A Tribute to George W. Bush: Reviewing Dubya's Legacy

Hi everybody,

Well, I'm back in school now, and I'm taking this composition class. I've got this assignment tomorrow, it's a timed, diagnostic essay. Guess what the question was? "Some people say George W. Bush was the worst American president in history. Explain why or why not you think this is the case."

Wow. At least I got something interesting that I could write about, you know? My only issue is, I don't think an hour-long timed essay will do justice to all that needs to be said on this topic. So, tell you what, as your correspondent (sort of), I'll give you an extended, advanced version of everything I'll cover in the essay. Where do I start? I don't know how much of this juicy material I can cover in a single post, so to keep focused, I'll try to cover three main areas: national security, the economy, and overall management of the government.

George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on a platform of what he called "compassionate conservatism". He claimed he was "a uniter, not a divider". However, the controversy surrounding his election in 2000 over Al Gore did flare up tempers on both sides. Some even claim the election was rigged. I don't claim that for certain, but the results are somewhat suspicious. Every time a recount was about to proceed, outside forces, ultimately the supreme court, stepped in to stop it.

Anyway, Bush assumed office in January of 2001, and the spring and summer of that year passed without event. Then came the defining moment in his presidency. On September 11, 2001, 19 crazed Islamist thugs hijacked 4 passenger jets, plunged 2 of them into the sides of the World Trade Center buildings in New York, and one into the side of the Pentagon in Arlington. A fourth hijacking failed, and the plane crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside.

This was Bush's chance to prove himself. Just the day after the attack, his approval rating soared to 90%. We were all united with one single purpose in mind. "Mr. President, do whatever you have to to catch those responsible," was the prevailing consensus among us all. He now had the opportunity to bring us all together, to truly be "a uniter" as he put it.

Sadly, this isn't what happened. Instead of bringing us together, Bush and those in his White House ultimately used this to build power for themselves and those of their party, to build what his chief strategist Karl Rove called "a permanent republican majority". This cynical exploitation got them short term gain, but in the end, it was what hurt him.

Who could have predicted 9/11? I would say nobody, but that's not entirely true. When Bush was vacationing in Crawford on August 6, 2001, a CIA adviser gave him his Daily Briefing, which on this day read "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" in big, bold letters. The report goes on to say that Bin Laden's 1998 attacks on the Embassies of Kenya and Tanzania "demonstrated that he set up operations years in advance and was not deterred by setbacks". The report also guessed that a failed attempt to bomb LAX on New Years of 1999-2000 was Bin Laden's doing.

Of course, the Invasion of Afghanistan commenced, and the hunt for Bin Laden began. After two months in December 2001, the hunt failed to yield any results. As 2002 rolled on, more talk of Iraq was heard. Vice President Dick Cheney pointed to a meeting between lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Prague on April 9, 2001. Yet the FBI had Atta in Florida at the time.

Then came talk of WMD's, the "smoking gun" and the mushroom cloud. Bush asserted, particularly in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam had, among other things, purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger. Joe Wilson, an expert on tracking these things was sent there to investigate, and he concluded that it wasn't the case. It turns out lots of the info on these weapons was inaccurate or outdated. Some of it was withheld. As A Short History of the United States flatly wrote, just five years after the fact, "The trouble with the evidence was that none of it was true." Wow, no mistaking that.

Expert after expert raised red flags on it. Most of them were ignored, a few were discredited. Joe Wilson was disgraced after his wife was outed from her post as a counter-proliferation agent. Now, Wilson wasn't even an opponent of theirs. Indeed, he and his wife had donated to the Bush campaign in 2000. And yet, he and all the other experts who disagreed were pushed aside.

So how did Bush do overall on national security? One thing they never fail to remind us is "We've kept you safe since then." As someone pointed out, doesn't then count? When an aide informed Bush in a Florida elementary school that a terrorist attack was underway, he got this blank stare on his face and sat there reading a children's book for seven minutes. What was he thinking at that moment?

Who knows? But the abscence of another attack since has not been the only great fortune for Bush. The climate is now such that defense is now seen as a republican strength, and any tragedy similar to 9/11, were it to follow, would be the fault of the other party.

There's also the fact that a few key Bush Administration employees collaborated on something called the Project for a New American Century, which included Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. In fact, there's a publication on the project's website entitled How to Attack Iraq, which dates from November 16, 1998, long before the attacks. It seems many of these guys had been itching to get into Iraq for years.

