George W. Bush

And no, I'm not referring to the coming inauguration of the chosen one, but rather the last day of gratuitous Bush bashing.

It's been a long time coming.  What started before the man was even sworn in, with the debacle in Florida in 2000, is now finally---yes finally---over.

Or at least it will be when today's final editions hit the newsstands.

Feel free to go to any newspaper website today to witness all the editorial writers getting the vitriol out of their systems.  I'm not going to link them here, but they're fairly predictable in what they have to say: worst president ever, worse than Herbert Hoover, everyone hates American now because of him, the Iraq war was wrong, the country is in the financial mess...life sucks and it's all his fault.  Sure, some of them are willing to give him a wee bit of credit that no terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11, but that's about all they all give him.  He gets absolutely no credit for what he did in Africa.  His policies for malaria reduction, education, and AIDS medications for the countries of that continent, just to mention a few, are saving lives right now and for which he is much respected and loved by many Africans---not to mention Saint Bob Geldof, who has been lavish with his praise.  He gets no credit for that, even though that is the plague which could bring us all down in the years to come.  He gets no credit for saving the economy after 9/11, when it could have gone down the tubes in a big and bad way.  He gets no credit for liberating Iraq from a sadistic madman and his even worse sons.  According to newspaper editors all over the world, it's good riddance to bad rubbish and tomorrow, literally and figuratively, will be a brighter day for America because Obama we'll be in the oval office.

I'm not entirely sure how Bush will be remembered by history. I suspect, that in the next couple of years there'll be any number of books published by eminent historians who will rip him to shreds. The twenty years from now, when the world is different and events have happened that will further clarify the picture, he'll finally get a fair shake. One only needs to remember that Winston Churchill was booted immediately from his job as prime minister of Great Britain right after V-E Day.  Britain thought they didn't need him anymore; they had their peace, and were no longer a need of a wartime leader. Churchill came into office knowing exactly what he must do, even if he didn't know exactly how to accomplish it.  By the grace of God, and Eisenhower, he succeeded.  George W. Bush, however, was elected in peace and had a war brought to him. Bush recognized the challenge, and stood up to the oppression that was at hand. He did not ask for this, but he received it anyway.  In light of this, I personally think Bush had the harder situation to deal with.  Churchill knew what he was getting into, Bush did not.  Yet, because he stood up to the challenge before him and said, no this will not happen, I will keep my people safe, and did what it took to do so, he is universally hated, or so the newspaper editors would have you believe.  This isn't the case.  He is much loved in parts of Africa and eastern Europe---and elsewhere around the globe, like in Iran, where the dissidents fervently wished for him to come and rescue them from tyranny.  Not everyone hates President Bush.  I think many people secretly like the guy; they like his policies, even if they would never admit it. There's no bullshit about him.  He says what he means, and he does what he says he's going to do.  That resonates with most people, who are, on some base level, quite sick of people who do that very same thing to them all day long.  I think when Obama self-destructs and people die because of his inexperience and indecision, people will wish Bush was back at the helm of the USS America.  They will know what to expect from him; whereas with Barack Obama, we're completely in the dark as to what to expect.

The American electorate now believes that we are in peacetime, and has elected a peacetime leader, not unlike George W. Bush.  The difference between the two men will never be more clear when America is attacked by its enemies again, and that is sure to happen sometime in the next year, because Al-Qaeda likes to pull off flashy, murderous operations in the first year of any new administration.  Will Obama be up to the challenge when this happens? I don't think so. He is a peacetime president elected in the middle of a war. He was elected by people who refuse to believe we are at war.  He is destined to fail.  I hope I am wrong, because more is riding on this than just my desire to know if I've judged the man correctly, but I don't think I am. 

Personally, I am proud to say that I voted for the right man in the last two elections---and that man was George W. Bush. I will admit I was not crazy about voting for him in 2000. I thought he was the lesser of two evils, yet, nonetheless, he received my vote in an election where no one was really all that interested.  Leaving aside the fact that he's a nitwit, I could not vote for Al Gore in good conscience, because he made it known that he believed Bill Clinton did nothing wrong by committing perjury. Despite the reports there were to the contrary---that he privately had very large problems with standing up for the man during the impeachment crisis---he nonetheless stood by Clinton, to woo those Clinton supporters during the election, and I could not abide by that. It was my Watergate moment.  It was crass political gamesmanship in a time where people had very little faith in the presidency.  I held my nose while I did it, but I voted for Bush.  I put my faith in him.  It was unclear for many months after the election if I'd made the right decision, but on September 11, 2001, and in the days and months following, my faith was rewarded.  

I don't think Bush has received a fair shake over the years, along with many other people, and I think his legacy will be larger and more respected as time passes. I have not been crazy about many of his initiatives, or the fact that he refused to rein in spending, but I feel that, particularly when it came to the war, he didn't really have a choice in the matter and did what he needed to do to make sure that his top priority, making our country secure, was fulfilled. That he had to work in an atmosphere where Machiavelli's question of whether, as a leader, it is better to be feared than loved, was forced upon him, and yet he still managed to keep our nation safe, speaks volumes. If I were him, I would be very happy to be getting on Air Force One tomorrow, to be going to my new house in Dallas, where I could just take a nap for a very long period of time to get away from the blame of the world. Let's face it: his burden has been large, and if anyone ever deserved a nap in a very comfy, pillow-topped bed with 800 thread count sheets, it's him. (I'm sure Laura will take care of the particulars for her beloved husband.)  He, like Atlas, has taken upon his shoulders, for the last eight years, not only the weight of the world, but the blame as well. Again, like Atlas, he has never been thanked for it, yet he has done it graciously and without complaint. A lesser man would have struck back a long time ago, but he never did. Think about that for a minute: he was universally blamed for all the problems in the world by scholars and shopkeepers and everyone in between, he was burned in effigy, many people tried to assassinate him (even though the mainstream media never bothered to report on it) and yet he never struck back against all the insults, all the hate, all the jokes made at his expense.  His own party, at their convention this September, refused to say thank you and wish him well. Yet, despite all this, he never took a petty swipe at his detractors.   He may very well have been bitter about all the hate that was thrown at him, but he never gave voice to his lesser, baser emotions. Say what you will about his policies, but you cannot deny that he is a good man.  He was classy.. He never whined. He never complained that his was a raw deal. He simply chose to live Voltaire's motto: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That's quite amazing.

