All the Best
GHW Bush
In three words; friendship really counts. After reading this book if there is only one lesson I could take away that would be it. If I could do it over, I'd first read this book and then model friendship after GHW Bush. GHW Bush’s life was primarily pre computer age and certainly pre internet. In friendship Bush found that a letter here and there allowed a person to convey what is in his heart towards another. Myself, having lived the first forty-five years of my life with the same technological disadvantage, wrote and received few letters. Do the letters start the circle of meaningful friends and then the opportunity that follows? This book, where Bush uses those letters in his memoirs, answers that question with an absolute yes. Along with his dedication to his friends he had a resume that solidified and already conservative view and qualified him as a candidate for President of the United States.
GHW Bush went straight from high school against his father’s wishes to the Navy. He was the youngest naval pilot to receive his wings. He was a Torpedo pilot for three years in WWII. He flew off ships in the Pacific. Was shot down and rescued. His letters suggest he was a Dewy man and also leaves hints that many on his ship were as well. He down plays the election that not much was said because they knew it would be a FDR victory. He also leaves hints that he was not keen on the New Deal policy. He went from high school to military to Yale. Albeit of some money, his letters portray a blue collar life. He had no silver spoon. Probably the most notable letters he wrote pertinent to his time served were the ones he wrote to the families of the crew that were with him when his plane was shot down. Bush took full responsibility for their deaths, though through the tragedies of war, one could hardly blame being shot at as your fault.
In early business it appears as though his father's connections helped with getting an entry job in the oil supply business. It was on self motivation that Bush made his foray in to the oil field. The letters imply that his success was of his own making. It was at this time his father first became Senator of Connecticut. If there were connections to money, the GHW Bush wealth only saw tangential benefit. Against the facts there is the myth on the Bush silver spoon. The antidote is found in a letter on to a critic, written after his presidency where Bush positions himself appropriately writing: " Look, yes I was lucky enough in the depression to have three square meals and a Dad that could pay the hospital bills when I got sick; but Walt, I never felt the world owed me anything - 'class' in that sense. I never felt superior to some other guy who had less.” I said, “You sound like Soc. 10 or even Soc [society] 22." The tenor of this letter says, his financial stature was overblown only to deride a person of sound principle, regardless of the actual facts.
His first job was in oil supply. He learned the business and patched together investment backing just like any other entrepreneur would do. Whether his father’s name or money may have helped raise the money the book never says. But from reading the letters, it took hard work in terms of long hours, enterprise thinking, and lots of letters to friends always demonstrating sincere thanks and friendship. This was a practice that I am sure saw no conclusion as a collection in the book of a United States President.
As Bush's first foray in to politics he was chairman of the Republican Party in Houston. around solid principle and hold to it. In the transition from business to politics Bush sold his controlling share of the company he founded. To those with cynical views on his oil money, I find nothing but cynicism. I found it interesting that his letters to reach for the black vote in 63 were genuinely respectful to first conservative principal found in black business owners knowing he did not have to have to bend party principles to cater to their vote. It was a mark of strong moral conviction. In the aftermath of the 1964 Democrat landside victory, Bush wrote to Republican Party leadership to maintain conservative principle, but broaden the base. He felt you didn't have to bend or mold either side buy rather create room for productive debate. I have read elsewhere, that to be successful you must form a sound strategy. As a Congressman in 1968, his opinions formed form past experience joined with his on the ground inspection of America’s landscape found two causes to stand on first was home ownership for minorities fighting for our country. Second to promote what is now known as NPO’s to more efficiently disperse aid to those in need. This marks a fair and balanced conservative, with a compassion for the poor and an eye for the most efficient means to help them. I find that Bill Clinton was much too handicapped as President to do what he now does in the Non Profit world. The difference is Bush held his strategy as President; Clinton only found the NPO value after his presidency.
April 29, 1975 while serving as Ambassador to China in response to John Small's (of Canada) reaction to the South Vietnamese surrender while experiencing the news in Peking; Bush wrote to Small the following; ‘it is important that the U.S. stand firm in Korea, and it is important that this slide and decline be halted. It is important that these people stand for something. Where is our ideology? Where is our principle? What indeed do we stand for? These things must be made clear, and the America people must understand that, as soon as America doesn't stand for something in the world, there is going to be a tremendous erosion of freedom.’
In accepting the job as the Director of the CIA, Bush allowed duty to take precedence over politics. There was a lot of talk inside the beltway for a Bush presidential campaign. Our country needed to fix some problems in the CIA and President Ford tapped on him for the solution. At the time Rockefeller was the heir apparent Republican nominee. As a practical decision he saw, from his diplomatic experience in the UN and in China that the need for international intelligence should be second to none. He accepted this post over the quest for the top slot. As a reader of Known and Un Known, I find it possibly a trend for men of power to write in their memoirs how they humbly accepted their call to duty in their rise to power. Rumsfeld writes in his book that the distant Bush stationed in China pined for a presidential run. How would Rumsfeld know this? Neither book tells. I tend to believe Bushes story because in 1975, technology around communication put substantial limitation to access the republican political machine.
