Age of Obama
In January Barack Obama will be sworn in, and part of me hopes that he will enjoy the same level of good will, respect, and benefit of the doubt from Republicans as George Bush received from Democrats. To accomplish that, it will be important that each and every act or proposal from the Obama Administration be viewed as a product of some combination of evil motives and abject stupidity. To his great credit, Bush never responded in kind. Obama is very smooth, he makes himself easy to like, and he will have the huge advantage provided by an adoring national and international media. He is, however, naively over-confident in a way that only someone completely untested can be, and that makes him dangerous in matters involving national security. For me, his use of Iraq for his own political purposes was and is disgraceful, and never to be forgiven.
As for Bush in retirement, a lesser man might well be tempted to reprise the corrosive role that the terminally bitter Jimmy Carter adopted these past eight years, or to emulate Bill Clinton's breathless pursuit of an enhanced legacy. But Bush has too much class for either of those, and too much respect for the office that he occupied. Bush held office through interesting times, to say the least. It's at least 75 years too soon to know how historians will view his presidency, but Bush is certain to be credited with keeping the nation safe when few believed such a thing would be possible. If Obama and his ilk, who either do not understand what Iraq is about, or who cynically pretend not to, do not manage to squander what has been accomplished, I think Bush will eventually also be credited with initiating fundamental political and social reform in the Arab Mid-East, the only possible solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. By contrast, future historians will spend little time debating about either the Carter or the Clinton years. The former comprise a brief but nearly unbroken record of mediocrity and failure, while the latter contain essentially nothing of lasting significance.
Byron
As for Bush in retirement, a lesser man might well be tempted to reprise the corrosive role that the terminally bitter Jimmy Carter adopted these past eight years, or to emulate Bill Clinton's breathless pursuit of an enhanced legacy. But Bush has too much class for either of those, and too much respect for the office that he occupied. Bush held office through interesting times, to say the least. It's at least 75 years too soon to know how historians will view his presidency, but Bush is certain to be credited with keeping the nation safe when few believed such a thing would be possible. If Obama and his ilk, who either do not understand what Iraq is about, or who cynically pretend not to, do not manage to squander what has been accomplished, I think Bush will eventually also be credited with initiating fundamental political and social reform in the Arab Mid-East, the only possible solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. By contrast, future historians will spend little time debating about either the Carter or the Clinton years. The former comprise a brief but nearly unbroken record of mediocrity and failure, while the latter contain essentially nothing of lasting significance.
Byron
posted by Byron | Wednesday, November 05, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home