So this politicization of national defense coupled with the militaristic instincts of many members created the toxic situation we find ourselves in now. The decision made by this president created as many problems as it solved, and it damaged our relationship with the world, which we need by the way. As much as some claim that "who cares about the rest of the world," the nations of the world need to cooperate. So, his national security record wasn't that good, in addition to brazenly overstepping some key ethical lines.

Now, what about the economy? It's pretty apparent now that the economic policies he embraced were counterproductive. Just look at the economic facts from 2008. Economists concluded that the crisis really began in December 2007. He, as most politicians have done in recent years, embraced deregulation. He embraced the unbridled free-market policies that favored cutting government out, and whoever is relying on those programs, well, good luck to them.

This deregulation frenzy included cutting regulations of the banks. This allowed people to take up loans they couldn't afford to pay off, so sooner or later, foreclosures began inundating (right spelling?) the market, spilling over into the credit market. Soon the stock market started tanking, leading to massive job losses, and that built up a vicious cycle of even more foreclosures.

This crisis, which was caused by faults on many parts, had been brewing for a while, but in 2008, it built up and then became too big to ignore. Eventually, even Bush had to abandon his ideology. But the government did as little as it could, offering a stimulus check to taxpayers in early 2008, and then when the banks began tanking that fall, arranging the bailout so that only the bosses at the top got the aid, and all those who lost their jobs were just out of luck.

Speaking of the government doing very little, in these years, the government generally worked pretty poorly. There are several instances of this that come to mind, but none more tragic and devastating than Hurricane Katrina. Nearly four years after terrorists attacked us, a giant hurricane stormed into New Orleans. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was staffed with a purely political appointment of Bush's, Michael Brown, as were the Justice Department, the Supreme Court, and almost everything else.

FEMA's response was two days late, and they missed lots of places. Red cross, other private relief agencies, and local governments were powerless to do much. Without federal authorities there, the citizens of New Orleans were screwed. This limited aid failed to reach many areas of New Orleans, like the poorer and, yes, minority neighborhoods of New Orleans. This led Kanye West to famously proclaim, "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Overall, the government was more concerned with the ideology than the consequences of the ideology. Expert after expert emerged to tell us how deceitful, manipulative, spiteful the government had become. First Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, John Dean (an insider from a corrupt administration a generation earlier), then finally Scott McClellan, who as late as 2005 was trumpeting Mr. Bush's message loud and proud, now admitting that his former employer was corrupt.

So much for political capital. That famous (or should I say infamous) line reflected this attitude. The only thing that was important was ideology. It didn't matter that people, often Americans whom Bush was supposed to be working for, were losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their lives, in some cases. This disjunct between ideology and human lives and well-being needs to be addressed.

Mr. Bush, you liked to say that "history would judge." Well, history is finally here, and I'm sorry to say, it's not looking good. As for the answer to the question, I can't say for certain that Bush is the worst, but if he isn't, he's certainly a top contender. A poorly run government, an economic record that any logical observer would balk at, and his strong suit, national security, wasn't as strong as it appeared.

So, is there anything good we can say about this? I came of age during this whole thing, and I had to do lots of soul searching. I found it painful to learn that my country could stoop to this. I found lots of insights this way, which then compelled me to start up this blog. Turns out you can make good out of lots of things. This correspondent hates to get all self-centered and preachy, but I have learned one thing: it's that humans screw up pretty royally sometimes, but are capable of some really good things, too. So, if nothing else, thank you, Mr. Bush, for teaching us that great lesson.

At long last, This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

More Daily Reeder Developments

Hi everyone,

Well, as you probably noticed, I reformatted the main page of this blog. I may not be Barack Obama, but I can change things, too. Anyway, I thought the old layout (seen above) looked kind of primitive, so I took the liberty of redecorating it, giving a newer look, you know what I mean? I also just learned how to post pictures on this thing (the post with the photo of the downed plane was my affiliate's). What can I say? I'm learning how to use this blog as I go along. Hopefully, I'll have something new for you soon. See ya!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

