Political decisions will vindicate the Bush Administration
Mathew Calabro '08
Issue date: 2/13/08 Section: Commentary
A few days ago, a friend asked me whether I thought that President Bush would be vindicated by history. I had heard that question countless times before, but I had never been asked. I was silent as I formulated my answer. "Yes," I said, "but there are a few caveats."
We were interrupted before I could finish, but I thought that the question was a good one, and I felt inclined to complete that conversation. In short, I'm confident that history will vindicate the Bush Administration, but a few key issues need explaining.
In regards to domestic polices, the President put forward two important pieces of legislation: a Social Security bill that would have created private accounts, and an immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States. The fact that these comprehensive bills failed demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a divided Congress rather than Bush's ineptitude.
Regarding Bush's homeland security record, America has not experienced a terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That's nearly 2,400 days.
Also, his Supreme Court appointments have been wise. The President put his faith in two young and brilliant men, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. As strict constructionists, these Justices will narrowly interpret the Constitution and preserve our freedoms.
In regards to foreign policy, President Bush has been correct in identifying the threat of militant Islam as a war against our freedoms. For a while, I believed that militant Islamists didn't "hate us because of our freedoms," but that "they" were simply upset at American incursions into the Middle East.
Then Benazir Bhutto was killed. A reformist who was poised to usher in a new, more democratic Pakistan, Bhutto was opposed to Pakistan's current president Pervez Musharraf, a man who the Bush Administration publicly supported. Why, if the terrorists hated America, would they kill a politician who opposed the man who was propped up by the United States?
We were interrupted before I could finish, but I thought that the question was a good one, and I felt inclined to complete that conversation. In short, I'm confident that history will vindicate the Bush Administration, but a few key issues need explaining.
In regards to domestic polices, the President put forward two important pieces of legislation: a Social Security bill that would have created private accounts, and an immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States. The fact that these comprehensive bills failed demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a divided Congress rather than Bush's ineptitude.
Regarding Bush's homeland security record, America has not experienced a terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That's nearly 2,400 days.
Also, his Supreme Court appointments have been wise. The President put his faith in two young and brilliant men, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. As strict constructionists, these Justices will narrowly interpret the Constitution and preserve our freedoms.
In regards to foreign policy, President Bush has been correct in identifying the threat of militant Islam as a war against our freedoms. For a while, I believed that militant Islamists didn't "hate us because of our freedoms," but that "they" were simply upset at American incursions into the Middle East.
Then Benazir Bhutto was killed. A reformist who was poised to usher in a new, more democratic Pakistan, Bhutto was opposed to Pakistan's current president Pervez Musharraf, a man who the Bush Administration publicly supported. Why, if the terrorists hated America, would they kill a politician who opposed the man who was propped up by the United States?
Be the first to comment on this story