Professor at Naval War College Says Condemnation of Bush Presidency is the Result of Bias

No – It’s the Result of Facts

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is set to open, and the Washington Post found someone who actually believes that the Bush Presidency is being unfairly condemned by historian.

There is little evidence that scholars, including the influential historians who pronounce the success or failure of an administration, are having second thoughts about their assessment of Bush as a failed chief executive.

Unfortunately, far too many scholars revealed partisan bias and abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their rush to condemn the Bush presidency.

Let’s see, what objectively, that is based on facts and not politics, can one say about the Bush Presidency.

1. The Bush administration ignored warnings about an attack that ultimately result in the 9/11 horror.
2.  Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which have been disasters.  The Iraq war in particular was based on false intelligence and a desire by Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield to go to war no matter what.
3. Bush inherited a massive surplus and left office with the government facing trillion dollar deficits.
4. Poverty, after decreasing during the Clinton years rose during the Bush years.
5. Huge tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthy.
6. Bush tried to privatize Social Security, which given the stock market collapse would have been a disaster.
7. The U. S. engaged in the despicable practice of torture.
8. The government was unprepared to deal effectively with Hurricane Katrina  because Bush had appointed a political flunkie to be in charge of FEMA.
9. The VA was tragically inept at caring for wounded veterans.

And much more.

Well, you get the picture.  On the plus side the drug program for Medicare appears to have been a success,  but really, that’s about it.

So yes historians can be accused of  bias, if one uses that term to mean invoking facts and data in reaching a conclusion.