In the Iran hostage taking Bush writes "I firmly believe that all of us, citizens and presidential candidates alike, should stand behind the President in the handling of this extremely sensitive matter. I say this with the conviction of having worked in two presidential administrations in a foreign policy and seeing the United States weakened in the eyes of the world because potshots were taken at the President for political reasons. To do this in this crisis might help me as a presidential candidate but would be wrong for this country. Keep in mind Bush was not in politics at this time of Carter. He had license to be a pundit rather than a politician. But he stuck to his principle, perhaps a trait he handed to his sons.
As President and in conjunction GHW Bush's resume, in particular his tenure in China, he was able to write a sincere letter to Chairman of China's Deng Xiaoping after the Tiananmen Square slaughter of citizens. The letter made clear the position of condemnation of the action and at the same time held together a level of respect that held our two nations in a productive dialog. Having a sincere previous relation that was held in tact through letters gave a lot more gravity to the words in the letter. Perhaps this moment helps a common voter to more carefully consider the qualifications of a presidential candidate and forget the campaign advertisements and rhetoric of debate. Clearly our current President came into office with absolutely no resume, and we have seen very questionable results in terms of our international relations.
In 1990 a time of spawning democracy in Eastern Europe and Russia, Bush writes in comment to those asking for American leadership and who is the enemy; "It's apathy; it's the inability to predict accurately; it's dramatic change that can't be foreseen; and it's events that can't be predicted like the Iran-Iraq war... There are all kinds of events that we can't foresee that requires a strong NATO, and there are all kinds of instability that requires a strong US presence. Here you see an echoing of early formed principle. Basically it is a principle that was indeed passed to his son GW Bus. That being that weakness is provocative.
By Oct 1990 Bush passed deficit abolishing budget and writes ' We eventually did get a budget deal, and although it was not as good as our original one, it was a major step in the direction of getting our deficit under control. Through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, it slashed the accumulated deficit by $500 B over five years. We also set strict limits on discretionary spending. I will confess to feeling a little vindicated in 1998 when the federal budget deficit was finally erased and a net of economists, journalist, and government officials cited "Bush's budget compromise as the beginning of the end of our deficit problem."
Did Perot or the Press cost GHW Bush his second term? I remember Murphy Brown a TV sit-com. The show was comprised of brilliant comedy with political satire at the cost of Republicans; much like Boston Legal did to his son. Add to this weekly half our info-mercial events championed buy the rising ‘phenom’ news network, where in 1992 during a commencement speech at Notre Dame, Bush was preceded by a liberal speaking harshly against Bush. The crowd was maybe touched but unmoved by her long speech. When Bush was announced he was received with standing ovation and his speech was well received. CNN covered only the girl, the barbs in her speech and said nothing of Bush or the reception a very conservative Notre Dame crowd gave him. This is biased reporting with an agenda and is clearly not the whole truth that Americans deserve. Did the campaign environment of the new media age cheat us on a president of easily found principle with a solid and consistent strategy giving way to a President with questionable character and a strategy that blew in the wind of the polls? I think so. Did our country get what we asked for? I think so. So what does that say about our country?
As a person who has hired many people. As a person who has sent many a resume, and participated in many an interview I come away with a cheated feeling every time. The tools and the process never seem adequate to the decision being made. I think the same goes for presidents. The choice is as much about the people selecting the applicant as it is the applicant themselves.
Lets look at the past fifty years After Johnson, we needed someone we could trust, someone with a resume. Nixon was vindicated in 1968, regardless of his quirks, simply because he was not a Democrat. After Nixon we needed anything that did not come from the Republican Party and literally got a peanut farmer. After Carter we needed a president that could give us confidence in ourselves. We got Reagan the actor, turned governor with solid performance in California. Bush followed on his coat tails. With GHW Bush we were bamboozled, by a spinning press where sound bites prevailed over everything else. We got an easily distracted Clinton who in concert with Moris’s polls and a polar opposite Hill got little done. After Clinton all we were looking for was a president that could keep his pants on. And still with the bar that low it took a 7-2 Supreme Court decision to make up our minds. Why? Our other choice was a wooden indian with a huge geo footprint, and claim to fame after a lame duck vice presidency was supposedly inventing the internet. After GW Bush, we voted for anything not Bush and got a community organizer.
