70 years have passed in the environment policy, which ten years ago with good reason, could be considered the most powerful man on earth — the former leader of the USA Georges Bush. Alive now is just four of the ex-President of America, and the surname of two of them sounds like Bush. So from a formal point of view, the jubilee of the immediate predecessor, Obama is the undisputed cause for if not celebration, for a long and serious conversation.
Problems occur if you drop the formalities. Familiar sound the refrain of the anniversary of a great politician is sincere and not really ranting about his merits before the country and the world, about its contributions to history, his talent as seer and other and other. With regard to Bush all of this is deeply inappropriate. And it’s not just me. The estimate given above is a consolidated point of view of leading American historians.
photo: Alexander Astafyev
Located in the state of new York research Institute of Siena since 1982, on the basis of mass survey of the most authoritative historians of the country regularly is the rating of the most successful and the most failed ex-presidents of the United States. In the ranking of the Institute Siena 2010 George W. Bush took 39th place out of 43. Below him in the table was absolutely shaped losers from the second half of XIX — first half of the twentieth century: a chronic alcoholic Franklin pierce, the symbol has come down to the brim of government corruption Warren G. Harding, narrowly escaped removal from office for incompetence, Andrew Johnson and, finally, James Buchanan — a man whose tenure as President of the United States ended with the collapse of the country’s civil war.
Since this poll of historians has passed for six years. But the past years have only confirmed even more vividly the absolute objectivity to such a humiliating assessment. Bush has been living the carefree life of a successful retiree and Amateur artist in a wealthy suburb of Dallas, Texas. And the world still can not cope with the disastrous consequences of Bush’s crucial decisions.
Let’s be objective. Banned terrorist group ISIS was born in 1999 — during the reign of Bush’s predecessor, bill Clinton. But Bush carried out the destruction of the secular political regime in Iraq created ISIS for the perfect breeding environment, transformed this movement from the evil dwarf into a monstrous giant. In a sense, what the younger Bush, and not a radical Jordanian preacher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi can be considered a “founding father” of ISIS.
As exalted to be the leader of a state in a year when America has not observed any special problems, “a simple Texas guy” has managed to bloat it? I think the standard answer to this question is best summed up by Sam Bush — at a time when he had not yet had time to bloat. In 2001, native Bush Yale University decided to give the newly elected President of the United States an honorary degree. Bush lived in his student years, according to the principle “we all learned a little something and somehow”. And in exchange for such “diligence” teeming with the lowest estimates of degree, not felt for his Alma mater no particularly warm feelings.
But it was uncomfortable. So Bush came to Yale and loudly told the students: “students I want to say: you too can become President of the United States!” Becoming a C student during his tenure as a student, Bush has not just remained a C student as President. There is a Threeness that are objectively aware of their own limitations. And then there are aggressive and smug underachievers — people who sincerely despise the bearers of expert knowledge and believe that they far above all sorts of clever.
President Bush belonged to the Trinity of this, the most dangerous category. The famous American biographer and Professor of political science located in the state of West Virginia Marshall University Jean Edward Smith just made the ex-President rather dubious “gift” to the forthcoming anniversary has released his highly critical biography. In honor of this event the article of the newspaper “the Washington Post, I came across a paragraph in which, I think, very accurately described the essence of the main issue of George Bush.
“Smith does not fall for the well-known myth that Bush was a puppet of Vice President dick Cheney or his other employees… Smith thinks that Bush was too big a “fixer” as the President once described himself inelegant. Stating that it took seriously the burden of responsibility that is connected with his office, Bush regularly made decisions that affected the lives of millions of people and wreak havoc around the world, without thinking these decisions properly — either before or after their adoption.
So, the fact is that Bush was a modern American equivalent of our Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev — politician who, unfortunately for the world, sent their tireless energy no corn, and Iraq? To me this explanation seems correct, but very incomplete. In relation to freedom of the hands of the first person of the country the American political system dramatically different from the Soviet or Russian.
That we have Nikita could divide the regional committees on agriculture and industrial on the back of external “approval” internally angry other officials. the President of the United States may act only within a very narrow corridor of possibilities. To go forward on the course, he must first enlist the support of other key players within the system of power. Bush in this regard was no exception. The famous American investigative reporter Bob Woodward unearthed among other things the following episode, the authenticity of which no one now questioned.
In March 2004 mid-level officials from the Ministry of justice came to the conclusion that authorized President Bush’s secret domestic spying program “Stellar wind” violates the laws. The President did not like. And he sent to zahromavshego to the hospital with an acute attack of pancreatitis to the Minister of justice John Ashcroft special messengers. Referring to the will of Bush, the President’s chief of staff Andy Card and General counsel of the White house Alberto Gonzales demanded from the patient Minister to immediately reverse the decision of their subordinates.
Appointed to his post by Bush, and not seen before in the free-thinking Minister Ashcroft flatly refused. Did the same, and standing at the bedside of his key staff and the Vice — officials to dismiss which the President could at any time. But in the end to go back down and step on the throat of his own song had it Bush.
If the desire of the Bush imperative to overthrow Saddam Hussein met with the same opposition within the American political system, the President would have to give way. But this opposition was not — was cross-party support. When in October 2002 the us Congress gave its sanction to the use of force against Iraq, a resolution voted for 39.2% of members of Congress and 58% of the members of the Senate from the opposition Democratic party.
For the war in Iraq, voted for Senator Hillary Clinton. For the war voted future man Obama, current Vice President of the USA Joseph Biden. And this decision was enthusiastically supported by a large part of the American media — those media that unlike Russia do have real independence from the Supreme body of state political power.
From all this, in my opinion, you can do here is what conclusion: we described Gene Smith, the decision-making system is not only a personal characteristic of the Bush administration. At least in foreign policy, such a method of decision-making — to the eye, without deep reflection — typical of the entire American political class.
And now the most unpleasant. If at the beginning of the “zero” years the object of obsession of the American elite was Saddam Hussein, now the top US is almost with the same hatred belong to a couple of other foreign politicians. One of these politicians name is Bashar al-Assad, and the other is Vladimir Putin.
There is another unpleasant news. The tenure in the Obama White house — a policy which all the other types of “political activity,” prefers the speeches were delivered rapidly coming to an end. Former US Ambassador in Gorbachev’s Soviet Union Jack Matlock made a few days ago the following entry in social networks: “I’m not sure that most Russians understand, what the strong pressure to force him to more active intervention in the Ukraine resisted President Obama. They can still regret the end of his presidential term next year.”
I suspect that Jack Matlock is right. Celebrating its anniversary, President Bush is part of the American past. But “bushizmy” — adventurism, emotional and ill-considered actions in the sphere of foreign policy is, unfortunately, the American present and the American future.Related posts: