Disclaimer–I despise Bush, hold him in contempt, never considered voting for him, would vote for almost anybody in preference to him, think he’s completely unqualified for the presidency and represents the worst in American society.
That said, could his despicable behavior in wiretapping Americans and generally trampling the Constitution be viewed as heroic, when viewed as Bush’s conscious decision to violate the law towards the greater good of defending Western culture? In other words, say Bush has consciously rejected the legal strictures on violating our civil rights, and has accepted that, if we can get our shit together, he deserves impeachment, but until that day he will do whatever it takes to thwart terrorism.
If terrorists, knowing our Consitutional separation of Church and State, for example, have decided to advance future terrorist acts by setting up religious organizations that secretly shield their operatives from observation, and Bush has decided that immediate unConstitutional wiretapping is the only way to prevent these terrorist acts even if it costs him his reputation and his presidency, is that in your view a heroic act?
Disclaimer: I have no dog in the fight. I didn’t vote for Bush (or anyone else) and don’t care either way.
History isn’t written in real time. Many world leaders that are [generally] held in high esteem, including many who are now considered Giants, were not popular during their terms.
Truman and Churchill are good examples. If Russia becomes a vibrant, healthy democracy perhaps Gorbachev will be seen as their Lincoln. (and probably should be!)
Whether he deserved it or not, Reagan is closely linked with the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall. If 30 years from now the Mideast has several moderate democracies and the whole region is stable—including a stable Iraq—history will be much kinder to GWB than his contemporaries have been.
He’s not a hero today. But he still may become one. It depends how events shake out in the years to come. He is likely to get much credit and/or blame for things that he really had little to do with. (Like others)
You are the first person to make this point that I have seen so far. I’m sure that there were people who thought the Marshall Plan was a bad idea sixty years ago. One difference between then and now is the level of partisan bitterness that now permeates almost everything. Some people are so blinded by hatred that they cannot bring themselves to credit the other ideological side for anything. I happen to hold a very positive view of Ronald Reagan and his legacy, but there are those who will go through all manner of intellectual contortions to keep from giving him credit for anything. It is and will be the same thing with GWB.
I will close by admitting a high level of distaste for Bill Clinton. Therefore it is difficult for me to give him the credit he deserves as well.
The term hero is thrown around way too much. I really don’t see a commander as a candidate for Hero status.
After all what was he suppose to do, with Clinton and Kerry warning us for YEARS about Iraq’s WMD’s are a threat even before W. Bush got in. He just took the only option left to him.
I agree with this. As much as I hate Bush’s War, I do have respect for the military. I’m a ‘Navy brat’, and indeed I’ve seen that the military seem to be less inclined to go to war than the civilians who start them. For the most part, military men and women are professionals. But referring to them all as ‘heroes’ is, I think, going a bit far.
(Aside: I was talking with the ex-fiancée last night. She flew Black Hawks in Iraq in the 101st Airborne during the first Gulf War. The Special Ops guys back in the States treated her as if she’d done nothing – even though they had not been there yet.)
I think there is a difference between doing one’s job – no matter how dangerous – and performing actual heroic acts in the performance of one’s duties. Several months ago I saw a young enlisted Army person in Iraq on the news. She said, ‘We’re all heroes.’ It’s good to have esprit de corps, but I don’t think just being there makes one a hero.
Well, perhaps the debate should be framed as: Will posterity remember Bush as a good/great president, despite his current unpopularity?
IOM, no. Posterity will decide that Bush’s national-security state, obsessive secrecy, demonization of opponents, and callous disregard of civil liberties were all at best an overreaction to the terrorist threat and, at worst, part of an agenda completely unconnected with it except as a pretext.
Not if Bush is a good or bad President, but if Bush is deliberately doing illegal things because the Constitution is no longer capable of addressing the U.S.'s legitimate security needs (as he sees it), is that heroic?
The problem with Bush is that he seems to fall short of having the courage of his convictions. He employs tactics in a somewhat scattershot way, not with any apparent direction. And he does it slyly, without mentioning what he do will aforehand.
American Heroes generally are a censoredload more bold than that.
I’m afraid I can’t accept the premise. I can’t believe even Bush thinks what he is doing is necessary to address “legitimate security needs”; unless he just uncritically swallows everything he is told by his even more cynical handlers – in which case there’s no heroism on his part or theirs.
By contrast, Lincoln (so far as we can tell from history) probably did sincerely believe his wartime suspension of habeas corpus was necessary, under the circumstances, to preserve the Union. (Historians are not, however, in agreement that it was strictly necessary, and that decision is generally regarded as the least heroic and most morally and constitutionally questionable thing Lincoln did as president.)
This assumes Bush is deliberately doing illegal things, it could be argued that things you may consider illegal are powers that he does have to protect the security of this nation.
If we assume W is breaking the law to protect us, that doesn’t give him hero status as we have the unproven premise that his way was the most practical way to do it. Nothing short of absolute proof that W’s domestic security measures were needed to ensure the security of the US will change that - so no hero status. If you could prove it W may be considered a visionary.
Also remember that W’s tactics haven’t been much different then former Presidents’, Clinton started that whole thing of using supercomputers to analyze all calls and anything that the computer flagged was listened to by people.
W’s ‘hero’ status will be based on the war on terror and the future of the middle east, or quite possible the development of a truly alternative energy source which will get us off the oil train. The greatest chance will be the 1st 2, which as I see it is sort of temperary and tenuous hold on ‘hero status’ as a much bigger threat to the US may very well raise it’s ugly head. The magnitude of such a war will overshadow any good that comes out of the war on terror and a big part of the blame will be focused on the previous occupant of the White House. Clinton will go down as the President who sold the US to China and the people will forget about the war on terror, and W (or perhaps long for the days).
If the Constitution is no longer capable of addressing the U.S.'s legitimate security needs, then change it. There is a clear, plain method for amending the Constitution and it does not involve the President ignoring it at his whim.
If you value Democracy at all, someone who intentionally violates our democratically passed Constitution and laws in this manner is despicable and promoting tyranny.
Let Bush popose a Constitutional amendment abnegating the Bill of Rights if he thinks that’s necessary to be safe. Maybe there are enough of us left who aren’t so gutless and frightened of the boogeyman that we still value the democratic ideals that we profess to promote for other countries.
This will always be a subjective judgement. History is written by the victors. There will always be people who will think of GWB as a hero. Whether that ever reaches some kind of majority, let alone consensus, will depend entirely upon the places that history takes us.
On the other hand, no matter the history, there will always be people who will NEVER think of GWB as a hero. Their values may reject the apparent fact that GWB has always acted more out of self interest for him and his wealthy cronies. Even if everything works out OK in the end, they’ll believe that to be more an unintended bonus than GWBs actual ideals.
This debate will never find a resolution. It will be going on 100 years from now; probably in the global language of Arabic . . .
That was not the problem with Clinton as it is the problem with Bush today: the cites that are needed are the ones where Clinton did that without a warrant.
