Bushwhacked: My years with W

What is it about George W. Bush that drives people crazy?

The number of times I defended Bush the Younger in this column could probably be counted on one hand, maybe one finger, but in the minds of many of my liberal readers, I am a slack-jawed, mind-numbed rabid Bush enthusiast.

That's because I supported the War on Terror, and continue to support it under President Obama. But, hey, let's be honest. There's a difference between supporting a war cause and calling George Bush a successful president. I was consistently complaining about the Bush presidency for at least the final three years of his presidency, so I find it rather amusing when readers now say I never blame George Bush for anything.

Um, yes, that's true as far as it goes, but let's keep in mind that George Bush isn't president any longer, so I usually don't have anything to say about him. Nonetheless, in the interest of keeping my liberal readers at bay for one more week, I throw them this red meat: A collection of the greatest "hits" taken by President Bush in this column over the past four years.

Remember the 2006 boondoggle when Bush wanted to turn U.S. port security over to an Arab-owned company based in Dubai? I wrote of Bush, "…the idea of putting our ports of entry into the hands of a foreign government, any foreign government, is absurd. And when that foreign government has ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, the terrorists who we are at war with, then it is beyond absurd. It is downright criminal."

Indeed, much of my disdain for President Bush centered on his policies for border security and illegal immigration, and my criticism of him was as vehement as anything I have said about President Obama in the last few months. Don't believe me? "Everyone who is concerned about the future of the United States of America already knows what needs to be done, and everyone who likes the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens [such as President Bush] has already sold out the country anyway."

I even went so far as to say that President Bush's homeland was in doubt. In a column about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, I wrote: "President Bush's recent trip to Mexico was something of a homecoming for him. After visiting Brazil, Colombia and other countries in Latin America, Bush made a stop in Mexico, and it must have seemed to him like he had returned to the motherland. After all, Mexico and Canada are part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which the president is promoting as the first step in a virtual merger of our three nations."

That 2007 column also mocked President Bush's fumbling performance abroad as he met with Mexican President Calderon: "…[Bush] had the audacity to publicly assure the Mexicans that he was working for them in the immigration battle: "Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government - but, more importantly, the people of Mexico - is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform." Say what? Isn't it a might unseemly for the president of the United States to be making pledges to push the agenda of a foreign government?"

And even though I had supported President Bush in his fight against terrorism, I did not think he was an effective leader in that war, as I expressed just after Barack Obama was elected in 2008: "…it can be stated somewhat authoritatively that after 9/11 President Bush gained a certain stature as commander-in-chief which he squandered in a series of feckless, if not reckless, decisions about how to wage the war on terror."

Even before that, I had publicly admitted that I supported a Democrat in the 2004 primaries to unseat President Bush: "Don't get me wrong. I supported President Bush in principle, but found him to be a terribly flawed leader who had mishandled NOT the war in Iraq or the war against al-Qaida, but the war against lethargy… I was worried by the forgetfulness which I had seen follow quickly on the heels of the righteous outrage after 9/11 and did not think that President Bush, despite his good ideas, had the stamina or the intestinal fortitude to take the fight to the American public."

For the record, I also criticized the Republican-controlled Congress such as in this quote from a column after the mid-term elections of 2006: "…while I personally would have preferred a Republican victory in the recent congressional elections, I am entirely ready to be proven wrong by the Democrats taking action to save our country from the train wreck that is in progress. Let's face it, the Republican Congress had a dismal record of inaction, corruption, and overspending. It's hard to see how the Democrats could do much worse."

In that same column, I offered up this summation of my non-affiliation with either party: "…Our leadership is the only thing between us and total chaos, and if I have to root for the Democrats to come to their senses and save our country, then I will do so, just as I have rooted for President Bush, even though he has proven himself to be a flawed president."

Whether you agree with me or not about the problems we face, I clearly established my own belief that our national crisis is not partisan when I wrote: "…in a way, I suspect we are better off to have a Democratic Congress in place for a few years, so that the Democratic Party can take part of the blame for the problems the country faces. There's no reason why anyone should think these are Republican problems. Instead, they are problems that have occurred over the past 50 years, as presidents both Republican and Democrat, have dithered."

I predicted that the United States was on the verge of a collapse into a second-rate power, and then asked: "Am I too pessimistic? I hope the Democrats prove me wrong. Maybe they can stave off the coming collapse with a well-placed tax-raise here or another government program there."

Now the Democrats have their chance. With a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, there is nothing standing between us and that collapse except, well, Democrats.

I wish them success in their efforts to save the nation, but please don't expect me to agree with them even when I think they are wrong. If it was fair to call President Bush a criminal and a sellout, then it should be OK to call President Obama the "nanny in chief" of the welfare state. But that is for another column…

Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com