After it became clear last weekend that U.S. forces will indeed be withdrawn from Iraq by 2011, I concluded that history may vindicate Bush, at least partially. Bush himself has often said that he is not interested in his short-term reputation and legacy. He believes that history will judge him kinder than his contemporaries.
One of the policies Bush was criticized most for was the War in Iraq. This war began well, but then took a turn for the worse. Civil war caused the country to fall apart.
Until the president ordered the surge, that is. Slowly but surely, the situation improved dramatically. General Ray Odierno and the Obama administration are now even confident that U.S. forces can be withdrawn in the course of next year, without leaving a war-torn country behind. Will history vindicate Bush on his war?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. We will see.
The Iraq War, however, may not be the only Bush-policy / adventure we will see in a different light several years from now. Ed Morrissey reports for Hot Air that the Obama administration ’said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.’
Indeed, that is exactly what the Bush administration wanted as well. That is interesting because Obama blasted for Bush for these policies on the campaign trail.
Will the Obama administration vindicate Bush? Ironically, it has already done so – to a degree, at least.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
