Today’s historians have ruled George W. Bush a failure because of his pivotally amazing success. Historians judge him for problems in Iraq. A more critical evaluation should be: how did he handle his primary and all consuming constitutional duty here at home after 911? That duty was to defend America and her citizens from attacks from abroad at all costs.
The fact is, he has done so with 100 per cent efficiency and thus the judgement he is a failure. That left critics, pundits and historians free to unlimited criticism but they are using the wrong criteria. Had terrorists been successful in killing 10-thousand more Americans, there would be no argument against the Patriot act, no accusations against the NSA phone program, no question about following the money trail where ever it led, and Democrats would not have won the house and senate.
Because President Bush has been so successful in keeping the terrorists from attacking on our shores, as is and was his penultimate responsibility, the fiberals have been left unfettered to criticize anything and everything he has done in America, Iraq and the rest of the world. They feel safe to do so, with no fear of reprisals from Islamofacists operating in America.
I find this amazingly ironic, given the stupendous economy, terrorist-free American streets and jobs for anybody who wants one. Perhaps tomorrow’s historians will have more honest, unagendized evaluations. Contemporary historians of President Harry S. Truman had an equally jaundiced view of him in his day, Today of course, Harry’s a hero. Perhaps today’s historians should look themselves in the mirror and ask, “have I honestly evaluated George W. Bush?” They don’t do it because they are not honest. They have an agenda to push. Ultimately, like Truman’s historians then, today’s historians are destine to become the goats of truth.