Credit where credit’s due – even to President Bush

Trying to get this post out while George Bush is still president – half an hour or so to go, I think. 😉

The Guardian had a special pull-out section on “The Bush Years” at the weekend. You can probably guess most of the contents without bothering to read it, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to highlight two of the positive points made about Bush and his time in office.

First, Colonel Tim Collins profiles General David Petraeus. He praises the “Petraeus approach” to dealing with the early 21st century’s “struggle of law over chaos and the fight for justice”:

[“War on terror”] is a term he rejects. His approach is to eschew any trapping of legitimacy for the killers and the thugs. His approach is to deal with them for what they are: criminals with no authority, no mandate nor any right to do what they do.

But for every effort in knocking down equal effort is expended in setting up: institutions, ministries, police units, indigenous military forces. It is what sets his approach apart. It’s the long war. It is putting the onus on the host nation to succeed.

“His finest hour is yet at hand”, concludes Col. Collins.

Second, one really solid triumph of the Bush presidency: combating Aids in Africa:

Over the past five years, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) has saved close to two million lives by providing antiretroviral drugs to HIV-positive Africans. It has helped ensure 240,000 babies are born without the virus by giving their mothers drugs to prevent them passing it on at birth.

The Bush administration has committed vast sums to this programme: it received $15bn for the first five years, and was renewed in July with a budget of $48bn.

The article quotes Dr Francois Venter, head of the HIV Clinicians Society in South Africa, whom it describes as being “almost disbelieving in his praise of Bush”:

“I look at all the blood this man has on his hands in Iraq and I can’t quite believe myself but I would say it’s a bold experiment from the last people in the world I would expect to do it, and it is saving a lot of lives. You give these tablets to people and they resurrect themselves. To intervene on such a scale and make such a difference is huge.”

The article observes that there was an element of enlightened self-interest about the programme, with Colin Powell and the CIA persuading Bush that Aids was a national security issue for the US.

It further notes the role of “Christian evangelicals” and “conservative Republican senators” – not groups which normally get a good press in the Guardian! – in lobbying Bush to adopt the plan, and rebuts liberal criticisms over the inclusion of abstention as part of the overall strategy alongside monogamy and condom use.

Well worth reading the whole article. As an article in Slate observes, fighting Aids in Africa is not only an inherently noble cause, but probably the most effective way in which Bush could transform the poor reputation with which he leaves office.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Credit where credit’s due – even to President Bush

  1. steve martin says:

    Why do people try and defend anything Presisdent Bush did?

    Hasn’t the word gotten out (before he stepped one foot into the Oval Office) that he is the devil?

    Here it is once more for all those that haven’t been educated in U.S. universities, or who do not read or listen to U.S. or world media outlets…”Republicans are evil and Democrats are good.”

  2. History will be much kinder to Bush then the present has been. After all he has no more blood on his hands in Iraq than Saddam Hussein did.

  3. Josh S says:

    I like to think that victory in Iraq, instead of conceding defeat as everyone advised 2 years ago, will be the brightest spot on his legacy. The costs of losing a war are tremendous. Even the NY Times, which advocated accepting defeat, predicted an ensuing decade of civil war and probable genocide.

    On the other hand, I have discovered that many people do not think losing a war is really a big deal…most of them were born after Vietnam, of course.

  4. Josh S,
    Yes I found it incredible that as all the liberals in this country walk around accusing us of negligence in the face of the genocide in Rwanda, they were perfectly o.k. with being a catalyst for genocide in Iraq. Seemed to me there was just a little hypocrisy in all that.

  5. steve martin says:

    Most liberals are so shallow in their thinking, that they can’t see two feet out from their noses to the slaughter that would take place if the U.S. would leave Iraq prematurely.

  6. AltWorlder says:

    There was no genocide in Iraq. There was, however, repression and tyranny. But that sort of thing happens everywhere, and if the correct response is to topple governments then we’ll be doing that from now until the end of time.

    Why are all of the comments on this entry about Iraq when the entry had nothing to do with that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s