Not So Easy, Is It? How Obama's struggles with disaster and war may be casting Bush's presidency in a more favorable light.

In November, George W. Bush will publish a memoir, Decision Points, in which he will try to put the tough moments of his presidency into perspective. His successor is already helping. On Sunday, President Obama spoke in New Orleans to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. On Tuesday, he will speak to the nation about the final stage of the Iraq war. The back-to-back events could be called the Cleaning Up Bush's Messes Tour—what many Democrats would call the entire Obama presidency so far—and yet both events highlight Obama's struggles with disaster and war, potentially putting his predecessor in a more favorable light.

As for Obama, he is not consciously trying to improve the public's view of the Bush years. Indeed, he is actively reminding people of the mess he inherited from his predecessor. It is a key theme of the entire Democratic campaign. At the same time, as Obama demonstrates the natural limits of presidential action, he unwittingly adds perspective to assessments of what President Bush could do. As he benefits from policies he once opposed—such as the surge in Iraq, which helped make tomorrow's speech possible—Obama proves that even a smart politician with the best of intentions can be wrong. And as he champions making tough calls even in the face of popular opposition, he often sounds eerily like his predecessor.

The relevant similarity between the federal response to Katrina and the BP oil spill (other than geography) is that both show the limits of the presidency and the federal government. Of course, a hurricane is different from an oil spill, and it's not necessary, for the purposes of comparison, to pass judgment on Bush's or Obama's response. The point is that from a purely logistical standpoint, it's hard to get the federal bureaucracy to move quickly. That's true whether you think the president is uniquely incompetent or a smart manager. A president weighing the benefits and costs of making a visit to the disaster area can catch similar grief for not taking command whether they're photographed in a plane or on a basketball court. And even an eloquent speaker can sound the wrong note.

Yet Obama's announcement Tuesday would not be possible were it not for a strategy that he adamantly opposed. When Bush announced the surge in January 2007, then-Sen. Obama not only fought the increase in troops, he opposed on more than one occasion the underlying approach (already in practice in Iraq) that the new troops were being sent to pursue.

Sen. Obama not only expected the surge to fail; he saw it, incorrectly, as yet another example of Bush's inability to adapt to reality. President Obama, at least, does not face that criticism. He has based his strategy in Afghanistan on the same counterinsurgency strategy that was central to Bush's surge. He's done more than borrow his predecessor's strategy—he's also borrowing his language. Of these two quotes, which is Obama and which is Bush?

A) "If I didn't think that it was important for our national security to finish the job … then I would pull them out today, because I have to sign letters to these families who have lost loved ones."

B) "If we can't win, I'll pull us out. … I'm not going to keep those kids in there and have to deal with their loved ones."

From Slate:

Quote : his predecessor in a more favorable light

Obama largely gets a pass from the Media and definitely from the Liberals

Kinda makes you wonder if the 'Peace Prize' was preordained doesn't it?

How does the difficult nature of ending the war in Iraq cast the starting of the war in Iraq in a more favorable light?

... it is not about starting or stoping, it is about victory or defeat.

had Obama and the left had their way they would have snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory... but that would have been Bush's fault

... it is not about starting or stoping, it is about victory or defeat.

had Obama and the left had their way they would have snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory... but that would have been Bush's fault

... it is not about starting or stoping, it is about victory or defeat.

had Obama and the left had their way they would have snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory... but that would have been Bush's fault

two words... the surge




… let me add a word…obtuse

So since we sent additional troops to Iraq for awhile, we know leave as "winners"?

What exactly did we so victoriously "win"?

So since we sent additional troops to Iraq for awhile, we know leave as "winners"?

What exactly did we so victoriously "win"?

Stability and the deaths of thousands of America's enemies.

...this is why I added the obtuse part

Stability and the deaths of thousands of America's enemies.

State Department officials have told me that by early 2002 Syria had emerged as one of the C.I.A.’s most effective intelligence allies in the fight against Al Qaeda, providing an outpouring of information that came to an end only with the invasion of Iraq.

after September 11th the Syrian leader, Bashar Assad, initiated the delivery of Syrian intelligence to the United States. The Syrians had compiled hundreds of files on Al Qaeda, including dossiers on the men who participated—and others who wanted to participate—in the September 11th attacks. Syria also penetrated Al Qaeda cells throughout the Middle East and in Arab exile communities throughout Europe. That data began flowing to C.I.A. and F.B.I. operatives.

Syria also provided the United States with intelligence about future Al Qaeda plans. In one instance, the Syrians learned that Al Qaeda had penetrated the security services of Bahrain and had arranged for a glider loaded with explosives to be flown into a building at the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters there. Flynt Leverett, a former C.I.A. analyst who served until early this year on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, told me that Syria’s help “let us thwart an operation that, if carried out, would have killed a lot of Americans.” The Syrians also helped the United States avert a suspected plot against an American target in Ottawa.

“Up through January of 2003, the cooperation was topnotch,” a former State Department official said. “Then we were going to do Iraq, and some people in the Administration got heavy- handed. They wanted Syria to get involved in operational stuff having nothing to do with Al Qaeda and everything to do with Iraq. It was something Washington wanted from the Syrians, and they didn’t want to do it.”

We won stability?

Apparently, not everyone agrees w/that claim:

At the Iraq war's end, a shrug of uncertainty [washingtonpost.com]

The guarded language used to mark the end of combat was appropriate, for Iraq is in many ways an unfinished war. Its ultimate success or failure won't be clear for some years, when we can see whether Iraq has sustained its new democracy or plunged back into sectarian strife and political chaos.

And FWIW, how "unstable" was Iraq before the war?


In order to avoid having to actually substantiate your claims?