Thread: Rove: History Will View GWB a "Man of moral clarity"

The Long View
Advisory thoughts on the 43rd president.

By Karl Rove

The Washington Post scorned President Truman as a “spoilsman” who “underestimated the people’s intelligence.” New York Times columnist James Reston wrote off President Eisenhower as “a tired man in a period of turbulence.” At the end of President Reagan’s second term, the New York Times dismissed him as “simplistic” and a “lazy and inattentive man.”

These harsh judgments, made in the moment, have not weathered well over time. Fortunately, while contemporary observers have a habit of getting presidents wrong, history tends to be more accurate.

So how might history view the 43rd president? I can hardly be considered an objective observer, but in this highly polarized period, who is?

However, I believe history will provide a more clear-eyed verdict on this president’s leadership than the anger of current critics would suggest.

President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.

He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.

Following the horrors of 9/11, this president changed American foreign policy by declaring terror sponsors responsible for the deeds of those they shelter, train, and fund. America, he said, will not wait until dangers fully materialize with attacks on our homeland before confronting those threats.

The president gave the nation new tools to defeat terrorism abroad and protect our citizens at home with the Patriot Act, foreign surveillance that works in the wireless age, a transformed intelligence community, and the Department of Homeland Security.

And this president saw the wisdom of removing terrorism’s cause by advocating the spread of democracy, especially in the Muslim world, where authoritarianism and repression have provided a potent growth medium for despair and anger aimed at the West. He recognized that democracy there makes us safer here.

President Bush will be seen as a compassionate leader who used America’s power for good.

Karl Rove on George W. Bush on National Review Online

Con:

This should tick off some of the resident reactionary hate-filled Liberals!

No, I think history will say Bush was a blithering idiot. Not only based on his actions but also his simple demeanor. He can't put together a complete sentence and god forbid he have to answer a spontaneous question. You go ahead and root for him Con but just remember what I said next time you see him talk, you'll see it. The sooner this country can ditch this asshole the better.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

No, I think history will say Bush was a blithering idiot. Not only based on his actions but also his simple demeanor. He can't put together a complete sentence and god forbid he have to answer a spontaneous question. You go ahead and root for him Con but just remember what I said next time you see him talk, you'll see it. The sooner this country can ditch this asshole the better.

Yeah, Bush is going to be remembered as an aggressive, self-righteous, arrogant, elitist, globalist.

Seem to remember Bush wasn't doing too well in the popularity stakes until 9/11 but then people didn't know afterwards that he was going to use it it to declare an unjust war on Iraq. He's pretty widely hated in the UK for dragging us all in with his war and when the history books are written I can only see him coming across as a war mongering idiot who was given far too much power for someone so stupid.

I will never, never , ever understand why Brits blame Americans for their joining the war. Canada didn't go. New Zealand didn't go. France, Germany, Belgium.... dozens of Western democracies didn't go. The ones that did made minimul contributions for show. Why do Brits seem convinced they were coerced into it?

Blame Blaire, blame Labour, blame the beuracracy... all the US did was ask. I don't know whay Blaire was fool enough to get you all into it... but ask him and his party. Nothing to do with America.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

I will never, never , ever understand why Brits blame Americans for their joining the war. Canada didn't go. New Zealand didn't go. France, Germany, Belgium.... dozens of Western democracies didn't go. The ones that did made minimul contributions for show. Why do Brits seem convinced they were coerced into it?

Blame Blaire, blame Labour, blame the beuracracy... all the US did was ask. I don't know whay Blaire was fool enough to get you all into it... but ask him and his party. Nothing to do with America.

Yeah, but thanks to a Bill O'Reilly/Factor lead boycott, aren't the economies of all those countries in deep diddly doo-doo?

Originally Posted by Peter Parka

Seem to remember Bush wasn't doing too well in the popularity stakes until 9/11 but then people didn't know afterwards that he was going to use it it to declare an unjust war on Iraq. He's pretty widely hated in the UK for dragging us all in with his war and when the history books are written I can only see him coming across as a war mongering idiot who was given far too much power for someone so stupid.

You should blame Blair. He's the one who didn't have the backbone to say no.

Originally Posted by TennesseeRain

Yeah, but thanks to a Bill O'Reilly/Factor lead boycott, aren't the economies of all those countries in deep diddly doo-doo?

Not really. That was YEARS ago and even then it didn't have a significant impact.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Not really. That was YEARS ago and even then it didn't have a significant impact.

I was being totally sarcastic. Sorry. I thought it was obvious

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

You should blame Blair. He's the one who didn't have the backbone to say no.

I do blame Blair but the fact remains the UK would never have gone it alone or got involved if it wasn't led by the US.