George W. Bush's Reappearance

Lately, former president George W. Bush has been making the media rounds while promoting his newly-released memoirs. I have heard a lot of positive reaction to him as he made his case for the often controversial decisions he made during his two-term tenure from 2001 to 2009. I know of several people who could find a multitude of items to complain about him, but I will spotlight two: his insistence on tax cuts favoring the rich throughout his presidency and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, he had a right to claim some credit for not only balancing the federal budget during the last few years of his presidency, but also for generating a surplus that cut into the national debt, reducing the interest that taxpayers would pay on said debt. When Bush came onto the scene in 2001, there was a buzz going around in some conservative circles to the effect that the surplus was somehow bad in that by having "extra" money (a falsehood, since as mentioned the cumulative national debt was still staggering), the federal government would begin to invest in private business and thus begin to insidiously control them. Apparently, young Bush subscribed to this theory as he made it clear that having a yearly surplus was a sign that the government was holding onto the people's money (in spite of the overall debt). And that this money should be given back. Hence the continual deficit-spiraling tax breaks for the duration of his presidency and the first two years of Obama's. Congress gave Bush his wish regarding tax policy, but apparently Obama isn't going to be accorded the same respect (even though he wants to keep much of the tax break intact). Not that I completely agree with Obama: We are in an economic downturn and ending this long-term albeit "temporary" tax break now would, in my opinion, just stifle business investment in growth and jobs at a moment when it needed all the encouragement it could get. But although Bush's tax breaks could have initially been justified for the same reason, they should have ended once the economy had rebounded by the end of his first term. Instead, coupled with the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq, our national debt was allowed to skyrocket while Democrats or anyone else criticizing the president's decisions were labeled as unpatriotic and/or anti-business by his supporters, fiscal responsibility be damned. But the moment Obama stepped into office in 2009, those very same people got "religion" and began to preach fiscal responsibility!

Besides draining the country of its money, the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and beyond exacted a tragic human toll across the nation due to the deaths and injuries deriving from it (not to mention the much more severe toll inflicted on the Iraqi people). The unprecedented level of international support for America shown after 9/11 vanished, with the U.S. looking more like the bully on the block.

So yes, George W. Bush looked like his typical likable, "regular guy" self during the interviews I have witnessed lately. And I, unlike some others, don't hold him responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But even considering that, he left his two terms with this country in worse shape than when he started. And his many apologists, who equated support for his decisions with national loyalty, suddenly threw that notion out of the window when a Democratic president succeeded him. Obama never was accorded a "honeymoon": Bush was and he squandered it.