By John Brewer on April 12, 2011

A funny thing happened on the way to serenity the other night: I dropped by for a quick look at my Facebook page to see what was up, to see if anything was new, to discover that some of my friends–propelled by the offal-slinging rotors of ever-mounting and oscillating media coverage about a looming campaign season–were engaged in wall-to-wall combat. At first, I was pulled in as a spectator and nothing else; that is to say, there are moments when I truly believe I’ve had my fill of contentious political slingery, moments when I’d rather just sink back into my settee, pull the plugs (earplugs, that is!), and let the steam whistle from my drums…moments when I’d much rather think of something else, something else like the health and happiness of my parents and siblings, something else like the wonderfulness of my daughter, something else like the well-being of a dear friend up North, something else like the probability of my beloved Cubbies ever managing to win a World Series before my time on this Earth is through.

More and more, the moments in which I choose to retreat within the cozy confines of my own personal bubble are revealed as fleeting, pie-in-the-sky notions to be soundly sucked in by the ongoing vortex of contentious political slingery.

Following President Obama’s announcement at a re-election bid, a Conservative friend of mine posted a challenge to our Liberal friends to post 5-things Obama has done which have helped us or anyone. The response came in from a Liberal friend–the one I had already deemed would take it upon himself to do as such–and his reply was a well-researched account of “seemingly” noble gestures by the President, which most would find difficult to argue against. By “seemingly” I mean, well…without getting into the details of my Liberal friend’s response, I’ll just say that the Obama gestures he described–in and of themselves–had a magnanimous quality. “In and of themselves” I re-submit, as each magnanimous gesture, well-intentioned nonetheless, came with a background of present, subsequent, preceding, and ongoing pieces/parts which essentially disputed, or even negated, the face value of the gesture. And so, I suppose, it goes to show that even political actions of apparent magnanimity come mired in diametrically-opposed bureaucracy, red-tape, and counter-productive details.

Or, am I just ideologically fraught?

It was only a matter of minutes before my Conservative friend sent me a message on Facebook, beseeching me to throw in my two cents. My response was, at heart, “Wait for it.” By “Wait for it” I was referring to the re-direct Conservatives have become all-too familiar with: “What about Bush?”

These days, I have more trouble predicting the outcome of a movie I’ve seen 20 times than I do forecasting the frequently relied-upon “Bush” re-direct. It is as silly as a Monty Python sketch, and often saturated with subjective reasoning, misinformation and poisonous connotations–the kind of subjective reasoning, misinformation and poisonous connotations propagated by media watchdogs who never fail to replace their horn-rimmed specs with blinders and onyx-laced contacts whenever a Democrat gains control. Check the archives of your local newspapers and watch videos of bygone news reports. Study the connotations and note how they correspond to the party affiliation of the individual being discussed. It is staggering! Is their any wonder why social thought is as dysfunctional as it is right now? “FOX” leans to the right, quite apparently–that is ONE channel! As for the other channels: ABC, NBC, and CBS lean slightly to the left, the connotation shifts tell me so; CNN leans a little further to the left, as well as CNBC and HLN; MSNBC is unapologetically a radical-Communist propaganda network of bedwetting bandicoots.

But, all that is an article for later’s writing.

Back to the point!

Another Liberal friend chimed in from the periphery with the “Bush” re-direct I’d forecasted–”What did Bush ever do?”

My Conservative friend was apoplectic, and brought me into the vortex once again. Since I was in the middle of phone calls with my daughter and other family members, I did my best to jot down a few points he could use to perpetuate the slingery, and I carried on. Whereas he was willing to fight forth, I was steadfast in my day’s retreat.

