Under the Cold Eye of History: a historian rates Mr Bush

from Common Dreams.org from Prof Robert P. Watson of Florida Atlantic University:

There is much agreement by scholars as to the greatest presidents; they are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, with Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson not far behind. These great leaders provide a standard by which all presidents are measured -- and clues as to how Bush measures up. From the great presidents we know that the country is well-served by leaders who exhibit the following traits:

• Humanity, compassion, and respect for others
  
• A governing style that unifies, not divides
  
• Rhetorical skills and the ability to communicate a clear, realistic vision
  
• Willingness to listen to experts and the public
  
• Ability to admit error, accept criticism and be adaptable
  
• Engaged and inquisitive, with a sense of perspective and history
  
• Integrity, inspiring trust among the people
  
• Moral courage in not shrinking from challenges

Unfortunately, Bush's presidency has been the polar opposite of this list. This brings up the matter of who are our worst presidents. Again, scholars are in agreement, listing Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.

I always catch shit around DU for giving the devil his due, but I want to give Bush his propers in this last category. Bush does not "shrink from a challenge." If anything, he has the exact opposite problem. He's a risk taker, often to the point of recklessness. Sending troops into Iraq with inadequate manpower and inadequate body armor in the bold belief that they would be greeted as liberators despite the inevitable thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties is many things. But it is not an example of moral cowardice.

It was dumb, it was reckless, and there certainly wasn't any demonstration of physical courage, but from that you cannot argue there was a lack of principled fortitude. Precisely what those principles are, I cannot say, but let's not pretend Mr Bush wasn't after some kind fo principle when he went after Iraq with such singular purpose and such focused vision. Indeed, his is a vision focused with such fineness and deliberation that he can hardly percieve there to be periphery around him.

We have always attributed his line in the sand quote, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," to be an act of scaremongering and pandering. But wouldn't it make more sense to recognize that this is truly the result of his incredible vision, which cannot see beyond his narrow focus--a lack of perspective, if you will--but which can, with superhuman capacity, actually look into the souls of fellow world leaders?

This is a courage of sorts. A single minded faith in the rightness of whatever action he takes, an unshakeable devotion to beliefs regardless of the world around him, a bold spirit willing to pay the cost of however many other peoples' lives it takes to show the world that he was right in whatever it was he was thinking when he started a war no sane person would seek. If that isn't courage, then I'm not married to Morgan Fairchild.

Bushit is related to Pierce. The evil old bat who spawned him was a Pierce.