The ‘War on Terror’ Is Critical to President George W. Bush’s Legacy

Bush made protecting the country from "evildoers" his first priority

December 9, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (17)

He is one of the most controversial figures in American life. And as he approaches the end of his presidency, George W. Bush has finally joined the raging national debate about his legacy. In recent interviews and public statements, Bush has been more contemplative and revealing than ever as he assesses his eight years in office, attempts to lift his public image out of the trough, and shapes perceptions of his era. In this series, U.S. News reviews the Bush presidency from the beginning in 2001—with a special focus on five of his most fateful decisions, including going to war in Iraq and, more recently, approving a huge bailout of the financial industry.

The "war on terror." Almost from the moment he learned of the 9/11 attacks, Bush made protecting the nation from what he called "the evildoers" his first priority. On the fateful day of Sept. 11, 2001, he was preparing to address a class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., when an aide told him that a plane had hit the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York. Bush thought the pilot had suffered a heart attack and lost control of the aircraft. Minutes later, as he read to the children in front of the TV cameras, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card whispered in his right ear: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush looked puzzled and dazed. He later told author Bob Woodward what he was thinking. "They had declared war on us," Bush said, "and I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war." In some basic ways, many of the most important subsequent decisions of his presidency stemmed from that gut reaction, from his approval of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects to his moves to pursue and destroy terrorists and their allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For Bush, his course was suddenly crystal clear. He had a mission. "It was a 100-degree turn of the ship of state," says Ari Fleischer, Bush's first White House press secretary. "He ran [for president] of the United States having a humble foreign policy. He did not run on a muscular foreign policy." But he quickly invented one.

Most Americans still remember Bush's bravura performance three days after the terrorist attacks when he stood on a pile of rubble at ground zero in New York. Brandishing a bullhorn, he promised rescue workers and the nation that he would respond with righteous wrath against the terrorists "who knocked these buildings down."

Some say he missed the chance to unify the country behind larger goals, such as creating a massive volunteerism movement or a campaign to lessen reliance on Mideast oil. Instead, "he called on the country to shop" in order to return to normalcy, says Matthew Dowd, Bush's former political adviser who broke with him over the Iraq war.

But Bush's focus was narrowly targeted—to wage a global war against Islamic jihadists. "He wanted action, solutions," writes Woodward in Bush at War. "Once on a course, he directed his energy at forging on, rarely looking back, scoffing at—even ridiculing—doubt and anything less than 100 percent commitment. He seemed to harbor few, if any, regrets." He still feels that way.

Bush's defenders say his aggressive actions to fight terrorism will stand the test of time. "He has kept us safe," says Fleischer. "We have not been hit since 2001. That's a monumental accomplishment."

Tags:
9/11,
George W. Bush,
Bush administration,
national security terrorism and the military,
terrorism

Reader Comments Read all comments (17)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The economic legacy of George W. Bush can only be measured in trillions of dollars—in fact many trillions. And it's all waste and loss.

President George W. Bush's First Legacy: The Mountain of Debt

During Bush's two terms in office more than $3 trillion has been poured down the black hole of wars in Iraq and the Middle East. More than $5 trillion has been served up in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest 10 percent households in the U.S.

According to U.S. Federal Reserve Bank data, since Bush assumed office in January 2001 government debt levels have risen by more than $3 trillion—the total as of the end of March 2008. It does not yet include the cost of bank bailouts this past September: $300 billion for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, $85 billion for the insurance company giant AIG, and the infamous $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout at the close of September amounting to another minimum $1.085 trillion.

President George W. Bush's Second Legacy: System Collapse

The unwinding of the $21 trillion in net debt accumulated during the Bush administration is the root cause of the current financial crisis.

The write-downs and write-offs by banks and other financial institutions, the bankruptcies by companies and consumers, the losses of home values, the foreclosures, etc.—all represent the "unwinding" of that record level of $21 trillion new debt. The September bank bailouts represent an effort by finance capital and America's corporate elite to shift a major portion of this debt from their corporate balance sheets to the public balance sheet and taxpayer.

The bank bailouts will not stop the debt unwinding as they do not address the fundamental causes of the housing and commercial property price collapse underway since the beginning of the year and now accelerating. The only thing settled by the bailouts—TARP, Fannie Mae, AIG, and others—is who will pay for the crisis, not how to end the crisis.

President George W. Bush's Third Legacy: Epic Recession

The direct consequence of financial crisis and implosion is a general credit crunch—a system-wide sharp contraction of credit. A credit contraction has been progressively growing in the economy since last January. A credit contraction occurs when banks and financial institutions have, or expect to have, significant losses due to bad loans and investments and are increasingly reluctant to loan out reserves they may have on hand. They may need the cash on hand and reserves to cover anticipated losses and prevent becoming technically bankrupt if their losses exceed their reserves. Over the past year financial institutions have tightened their lending terms. But even the slow down in lending hit a wall and entered a new, more intense and serious stage with the financial events of September.

From housing and commercial property markets to industrial loans to municipal and corporate bonds to commercial paper and even markets in which banks loan to each other, all began to shut do

Ajay Jain of TX 1:52PM May 02, 2013

some of this is lies

michael 7:50AM November 01, 2012

I strongly agree with the statement ... We are Americans... We don't torture. It does not matter whether torture worked or did not work. The point is the Constitution was violated & International laws were broken.

We do not torture, and torture is a crime, not a method. If you want to work for a government and want to torture someone, you need to find another country. Government employees take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you are a government official and torture someone, you have failed your oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and you have broken the law. We do not need or want people working in our government that conducted torture.

There is no way anyone can respect the CIA if it rewards torture interrogators with their job. Abscess of morality in any government agency will not result in respect, either now or in the future. This controversy is not about legal opinions & the CIA its about the CYA mentality of the Bush Administration. The Bush administration motives may have been honorable but their actions were criminal they need to be held to account !

At the Nuremberg trials in 1946, the U.S., England, and France decided that just taking orders is not excuse for torture. Concentration Camp commander's defended their actions as just taking orders. No doubt Nazi lawyers declared their actions both necessary and legal under German Third Reich Law. At Nuremberg in 1946, the decision by the U.S., France, and England was unanimous, that a person is responsible for their own actions. No orders or shadow legality is a defense against a complete loss of morality. The trials at Nuremberg set the standard. Just taking orders does not give anyone, not even an American, the right to torture another person . We do not want our country to have Nazi morality standards.

I hope we still have today as much moral strength as our fathers that fought WWII to save our country and save our Constitution. If government officials today trash our Constitution to gain immediate ends, then we have lost any meaningful difference between our enemies and ourselves.

We are America, and We don't torture. Our Constitution and our morality are worth far more than any information obtained from torture. The ends do not justify the means & there are more intelligent , effective & efficient means to obtain accurate information.

We should also keep in mind that who knew what & when is irrelevant & who did what and when during the Bush Administration is what is important ! If true, giving an illegal order to withhold information from Congress by Vice President Chaney is a crime !

We are Americans, and We don't torture. NO IF ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT ! See title 18 sec. 241 & 242 if you do torture, this is what you can expect from the law. Eventually the US Government will have to do the right thing and bring all those involved in this criminal behavior to justice ! NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW !

Gezzer of FL 9:21PM July 14, 2009

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos