Farewell George "W" MD Bush

As I was watching the cricket on Television, I happened to be channel surfing. Yes, the favourite pastime of many males, no matter what country, colour, or creed. As I was medicating my fix, I noticed a piece about President George W. Bush's last press conference as commander and chief. Apart from this being a moment documenting the historical transition in US history (the author is neither cheering nor booing), what was interesting to note was that the attending press corp gave him a standing ovation (Now I am assuming that although the press corp may generally stand, applause is not their normal response. If I am wrong on this account, humor me).

I have to say that I was a little surprised, given how he is portrayed/viewed by many in the media (the author understands that many in the media have more liberal sympathies). One wonders whether this "standing ovation" was more an act of respectful, albeit, knee-jerk decorum (its what we always do), or was it more a reflection of a respecting the office, not necessarily the individual who holds the office, or finally, was it a reflection of the press corps intuitive response to a job well done.

If the BBC is any reflection of the press corp in general, the fact that they recently had a debate to deal with the question of whether George Bush was the worst President in the last 50 years, then it would most certainly not be the last option. Given the BBC's reputation, one wonders why they limited it to only the past 50! This derisive opinion of Bush also extends to good old NZ, with one example being Simon Dallow, on One News, who in response to a piece about George Bush being close to his library in the future, thought it was a jolly good old belly ache to suggest that he might not use it very much (this betrays the reality of how much Bush actually reads - See Karl Rove). You see, he really must be thick!

I understand that the issues Bush has tackled have elicited strong emotional perspectives in people, with many claiming the moral majority. But, in my opinion, the lack of respect for this man from so many, shows an ignorance of the scope of the office, a disingenuous initiative to understand the man, a naivete of the impact of the coverage of the media(an example will be forthcoming), a lack of graciousness from all those who lack an intimate knowledge of the vicissitudes of the job, and finally, a failure to remember the man of 9/11, where he won universal praise for his strong leadership. Remembering such a time would provide more objective balance to the personal disgust many hold of the Bush terms. One must remember that in the 04 election, he was the first President to gain 50% of the vote since 1988. This shows that for a good period of time, he was not viewed as the pariah of 2008.

Just before I am accused of a blood libel for Bush, I must admit that throughout his 8 years, I have not been overtly enamored or excessively underwhelmed by the "W", notwithstanding his time around 9/11 when he stood tall. I have to say that I do not dislike the man, and when I look at him, I do not see a pitiable joke. I do speak from my New Zealand perspective, which may be alittle more detached (even though for all intense and purposes just as plugged into this globalized world through the various media, I still perceive myself to be somewhat detached from the hip[so to speak]).

I am sure many eulogies will be written about the "Bush" terms in office. No doubt, the badge "liberal" v "conservative" will have much (too much) impact on how one views the last eight years, and as one commentator opined, it may be only in 50 years, when we see how radical Islam plays out that we will see if George W. Bush played his big hand on the right flop. My hunch is that his presidency will gain in luster (it could be argued, you can't lose anymore when you are broke), once the emotion that surrounds the man is healed with time.

Nevertheless, as the last election confirmed, the image of George W. Bush, whether real of imagined, was something that no one wanted to be implicated with (if you were a republican), or labelled with (by the democrats). Bush was the leper of the elections, the President of Disrepute, exiled to the Island of derision.

Therefore, at such a time as this, may I add some concluding thoughts about this man and his time.

As I have said, I am not significantly impassioned one way or the other with the Bush legacy. Yes, he does have to carry some/most of the can with the economy; certainly the cost of his foreign policy has not helped in this regard. Although, it is a matter of historical record that he called on Congress to provide more regulation for Freddie and Fannie, which they did not heed.

On the other hand, he has kept the US safe from Terrorism post 9/11, and also has been the most supportive (financially) President in history for the continent of Africa. This was a fact that even Bob Geldof scolded the media for failing to report. I guess it didn't fit the narrative they wanted to communicate. I have also viewed his support of Israel as both strong and necessary.

While these realities should be included in any account documenting his legacy. I believe the broad context of the Iraq War and what has transpired subsequently, will be an abiding impression that many will remember about Bush, in the short term, anyway.

Hindsight is a wonderful genius in all our realities, with time and documented opinion affirming that Iraq did not have WMDs (although, there is some speculation - more about that later), which was the raison d'eitre for the entire conflict. It is interesting that many trust the administration on their admission that they found no WMDs, but do not afford it the same confidence with their initial intelligence-based claim.

This brings us to the crux of this issue. No matter what your opinion of the wisdom of the war, the WMD issue was viewed as being morally acceptable for the undertaking the US took, which is why, when they were not discovered, all hell broke loose. This is a vital point to note!