Given the few minutes of effort I put in, to offer my Conservative friend some ammunition, I figured that I would expand and expound on the points I made, taking a few hours to do so–as opposed to a few minutes. Also, I would like to reiterate a previous point I made about gestures of a seeming magnanimity being mired with details that make for strong, oppositional retorts. There is always a problem; the problem is a graph of which the parabola is everywhere and the vertices nowhere! And a challenge I’d like my Liberal friends to take upon themselves is one which requires their arguments shirk subjective reasoning and poisonous connotations in favor of details. How am I suppose to respond to overt claims of so-and-so possessing a reckless or evil nature? What is that? What is an evil nature? And how am I suppose to reconcile myself to an argument which decrees I wholeheartedly understand someone else’s personal/unique expertise on the qualifications of “evil?” I can’t do that? “Evil” is a pretty harsh and all-encompassing label.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Communist, wrote:

In my most evil of moments, I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually, it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.

So, as I cautiously sidle-up to the task of limning Bush’s accomplishments, bear in mind that I am not a pom-pom waving cheerleader for Dubya or any other President; that being said, and given what I know of the man, there is not a soul alive who’ll ever manage to convince me he was evil, nor will they even manage to convince me that he was predominantly evil…

And I put forth:

While the media watchdogs and critics at home, focused on attacking Mr. Bush at every turn, he steadfastly resided as champion for greater investments to help African families and businesses. Even though the story was negligible in the Western Hemisphere, it has truly changed the lives and worlds of millions in Africa.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief was initiated in 2003, a time of which only 50,000 Africans were on anti-retroviral drugs. The U.S. has since pumped over $19 billion into the project, and the number of anti-retroviral recipients has climbed from apaltry 50,000 to 1.5 million. As well, HIV infection from HIV-positive mothers has been prevented in about 200,000 infants. As well, Bush’s malaria initiative has halved the malaria cases in 15 African countries. As well, under the watch of Bush, 30 million African children enrolled in school—some of them for the first time. As well, Bush backed programs to cancel $34 billion worth of debt across 27 African countries. As well, U.S. aid to Africa increased yearly until it reached approximately $6 billion a year. As well, because of Bush, the U.S. commits $1.6 billion to trade capacity-building assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. As well, Bush launched the Millennium Challenge Account as a new model to follow for any African government willing to lead justly. Money for minding your manners, folks!

As well, I wonder if Kanye West has any thoughts to add.

And while the media watchdogs and critics continued to attack Bush at every turn, he steadfastly resided as champion over some apparently magnanimous domestic issues, many of which are debatable, all of which are ideologically fraught.

The following are examples of the debatable, certainly to my Conservative friends based on the actions alone; and certainly to my Liberal friends based on the man who took action–which serves to prove an ideologically-fraught, lose-lose situation in each case.

The President transformed the immigration reform debate, choosing comprehensive reform and citizenship path in favor of mass deportation. Debatably good or not-so-good? You decide. As well, he declared the first federal ban on racial profiling, issuing an order to 70 different law enforcement agencies calling for an end to such a practice. Laden with imprudence? You decide. As well, he accepted a record number of refugees and asylum-seekers, doubling the amount from the Clinton years. Seemingly noble but domestically reckless? You decide. As well, he used the bully pulpit to stem the tide of xenophobia after 9/11, infuriating elements within both parties by meeting with pro-Arab and pro-Muslim civil rights groups in addition to holding Muslim events at the White House. Bizarre and foolhardy? You decide. As well, he included same-sex couples with regards to federal pension benefits, signing a bill which gave non-spousal couples the same federal pension standards as traditional, married couples. Compassionate or twisted? You decide. As well, he integrated the Executive Branch, appointing Albert Gonzales to Attorney General, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to Secretary of State successively. Trivial and irrelevant? If only the racially pre-occupied ninnies controlling social-thought would see it that way.