Of this entire list of American Presidents over the past fifty years, GHW Bush has the stellar resume. He was a business executive, a Congressman, an Ambassador, an Administrator, he had a voting record. Yet the fickle people fell prey on the phrase ‘read my lips’ and gave him one term in the White House. We have now evolved to an ‘entertainment tonight’ type society where we actually are looking at a half term governor as a legitimate contender to a standing President who had only the claim as a part time Senator, a full time campaigner, and a community organizer. We have a president who has never had to make a payroll who has yet as of August 1, 2011 to put forward a responsible budget and his Party Lobbying for an 18 month term on a budget that is six months late. In contrast, in the days immediately following the 1991 Gulf War, I saw Bush as a shoe-in in 1992. The Gulf War being his pinnacle and with our country’s moxy back, everything else was…well boring; so boring that we fell prey to one phrase. From 1980 to 1992 We saw 12 years of solid presidential performance. Did we learn nothing? We have since seen 18 years of question marks. I come away from this book vowing to convince as many people as possible that the resume and the interview are important. Pay attention to the presidential candidate, not the pundits. Look at the resume. Look at the voting records. Turn off the TV sets. Make up your own mind.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Decision Points
Decision Points
By G.W. Bush
Drinking. A decision Bush made. After reading the chapter he was a robust social drinker. I call him a "Molly Brown" drinker. I suspect you could have put Bill Clinton in that category. The difference is Bush voluntarily took himself to task. In retrospect I asked why was that chapter in the book anyway. I think it sets the tone for all the decisions GW Bush made in his presidency. It was a presidency where a man of great conviction was taken to task, first by a divided country and second by events on par with Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington.
In the chapter on the decision to run for president you read how ordinary Bush was. Or you could characterize it as honest. I use the word honest because what comes out is akin to the first decision, in that he reconciled all pertinent decisions of a presidential run with himself. When people take Bush to task on his God orientation, I find that taking your self to task on par with taking yourself to God. Bush didn’t ask God if the decision was right, he went beyond the surface, the rational, to his heart to ask is the decision morally right as well. As a goal for a moniker Bush entered office in 2000 with an aspiration to be the "education president". He teamed up with Ted Kennedy to legislate the No Child Left Behind bill.
On this hyperbole notion that Bush was managed note, you learn that Bush was not a person managed by his handlers that may or may not met the test of conviction. You learn that Bush purposefully sought out a reluctant Cheney as a running mate. In fact the people around him, starting with his father, would not have sought out Cheney. Demonstrating the divisiveness of the GW Bush presidency the reader learns that it was not as simple 5-4 Supreme Court decision as the liberal for years etched on to the memory of Americans. There was first the actual vote count that had Bush victorious by 529 votes. You then have a 7-2 vote that held that the recount was chaotic and inconsistent. Non the less Bush started his first term under an extreme handicap where conviction to stay the course was a requirement
When I contrast Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court to that of Obama's first selection; Meyers was not selected because she had no judicial record and she was currently working a close aid to Bush. By contrast, Obama's appointment, Kagan, carried the exact same baggage. Plus Kagan’s sexual orientation gave the view that "political correctness" compromised the clarity required for prudent confirmation. This selection once again demonstrates Bush being his own man in terms of selecting those around him. As it turned out Meyers was not a good decision yet it was Bush who rightly or wrongly saw in Meyers a juror who would not be swayed in Supreme Court decisions by her own personnel agenda and held that as a priority over he lack of bench experience. Bush's convictions did not always prevail.
When I turned to the stem cell chapter I thought why this would be a land mark decision, a test of Bush's conviction. I was unaware that it was this issue above all the rest where the poignancy in his critics struck deep. It was also this issue that galvanized the thick skin required to be the president of the United States. On the stem cell decision, this was his hardest decision, the one decision that was close and personal. He lost a sister where research may have helped. It was the one decision that the Press was most vitriol in Bush as a person. And it had the greatest ‘bash’ affect on him personally. What I did not know until I read this book is that it turns out Bush was right. Science found a way without using government funding, during his term, to harvest the same cells from skin. Killing embryos was then as is now not required for stem cell research. I am amazed at the non-reporting of the science discovery or the lack of any apology from the Press or his opponents.
9/11: Clarification points Bush had been told that a plane flew into the Trade Center when they were walking into the class room. It was not made clear it was a terrorist act. He was told about the second aircraft in front of the children. It was a purposeful decision to not look frantic. This was not for the children sake alone but for the terrorists that would be seeing his reaction on camera. It was a decision of courage. Not of a non-decision of frantic panic. Even Bush's advisors said don't say anything to the public yet. Bush was the voice of America not just the Commander in Chief giving immediate direction to first responders. He purposely made the decision to frame his reaction to that of undaunted. It was his personal and private conviction, confidence in that decision that enabled him to endure the merciless and reckless criticism from the liberal left that insisted on dividing the country for mere political reason.
In War Footing you come to understand the obstinacy and the agenda of the Democrats when Bush was establishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Democrats pushed back in an effort to make sure the Labor Unions that would staff it were sufficiently organized to secure collective bargaining. Let's compare Bush's Patriot Act with Obama's Health Care Bill. When the Patriot Act was signed it had a 98:1 vote of support. Obamacare required a Democrat Partisan cloture vote of 60:40. When the Patriot Act was signed, Democratic senator Patrick Lehey from Vermont and Chuck Schumer from New York both said we read this Act and it is fair and balanced. Nancy Pelosi said after Obama signed Obamacare "we don't know what's in it. But we will figure it out. The Patriot Act proved over and over as a critical component to our nations security. Bush however required conviction to endure the reckless criticism from the liberal left over this decision.
