I believe he has brought nothing but harm to this country, and you believe he is a paragon of virtue. But I would point out that a true paragon of virtue would not lie to the American public about the reasons for going to war. And if he were so truly concerned about fighting terror, he would be going after the man who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and would not be currently occupying a country that had nothing to do with those events.
I also think it's cruel to be partisan about these issues. Democrats want President Bush to succeed just as much as Republicans. That's why they are so concerned that all his efforts so far have been so fruitless. When Bush begins to do something that truly makes this country a better place, and encourages it to live up to its ideals, I assure you that Democrats will be as much behind him as Republicans. After all, we all came together across partisan lines during 9/11.
I would hope you could see some wisdom in what I have to say or at least respect my opinion as I am trying to respect yours. But I fear we may have to agree to disagree in the end.
Look guys, George W. Bush has actually read my blog!
I do get around..
Well Mr. Bush, I am very sorry that you feel this way. I would first of all disagree with your statement that the press is liberal. I truly believe that the press is reactionary, because a truly liberal press would not have been as hard on Al Gore as it was or have railed Clinton and his administration for every single thing he tried to do.
"Hard on Al Gore"? Maybe you could post what you are talking about; the mainstream press has rarely if ever been hard on old Al. "Railed against Clinton"? Yeah, after he was found guilty of perjury, and after the entire Supreme Court boycotted his State of the Union Address, but other than that, there is no proof for such a statement.
I am referring to how the press gave Clinton and Carter heads up for every policy they enacted, yet when Bush did the same thing, they furiously demonized him and portryed him as a hitler. Examples: Wiretapping, firing U.S. Attorneys (Clinton fired all 93) weapons in Iraq, etc.
I do not consider myself liberal, but an Independent and a moderate who gets her information and ideas not just from the press but from fellow citizens who are concerned about the affairs of today and are willing to discuss with me how they feel about the events happening in our country.
Mr. Bush, I do see the value in not caring what people think about you, but I disagree with you that Bush has used that attitude to uphold the Constitution. In fact I believe that attitude in him is deadly dangerous because he flouts our Constitutional Rights! He has restricted or taken away many of our civil liberties in the name of protecting us against terrorism.
While you might bring up the Patriot Act, you won't be able to use that example to prove any such instances of restricting or taking away our civil liberties.
The discrepancy here is that terrorism has always been a problem, and he has used it, like Reagan used communism, as a bogeyman to frighten us into submission.
You're not serious! Communism murderd over 100 million, and it was just a "bogeyman"?
Well I won't be frightened. The CIA report shows that under Bush's reign, terrorism has actually increased. This is not the results of a man who upholds the Constitution.
Terrorism abroad has increased, not domestically. This proves Bush's tactics to prevent attacks at home have worked. It was wiretapping that led us to a plot to blow up eight airplanes last fall.
Bill Clinton often didn't care what people thought about him, but he did it in a way I respect, and used that attitude to improve the economy, to decrease abortions and poverty, and to attack Bin Laden even when under criticism for the Lewinsky affair.
The economy is too long of an issue to argue, but I will say he had nothing to do with any increase in prosperity. Decreasing aborrtions? Clinton signed legislation to allow MORE abortions, and this with out the parents knowledge! And Bin laden: Kinda funny that when offered to capture Bin Laden, he refused. Even more funny that after being accused of lying under oath, Clinton decided it was an ideal time to send a scud missile Saddam's way.....
If you're not going to care what people think about you, you should do something positive with that attitude, and not let your confidence turn into believing you are entitled to do whatever you want whether it is good for the American people or not.
I also don't think it's "spin" to report bad things if those bad things truly are happening. It's not unpatriotic to report on evil things-it's unpatriotic to let those evil things happen without comment or protest.
It is unpatriotic to not report good news on PURPOSE.
I doubt that you and I can ever truly agree on much about this president. I believe he has brought nothing but harm to this country, and you believe he is a paragon of virtue.
Hardly, he is terrible on immigration and spending. No excuse there.
But I would point out that a true paragon of virtue would not lie to the American public about the reasons for going to war. And if he were so truly concerned about fighting terror, he would be going after the man who committed the atrocities of 9/11 and would not be currently occupying a country that had nothing to do with those events.
He is going after Bin Laden. Why do you think we are still in Afghanistan? We are using that as a base to enter Pakistan and Syria to hunt for him in the mountains where he hides. And if you still don't understand the Iraq war, you never will. I won't try to argue that with you.
I also think it's cruel to be partisan about these issues. Democrats want President Bush to succeed just as much as Republicans. That's why they are so concerned that all his efforts so far have been so fruitless.
Then why do they support a slow bleed? Why did every Democrat in the House and Senate offer reasons to invade Iraq (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, Sharptin) and then blame Bush for tricking them after not finding the weapons THERE? Why do they cut funding for the troops?
When Bush begins to do something that truly makes this country a better place, and encourages it to live up to its ideals, I assure you that Democrats will be as much behind him as Republicans. After all, we all came together across partisan lines during 9/11.
