The Sacrificial Presidency of George W. Bush

EXCERPT:
These Democrats are governed by the anonymous power of emotion and the fads and fashions of the moment -- and by what had been their party's only definable operating principle: If Bush was for it, they were against it.

They had been against practically everything George Bush did from 2004 to 2008. I never saw anything like it. As someone who studies and teaches history, foreign policy, and the Middle East, I watched in great frustration as Democrats opposed things they had always supported when their guy was commander-in-chief, and no doubt would again, once back in the White House. They slammed away at George W. Bush, scourging the man, roasting and toasting and turning and skewering, politically crucifying him. It was ugly -- and so unjust. Finally, after eight years of Bill Clinton, we had a president who cared not a whit about polls, completely giving himself for what he believed was right, and liberals torched him.

Still, Bush quietly carried his cross, turning the other cheek, accepting the torment, sacrificing his presidency for what he thought was best for his country and citizens. He could've closed Gitmo. He could've stopped the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees. He could've stopped waterboarding. He could've picked up and packed up and abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush hung in there, devoting himself to preventing another 9/11. Even many Republicans fled him, especially those who for bizarre political/psychological reasons subject themselves to corrosive doses of CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Many of those Republicans emailed me daily, taking the bait, constantly panicked by the latest unsubstantiated silliness spun on the liberal gristmill to feed the mainstream media's anti-Bush appetite. The accusations would have been laughably stupid if not so viciously sad.

Did it work? Oh, you bet it did. Going into the final year of his presidency, Bush had the worst approval of any president since Truman, somehow below even Carter and Nixon. Everyone was against him.

But President George W. Bush carried on, resigned to the fact that he would leave office unappreciated. Even as the left hopped and hollered and twitched and poked all around him, he retained the War on Terror policies that would one day allow the left's guy in the Oval Office, Barack Obama, to secure the signature foreign-policy success that most of us knew would redound to Bush's successor. The moment arrived on May 1, 2011, when a jubilant President Obama was able to announce to the world, in a statement with at least 14 first-person references, that Osama bin Laden was dead. Those 14 self-references were 14 more than any Obama thanks to Bush. (Bush got one mention from Obama, a nod for not declaring war against Islam after 9/11.)

Of course, anyone with common sense, and not ruled by partisan emotion, understands that Bush's policies made the capture possible. They were the same polices that Senator Obama and an ever-enraged left employed to take down Bush.
Full article