Peggy Noonan has an interesting column today on the consequences of the Global War on Terror and Bush’s presidency. I don’t agree with her completely but she has some good points.
And, as always: Why do we do this when you know I am not a terrorist, and you know I know you know I am not a terrorist? Why this costly and harassing kabuki when we both know the facts, and would agree that all this harassment is the government’s way of showing “fairness,” of showing that it will equally humiliate anyone in order to show its high-mindedness and sense of justice? Our politicians congratulate themselves on this as we stand in line.
She is writing about the annoyances of air travel and the general angst of ordinary people who have had to give up some privacy for what seem like trivial benefits. A frequent guest on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and former Israeli security officer, comments that the TSA security system is not really a security system; it is a system to annoy people. The purpose, as he sees it, is to prove that the government is doing something to protect us. Profiling of travellers to make the system less intrusive was rejected by the then Secretary of Transportation, Democrat Norman Mineta who was reacting to memories of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Less understandable is the rejection of a system for frequent fliers who could be screened and then allowed a less intrusive (and less time-wasting) security check once they had been identified by biometrics. Apparently, this would not be sufficiently “nondiscriminatory.” Even pilots must go through the entire procedure when it is obvious that, if a pilot decided (like the Egypt Air flight 990 pilot) to crash a plane in a suicide mission, he has only to do so with the controls.
Also, ground security for aircraft not in service has been exposed as a weak spot.
The TSA mess is not the only reason why people are unhappy with Bush. The political left assumes that most of the unhappiness is due to the war but I don’t agree. The left would be antagonistic no matter what was happening in the war because they are still angry about 2000. I am about 1/3 into Doug Feith’s book on the decisions that brought us to war in Iraq. He points out a fact often lost in the debate. As a consequence of the Florida vote debacle, and the Democrats’ anger, the Bush administration had only a skeleton crew until the summer of 2001. Feith was not confirmed to the #3 spot in the Defense Department until July 2001. That was true of most Bush appointees and it had a lot to do with the failure to “connect the dots” that is the subject of the 9/11 Commission Report.
The reasons for the quiet break with Mr. Bush: spending, they say first, growth in the power and size of government, Iraq. I imagine some of this: a fine and bitter conservative sense that he has never had to stand in his stockinged feet at the airport holding the bin, being harassed. He has never had to live in the world he helped make, the one where grandma’s hip replacement is setting off the beeper here and the child is crying there. And of course as a former president, with the entourage and the private jets, he never will. I bet conservatives don’t like it. I’m certain Gate 14 doesn’t.
I don’t completely agree here and some of the comments on the WSJ site side with me in this matter. Bush has lost a lot of Republicans when he has acted like a Democrat. The Republican Congress lost its way after Gingrich destroyed himself with personal foibles similar to those of Bill Clinton. The incumbents began to act like incumbents. They spent and earmarked and generally made themselves indistinguishable from Democrats. Bush did not veto a spending bill. I have read that this was the advice of former Speaker Denny Hastert. If so, this was bad advice.
“I think to some extent you’re seeing a liberated George Bush,” Mr. Wehner said, discussing the current spate of veto threats. “When Hastert was speaker, one of his red lines was that he did not want any spending bills vetoed. That, to some extent, restricted the range of actions that we had. It made it difficult to veto certain bills like the transportation bill and the other ones conservatives didn’t want.”
The election of 2006 ended the fantasy of permanent incumbency bought with high spending. If Republicans act like Democrats, the voters may decide they want the real thing and elect Democrats. The unhappiness of many conservatives with Bush stems from this issue. Also, we had a series of high profile scandals like Mark Foley (Who had planned to retire from Congress and the clueless RNC convinced him to run one last time.)
Then came the issue of immigration. The Wall Street Journal is unlikely to emphasize this issue in a recital of Bush’s mistakes but it was a big one. It is also the source of much uneasiness with McCain. I have previously posted my concerns about McCain and his conversion may or may not be permanent. I would be happier if he got rid of that advisor.
Of course, the State Department makes McCain look good when you see their advisors and the policies they seem to be advocating.
I don’t know how Bush will look in ten years but I think Iraq will be the least of the problems with his presidency.