On water boarding; first contrary to the impression the Left including Obama on the campaign trail and the Press for six years implying that water boarding was standard practice to all POWs called it an egregious compromise of American values. I myself, a staunch defender of Bush, fell victim to the Press brain washing. It was not until 2008 that I became fully aware of the scope of water boarding, the whole truth Said Zubaydah one of the THREE people water boarded, "water boarding was a technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfillment his religious duty and the cooperate.".
You must do this for all the brothers," he said.
Afghanistan: Bush closed with "Ultimately the only way the Taliban and al Qaeda can retake Afghanistan is if America abandons the country. Allowing the extremists to reclaim power would force Afghan women back into subservience, remove girls from school, and betray all the gains of the past nine years. It would endanger our security. After the Cold War, the United States gave up on Afghanistan. The result was chaos, civil war, the Taliban takeover, sanctuary for al Qaeda and the nightmare of 9/11. To forget that lesson would be a dreadful mistake. My fear is Obama even with his troop surge, has committed the United States to a deadline to abandon Afghanistan. He set the stage for a mood of American exhaustion on war. And we are witnessing an extreme sentiment now to abandon what was seen only 10 years earlier as a lesson learned. With the reality that Pakistan is very capable of harboring terrorists, we have gone from a conviction of Bush to stand up a free people focused on anything but international terrorism to a political agenda of Obama that will gradually find Afghanistan as equally dangerous as it was on September 11, 2001.
Iraq: on page 234 you read the question put in a way I had not heard before in the context of that time It’s a question that has a person pause. Perhaps be a little less critical. Bush puts it this way, "Letting a sworn enemy of America refuse to account for his weapons of mass destruction was a risk I could not afford to take. That question was asked to a brutal "elected" dictator who simply would not cooperate. UN resolution 687 mandated not only that Iraq be rid of WMD but also be rid of the ability to produce them. I, a pretty tuned in person on this subject, cannot recall from any Press report, the status of Iraq’s ability to produce WMD. I read in Known and Unknown of the official report on WMD, of which got very little press coverage. In that report it stated that Hussein had the capability to convert industrial sites in to WMD factories in as little as two weeks time. While the report said there was no capability for nuclear attacks, it made the following to provocative points. 1. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaeda - with world wide reach and extensive
terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - could perpetrate the type if terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. 2. In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step if assisting the Islamist terrorist in conducting CBM [chemical or biological weapon] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. When asking whether Bush’s ‘conviction” effected his Iraq decision, one must be sure to put that decision in the context of 911 and then ask that critical question: would you take the risk of letting a sworn enemy of America refuse to account for his weapons of mass destruction.
The Mission Accomplished banner was not at any order of the Bush administration. Evidence to this was it was NOT consistent with his speech. He said the major combat mission has ended. And that was true. He also said we have a lot of work left to be done in order to leave behind a free Iraq. And the Press torched him. Contrarily Obama went to the cameras to announce the conclusion of combat in Iraq, with less than proper recognition of Bush, and still to leave behind four thousand combat troops who were still engaged with the enemy. Reports from the Press have become at best second page news. No one Has asked Obama about the combat troops still in Iraq a year later. I raise the contrast to once again examine the convection required of one president compared to his immediate predecessor who was his number one critic, finding his place in the White House specifically through criticism of conviction.
The strategy of the insurgents of Iraq in 2006 said Bush on page 260 was to present an image of Iraq as hopeless and un-win-able, swinging American public opinion against the war and forcing us to withdraw as we had in Vietnam. This lesson that our enemy, enemy in waiting, will wait as long as it takes as a strategy leverage political agendas has yet to be learned by our President Obama. As I read this with the news of Qaddafi murder on the radio, I can only surmise that Obama's campaign stance against Iraq and Afghanistan portrays Obama making the right call. Yet his abstinence to react properly and with full conviction to a crime he is witnessing has positioned America as an accomplice to murder. The mere facts that he has retreated behind the guise of NATO and has used the distant voce of Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State, only further develops the quagmire of international intrigue today versus the clear cut lines ever to be criticized found in Bush
In the events behind the Surge of troops in Iraq, Bush met with the survivors of over 550 fallen soldiers. He also read 14 biographies on Lincoln. He modeled after Lincoln in the midst of the reality of his unpopularity. Underscoring this introspective view Bush received daily briefings from the Situation Room, of the terror inflicted on Iraqi people. He also was apprised of the Iraqi people after realizing the Insurgents were not acting in their best interests, switching sides to the Americans. These were events that the Press chose to play down amidst the anti Bush drumbeat. It took real courage to put it all in the balance and make the right decision for the Surge. Courage and conviction will mark his presidency as even his successor in the announcement of success in Iraq failed to give proper recognition to the courage it took to lead not by popular opinion. I write this on the same day that I read about the UN voting, to restrain Qaddafi from his murderous terror. The difference here is Bush made it clear to the World what his convictions were. Obama simply followed the leadership of a foreign body. Amazingly, Americans once again find no fortitude to fight for freedom of ‘One Man’ as they let a border come between that which unites all men. And we have a president Obama, who like Clinton, who chooses to follow the leaders of Europe. In the end lives are at stake, no matter who leads. A sad note on American values when Obama and Clinton are favored over Bush. What Bush makes real clear in his book is the freedom of ‘One Man’ is the security of all men, including the United States of America.