Let us not forget that President Bush protected our right to bear arms when he allowed the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban to expire, subsequently signing legislation which forbid local law enforcement agencies from confiscating legally-owned firearms; and let us not forget that President Bush increased by millions the efforts to clean American forests, reduce the threat of wildfires, and restore what had been lost or damaged; and let us not forget that President Bush designated 190 million square miles of ocean as national preserves, including the Northwestern Islands of Hawaii, which are home to over 7000 species of marine life, including the endangered monk seals and green sea turtles: all of these policies, too, are ripe for debate…

…As is managing the largest expansion of Medicare benefits in decades by extending prescription coverage to seniors, as well as generous funding for the construction of community health care centers…

…As is his co-sponsorship with Ted Kennedy on the “No Child Left Behind” education reform bill, which imposed mandatory testing and accountability on our schools, to see if the teachers were teaching, to see if the learners were learning…

And then, of course, there’s Iraq, Katrina, and the economic collapse!

IRAQ

There is no denying that President Bush had overwhelming support to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks; however, things got a little more confusing when the main focus was transferred to Iraq, at a time when the images of planes-as-missiles, collapsing towers, and people leaping from windows remained hot-iron branded in our minds and hearts. Why so soon? Hadn’t we other guppies to grill? And when the popularity of the Iraq war decreased even further over the course of time, reluctant support transmogrified into an out-and-out offensive against our own Commander-in-Chief, launched by perennial moonbats, Democrat opposition, political opportunists, faux-journalists, and even some within the same party as the President. Bush lied about WMD’s and tricked us into waging an illegal war: THAT was the mantra filling the air like a Greek chorus.

But I wonder.

If someone receives intelligence from his country’s, and other countries’, top intel-gathering entities regarding a despot who repeatedly violates U.N. resolutions–a despot who claims to be doing what the intel describes–and that same someone takes it as truth, and shares it with others, and takes action, does that seriously make that someone a liar? Or, does that make someone a dupe like the rest of us?

I present to you a conga line of liars and dupes:

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, 1998, “Saddam’s goal…is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”

Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser under Bill Clinton, 1998, “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10-times since 1983.”

Barbara Boxer, Senator from California, 2002, “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to that agreement.”

Nancy Pelosi, current Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, 1998, “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

William Cohen, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, 2003, “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”

Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader, 1998, “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”

Scott Ritter, Ex-U.N. Weapons Inspector, 1998, “Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinium toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas…And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”

Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States of America, 2002,  ”Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Hillary Clinton, current Secretary of State, 2002, “It is clear that Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we all know too well affects American security.”

Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, 1998, “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”

And the list goes on and on and on.

So what are we to make of this? Are these people dupes or liars?

And what are we to make of evidence pointing to Iraq’s attempts to purchase “yellowcake” from Africa? And what are we to make of the information put forth in a book written by one of Saddam’s former Generals, in which the General capitulates that truckloads of WMD’s were transported to Syria on account of a looming war? And what are we to make of a Wikileaks’ release of purloined files from the Department of Defense–files which outline the discovery of an arsenal of liquid sulfur mustard and toxic blister agents?

And what are we to make of the “illegal war” mantra?

If we are going to continue nit-picking over Bush’s illegal war in Iraq, all things being fair, why not bring everyone into the fold. What about Clinton’s illegal war’s in the Balkans and Somalia? What about Obama and Libya? Using the same criteria critics use on Bush, what would be made of the Clinton and Obama wars? Is it the humanitarian argument? Let’s take, for instance, the Balkans–Clinton’s illegal war which was otherwise reported as nothing less than a pressing, humanitarian effort to remove Serbian and Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic, who killed approximately 200,000 of his own citizens–and let’s take Iraq–Bush’s illegal war which was reported as an illegal action of self-serving peculiarities based on lies to remove Saddam Hussein, who is estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 300,000-500,000 Iraqi citizens. Should Bush have used a different word?

KATRINA

Bush absorbed a tremendous amount of heat for the ball-dropping shenanigans demonstrated during the time of Katrina. It is worth noting that, as Katrina drew close, the President was the first in almost four decades to declare a state of emergency prior to a storm. As well, he preemptively–via the Federal Emergency Management Agency–coordinated with the state authorities in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, to preposition supplies in the areas that were most likely to be affected.

