In the other thread, Rick Kitchen mentions that Bush’s last tweet lauded Susan Collins for her courage in voting for Kavanaugh. His penultimate tweet congratulated Walker Stapleton for winning the CO-R primary and what a great governor he would make. In trying to figure out why Bush thought this guy was worth mentioning, it turns out, he was a member of the extended clan (hence, the “Walker”). I mean criminey, I have quite a few relatives, but I would not blindly recommend a goodly number of them for a position of authority, and some I would outright repudiate. This whole family loyalty thing is lamentable.
Being a libertarian, I have a naturally negative attitude towards politicians and there’s plenty that the elder Bush did which deserves criticism. But the best and most important event that has happened in my lifetime is the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire. Bush was President at the time and he kept a steady hand.
Looking back, it’s easy to believe that entire sequence of events was inevitable, but in 1990 it was far from clear what was going to happen. It was entirely possible to imagine the conflict between Gorbachev and communist hardliners flaring into a major war, perhaps even one with nuclear weapons involved. Bush kept a steady hand through that all-important time period, though he wasn’t actually the one driving the most important events.
Elsewhere his foreign policy record was not so good. His interventions in Iraq and Somalia set a precedent for going into middle eastern countries with guns blazing, which is still bearing bad consequences today. That little invasion of Panama was a bad idea as well. Domestically, he approved of endlessly ramping up the drug war and ongoing increases in the prison population, though given the rising crime rates at the time, it’s doubtful that anyone could have become President with a different policy.
Good column from Maureen Dowd in the NYT. Bush comes across as a genuinely decent man with sense of humor.
The Patrician President and the Reporterette: A Screwball Story
You were correct to dismiss them - they were extensively investigated and debunked. It’s rather similar to saying you don’t like JFK because the moon landings were faked.
Bush 41 was a good public servant and a mediocre politician. When he worked the Presidency in furtherance of his vision of public service, as in the end of the Cold War and the invasion of Kuwait, he was quite successful. When he was forced into playing politics, as in when he allowed the Dems to push him into breaking his “no new taxes” pledge in return for the Dems commitment to cut spending, he failed, because they were playing politics and he was trying to actually address the problem. Then when he was up against Bill Clinton, who was the best pure politician of his generation and looked on politics not as public service but as self-validation, Bush 41 lost.
This. A patrician who became a war hero, served with honor in the UN and the CIA and the White House and the House. Because that was his duty.
God grant him peace, and his family as well.
Regards,
Shodan
Probably the best Republican president since Eisenhower, but that isn’t saying much.
Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, so every other thing he did that was not bad, put together, cannot make up for that.
I’ve read a ton of history on Watergate, and I’ve never once read that President Bush was involved. Do you have any evidence or a site to back up this claim?
Oxymoron.
Who authorized the Willie Horton ad.
He was a career-long product of the Eisenhower/Dulles school of manipulating foreign policy, supporting dictators who served the US interest (or at least claimed to be anti-communist; that’s all it took), and overthrowing popular democratic movements when that was threatened. Domestically, he just didn’t give a shit, and left all that stuff to Atwater and crew. In his family life, he spawned the Dubya Administration. But he did have an affable persona, give him that.
I used to have a 1992 George Bush “Anywhere But America Tour” T-shirt. Wish I could find it.
If you are talking about Maureen Dowd, you don’t need the oxy-.
Regards,
Shodan
And the left says that the right is full of hate.
Bush was as much as a professional, gentleman and dedicated public servant as one can find on either side.
If you can’t find something good to say about him, his life and his service to the country, even if you disagree with him politically, than you’re closer the rightes than you’d like to admit.
I don’t think that people who lost loved ones to the AIDS crisis that he excaberated are obligated to say nice things about him just because he’s dead. The ritual of denying the misdeeds of politicians when they die and of requiring victims of said politicians to say nice things about them or be condemned as ‘hateful’ is not one that I endorse.
It is highly likely that the CIA under his watch knew in advance that Orlando Letelier was going to be murdered by Pinochet operatives. Crickets. They did/said nothing.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was about the vilest piece of shit you can imagine, and Bush let his operatives work inside the US unimpeded. That is beyond contemptible.
Which is to say, Bush was a gentleman to your face, but, in a private room with no one watching, he would gleefully have his butler disembowel you (though he might turn away, because, ick). Praise the guy all you want, he is the kind of scum that is trying to destroy America, who ought to have been sharing a cell with Willie Horton.
A bit more breadth on how his superficial “civility” masked deplorability. But his record did fit right in with the rest of the Cold War Presidents - none of whom, however, put a vapid idiot just a heartbeat away from the job.
When we have reason and there is no other responsible alternative, yes, we hate. That beats *starting *with hate and looking for rationalizations, don’t it? No, both sides don’t do it. Come on now.
Except when you consider what he did.
Which is: what he had to do. Nothing at all that he ever did speaks of character or courage. He was always a man in straits, never venturing into dangerous territory. A skilled president might well have been able to resolve the Kuwait crisis, but Bush lacked that ability or inclination. He had to send in the troops, because of who he was, and the result of that bland yellow custardly action has not been to anyone’s benefit.
He was basically a cipher, who might have been a better man for having a plate a broccoli.
Not even the Navy Cross?
And here I thought he was a fighter pilot in WWII. That seems to involve venturing into dangerous territory pretty much by definition.
I suspect the people of Kuwait feel differently.
Regards,
Shodan
I still don’t see much support for your position. Can you provide something concrete to persuade us to the correctness of your statements?
True, the only tool he knew how to use was a hammer. Give him credit for knowing (or at least being persuaded) that it would be best to stop short of Baghdad, at least. So he knew when to leave the nail partway out. Give him credit for Europeanizing the Warsaw Pact countries and the outer USSR former republics, but not for stopping short of Russia itself - the Cold War mentality needs an enemy, after all. In domestic matters, he couldn’t use a hammer so he just didn’t pay attention at all, and that’s what cost him re-election.
The joke in 1988 was that he wanted to be President because it would look good on his resume.
No matter how bad you think Bush 41 was, he was still much, much better than the freak show we have now as President.
In terms of Desert Shield/Storm, there was some diplomacy/negotiating, which could possibly have been moved to the point where the armies might each go home unclashed. Bush was not really able to do that, though, because he was never particularly smart, wise or bold. He did what others told him he ought to do, showing little indication of independent mental function. Apparently there was just never a person in there.