This situation has caused much gesticulation from many, with opinion, more left of centre, even claiming that the initial Intel that Iraq had WMDs was, at the least, corrupt or corrupted, with Bush implicated. Bush openly admits that the Intel he recieved was wrong, which is why he decided to have an investigation into this failure from the various departments, post this event. Let's also remember that the UN Security Council voted 15-0 on a measure that called for Saddam to either disarm or face conflict. They based their decision on the intel at the time. We also forget that after 91, with G H W Bush, hundreds to thousands of chemical weapons were destroyed. It was no secret that Saddam had these capabilities in the past, therefore, when the intel brings forward this information, it is not a big stretch, and the world community believed that this was once again the case. This is why many nations of the world went to war with the US on principle!

It is also true that there are those, rejecting any conspiracy claims, flatly believe that the Iraq War was the wrong move for US foreign policy. However, in my opinion, these people are in a different category from the Bush-haters. Bill O'Reilly, recently when interviewing the-then candidate Barack Obama pointed out that, in O'Reilly's opinion, Obama was right when calling for the US not to invade Iraq.

Therefore, in light of this reality, one's opinion of the Iraq War is portrayed as a quasi moral question of the 21st century.

This above reality may also be one factor in why the US, no, the world, is so captivated with President-elect Obama, as he is viewed as the anti-Bush, "Change you can believe in". Much of his early appeal with liberals, anyway, was the fact that he humbly affirmed that he NEVER supported the war in Iraq, unlike Hillary, who voted for it. This occurred on October 2, 2002, when the-then Senator stood up for what he believed in. This is not some new, earth-shattering fact; whether in debate or in interview, this was one talking point that even "say it ain't so" Joe Biden nailed.

There is one fact that I have not heard reported.

On that same October 2, 2002, when Obama made it clear that a war in Iraq was not right move, he also wanted to make something else clear.

Read this portion of his speech from that day

"Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. The world - and the Iraqi people - would be better off without him."

While it may be worth pointing out that the consistent flagrant thwarting of the UN could easily be used as justification for taking on Saddam, what I want to focus on is Obama's matter-of-fact affirmation that Saddam has developed chemical and biological weapons.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not an affirmation that Obama believed that Saddam did indeed have WMDs.

In other words, Barack Obama and George Bush were both singing from the same song sheet. They both understood that Saddam Hussein was in possession of the now infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction. The real significant difference was in their choice of action by Bush, or inaction, by Obama.

Now, I am not drinking the Kool-aid for George "W", nor am I an apologist for the "save the George Bush reputation" party. But I do find it sadly ironic that those who have castigated Bush, and accused him of such immorality, do so, when the premise of his decision was the same as President-elect Obama, which was that Saddam had WMDs, which was the accepted baseline for launching an attack on Saddam Hussein.

Therefore, please feel free to disagree with Bush over the wisdom of the Iraqi war, and be angry over the loss of life and waste, etc, which is perfectly valid. But, please do not be an historical revisionist, and re-write what transpired. If truth is worth fighting for, then we are all compelled to challenge our presuppositions. It is sad that people allow their disgust for the man to cloud their objectivity.

Assuming that what I am writing is reflective of the situation, this would also help to rehabilitate what is a seismic disruption between those on either side of the dividing colours of red and blue in the US. However, Bush has been such easy money, that he continues to be waged, and the band plays on.

In some 6 more days, someone else will be responsible for the future course of US foreign policy (no doubt the Bush "ace" will be played when needed).

On Jan. 20th, Barack Hussein Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. No doubt a man who is making history. Commentators have recently stated that his policy statements in regards to how the US should move forward in Iraq have been similar to what Bush has been stating (with Iran as well). This does not validate what Bush has recently stated, nor does it pigeon-hole President-elect Obama, but if your opinion of Obama is something you can believe in, there is a question begging to be answered.

If this talk from Obama becomes reality, will we hear such an outcry from those, spread across this planet we inhabit, who have so castigated Bush as a fool. Or will those who claim that Bush is so driven by his ideology, really to be shown that their disgust of Bush and acceptance of Obama have been guilty of such a charge. Only time will tell.

As a concluding thought, I would hazard-to-guess that if we were able to quantify the total amount of prayers for US Presidents, George "W" would be very near the bottom (particularly post 9/11). I would hope that those Christians who have been challenging Bush the most, have been those who have prayed for him the most. Sadly, I think so many people have given up on George.

How many times have you prayed for Bush in these past 8 years?

If Bush is what he has claimed to be (and there is no reason to doubt this), than not only has he needed your prayers as the leader of the free world, but he has needed your prayers as a fellow brother in Christ. One wonders what some Christian leaders will have to say to Bush when war is no more?

I have only 6 days to repent!

What about you?

Until next time...

Postscript - I did indicate that I was going to add some little tidbit about the WMDs in Iraq. In the attached article, you will read an account of someone claiming to have found these. Obviously, in the courtroom of world opinion, this is no affidavit, but it is an interesting account that sounds surprisingly curious.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502