There were frequent allusions to the President’s flying over the destruction without ever touching ground and examining the results; these allusions were echoed when Bush, post-Presidency, opted not to accompany Bill Clinton to Haiti in the aftermath of their earthquake. Perhaps it would have been politically favorable for him to visit those sites, touch ground, amble on over to a pile of rubble, pick up a piece of rebar and say, “This is bad.” So, why didn’t he? Perhaps, with regards to New Orleans and Haiti, it is like the Left says: he doesn’t care. Or, perhaps, there is more to his madness than political expediency vis-a-vis disregard. I recall a top-ranked official from the Haiti relief effort having fits, as planes carrying food, water, and medicine for the earthquake victims were consistently ordered to fly in circles to make space for incoming politicians and their personal jets, so that the politicians could make a safe landing, so that politicians could absorb manpower from the relief efforts as a tag-along entourage, so that politicians could behoove themselves with a photo-op, so that politicians could distract workers and their supervisors from a job to be done, so that politicians–one-by-one–could further delay the delivery of incoming cargo, so that politicians could walk over to a pile of rubble, grab a piece of rebar and say, “This is bad.” Perhaps, if I dare say, Bush understood the concept of putting citizens before personal aggrandizement. Perhaps, he knew his presence in Haiti or New Orleans would only take focus away from a job to be done.

The period surrounding Katrina was an unqualified mess. It was one of the five deadliest hurricanes in United States history; approximately 1,836 people perished during the hurricane and in subsequent floods; total property damage was estimated at over $80 billion–triple that of 1992′s Hurricane Andrew. It exposed many of the inefficiencies within our government’s emergency response mechanism; however, more than Bush, I think the incompetence of FEMA, it’s director and, above all, Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin was exposed. To Bush’s credit, he owned responsibility when the judgement understandably came down. Had he been the type of President we have now, there would have been no ownership. Their would have been a cozy chair on the “Today” show set across from Matt Lauer, an interview, and a discussion on “who’s ass to kick”…followed by a proposition for military tribunals for members of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, past and present.

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF 2008

As if the Hurricane hiccup, the unpopularity of an “illegal war based on lies,” and the resonating reverberations of diligently partisan press coverage wasn’t enough to tarnish President Bush’s–and, by association, the Republican Party’s–standing in the eyes of impressionable citizens. The economic collapse of 2008 laid waste to any hope at all for new Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain. Prior to the collapse, McCain was ahead in many polls; in the midst of the collapse, a new face with the gift for eloquent trash-talk, anger-channeling, and argumentative fallacies seized control of the debate.

Bush was essentially wiped from the good graces of undiscerning and angry folks–of which we’ve many–and McCain was sold as a “third term” for Bush.

And while the public fawned and cooed and swooned over the fresh face and fresh voice, McCain refused to rev up his own rhetoric accordingly, as he never was and still isn’t that type of man.

The fresh face made promises of an unprecedented kind: brazen in their tone, strikingly contradictive from earlier and subsequent promises, always well-delivered and tendered with enough slack so that he could waver on a few specifics down the road; for example, even though he promised to regulate coal-burning facilities into bankruptcy, he managed to absorb a kings ransom of votes from the coal industry. It was a glaring exercise in political opportunism, a glaring exercise in media enabling, and a blinding look into the vulnerability of an unbeknownst public.

The collapse was blamed on the economic policies of George W. Bush, which didn’t so much stretch the truth as vaporize it from existence. And, to stem the tide of mounting unemployment, the fresh face proposed a change in health care policy, a slapdash course reversal on the sources we use for energy, and tax hikes to the job suppliers.

