|
That’s the question of my Scripps Howard column with Ben Boychuk. Ben calls Bush’s record “middling and mixed.” I let my Bush Derangement Syndrome show:
“Middling and mixed”? That’s generous: Bush has been a disaster for America.
Consider this record: Hurricane Katrina. The financial meltdown. An explosive national debt. No WMDs in Iraq. Warrantless wiretapping. Torture. The list goes on and on. In most democracies, such a litany of failure and abuse would’ve led to the resignation of the chief executive long before now.
No doubt, Bush was dealt a bad hand; few presidents have ever absorbed twin body blows the likes of Katrina and 9/11. But it was Bush who responded to Katrina with a blithe “heckuva job” backslap for his overwhelmed crony while New Orleans drowned. And it was Bush who responded to 9/11 with the unnecessary invasion of Iraq and thus allowed the resurgence of the Taliban and its allies on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Characteristically, the administration’s most notable “success” — the surge in Iraq — came only after Bush stubbornly stuck with a losing and deadly strategy for nearly five years.
Great presidents make their names by rising to the challenge of hard times; Bush instead revealed himself to be callow, cynical and misguided. The result? In November, pollsters reported that 84 percent of voters believed America was on the “wrong track.” It’s possible that George W. Bush isn’t the worst president ever — but he certainly belongs in the conversation. That’s bad enough.
James Buchanan was pretty bad, though.
|
Leave a Reply