How Will Bush Be Remembered?

Loveable Lunkhead?

How will Bush be remembered? More to the point, how will history and the general public remember Bush long after he's gone? Never mind the opinion of this blog author. I think Bush qualifies for "Bottom 5" but it's neither here nor there. In predicting how time will treat Bush, let me first make an odd sidestep to Civil War history:

Ulysses Grant was a war mastermind and national hero -- a noble, handsome man. He served as President from 1869 to 1877, over an administration that was besmirched by scandals -- the Whiskey Rebellion tax fraud and the Credit Mobilier scandal to name a couple. Grant was scrupulous and never accused of anything himself, but scoundrel cronies put a black mark on his term. Grant was viewed as a highly likeable, decorated war hero who was simply in over his head trying to translate war-waging skills into political skills. Wonderful man, terrible president.



A Great General

Now back to Bush -- a General of first degree. What's that you say? There are questions whether he even fulfilled his National Guard duty? Posh to that --- American people see Bush as the de facto General in the War Against Terror. With his smirky good looks and Gary Cooper moments ("Bring it on .....I want him dead or alive") Americans were drawn to his clumsy machismo. During the 2004 election, Americans found Bush's mutilations of English and stark ignorance to be endearing. He seemed like Mr. Everyman. Bush gave a speech over the smoldering dust of 9/11, and roused the public like a first string quarterback. What's that you say? All he ever did was be a yell leader at Andover? Posh to all that --- American people see Bush as a focused, first stringer, looking terror right in the face.

Now, several things have gone haywire for our hero. Iraq is about to erupt into civil war, Iran is trumpeting its nuclear prowess, and the Dubai fiasco made it uncertain if W. Bush was even going to take preventive measures at all against potential "evil doers". A possible reason that 6 retired Generals have recently called for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's resignation is this: Rumsfeld is basically fulfilling Bush's orders. There is a palpable fear that our "Gary Cooper" will do limited strikes on Iran, when Iraq's work is still very much undone. If Bush (Rumsfeld) is left to his own devices, the whole Middle East could rise into radioactive mushroom clouds.

Clinton's Achilles heel was his lust. Nixon's was his own self-centered paranoia. W. Bush is seen to be taking actions based on "good intentions" -- not from more personal forms of weakness. However, he's used his "political capital" to gamble away the family store, and erudite men will see the horrific destructiveness of Bush's actions. Posh to that --- American people will be forgiving to Bush; he'll be seen as the loveable lunkhead who just got in a bit over his head. He won't be in the "Top 10" Presidents list, but neither will he be at the bottom. "Anybody with that many Clint Eastwood moments can't be all bad -- he just inherited a bad situation." So will say the American laity whose acumen is on par w/ Jay Leno's Jaywalkers. This blogger will look at a President who took a problematic world and brought it to the brink of "limited nuclear war". That President is no Ulysses Grant, quite a bit worse in fact. Not even as good as Clinton -- not even as good as Nixon. And there's not much that is loveable.