So, let me ponder this for a moment…

If you work for a construction company specializing in houses, employing carpenters and architects, and your company is losing work and laying off employees on account of customers–the job suppliers–going to cheaper, equally qualified contractors to do the work instead, what would you look for in a CEO. If the residing CEO is shown the door, and the new CEO comes in speaking alien propositions, how comfortable would you feel? With carpenters and architects being the sources used, akin to oil and coal; and with customers being the job suppliers, akin to the “rich,” what sense would it make if your new CEO proposed a method of bringing back the work by transforming your companies healthcare policy, by turning a home construction enterprise, requiring carpenters and architects, into a ship-building enterprise, requiring engineers and boilermakers, and last but not least, by raising the price of your services so customers–the job suppliers–will be charged even more than the sum that has already sent them running elsewhere? As a carpenter or an architect or a customer, I’d hold the highest confidence in my prediction that the company is going to go belly-up quicker than two shakes of a jackrabbit’s tokus. It wouldn’t work…and it won’t work.

And the economic collapse? Was it George Bush’s fault?

I’ll answer that question with a barrage of questions!

Was it George Bush who established Fannie Mae in 1938, to purchase and scrutinize mortgages, and to ensure that funds were readily available to any institution lending money to home buyers? Was it George Bush who, in 1968, converted Fannie Mae into a stand-alone government sponsored enterprise, performing the same tasks with an exception that their debt is removed from the government books? In 1970, did Bush create the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as another GSE charged with buying mortgages on the secondary market, pooling them, and selling them back as mortgage-backed securities to open market investors? Did ”Dubya” spend the 1970s encouraging private companies to begin mortgage asset securitization via the creation of private mortgage pools? Is George Bush to blame for the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, an act which encouraged banks and savings associations to alter their lending practices in accordance to the needs of their surrounding communities? Did Bush call up the 12 Federal Reserve Banks in 1981 and persuade them to establish a Community Affairs Office to strong-arm lenders into making risky loans?

The answer to these questions: NO…

Did George Bush coax Salomon Brothers into shifting the risk of financial loss from partners to shareholders by going public? Did Bush author the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982–which led to the creation of adjustable-rate mortgages, balloon payments, and negative amortization? In 1987, did Bush invent the mezzanine CDO–Collateralized Debt Obligation? Did Bush have a hand in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which, as it were, played a big role in the Savings and Loan Crisis?

The answer to these questions: still, NO…

Did George W. Bush sign the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which increased the pooling and selling loads of Fannie Mae and another GSE, Freddie Mac? Did Bush ghostwrite the book “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending” for the Boston Federal Reserve? A book which recommended a loosening of income thresholds for receiving a mortgage, influencing federal policy, and housing activists’ participation thereafter? Did George Bush sign into law the New Community Reinvestment Act of 1995? And, did Mr. Bush sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act?

The answer to these questions: you know it’s NO…

But, as discerning citizens should note, “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending” essentially hinted at what the New Community Reinvestment Act mandated. Ammunition was provided to local activist groups to rabble rouse at the slightest indication of discriminate lending practices. And, bear in mind that “indication of discriminate lending practices” came from an entirely different slant, with regards to these activists–as long as the perception was there, nothing else mattered. Activist groups like ACORN took to storming bank lobbies with signs, blowing whistles, letting the expletives fly, scaring customers and accusing loan officers of racism…sometimes, they’d even follow the loan officers to their homes, and make it a family affair…and they wouldn’t let up until the lenders acquiesced. A couple of questions: Does anyone recall who used to be tight with ACORN? Does anyone recall who dedicated a wealth of his time teaching the ACORN wing nuts how to effectively organize and agitate, Alinsky-style? A hint: fresh face…

…But, back to what I was originally driving at. Where was I? Oh, of course…

So, what did George Bush do?

Not a whole lot, aside from issuing a 2002 budget request which alluded to the looming problem of Fannie and Freddie, noting that if either one of these GSEs were to experience a financial freefall, it would surely cause “strong repercussions in financial markets.” As well, in early of 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie was elevated to the status of “systemic risk,” meaning a Fannie/Freddie freefall would spread to other markets. That warning was followed by  Bush’s Treasury Secretary, John Snow, making an appearance before Congress and imploring them to establish a federal agency that’d regulate and oversee the activities of the GSEs. Of course, Barney Frank–one of the loudest voices in the “blame Bush for the economy” crowd–wasn’t having any of it; in fact, Barney went so far as to add that Fannie and Freddie weren’t doing enough.

