History fairer to Bush

[bijou]

Andrew Roberts | January 20, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

THE American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio program was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W. Bush was the worst president of the past century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

At the time of September 11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day tothis.

The decisions taken by Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the US, eavesdrop on terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores, of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be but for the passage of the Patriot Act. There are 3000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airliner conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after September 11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003.

The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people - that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, and so on - will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.  ...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934654-5013480,00.html

Worth a read, it sets out the points in an interesting way.