I would hope you could see some wisdom in what I have to say or at least respect my opinion as I am trying to respect yours. But I fear we may have to agree to disagree in the end.
I respect your opinion and if you are, as you say, a sister in Christ, I respect you. I just believe you are misinformed about several issues. I believe that the legacy of any president in a time of war will come down to this: What have they done to protect the Country?
Well Mr. Bush you've quite effectively torn my arguement down into all it's component parts.
I guess I will start at the beginning. Your first charge is that the press has not been hard on Al Gore. I have noticed several instances where the press has jumped all over him-the claim that he had created the internet, the Love Story debacle, and Love Canal, all of which were things that Mr. Gore has spoken about that were taken out of context. Then there is the recent criticism that Al Gore is a hypocrite about global warming because his house uses so much power, but in fact he pays extra to have green power. You may have a different perception of things, but I feel like every time Al Gore tries to do or say something, it is taken out of context or he is unfairly maligned. And I believe his efforts to bring to the world's attention to possible devastation of global warming is particularly noble, especially given the fact that he has been constantly undermined for years. The fact that he presses on in the fact of adversity and refuses to exit the political sphere, I find commendable.
If the press doesn't like Bush's policies and do not give him a "head's up" as you have said, perhaps that is because most of his policies are bad. Again we go back to the arguement of is the press liberal biased if they report negatively on a conservative president. Well if that president is doing something wrong, I don't see why it is wrong to be hard on him or report what is in many's view bad policy or shady dealings. You and I may disagree on this, but I believe that Bush has been involved in an awful lot of deception, and that he has surrounded himself with people in his cabinet who excel at dirty deeds, like Rove and Cheney, or who tow his line and never present any opposition to his plans. Clinton surrounded himself with people who gave him disparate views and ideas, and I think he was a better president for it. I really do believe that Bush and his administration have lied about most everything concerning Iraq, so I feel no pity for him if the press is hard on him. I think we have a right to be upset with a president who lied to us, who put our troops in harms way and got many of them killed for that lie, and who even know is not taking proper care of the veterans (i.e. Walter Reed). If he is going to continue to lie about how Iraq is progessing and why we are there, I say the press has a right to chastise him.
Now I know you would bring up Clinton, and you believe he committed perjury. Here again we differ, because I don't see what he said as perjury and I feel he was accused inaccurately. He certainly deserves a reprimand for cheating on his wife, and I certainly don't condone that, but that's as far as it goes and I think the matter should have been dealt with privately. He lied about sleeping with Monica but I don't believe he obstructed justice and it did not affect how well he did his job as president. Bush has lied about Iraq and it has caused thousands of soldiers to die because of it. I hate to be cheesy, but I'm with the bumper sticker that says "When Clinton lied, no one died."
If you don't believe the Patriot Act takes away Civil Liberties unjustly, there can be no further discussion on it. I do, and cannot be convinced otherwise. You said wiretapping stopped a plot to blow up eight airplanes last fall. I would like to see some solid proof on that, as it has come to my attention that many of the "terror alerts" we have had in the past several years have turned out to be nothing at all, and very coincidentally coincided with events when Democrats were doing something good or drawing attention to themselves for something positive. Odd how they happened at those times.
You said that communism murdered over 100 million, but I believe that is an innacurate statement. Evil dictators who fronted communist governments murdered millions (mostly Stalin) and the Reagan administration supported other evil dictators who were not communist per say and murdered citizens as well. I would also remind you that Reagan gave money and weapons to Saddam himself, putting him more securely into power. I believe if we had left communism alone it would have sputtered out and the cold war ended much sooner, but we made it into an ideological battle that it never had to be. However, if you are so concerned with the millions communism murdered, then why did we not fight against Russia, the country communism killed the most of? Why did we not plan to quitely murder Stalin as we did Castro? (Stalin certainly caused much more death and destruction). Fighting against a dangerous person like Stalin is understandable. Trying to fight against an ideal is a dangerous thing. We are doing it now with terrorism, and we've actually managed to make terrorism worse abroad. As for domestically, I believe that president Bush was warned repeatedly that terrorists were infiltrating flight schools and possibly trying to use planes as bombs, yet he took no action until after 9/11. Now, instead of truly trying to prevent terrorism domestically, he is desperately trying to prove he is tough on terror by overcompensating for the fact that he showed absolutely no concern about it until 9/11. This is particularly sad given the fact that Clinton left a comprehensive plan for dealing with terrorism for him and told him Bin Laden would be his biggest concern. Clinton warned him and he ignored him. If that's not a dangerous show of partisan bigotry, I don't know what is.
You also said Clinton refused to try and do anything about Bin Laden. I am under a different impression as I have heard that during the Lewinsky affair he deliberatley bombed Bin Laden in an effort to kill him and missed him by only a few hours. He did this with the knowledge that he would come under intense criticism for trying to take attention away from the Lewinsky debacle. But he did it anyway.
