STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
New Bio Evaluates Bush, Who Shouldn’t Have Had So Much Power
By Daily Bell Staff - July 04, 2016

Review: ‘Bush,’ a Biography as Scathing Indictment … If Mr. Bush eventually gets a more sympathetic hearing by history, as he hopes, it will not start with Jean Edward Smith’s “Bush,” a comprehensive and compelling narrative punctuated by searing verdicts of all the places where the author thinks the 43rd president went off track. –New York Times

This review of a biography of Bush tracks some of our criticisms of the former president in a recent article, “Nothing to Admire in Bush’s Attack on Trump.” You can see it HERE.

However, the review is positive about Bush’s compassionate conservatism whereas we were not.

Smith is a longtime political biographer and finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

The review describes both his first sentence and his last so we get a sense of Smith’s approach.

The first sentence of his book: “Rarely in the history of the United States has the nation been so ill-served as during the presidency of George W. Bush.”

The last: “Whether George W. Bush was the worst president in American history will be long debated, but his decision to invade Iraq is easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president.”

In between are more than 650 pages of fast-paced if harsh biography … “Believing he was the agent of God’s will, and acting with divine guidance, George W. Bush would lead the nation into two disastrous wars of aggression,” Mr. Smith writes. “Bush’s personalization of the war on terror combined with his macho assertiveness as the nation’s commander in chief,” he adds later, “were a recipe for disaster.”

So far, so good. But Smith, the review informs us, “is more approving of his main subject in moments where Mr. Bush follows his original campaign doctrine of compassionate conservatism.”

Smith gives “high marks” to Bush for the No Child Left Behind program.

Also, for expanding Medicare “to cover prescription drugs and for leading an ambitious fight against AIDS in Africa.”

Smith even suggests that Bush had helped “save” the economy through “bold and counterintuitive intervention after the financial crash of 2008.”

Smith portrays a “gracious and warmhearted” Bush who helped make Obama’s transition successful.”

Surprisingly, Smith’s view is that  Bush’s worst mistake was doing too much after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The events of 9/11 were tragic, but scarcely catastrophic,” he writes. And the Patriot Act might be, “the most ill-conceived piece of domestic legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.”

One would hope that Smith mentions that the Patriot Act was very obviously prewritten – long before 9/11.

Smith believes Bush had a kind personality but as we pointed out in our previous article, his wars literally murdered millions and so irradiated Iraq that women in certain regions were told by doctors not to have children.

As for Bush’s compassionate conservatism, we pointed out it was a ruse.

He further expanded fedgov’s embrace of authoritarianism. His social spending helped bankrupt the country. None of this is in the least admirable …

He cultivated America’s decline into fascism and corporatism – and did so while pretending these were somehow “conservative” values.

Smith is positive about “no child left behind,” but he may be missing the point of this legislation.

Bush, like Hillary, is part of a globalist cabal that uses US legislation to advance its own purposes.

No Child Left Behind allows authorities to identify and then support the most gifted children. These children have access to scholarships and are often granted access to the elite universities. They then go to work for elite facilities. The program, seen this way, is self-serving to say the least.

As for expanding Medicare and helping to “save” the economy, Smith apparently does not realize that the same power available to Bush for these activities allowed him to visit a kind of genocide on the Middle East.

Presidents always attract these massive biographies. They can focus critically on even minute details. But such books rarely if ever question why a given president should have so much power.

Nor do they note that the power to do “good” things – as they conceive it – also gives the president the power to do bad ones.

No human being should have the kind of power that Bush had access to and utilized. No country either.

Conclusion: The best biography of a US president would be a very short one. It would simply read: “He did much more than he should have. Someone should have stopped him.”

 

 

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    Excellent DB! Bush turns out to be a globalist, and may go down in history as a ‘Fascist’. The Bush family history gives one poss. No need to read this book!!!

  • Bruce C.

    The US Constitution also agrees that no President should have such powers, but once again the US Congress failed to uphold its own responsibilities. Congress never formally approved those wars and could have not funded them.

    • nameless

      The USA is a corporation, not a republic. Its original constitution was reworded before adoption as its legal corporate basis in 1871. It is NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT. As a functioning corporation, that constitution is not bound by law to be a static one. In fact it is irrelevant and treated as such.

      Read the USC in its entirety for greater understanding of the USA corp. Read how corporations are “legally” created and defined on this planet. Read about the differing types of “Law” systems and which system is preferred (and dominated) by corporations.

      The President of the USA corporation is the CEO. Congress are the corporations board members. You are being tricked and the system of law imposed on you has you fully captured in the trap you insist on maintaining yourself. You are the responsible party for all that you whine about.

      • Bruce C.

        That historical revisionism. Besides that, even if it were a legal contract my point is that it isn’t being enforced.

        Your argument is circular. The Constitution IS the law of the land but it must be enforced to “work.” You can cast it in terms of a corporation but the basics remain. If Congress are analogous to the board of directors then they can absolutely censure the CEO/President, and if they don’t then the stock-holders/citizenry can replace the board members.

        I agree that the “stock holders” have let things slide and that IS the ultimate responsibility, but Congress/the Board hasn’t served their interests either, as they are SUPPOSED to do.

        • nameless

          The constitution is not law. It is a pseudo contract. None are bound by it. The reason govcorp doesn’t function in the manner you expect is because government is not functional as you believe. That is your fault, not mine, nor theirs.

          It is insistence by people like you that we ALL must endure a “government”, that prompts me to poke you with a reality stick. Nothing personal… I’m sure you are a fine fellow. Your education and belief systems suck eggs though.

  • rahrog

    Happy Independence Day! WAKE UP!

  • sally

    “Bush, like Hillary, is part of a globalist cabal that uses US legislation to advance its own purposes.”
    Bingo!

  • sally

    Wonder what Jean Edward Smith’s bios of Hillary and obama would look like in comparison….since they are globalists to an even further extreme than GWB.

loading