Bush's chapter called Freedom agenda was a forty page summary of his diplomacy. What came out the ‘trot around the globe’ was a common theme. This is a mark of leadership akin to his father GH Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Churchill, Wilson. He set a standard and formed a policy around that standard, and he produced a strategy, enabling him to execute on a tactical plan. That standard was an individuals right to freedom. Policy around that standard stated that where there is institutionalized freedom, there is a mitigation of risk on American security. Tactically, where freedom did not ring and those leaders responsible who also pledged eminent danger or threat to the United States were challenged first through diplomacy, and diplomacy's big brother...war. Like his decisions or not, they were clearly vetted, communicated and executed upon. When contrasting to his immediate successor as well as his predecessor I felt more secure in the same way 20th century Americans felt with the aforementioned leaders. This will be Bush’s legacy.
Other challenges:
The Bush presidency sponsored prescription drug programs under a Medicaid reform bill. It was well defined, well debated, and passed with a compromise bipartisan vote. It distributed risk which made it one of the few bills to come in significantly under budget.
Contrasted against Obamacare where a cloture vote along strict party lines against the will of the majority of the people finds the dichotomy in moral fortitude between Bush Republicans and Obama Democrats.
Looking at Bush's failed Social Security reform efforts finds a well stated case for reform and hardened uncooperative Democrats trumpeting that Bush was "privatizing Social Security which was inaccurate. The sad result on this the general public was trained to see Bush as a spender and his reform would have reduced the budget by xxxx and would have fixed the problem instead of passing it on to the next generation , not two generations but the very next one, where it will see it's doom.
The Katrina drama is explained in traditional memoir fashion rose colored lens, or was it? When told- from first person you come away with only criticism of the Press for admonishing a President for playing the role of President in a cast of incompetent leaders in Louisiana. The governor never allowed federal troops in to assist. By day five Bush over rode her. The Mayor did not order the evacuation in time. From a Presidential standpoint Bush admits that his performance was appropriate technically, but his public relations response deserved the outcry it got. Has Obama been guilty of PR gaffs? My first response is the Boston police incident, where he over reacted inappropriately. My second is Libya, where he has enough evidential authority to bring Qaddfi to justice for Lockerbee and does nothing while human beings are being murdered. While the world
looks for a President, Obama once again "votes present." Rather than simply take Qaddfi as a criminal, he abdicates the action to NATO of which the USA is the leading partner. The only fool in the scheme is Obama himself.
I dreaded the challenge of reading the last chapter Financial Crisis. Early on Bush brings me back over to his side. He first puts his personal view of economics forward to set the tone against the noise of the Press and his opponents ranging from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama to Keith Oberman. Then he sets a few things straight First is our surplus was based on projections of a tech bubble that would continue which didn't. Second 9/11 caused a collapse of that galvanized a recession that was officially under way one month after he was sworn into the first term of office.
This I knew. What I didn't know was. GW Bush's debt to GDP ratio was a percentage point below the mark of the 20th century average. Additionally to assuage my criticism of his spending, he could not line item veto pork or earmarks. He had to look at a Bill in whole and sign it or not. Oddly enough now that Obama era Republicans in have sworn away earmarks, Democrats who were so quick to criticize Bush on the same now claim earmarks only represent four percent of the budget. I now find the need for an apology first to myself for allowing myself to be drawn in by rhetoric from the left. And then to our 44th president for conceding ground to the left.
On Freddie & Fannie: in Bush's 2003 budget in recognizing that they had morphed into an institution that exceeded it's charter beyond promoting home ownership, he proposed a bill that would regulate the GSE’s. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, ranking Democrats on the Fed Committee with friends, former Clinton administration officials running the GSE's, went on the record and said "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis". In 2005 Bush raised a more alarming call for action and put forth through Senator Richard Shelby a bill to regulate the GSE's. The Democrats blocked the bill from passing. A President can only sign into law bills put in front of
him. Democrats prone to criticize Republicans for not regulating failed to do just that at a most critical point in our nations financial 21st century history. By 2008 Bush called for reform seventeen times before the threat of a credit melt down and the eighteenth call was finely acted on. In 2010 we continue to harangue Wall Street for their role when the house of cards collapsed on failed mortgages which are directly connected to the GSE's and legacy policy of the Clinton administration.