If you look at the statistics I am quite certain that the number of abortions, violent crime, and poverty all went down during Clinton's administration. I do not believe this is a coincidence. It doesn't matter to me if Clinton is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as something is done to make the number of abortions goes down. That is the most important thing by my way of thinking. Bush has failed to do this. Addmitedly he signed the partial birth abortion act, but that as not created any substantial difference in the number of abortions as far as I know. If he's going to talk the talk about being pro-life, maybe he should try and find a way to substantially lower the number of abortions as well. Rhetoric about being pro-life means little if it is not backed up with results. There are multiple ways to do that without getting caught up in the whole "criminalizing abortion" debate. Clinton supported programs that helped the poor, a great way to lower the number of abortions. Hillary also championed adoption, which also is another great way to significantly drop the number of abortions.
You think the press reports bad news on purpose. Perhaps this is because they can hardly find any good news to report. There has not been much good to speak of since Bush became president. That doesn't make them liberal, it just shows they are reporting on what they are given.
But I do think Bush has done a few good things lately. He's admitted that global climate change is a problem, and I would be most impressed if he would sign a climate change act. If he does and the press does not praise him then I will say shame on them. He's also decided to send more aide to Africa. Kudos to him. I believe the press informed me about that and I think that is a very positive step. Don't you think it's shameful that of all developed nations we by far give the least of our per capita income in foreign aid? Imagine if out of all the money spent on Iraq even half of that had been spent on Africa. Malaria could be virtually non-existent as a problem, children would not be dying by the thousands from preventable diseases, and the extreme poverty in the country would be vastly improved. As Jeffery Sachs could tell you, this is possible.
I don't believe president Bush is going after Bin Laden. If he had kept his full attention on Afghanistan where it was needed, then Bin Laden would probably already be captured by now. But he diverted most of our military attention and efforts to Iraq and the number of troops we now have in Afghanistan are too small to accomplish much. Terrorism has increased there again and Al Qaeda's presence is becoming strong again; after 9/11 we had severly diminished it. Why didn't we keep it that way? Why didn't we keep our efforts there?
I believe you know why almost every Democrat supported the War in Iraq at the get go. They would have been branded severely unpatriotic had they not and probably not been re-elected. Bush had convinced the American people we needed to be out for Saddam's blood. To not have supported him then, when the rally around the flag effect was at it's peak, would have been tantamount to committing political suicide. Am I happy that most no one resisted? No, it's a terrible shame no one was brave enough to really stand up to him back then. I was against the war from that start. I understand why the Democrats went along, but I definitely wish it had been different. Now many of them have repented of giving that vote. I think that shows tremendous courage. It would have been braver to do it at the time this all started, but they still get a plus in my book. Bush has never, EVER been able to admit being wrong. Do you truly believe he never has been? Some believe admitting you are wrong is a sign of weakness in politics, but I see it as a strength. Also in their defense, the Democrats as well as the Repuglicans were given false intelligence about Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the supposed evidence of a nuclear program was forged. Maybe they should have investigated the evidence more, but would you have known you were being lied to in their place? And is Bush not accountable for the fact that no weapons of mass destruction of any kind have been found in the numbers we were led to believe necessitated a war?
If there is one criticism that can be leveled at the Democrats it's that right now they can't legislate their way out of a paper bag. The American people are calling for an end to the Iraq War and it would behoove them stop their petty disagreements and agree on a plan. That is one advantage the Republicans have-they are much more united. But at least the Democrats are TRYING to do something about it. The only power they have is the power of the purse. Cutting off funding is truly the only way they can do the people's will and end this war. After all, our government ceases to be a Democracy if the President and the Congress are not beholden to the people's will. And I would remind you that many Republicans are joining this effort as well. They hear their constituents calls and they are trying to answer them. That is exceptionally admirable. I commend every Republican Congressman brave enough to stand up to this administration about Iraq.
You believe Bush does everything he does to protect the country. But I do not feel safer under Bush. I feel he has endagered us more than ever before. We have lost the vast majority of respect and support from the International Community for choosing unilateral action. That most definately makes us more in danger and takes away our strength in numbers. When we were attacked on 9/11, the whole world was behind us. A newpaper in France had the headline "We are all Americans today." Who in the world has that feeling now? With Tony Blair leaving we will finally loose the support of England, our last bastion of strength. Odds are if we are attacked again many countries may feel we've deserve it. This would be cruel, but not entirely unjustified. We have done everything we can to allienate ourselves from alliances and friendships. We have essentialy told the world we don't need their help anymore. Can we expect them to be there for us next time? Does this make us safer? I will not feel safe as long as Bush is in office.
It's obvious to me that I can't change your mind anymore than you can change mine Mr. Bush. We both believe the other to be misinformed. I believe that Reagan's presidency was a failure, and that Bush's eclipses his entirely. I can have no faith in a man who has thrust us into an unnecessary war with Iraq. In Bush's actions I see only the lust for power and the desire to constantly save face. I know that you see many good things, but I must confess to you that I see little to admire and have no hope of that ever changing.
I just wanted to add a correction to my last comment. I said that I believed the media was reactionary, but after discussing that with several people I think that is poor word usage. So instead I would like to change that to, I believe the the media is sensationalist. Put another way, like Al Franken I believe the media has a bias, not liberal or conservative, but a bias towards sex, murder, and scandal.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home