Bush’s Last Stand: a Rebuttal of the Undeserved Criticism

I have recently come across a very good, scholarly paper written by Ryan Stack ’12, titled: Bush’s Last Stand: A Rebuttal of the Undeserved Criticism. Continuing along the same lines the Insider drew out in earlier posts about writing seminars, the following paper was written for Stack’s writing seminar, Causes of War and the War in Iraq. Probably alone on a very small island of Bush apologists (one on which I stand, and stand again), Stack’s paper concentrates on why the media turned so sour against Bush so quickly, and why the public’s opinion of the president plummeted.

One of the more interesting points I thought he brought up was that at the onset of the Iraq War, the media was quite unwaveringly on Bush’s side and supported the administration, and then shortly reverted on that stance. Stack’s paper points out that many leading news figures including Dan Rather and Bob Woodward publicly apologized for their irresponsibility in making the case for the Iraq war, and then proceeded to overcompensate by becoming the egregiously biased media outlets that they now are. The following is Stack’s introductory paragraph, and a downloadable version of the paper here.

Bill Maher, liberal comedian, once quipped, “I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my government. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws?” Exercising the freedom of speech is not only an inalienable right protected by the first amendment, it is a duty Americans are indebted to fulfill as citizens of a democratic nation. However, as Americans we are not always rational, and our self-control is not equal to all emergencies. Thus, when the general populace is left entirely uncensored, government officials are defenseless against our projected discontent. On that note, Maher, and the rest of the liberal media, have recently failed to critique both themselves and the irrational impulses of the American public. As a result, on January 20^th, 2009, George W. Bush left office with a final approval rating of 22 percent, and both the American citizenry and the media crucified the former president for his initial decision to invade Iraq (CBS NEWS). Let it be noted that several of the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq were exaggerations based on inconclusive evidence; nevertheless, the extent to which the American people condemned George Bush was unwarranted. The unchecked, irrational impulses of the American citizenry, combined with attacks from liberal media, created a synergistic effect that led to an explosion of anti-Bush.

The argument of my essay will proceed in four phases: The first phase of my argument will be dedicated to refuting an example of unfair publicity George W. Bush received in the latter end of his presidency. More specifically, I will counter the allegation that the invasion of Iraq was a conspiracy to increase the United State’s control of foreign oil. Next, I will briefly compare and contrast how the invasion of Iraq parallels U.S foreign policy in the Middle East during the 20^th century. This comparison will beg the question: why was Bush criticized so severely relative to other presidential administrations that were intimately involved in Middle Eastern affairs? The next phase of my argument will be dedicated to answering this question, and I will analyze the two most significant factors that aggravated the American public and impelled them to wantonly criticize Bush. Lastly, I will examine why the liberal media was so inclined to embrace the emotions of the general public and tarnish the legacy of Bush’s presidency.

Ryan Stack, Cornell CALS Class of 2012, a member of the Cornell Republicans and one of next year’s Vice Chairs, can be contacted at rms322@cornell.edu.