Another revisionist is alive and walking amongst us. Former President George W Bush, for uncertain reasons, has authored a book that highlights some of the great decisions he says he made during his two terms. It would seem his intent is to revise our memories of history and cast his presidency in a much more favorable light. Will he be successful?
It helps to begin at the beginning. Bush was elected the 43rd President when the US Supreme Court step in (with its conservative majority) and stopped the Florida count thereby insuring Bush the majority of the electoral college. I do not blame Bush but it highlights his lack of legitimacy.
The first six months of his first term were uneventful although the commander-in-chief appeared tp be the skipper of a boat without a rudder. Even then, the back rooms were buzzing with the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Libby, Wolfowitz, and Feith, already planning on how to invade Iraq. Then while the Bush Administration was asleep at the switch, 9/11 took place and the world changed.
With the full advantage today of history, “W” still defends the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. It matters not at all whether the invasion was justified under International law or whether the costs (monetary or lives) support the overthrow of the Iraqi Government. Not a single weapon of mass destruction was found nor has any connection between Iraq and 9/11 established. So, once again, why should the US have invaded?
It is said that Karl Rove tried to market George W Bush to the American electorate as much more manly version of his father, George H W Bush. (This is a clear clue that nothing Rove says should be trusted. “H W” was a legitimate war hero while “W” did all he could to keep out of harms way.) Rove said “W” grew up in Texas where people are naturally tougher.
“W’s” 8 years and now his book make one thing perfectly clear. “W” may have worn a 10 gallon hat but he was barely a pint of man with the intellect to match.