President Obama, or, A Landmark Day in History: January 20, 2009

Hi everyone,

Okay, I've been unable to access a computer at any time since last tuesday. This is because I've been on the road since then, and now I'm finally back home in Long Beach. So, in order to give my input on the historic festivities, I'm gonna have to get out of sequence, which feels unnatural. But since it worked for Star Wars, it might work for me. So, at last, I give you my report on the inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

I bring this up because I was there. Firsthand. Yes, I was looking at the thing on a jumbo screen a half a mile away on the mall, but I was present nevertheless. I got up at 5 in the morning on a friend of my dad's farm on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border, having gone to bed at midnight the night before, and drove down to the furthest-out metro stop in Maryland with my affiliate blogger. I marched out to the Mall with the record-breaking crowds. My brother and I were squished in the mass of people closer to the capital, and had to move back to get a better view (of the screen) with more breathing room.

I saw and heard all of the prayers, musical ensembles, and the poem, the fourth in history (the only other presidents to include poems at their inaugurations were John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton at both his inaugurations) to do so. I heard Chief Justice John Roberts and President Obama fumble the oath, saying "execute the office of president of the United States faithfully" instead of "faithfully execute the office", and then instead of saying "so help me God" as if expecting the president to naturally follow along, asked Obama, "So help you God?" (perhaps in light of the Atheist lawsuit), and Obama answered "So help me God".

Then came the much-anticipated inaugural address. The first thing he said was "I stand here humbled by the task ahead of us." Rare words to hear from a political figure. He then thanked Bush for his service to the country (Seriously? Well, I guess he had to). Anyway, then he began rebuking the things that have dragged us down over the years. A lot of the things he talked about seemed like just the right things to me.

The pronouncement that "The argument is not whether government is too big or too small, but whether government works". Ever since the days of Reagan, government has been filed down to prevent waste. However, movement in this direction has gone to the other extreme, leaving us with a government too weak and underfunded to do any good for anyone. I don't mean to blame solely the republicans for this. During his presidency, Bill Clinton proclaimed "The era of big government is over" and was far too willing to throw aside his and Hillary's health care reform agenda when it was politically convenient to do so.

The prevailing attitude for all these years has been "Government is bad. Destroy it." Government can indeed be greedy, wasteful and corrupt. I know this all too well. I've seen it happen. But I also believe that government can be a force for good in the world. I've seen this recently with the law that Obama passed just the next day establishing more rules of the road for lobbyists. I hope the notion that government can be good will become more of a reality in the Obama presidency, and for the first time, I am realistically confident of it happening.

Another thing was foreign policy, of course. I heard on the radio later that some thought he was talking tough. He said "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we hesitate to defend it". I've never had any tolerance for jerks who oppress their women, kill people in ways that would make Charles Manson cringe for listening to music, and then have the gall to gripe about how immoral the west is. I want insane criminals dealt with as much as anyone else.

But it was also heartening to hear that "We reject as false the choice between our security and our liberty". While you cannot ignore extremism and despotism abroad, you can be just as much threatened by extremism and despotism in your own homeland. While defense is a vital part of any country, in recent years this instinct of defense has been exploited to achieve an extremely militaristic agenda.

After the infamous 9/11 attack, we were all united behind one purpose. "Mr. President, do whatever you must to bring those responsible to justice," was what everyone could agree on. Sadly, this unity was cynically exploited by those in Mr. Bush's employ for political gain. Those sought to associate any who dared call them on their antics with enemies of the country, but in doing so, they forgot what the country they said they were defending stood for. It stands, rather, for liberty, the most important of which is the freedom to say, "This sucks!", if necessary. After all, the refusal to stand for any criticism at all is a hallmark of the aforementioned jerks. Extremism of any ideology, right- or left-wing, political, religious, is dangerous to our ideals and indeed to the common good all people share.

Anyway, this post is turning out to be a lot longer than I thought, so let's continue on. Overall, I thought Obama was trying a new approach out in his inaugural address. Before, he used soaring lingo and exuded an air of unbridled optimism. This one was no less optimistic, but this time he outlined in a concise, down-to-earth way. He went through what will be changed now that he is in charge. He called on all Americans to get involved, echoing Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." line in his 1961 inaugural address. He mentioned Washington at one point, not as much emphasis on Lincoln as I expected. About the many emotions of this day, I will have to do a separate post, as this one went on longer than I intended. And I am proud to have seen this in person. So as I whistle "Hail to the Chief" once again (I promised myself I would wait till January 20 to start singing it again), I proudly ask, "Mr. President, what can I do for my country?"