So, fare thee well, W. You definitely received the curse portion of the Chinese proverb, "May you live in interesting times."  But take heart that history will prove you right, because it will.  
 

Forgive me, my devoted Cake Eater readers, I stayed home tonight.  I wanted to actually watch the speeches, rather than having to listen to crappy sound at the highest ring of the X.  Although, I suppose I could have gone into the ladies room and listened, because they pipe sound into the bathrooms, lest some rabid hockey fan miss a power play whilst doing their business, but, that would have been uncomfortable, I'm sure you'd agree.  

I'm not really sure anyone is interested, but here are my observations...

• Fred killed. What a speech! God, if I'd actually received the "embargoed until delivery" copy of the speech before he'd given it, I totally would have violated the rule, and gotten myself in big trouble. There was no better person to defend Sarah Palin. At the press conference this morning, it would have been obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that he was exercised about the media's---and the Obama camp---treatment of her. He stood up for the lady, and got a few smacks upside the Democrats' big, fat, collective head in the meanwhile. But it was his actor skills that really got across the message of just what John McCain suffered while he was a resident of the Hanoi Hilton. You could have heard a pin drop as he described McCain's injuries and the treatment he endured. I'm not really sure that anyone else could have done as well. "Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President. But it does reveal character. This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders." Amen, brother! Unfortunately, it appears that none of the major networks actually carried his speech. Fuckers.

• I thought Lieberman was quite effective, but he'll pay a price for his effectiveness. Saying, "Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times." is not going to endear him to his former masters. But more to the point, I suspect that Al Gore's former VP pick doesn't give a rat's ass.
• If it was up to me, I would have switched Lieberman and Thompson's speeches, and ended the night on the high Fred gave the audience. I'm not saying that Lieberman wasn't good---he was. I am, however, saying is that you deliver the fish course before you serve the red meat.
• Normy Boy delivered a very nice welcome to the delegates. St. Paul really was in dire straits when he was elected mayor, way back in the day. He wasn't kidding when he said it was the only place in America that a McDonald's closed because it wasn't making enough money. The arena where this convention is being held was, pretty much, Norm's idea. He got it financed, partially with government bonding, if I remember correctly, but the important thing is that the place is paid off, and it's not even ten years old. You can thank the State of Hockey for that, and Norm was the one who realized that bringing the NHL back to the State of Hockey could help St. Paul in ways that no other business could. St. Paul thrives because of what Norm did for that city. Al Franken can suck it as far as I'm concerned. Writing for Saturday Night Live and then bloviating in an extremely uneducated way on a bankrupt Air America does not compare to bringing a city back from the brink.
• Sadly, I missed Michelle Bachmann's speech. Oh, boo hoo. I'm so disappointed.

And there you have it. I'll be heading back over to St. Paul in the morning for another RedState/Google event with a mystery speaker. I have NO idea who this person might be, but they warned us to make sure that we all wore our badges, to make sure we could get through all the extra security. Hmmmm. Check back tomorrow to find out who it is.

Oh, for the love of God. 

 MOSCOW — As Russia struggled to rally international support for its military action in Georgia, Vladimir V. Putin, the country’s paramount leader, lashed out at the United States on Thursday, contending that the White House may have orchestrated the conflict to benefit one of the candidates in the American presidential election.

Russia's prime minister, Vladimir Putin, seen during his interview with CNN in Sochi, Russia's Black Sea resort. Mr. Putin has suggested the United States pushed Georgia toward war and said he suspects a connection to the American presidential campaign.

Mr. Putin’s comments in a television interview, his most extensive to date on Russia’s decision to send troops into Georgia earlier this month, sought to present the military operation as a response to brazen, cold war-style provocations by the United States. In tones that seemed alternately angry and mischievous, he suggested that the Bush administration may have tried to create a crisis that would influence American voters in the choice of a successor to President Bush.

“The suspicion would arise that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and to create an advantage for one of the candidates in the competitive race for the presidency in the United States,” Mr. Putin said in an interview with CNN.

He added, “They needed a small victorious war.”

Oh, but wait, it gets better...

{...}“We have serious reasons to believe that directly, in the combat zone, citizens of the United States were present.”

“If the facts are confirmed,” he added, “that United States citizens were present in the combat zone, that means only one thing — that they could be there only on the direct instruction of their leadership. And if this is so, then it means that American citizens are in the combat zone, performing their duties, and they can only do that following a direct order from their leader, and not on their own initiative.”{...}

{my emphasis}

Is he serious?  Does he really think this crap is going to play?  Nobody's getting behind the Russians---well, no one who could claim respectability---and their actions in Georgia.  So, it would seem the next logical move, according to Vlad's playbook, is to blame it on the US and the evil imperialist, George W. Bush.  After all, everyone HATES the US.  Why wouldn't the US have started a war in Georgia?  We're evil!  It's something Bush would totally do: start a war to win an election.  He did it with Iraq---why wouldn't he with Georgia?

If anyone in the UN buys this line, I swear to God, we should, as I've said before, ship in mounds of the finest cheese, and when the lactose intolerance kicks in, a highly trained spy should light a match and send that stupid place to the sky.