What must our enemies be thinking?
By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
![[Commentary]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CP836_oj_unc_D_20081104191433.jpg)
APAccording to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, “We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”
To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman’s low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman’s presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry’s legal team during the presidential election in 2004.
I guess I’d disagree and say that his disapproval ratings are the price he has to pay for abandoning the constitution, lying to the American people, covering those lies with lies, and spending thousands of American soldiers’ lives on a personal war while ignoring the guy we should be chasing.
I don’t disagree that many Americans have taken the disrespect too far, and that, especially as Christians, it’s our responsibility to respect the office and honor the President, whether or not we agree (even slightly) with the person who holds the office.
I also recognize that the Bush Administration as led us through some of our greatest crises ever; certainly the most devastating attack. And that no person could lead such a divided nation through such tragic times with perfect – even reasonable – ratings.
But in the end, I still believe the crimes he has committed against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American public in the wake of great crises will speak more loudly, historically, than any successful speeches he may have given in immediate response to those crises.
“…abandoning the constitution, lying to the American people, covering those lies with lies, and spending thousands of American soldiers’ lives on a personal war…crimes he has committed against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American public…” This is all conjecture, frankly it’s patently untrue and the same kind of baseless vitriol the article is trying to address. Had anything remotely akin to what you’ve posted here been proven to have any iota of truth to it, we might be able to have this discussion. But it’s all false, delusions borne out of sheer hatred for a so-called stolen election and amateurish underestimations of the challenges we face in Iraq and the Middle East. Thanks for your comment though, at least someone is reading me for a change!
Paul and I discussed this a while back, both wondering why and how Bush was never impeached, nor any of his administration brought to trial, and while it’s indeed speculative at best, we figure it’s mostly because at this juncture in our history, as we’re engaged in two wars and a downward economic spiral (that has currently dipped lower than ever before), it would be simply too much baggage to add a presidential trial to the burden. In any other circumstance – meaning, if it weren’t for the two wars – I think we would have seen an impeachment for the many high crimes and misdemeanors committed.
For instance, the very idea of the “Patriot Act” which stripped Americans of the basic right to privacy and gave the Executive office free reign to trace whomever they chose, at whim, is an unconstitutional breach of common rights.
The introduction of a bill that, if passed, would have subjected us and our children to a full, nude body inspection by airport security when traveling flight, is abusive and unthinkable…and yet so many Americans were behind it, for the sake of “National Security”…a fear-based reaction to one of the most absurd policy ideas ever brought to the congressional floor.
That the current administration unilaterally and unapologetically not only approved but also demanded that certain foreign detainees at Guantanimo Bay and other various prisons, namely those based in Iraq and Afghanistan, be tortured when the cause for their detention itself was questionable at best, was a disastrous move which could land any one of those in the administration on trial internationally should they be arrested outside the U.S. And I think it goes without saying, an absolutely unconstitutional, vile, criminal act.
It should be noted that had I voted in 2000, it would have been for Bush. I had as high of hopes for him as any other Believer, and was absolutely astounded by his actions thereafter. It has nothing to do about bitterness or hatred over an that election or any other, and everything to do with what his policies have done to make a mockery of us, our constitutional rights, and our national standing among the rest of the world. It’s intolerable.
But I still respect you, and am glad to have found a new blog to read…
I am reading and hearing your, Steve. I AGREE WITH THE ARTICLE 100%. If congress and senate don’t are not in consenses with the president and back his decision. Then anything the Pres does is a lost cause. I have supported and prayed in earnest for President Bush through both terms and I still continue to pray for this great man.
I wish that I could feel the same trust for Obama is I do for President Bush. I will sit back and make no comment until he proves himself a worth president. Words are words and actions are actions. We can only wait and see.
Amy, Viv, thanks again for your comments and for reading this obscure blog.
Amy, as usual we disagree about a few things, such as the intention and actual practice of the Patriot Act, which I feel has kept us safer from a very real and distinct threat in my view. Regarding terrorist surveillance my argument is simple:
1. It is not unprecedented
2. Congress was informed
3. If people are talking to Al Qaeda then we have a right to know before we get hit again.
I’m sure this sounds glib to you, but if Americans are not involved in terrorism, they have nothing to fear from it. I’m also sure you might argue that we are not at “wartime”, to which I would of course disagree. Neither of us can gain ground by arguing this one I guess. I would simply conclude this part of my argument by saying that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence — here and abroad — as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president’s “inherent authority” under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes – arguing that the president has abused his discretion when there is no actual evidence of it is irresponsible.
On Guantanamo its even easier for me to explain where I stand. I believe our country is in an actual war against terrorist extremists who wish to end our civilization only after they have completely and totally humiliated us first. (I doubt that you believe this though.) From the start of this conflict, al Qaeda’s strategy for victory has been to take maximum advantage of Western sensibilities and institutions, including public opinion and legal rules which limit what states can do in their own defense. The Bush administration sought to minimize the impact of this type of strategy by itself adopting a wartime legal paradigm, declaring a war against terror and using the full force of the United States military — rather than relying primarily on American law-enforcement resources — against al Qaeda and its allies. Detaining captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay was, and remains, a central aspect of that policy and there is little doubt that abandoning it will be seen by al Qaeda as a failure of American nerve and a vindication of their strategic vision.
Finally regarding Gitmo, I refute your assertion that detainees were tortured at Guantanamo. A simulation of a horrible fate that has no lasting physical effects is not torture imo, but this is certainly a debatable opinion . In at least one documented case, that of terrorist Abu Zubaydah, water boarding worked. In less than 35 seconds, Zubaydah began to provide interrogators with actionable intelligence which saved innocent lives. The CIA says the threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.
I respect you too, though, but respectfully disagree with your views here. Thanks for the debate!