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Tuesday's Activities

Hi Everybody,

Well, we woke up in Kentucky, but stole back over the Ohio to look at a giant superman statue in the town of Metropolis, IL we had missed the night before. The sign of Metropolis proudly proclaimed it was "Home of Miss Illinois" (hopefully she was smarter than this young woman!). As I stole a glance (and several photos) of the Mighty Ohio, my affiliate blogger decided he needed pictures of us together, which was difficult, because a chill wind was whipping in our faces.

As we headed south through Kentucky, I could "disengage" my heavy coat and simply get by with a sweatshirt, which I was thankful for. It was not long before we crossed into Tennessee, and officially entered the South. Soon after, we reached Nashville. We had originally decided to have lunch there, but the town turned out to be too interesting just to pass by.

So we stopped by a nearby museum on Tennessee's history. They covered lots of things there, from prehistoric times to the years of the Indians. There was a surplus of exhibits on Andrew Jackson, and lots of other things on the Civil War. Later, we spontaneously talked to someone from a music company there, because, after all, Nashville does have a huge music scene, in many genres, not just country. We were very glad to have spent the extra time in Nashville, since we found a replica of the Parthenon in a nearby park.

Later, we had dinner in Chattanooga, and I got to work on my Al Gore impression, since one of the highways we used was the Albert Gore Memorial Highway (I guess that was his father). It was just a shame I couldn't go to Arkansas, then I could work on my Bill Clinton impression (It depends on what your definition of is is, jerk!) Anyway, later Tuesday night, Georgia was on my mind, because I had just entered the state for the first time...ever.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Monday's Activities

Hi everybody,

Time to continue on my progress report. On monday, my affiliate blogger and I went into St. Louis to have breakfast and meet with a prominent local blogger. You can consult my affiliate blog here for a full account of the meeting. Anyway, to sum it up, the man, whom we had not met before, was kind enough to give us a first-class tour of St. Louis. I had never been there before, so it was a real treat.

Pressing eastward, we decided to head north to visit Springfield briefly. Not the home of the Simpsons, but a prominent place worth visiting nonetheless. It is also significant because Springfield is the stomping grounds of past and future presidents. It was where Abraham Lincoln began his career in the Illinois legislature, and where Barack Obama did the same more than a century later.

There are several monuments dedicated to Lincoln there, they even preserved the building that was the Illinois state capital at the time Lincoln was there. In all the gift shops we could find, there was no shortage of Lincoln merchandise, and you would probably do okay in the department of Obama merchandise. In one of the shops, the cashier happened to have waited on Obama when he was still active in Springfield. She had some good things to say about him, but I don't remember exactly what they were.

Later in the afternoon, we continued east, and stopped briefly in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, home to the University of Illinois. I'll tell you, one benefit of driving across the uniformly level terrain of the Midwest is that the radio signals carry a long, long way. We were able to listen to radio stations from all these cities way out in the empty countryside, with nothing but farms around us.

Tiring of sitting in the car watching mile after mile of farmland pass, we decided to stop briefly in town. A chill wind blew on us, and we hung out in a small coffee shop as the night moved in. We then turned south, and along the way, listen to someone from the university lecture on the Vietnam War. He had been in the Navy at the time, and then started questioning, then objecting, to the mission at hand. He was now encouraging veterans of Iraq to do the same.

We moved further South through lonely vacant land made even more lonely by the night. After crossing the Ohio River, we entered Kentucky, and stopped at the first block of motels that presented itself. I tried blogging, but was unable to access my blog. Thus concluded Monday.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

