Quote Of The Day
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Bush, History
“I can summarise Bush’s legacy in two words: Barack Obama.”
- James Lindsay, a politics professor at Texas university in a Financial Times article.
Observers have traced much of Mr Bush’s alleged incompetence to his dislike of what he calls “process decisions†– conclusions reached through the normal Washington inter-agency process. Following his father’s defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, the future president was quoted as having dismissed George Bush senior’s tendency to synthesise widely sought advice. In contrast, the younger Bush saw himself as “The Decider†– someone who acted on principle and never lost sleep over the consequences.Many admired his gut instincts. But as his presidency wore on, they dwindled in number. Some suspected, often correctly, that Mr Bush’s impulses were supplied by Dick Cheney, his vice-president, whose skill at circumventing the usual channels of decision-making was second to none. “I lost count of the number of times that we learnt of decisions that had already been taken – we were never invited to the meetings,†says Mr Armitage. “Then we would get back on the gerbil wheel [the normal calendar of meetings] even though we often didn’t know about decisions that had already been taken.â€
Naturally, Mr Bush’s most secretive decisions were not subjected to expert scrutiny. Sometimes, such as when the Iraqi army was disbanded shortly after the US invasion, the president was unaware of decisions carried out in his name. Particularly since Katrina, his style of decision-making grew into his chief badge of notoriety. For months after 9/11, Mr Bush enjoyed the highest ratings of any president in American history. He leaves office with the lowest. “That takes some doing,†says James Lindsay, a politics professor at Texas university.
It’s obviously way too soon to tell if President Obama will be the kind of pragmatic leader he’s promised to be, but if he delivers on that goal then I will look back fondly on Bush’s 8 years. Because there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that President Obama wouldn’t have been possible if not for The Decider.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Bush, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Wow. Just WOW. What a stunning insult to deliver on the day of Obama’s inauguration.
Even on day 1 of the Obama administration, it’s still about GW Bush. Sad. C’mon folks, here’s our chance to move on and just stop talking about GW. It’s a new day.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Imagine if you will, the following scenario:
In 2003, Robert Gates was the SecDef, and General Patreus was the Commander of Forces for Iraq before we went in. We had a plan to win the peace, and didn’t try to leave Iraq while there was a power vacuum and the insurgency never happened. By the end of 2003, Iraq was as peaceful as it is now, and there were only a few hundred U.S. casualties. There is no reason why this couldn’t have happened.
Well, every Democrat would have tried to “out-hawk” the other during the 2004 primary, Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi et al would have flaunted their pro war stance to this day, and Barack Obama’s political career would have ended before it began.
Should we therefore thank Bush for invading and then screwing up in Iraq? Were those 4000 dead G.I.s and the 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians a worthy sacrifice to bring this “lightworker” to power in Washington? Kind of morbid when you put it that way, eh?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
To Kranky,
Why is this an insult? And to whom? I agree with Justin there’s a possibility that if this country’s status were similar to any of the previous 4 elections, it would be difficult for Obama to have been elected.
I also agree with you that the country needs to stop focusing on GW and look forward. The emotions have been high and the attacks have gone on long enough. Hopefully with the inauguration over, this will happen. Let history and future generations define Bush’s legacy.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Mike you really don’t understand why it’s an insult to maintain that Obama ascended to the Presidency only due to the incompetence of the previous Republican President?
An insult to who? To Obama, for starters, who apparently would never have been elected without the necessary boost provided by W. It’s also an insult to all the folks who voted for him. Apparently we would not have done so if Bush had only done a better job.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Kranky,
Nobody said it was the only reason except you. When I read through the post, I don’t see this implied either. Of course there are many reasons Obama won and some were independent of his own actions. A good example is the mismanagement of Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the primaries. To state that her mismanagement of her campaign as a factor for his success is, likewise not an insult to Obama.
If it was stated as the only reason I would agree it would be an insult. I just don’t see that.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Mike those weren’t Justin’s exact words. But the implication from the following statement can’t be missesd:
Obama would not have won if not for Bush’s incompetence. Got it? No matter what other things Obama has done or said, no matter what qualities he may possess, no matter what other circumstances and dynamics existed, Obama could not (in Justin’s mind) have been elected had not GW Bush been an incompetent boob. That’s what he said. And THAT is what I object to.
if you can’t see that, you’re not trying.