In reading Bush's account I am curious as to how much paper in housing George Sorros and people like him had and sold it short. Could the stanch supporters of the Democrat Party who are so quick to criticize Republicans for failing to regulate have benefited from Barney Frank infamous statement? I believe the right investigative journalist could write a good book on this subject. Keep in mind it would put no one in jail because the Democrats blocked any regulation. But would have a new emphasis on the term full disclosure. One could only pray there is a wiki-leak as the key to an investigation.
By G.W. Bush
Drinking. A decision Bush made. After reading the chapter he was a robust social drinker. I call him a "Molly Brown" drinker. I suspect you could have put Bill Clinton in that category. The difference is Bush voluntarily took himself to task. In retrospect I asked why was that chapter in the book anyway. I think it sets the tone for all the decisions GW Bush made in his presidency. It was a presidency where a man of great conviction was taken to task, first by a divided country and second by events on par with Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington.
In the chapter on the decision to run for president you read how ordinary Bush was. Or you could characterize it as honest. I use the word honest because what comes out is akin to the first decision, in that he reconciled all pertinent decisions of a presidential run with himself. When people take Bush to task on his God orientation, I find that taking your self to task on par with taking yourself to God. Bush didn’t ask God if the decision was right, he went beyond the surface, the rational, to his heart to ask is the decision morally right as well. As a goal for a moniker Bush entered office in 2000 with an aspiration to be the "education president". He teamed up with Ted Kennedy to legislate the No Child Left Behind bill.
On this hyperbole notion that Bush was managed note, you learn that Bush was not a person managed by his handlers that may or may not met the test of conviction. You learn that Bush purposefully sought out a reluctant Cheney as a running mate. In fact the people around him, starting with his father, would not have sought out Cheney. Demonstrating the divisiveness of the GW Bush presidency the reader learns that it was not as simple 5-4 Supreme Court decision as the liberal for years etched on to the memory of Americans. There was first the actual vote count that had Bush victorious by 529 votes. You then have a 7-2 vote that held that the recount was chaotic and inconsistent. Non the less Bush started his first term under an extreme handicap where conviction to stay the course was a requirement
When I contrast Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court to that of Obama's first selection; Meyers was not selected because she had no judicial record and she was currently working a close aid to Bush. By contrast, Obama's appointment, Kagan, carried the exact same baggage. Plus Kagan’s sexual orientation gave the view that "political correctness" compromised the clarity required for prudent confirmation. This selection once again demonstrates Bush being his own man in terms of selecting those around him. As it turned out Meyers was not a good decision yet it was Bush who rightly or wrongly saw in Meyers a juror who would not be swayed in Supreme Court decisions by her own personnel agenda and held that as a priority over he lack of bench experience. Bush's convictions did not always prevail.
When I turned to the stem cell chapter I thought why this would be a land mark decision, a test of Bush's conviction. I was unaware that it was this issue above all the rest where the poignancy in his critics struck deep. It was also this issue that galvanized the thick skin required to be the president of the United States. On the stem cell decision, this was his hardest decision, the one decision that was close and personal. He lost a sister where research may have helped. It was the one decision that the Press was most vitriol in Bush as a person. And it had the greatest ‘bash’ affect on him personally. What I did not know until I read this book is that it turns out Bush was right. Science found a way without using government funding, during his term, to harvest the same cells from skin. Killing embryos was then as is now not required for stem cell research. I am amazed at the non-reporting of the science discovery or the lack of any apology from the Press or his opponents.
9/11: Clarification points Bush had been told that a plane flew into the Trade Center when they were walking into the class room. It was not made clear it was a terrorist act. He was told about the second aircraft in front of the children. It was a purposeful decision to not look frantic. This was not for the children sake alone but for the terrorists that would be seeing his reaction on camera. It was a decision of courage. Not of a non-decision of frantic panic. Even Bush's advisors said don't say anything to the public yet. Bush was the voice of America not just the Commander in Chief giving immediate direction to first responders. He purposely made the decision to frame his reaction to that of undaunted. It was his personal and private conviction, confidence in that decision that enabled him to endure the merciless and reckless criticism from the liberal left that insisted on dividing the country for mere political reason.
In War Footing you come to understand the obstinacy and the agenda of the Democrats when Bush was establishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Democrats pushed back in an effort to make sure the Labor Unions that would staff it were sufficiently organized to secure collective bargaining. Let's compare Bush's Patriot Act with Obama's Health Care Bill. When the Patriot Act was signed it had a 98:1 vote of support. Obamacare required a Democrat Partisan cloture vote of 60:40. When the Patriot Act was signed, Democratic senator Patrick Lehey from Vermont and Chuck Schumer from New York both said we read this Act and it is fair and balanced. Nancy Pelosi said after Obama signed Obamacare "we don't know what's in it. But we will figure it out. The Patriot Act proved over and over as a critical component to our nations security. Bush however required conviction to endure the reckless criticism from the liberal left over this decision.