God Wasn't My Copilot, He Was Working the Control Tower

By now, most of you have heard the story of the US Air flight that made an emergency landing in the Hudson River. After listening to endless reports about the incident, the continued talk about prayer during the crash began to trouble me. Not so much with the people on the plane; I've never been on a crashing plane and I can't imagine what that would be like. It was more the newscasters and eyewitnesses, who made quite a show of their prayers for the plane's passengers. And it wasn't even the immediate good intentions of the people praying that troubled me; certainly, anyone witnessing the tragedy would want to do something to help. What really annoys me is the implication that showy praying has: "Dear God(s), in the past you've seen fit to allow fiery plane crashes, but we've been such good Christians/Jews/Musilms/Hindus/Zoroastrians/etc. that we really think you should save these folks." But even more annoying than that angle is the implication that if you choose not to pray, you don't want the people aboard to survive. I think that from a functional standpoint, there is reason to think positively in times of crisis - that is my "prayer". It would be nice for at least someone to acknowledge that there are those of us who choose not to call in divine favors as a solution to great troubles, and that it's ok to be one of those people. Choosing not to pray doesn't necessarily make you a Godless heathen, but it does mean you at least choose to embrace a more adult relationship with the almighty. And those of us that feel that way, we should let people know that there's nothing wrong with that position, and that we don't care for the victims any less than the praying folk.

Time for REEDBACK! The first edition of this segment

Hi everybody,

Well, the Daily Reeder has passed another milestone today. I've been checking my posts for new comments (I admit it, all those who've posted comments so far have been by relatives), and upon checking my monumental post on the ongoing conflict in Gaza, I found a comment by someone named Mister Sneaky.

I had been planning a segment like this, where I would respond to comments posted in response, but I didn't get an opportunity until now. So, without any more rambling, let me introduce to you... Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart, wait, no, wrong intro. Let me introduce you to the first edition of my new segment... REEDBACK!

Mister Sneaky had some really good things to say. Here was his comment in its entirety:

"Mr. Reeder,What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?One pressing problem, I would say, is that neither Hamas nor the Israeli government has ever expressed a genuine commitment to abide by the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions (centrally, 242 and 338). Israel was long opposed to the creation of a third state between itself and Jordan, and in recent years the most it has been willing to accept is a demilitarized Palestinian state consisting of Gaza, roughly 90% of a significantly cantonized West Bank, and a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem rather than in predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Hamas, of course, remains officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- a good example of the foolish pride you're talking about, since Israel has nuclear weapons and by far the most powerful military in the region.Since Hamas is powerless in the face of Israeli military might, it would be sensible for its leaders to change the group's charter so that it calls for some version of the two-state solution instead of Israel's destruction. This would shift the focus from Hamas' rejectionism to Israel's, which would in turn make it considerably more difficult for the U.S. to continue backing Israel in the face of near-universal international condemnation. But in order for Hamas to take this step, pragmatism will have to take the place of pride, and I'm not confident there's room in their rigid ideology for that.Glad to see you're thinking this stuff through.-S.B. True"

This is kind of like what I was saying. I believe both sides have made grievous moral errors. I have to admit I hadn't read the UN Security Resolutions. I realize why both sides have done what they did, even though I heartily object to their doing so.

One point that the video brought up is that those in Palestine would do well to look what Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King all did to succeed in their struggles. Did Gandhi launch rockets at the British? Did Martin Luther King dedicate himself to the destruction of White America? Did Mandela call for the massacre of all who were a part of the Apartheid regime, including the children?

No, no and hell no. These men all succeeded by employing peace in the face of violence. They knew that the only way they could dissolve the oppression was by being peaceful while the oppressors employed violence as only they knew how. Every sane, good person in the world eventually woke up and realized that the people were being oppressed. The occuppying powers, the White racism in South Africa, the White racism in America, the British oppression of India, were all forced to change their ways or get out.

Imagine if someone from Palestine decided to take this action. To admit that Palestine had done wrong to people, and then to shift from dedication to the destruction of Israel to wanting to be out from under Israel's grip. Because the Palestinians were there, and the Israelis came in, took over the land, then told everyone there where you can go, and all. Now, anyone would be pissed at this. However, this will only prolong the suffering for all involved. And as the video said, peace doesn't make you weaker, it actually takes more courage, more strength.

As to his first comment, "What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?" Well, I'm not the one making policy decisions. I don't live there. I will say this, though: Both sides will have to give some. Because this simply can't go on. And with Israel's nuclear capabilities, like Mr. Sneaky mentioned, the imperative is that much more pressing that both the Israelis and Palestinians put thier ideologies in the backseat, admit that they both made mistakes, and then work out the issues themselves.

You have really good ideas on this, though, Mister Sneaky, so keep reading this blog and post your responses if you feel compelled to do so. Well, this concludes the first edition of REEDBACK, on January 17, 2009. The segment will doubtless evolve as this blog does. Thanks for listening, everyone, and please continue to write in your responses.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.