And so, John Snow, Bush, and the proposed legislation were slapped on the cheek with a kielbasa.

When the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was signed into law, the foreclosure rate stood at 200,000. Ten-years later, the foreclosure rate had quadrupled to 800,000. By the late 1990′s, the foreclosure rate had reached 1.4 million…and ultimately reached a whopping 2+million at the time of the collapse. When the government enacted laws of apparent magnanimity, the years rolled by, and one law after the other reinforced the pressure on financial institutions to shirk the criteria of old for the criteria-less of new. It gave way to the implementation of such dubious practices as “liar” loans, “non-verification of income” loans, “ninja” loans, and more of the like. These apparently magnanimous laws also enabled activist organizations like ACORN to pressure lenders into loaning. I mean, who wants to be labeled a racist? Even if it’s a crock, the word brings attention. When it comes to the financial institutions, I’m of the mind that the color of predominant concern is “green.”

Wall Street is no patsy in this, mind you. They’ve done their fair share to inject acetylene into the bubble that burst. Government de-regulation and magnanimous aloofness allowed for the utilization of phony derivative instruments, suspect credit-default swaps, and other innovative trade secrets. Not good, or as a political opportunist amidst a pile of rubble with a piece of rebar in his/her hand might say, “This is bad!” Furthermore, it cannot be a good thing when a GSE like Fannie purchases loans from mortgage companies, offering their stamped guarantee that timely payments will be returned, and sell that purchased loan to investors of the secondary mortgage market…kicking off a home-mortgage absorption pyramid scheme, since each entity who fleetingly handles the loan/investment becomes another player in the portfolio pyramid. A singular principle spreads across the investor’s market two or three or more times over. And when the chips fall, we have to chew our way out.

Government intervention + financial market innovation + Wall Street trade ethics = an economic collapse.

Or…

…We could continue to blame Bush for everything from here to there, from the Iraq war to Katrina to the Economic Collapse of 2008. And, being the kind of man he is, he would probably shoulder the blame with a smile just to end the ridiculous discussion.

What would have been the difference if Reagan or Clinton or Gore or Obama had been President from 2001-2009? Would Reagan have done any better? Perhaps. Would Clinton have done any better? Not so sure about that. Would Gore have done any better? If you think waging war with environmentally-friendly slingshots abroad while we pull each other around in jinrickishaws state-side as better, then yes. As for Obama, there would have been no war in Iraq; we’d be looking at an entirely different method of bureaucratized action in Afghanistan whilst Saddam Hussein remained alive and thriving in his megalomania.

In terms of personal opinion: I think what George Bush did for Africa was truly the work of a hero; I think his policy choices on immigration reform, racial profiling, acceptance of refugees and asylum-seekers, and federal pension benefits for same-sex couples leave something to be desired; I think his efforts to abate xenophobic outrage were a mark of decency; I applaud him for letting the“assault weapons” ban expire; I think he displayed good intentions in his efforts to clean American forestry and designate a region of oceans as national preserves; I think the Medicare extensions and “No Child Left Behind” campaigns were altruistically launched yet executed with mediocrity; I think there is a reason for him to “own” responsibility for the Katrina mishap, though I am not sure what any other President could have done to make it a successful operation; I think he served as an undeserving scapegoat and straw man concerning the economic collapse…

…As for the war in Iraq: the ruthless Saddam Hussein and his ruthless sons have been wiped from existence. That should be all one has to say about that.

We were offered two choices in two elections: either George Bush or Al Gore; either George Bush or John Kerry.

We chose right on both counts.

And, although I won’t be waving any pom-poms for President George W. Bush, I do find him worthy of one thing: OUR RESPECT.

…I’m glad he was there…

…And, so, if you’ll pardon me, there is something else I must be doing…