On water boarding; first contrary to the impression the Left including Obama on the campaign trail and the Press for six years implying that water boarding was standard practice to all POWs called it an egregious compromise of American values. I myself, a staunch defender of Bush, fell victim to the Press brain washing. It was not until 2008 that I became fully aware of the scope of water boarding, the whole truth Said Zubaydah one of the THREE people water boarded, "water boarding was a technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfillment his religious duty and the cooperate.".
You must do this for all the brothers," he said.
Afghanistan: Bush closed with "Ultimately the only way the Taliban and al Qaeda can retake Afghanistan is if America abandons the country. Allowing the extremists to reclaim power would force Afghan women back into subservience, remove girls from school, and betray all the gains of the past nine years. It would endanger our security. After the Cold War, the United States gave up on Afghanistan. The result was chaos, civil war, the Taliban takeover, sanctuary for al Qaeda and the nightmare of 9/11. To forget that lesson would be a dreadful mistake. My fear is Obama even with his troop surge, has committed the United States to a deadline to abandon Afghanistan. He set the stage for a mood of American exhaustion on war. And we are witnessing an extreme sentiment now to abandon what was seen only 10 years earlier as a lesson learned. With the reality that Pakistan is very capable of harboring terrorists, we have gone from a conviction of Bush to stand up a free people focused on anything but international terrorism to a political agenda of Obama that will gradually find Afghanistan as equally dangerous as it was on September 11, 2001.
Iraq: on page 234 you read the question put in a way I had not heard before in the context of that time It’s a question that has a person pause. Perhaps be a little less critical. Bush puts it this way, "Letting a sworn enemy of America refuse to account for his weapons of mass destruction was a risk I could not afford to take. That question was asked to a brutal "elected" dictator who simply would not cooperate. UN resolution 687 mandated not only that Iraq be rid of WMD but also be rid of the ability to produce them. I, a pretty tuned in person on this subject, cannot recall from any Press report, the status of Iraq’s ability to produce WMD. I read in Known and Unknown of the official report on WMD, of which got very little press coverage. In that report it stated that Hussein had the capability to convert industrial sites in to WMD factories in as little as two weeks time. While the report said there was no capability for nuclear attacks, it made the following to provocative points. 1. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaeda - with world wide reach and extensive
terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - could perpetrate the type if terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. 2. In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step if assisting the Islamist terrorist in conducting CBM [chemical or biological weapon] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. When asking whether Bush’s ‘conviction” effected his Iraq decision, one must be sure to put that decision in the context of 911 and then ask that critical question: would you take the risk of letting a sworn enemy of America refuse to account for his weapons of mass destruction.
The Mission Accomplished banner was not at any order of the Bush administration. Evidence to this was it was NOT consistent with his speech. He said the major combat mission has ended. And that was true. He also said we have a lot of work left to be done in order to leave behind a free Iraq. And the Press torched him. Contrarily Obama went to the cameras to announce the conclusion of combat in Iraq, with less than proper recognition of Bush, and still to leave behind four thousand combat troops who were still engaged with the enemy. Reports from the Press have become at best second page news. No one Has asked Obama about the combat troops still in Iraq a year later. I raise the contrast to once again examine the convection required of one president compared to his immediate predecessor who was his number one critic, finding his place in the White House specifically through criticism of conviction.
The strategy of the insurgents of Iraq in 2006 said Bush on page 260 was to present an image of Iraq as hopeless and un-win-able, swinging American public opinion against the war and forcing us to withdraw as we had in Vietnam. This lesson that our enemy, enemy in waiting, will wait as long as it takes as a strategy leverage political agendas has yet to be learned by our President Obama. As I read this with the news of Qaddafi murder on the radio, I can only surmise that Obama's campaign stance against Iraq and Afghanistan portrays Obama making the right call. Yet his abstinence to react properly and with full conviction to a crime he is witnessing has positioned America as an accomplice to murder. The mere facts that he has retreated behind the guise of NATO and has used the distant voce of Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State, only further develops the quagmire of international intrigue today versus the clear cut lines ever to be criticized found in Bush
In the events behind the Surge of troops in Iraq, Bush met with the survivors of over 550 fallen soldiers. He also read 14 biographies on Lincoln. He modeled after Lincoln in the midst of the reality of his unpopularity. Underscoring this introspective view Bush received daily briefings from the Situation Room, of the terror inflicted on Iraqi people. He also was apprised of the Iraqi people after realizing the Insurgents were not acting in their best interests, switching sides to the Americans. These were events that the Press chose to play down amidst the anti Bush drumbeat. It took real courage to put it all in the balance and make the right decision for the Surge. Courage and conviction will mark his presidency as even his successor in the announcement of success in Iraq failed to give proper recognition to the courage it took to lead not by popular opinion. I write this on the same day that I read about the UN voting, to restrain Qaddafi from his murderous terror. The difference here is Bush made it clear to the World what his convictions were. Obama simply followed the leadership of a foreign body. Amazingly, Americans once again find no fortitude to fight for freedom of ‘One Man’ as they let a border come between that which unites all men. And we have a president Obama, who like Clinton, who chooses to follow the leaders of Europe. In the end lives are at stake, no matter who leads. A sad note on American values when Obama and Clinton are favored over Bush. What Bush makes real clear in his book is the freedom of ‘One Man’ is the security of all men, including the United States of America.
