I’ve long been a fan of the writings of James Lewis, who blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/. Today, he has a piece at American Thinker, where he contributes frequently. This piece is FANTASTIC – entitled “The Theory of W” – see for yourself.
I’ve stated over and over, GWB is a disappointing president on several fronts. I say that mostly because he has had a golden opportunity to be the heir apparent of Reagan and has missed the boat. He’s hardly a perfect president. Then again, in fallen humanity, can we really expect any person, much less a politician, to be perfect? Of course not.
Which brings me to my long-held take on the larger view of his presidency. There have been some pundits (not many, but some) who have held that GWB will be known 100 years from now as a visionary president. The foreign policy that has been the ire of the “neocon haters” will eventually be something that history remembers him fondly for. As new generations of Muslims begin to live in open society, they are given something more than a miserable existence of poverty bred through fascism. They are given something more than hate, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As capitalism, the traveling companion of open society, begins to take hold in the region on a large scale, people through open discourse in the Middle East will not only live in prosperity, but their eyes will be opened to the fact that it is not Israel and the US, but tyranny which has caused their suffering. GWB and the hated Neocons see this. They will be remembered as heroes of history for it. Some excerpts from Lewis’s piece (bold emphasis mine).
“….Historians will see
“This was a time for adults, not playboys, and Truman filled the bill….W is amazingly like Truman. He is the anti-PR president. As a result, he keeps getting bloodied by the PR-driven media, which hates him as much as any Republican ever hated ‘That Man in the White House' in 1938."
“Why doesn’t George W explain himself more clearly? Because he’s more comfortable with action than talk.”
Which all reminds me of a post I put up at Newsbusters a few months ago in response to one of the angry Bush Haters. He lamented that Bush wasn’t articulate before the press, that somehow that in and of itself made him an unworthy holder of the office. I blasted back with (paraphrase) “You had all kinds of smoke and mirrors before the press with Clinton, and jack s*** for substance. He was a total slave to his approval ratings, and today in foreign policy we are paying for that lack of substance in spades. But you know what? He was articulate! The press loved him! Hallelujah!!”
Check out Lewis’s piece. Nice work.
Which all reminds me of a post I put up at Newsbusters a few months ago in response to one of the angry Bush Haters. He lamented that Bush wasn’t articulate before the press, that somehow that in and of itself made him an unworthy holder of the office. I blasted back with (paraphrase) “You had all kinds of smoke and mirrors before the press with Clinton, and jack s*** for substance. He was a total slave to his approval ratings, and today in foreign policy we are paying for that lack of substance in spades. But you know what? He was articulate! The press loved him! Hallelujah!!”
Check out Lewis’s piece. Nice work.
