George W. Bush: Bratty Rich Kid, Wants It Both Ways

June 23 2004
Counterbias.com
Doug Griffin

To hear Republicans and the liberal news media talk about Ronald Reagan, you would think Reagan landed a Harrier in Red Square, grabbed Gorbachev by the scruff of the neck and forced him to dismantle the Soviet Union. 

Never mind the facts, the simplest being that the Soviet Union was already crumbling as a result of the containment policies that previous presidents had employed. Hearing the litany of 'accomplishments' that were attributed to Reagan’s presidency was a lot to take. There were several times that I actually thought the slobbering talking-heads were going to say, “Did you know that Ronald Reagan ended slavery too?” Obviously nobody said that, but it did reinforce my belief in how full of it the Republicans are… and how sheepish the so-called liberal media is.

You see the Republicans are quick to give credit to their own, even when it isn’t due… especially when it isn’t due. The current Oval Office Occupant still receives unbridled praise as a competent leader from many on the Right. He is given and takes credit for anything positive and blames others, particularly the previous administration, for the negatives.

Taking credit where it isn’t due
Bush took credit for improving education in Texas when he was governor. The problem is, there was no improvement. Non-recognition or re-categorization of high school dropouts manipulated the numbers that were published. They weren’t counted and voila! Instant education reform. Many Republicans still tout this as some kind of achievement in education. Many also still believe in “No Child Left Behind” despite the reality that it just doesn’t work. Children are being left behind left and right; mainly because the initiative has been grossly under-funded. Yet Bush takes credit for this program being a huge success. I guess according to all the newspapers that he reads, it is a success.

More Undue Credit
Calling Bush a “wartime” president is a lie. Abraham Lincoln was a “wartime” president. FDR was a “wartime” president. Bush claiming to be one is an insult to those who actually were. Bush is like that bratty rich kid that people only claim to like. He’s not very nice. He’s not very smart. He bullies people who don’t agree with him. These are not the ingredients of a great leader, nor of a competent “wartime” president. These are the makings of a bratty, rich kid who grew up to be nothing more than that. This is President George W. Bush. It’s that simple.

The Blame Game
Obviously, 9/11 happened on President Bush’s watch. Rather than accept any responsibility, the Bushites blame the Clinton Administration. But take a closer look at which administration really took threats more seriously. Threats against Los Angeles International Airport were taken serious enough to be proactive and thwart the tragedy. Republicans blast Bill Clinton for not doing enough in the war on terror (even though it hadn’t officially started yet while he was president). When bin Laden threatened the U.S., Clinton ordered missile strikes on one of his training camps. You may recall the time; it was during the Lewinski scandal. When he ordered the strike, Clinton was accused by Republicans of “wagging the dog” to deflect attention from the Lewinski affair. 

So Clinton was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. On the one hand, the Republicans were wasting the taxpayers’ money by conducting the impeachment in the first place, which would distract anyone from doing his or her job. And on the other hand, you have a president, who, in spite of the distraction of a frivolous impeachment, continued to do his primary task. He protected the country. Yet the Republicans act as if he did nothing at all. Remember, we had not been attacked yet. How could Clinton have moved unilaterally against the Taliban and it be considered just?

President Bush was on vacation when he learned about an imminent attack on the United States. I’m sure he too was distracted… between tee time and tea time. I can even picture his pinky in the air as he sipped. But this is the guy Republicans want us to believe is the “Great Protector”. This is the president who sat in a classroom, clueless as to what to do next when we were attacked. Clinton did a lot more than George W. Bush did when he learned of an attack or plot against our country. 

Just on a fundamental level, Republicans, you can’t have it both ways. The Clinton Administration attacked when there were threats and plots discovered – despite the best/worst efforts of the Republican-held Congress. The Clinton Administration also warned the Bush Administration that terror should be its main concern. President Bush ignored all the warnings, including the one that said: “bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States.” When Bush was warned, he didn’t attack or act… he stayed on vacation. Isn’t that the sort of thing you might expect of a bratty, rich kid?

Great Power requires greater responsibility
Do you give the bratty, rich kid the keys to the candy store? Anyway you slice it, we still have nothing but an un-initiated frat-boy running the country. If one has no since of history, let alone fell asleep in history class, one cannot learn from history. If one has no understanding of consequences, one can have no conscience. His family’s name and financial influence have bailed George W. out all of his life. He got into Yale because of his father, not his own academic merits. He was spared going to war in Vietnam; therefore, he has no sense of the realities of war. Any time he was in trouble for anything, daddy bailed him out. Drunken driving… Cocaine addiction… and all those other pesky peccadilloes that we conveniently don’t hear about anymore. There have been no consequences for him. How can he be trusted to be a responsible leader? 

As I’ve said before, the President of the United States is the leader of the civilized world. He or she cannot arbitrarily wage war, imprison people indefinitely, and torture them. The President of the United States uses the military to protect us and our interests, and to enforce international laws, if necessary, not break them. If the president and/or his administration were to break them, there should be consequences. That is, unless the president is a bratty, rich kid wanting to have it both ways.

According to the Washington Post, "The Justice Department has advised the White House that President Bush (and those who follow his orders) may contravene treaties, U.S. law and international law under the broad doctrine of 'necessity.'" That's proof in the pudding.