Bush's chapter called Freedom agenda was a forty page summary of his diplomacy. What came out the ‘trot around the globe’ was a common theme. This is a mark of leadership akin to his father GH Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Churchill, Wilson. He set a standard and formed a policy around that standard, and he produced a strategy, enabling him to execute on a tactical plan. That standard was an individuals right to freedom. Policy around that standard stated that where there is institutionalized freedom, there is a mitigation of risk on American security. Tactically, where freedom did not ring and those leaders responsible who also pledged eminent danger or threat to the United States were challenged first through diplomacy, and diplomacy's big brother...war. Like his decisions or not, they were clearly vetted, communicated and executed upon. When contrasting to his immediate successor as well as his predecessor I felt more secure in the same way 20th century Americans felt with the aforementioned leaders. This will be Bush’s legacy.
Other challenges:
The Bush presidency sponsored prescription drug programs under a Medicaid reform bill. It was well defined, well debated, and passed with a compromise bipartisan vote. It distributed risk which made it one of the few bills to come in significantly under budget.
Contrasted against Obamacare where a cloture vote along strict party lines against the will of the majority of the people finds the dichotomy in moral fortitude between Bush Republicans and Obama Democrats.
Looking at Bush's failed Social Security reform efforts finds a well stated case for reform and hardened uncooperative Democrats trumpeting that Bush was "privatizing Social Security which was inaccurate. The sad result on this the general public was trained to see Bush as a spender and his reform would have reduced the budget by xxxx and would have fixed the problem instead of passing it on to the next generation , not two generations but the very next one, where it will see it's doom.
The Katrina drama is explained in traditional memoir fashion rose colored lens, or was it? When told- from first person you come away with only criticism of the Press for admonishing a President for playing the role of President in a cast of incompetent leaders in Louisiana. The governor never allowed federal troops in to assist. By day five Bush over rode her. The Mayor did not order the evacuation in time. From a Presidential standpoint Bush admits that his performance was appropriate technically, but his public relations response deserved the outcry it got. Has Obama been guilty of PR gaffs? My first response is the Boston police incident, where he over reacted inappropriately. My second is Libya, where he has enough evidential authority to bring Qaddfi to justice for Lockerbee and does nothing while human beings are being murdered. While the world
looks for a President, Obama once again "votes present." Rather than simply take Qaddfi as a criminal, he abdicates the action to NATO of which the USA is the leading partner. The only fool in the scheme is Obama himself.
I dreaded the challenge of reading the last chapter Financial Crisis. Early on Bush brings me back over to his side. He first puts his personal view of economics forward to set the tone against the noise of the Press and his opponents ranging from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama to Keith Oberman. Then he sets a few things straight First is our surplus was based on projections of a tech bubble that would continue which didn't. Second 9/11 caused a collapse of that galvanized a recession that was officially under way one month after he was sworn into the first term of office.
This I knew. What I didn't know was. GW Bush's debt to GDP ratio was a percentage point below the mark of the 20th century average. Additionally to assuage my criticism of his spending, he could not line item veto pork or earmarks. He had to look at a Bill in whole and sign it or not. Oddly enough now that Obama era Republicans in have sworn away earmarks, Democrats who were so quick to criticize Bush on the same now claim earmarks only represent four percent of the budget. I now find the need for an apology first to myself for allowing myself to be drawn in by rhetoric from the left. And then to our 44th president for conceding ground to the left.
On Freddie & Fannie: in Bush's 2003 budget in recognizing that they had morphed into an institution that exceeded it's charter beyond promoting home ownership, he proposed a bill that would regulate the GSE’s. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, ranking Democrats on the Fed Committee with friends, former Clinton administration officials running the GSE's, went on the record and said "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis". In 2005 Bush raised a more alarming call for action and put forth through Senator Richard Shelby a bill to regulate the GSE's. The Democrats blocked the bill from passing. A President can only sign into law bills put in front of
him. Democrats prone to criticize Republicans for not regulating failed to do just that at a most critical point in our nations financial 21st century history. By 2008 Bush called for reform seventeen times before the threat of a credit melt down and the eighteenth call was finely acted on. In 2010 we continue to harangue Wall Street for their role when the house of cards collapsed on failed mortgages which are directly connected to the GSE's and legacy policy of the Clinton administration.
In reading Bush's account I am curious as to how much paper in housing George Sorros and people like him had and sold it short. Could the stanch supporters of the Democrat Party who are so quick to criticize Republicans for failing to regulate have benefited from Barney Frank infamous statement? I believe the right investigative journalist could write a good book on this subject. Keep in mind it would put no one in jail because the Democrats blocked any regulation. But would have a new emphasis on the term full disclosure. One could only pray there is a wiki-leak as the key to an investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)