Bush Is Not Truman Reincarnate

You've heard the comparison made before amongst right-wingers attempting to influence old-school Democrats to support George W. Bush. The same comparison was made of the elder Bush during the 1992 campaign (prompting Al Gore to tell Dan Quayle the following: "I'll make you a deal, Dan. If you don't compare George Bush to Harry Truman, I won't compare you to John Kennedy," which is a reference to this) and the comparison was shut down, basically. But it's harder to do with this Bush, because there are some parallels between Truman and Bush. But when these small similarities are identified in context, there's no way in hell that they equate to one another.

The Weekly Standard has prompted this article by running this article titled, "Will the Truman Democrats Please Stand Up...if there are any left." Smarmy, I know.

His article started off with a nice little point, and it's this: "You'd think it would be a great time to be a small-L liberal: human freedom is on the march in such unlikely places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and even among the Palestinians. The president of the United States can't seem to go five minutes without praising the virtues of liberty, and realpolitikers have been banished to the policy wilderness. Liberal principles have never before been so proudly proclaimed in framing U.S. foreign and security policy," and he has a point to a small extent. These principles of liberty are distinctly Democratic. Trumanesque, Kennedyesque. Yes yes. They are. Don't deny it. It's nice to watch Freedom March.

However, there exists a huge difference between the war in Iraq and anything Truman would've ever done. Without a doubt. And, seeing as how I know no serious Democrat who has bashed the Afghanistan War (I've criticized its handling, not the war itself) I won't even bother discussing it. Truman would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11, of course. Every President since Roosevelt would've, without a doubt, gone in there to weed out al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The only difference would be the size of the offensive we launch, because I deeply doubt that our actions would've been as limited in that country under any other President (except possibly Carter).

Let's contrast the war Truman fought (not World War II, because he merely ended it, really) but Korea. How'd we get into that? Unless I'm spazzing out in a Dick Morris way - which I'm not - it was in response to an invasion by North Korea. Truman wanted to fight 'till the end, and he trashed his detractors over the war constantly; asserted that he was right repeatedly; never backed down; he wasn't a man who was going to cut and run, and he gave off that feeling. Sounds like George W. Bush, right? Right. All Presidents are resolute when it comes to fighting a war. Because Truman was resolute, as is Bush, means nothing.

But there's a big difference between responding to an invasion and launching a "pre-emptive" one. (For an illuminating article on the subject of pre-emptive war, look at this, for questions about the ethics of pre-emptive war, check this out, for a Conservative case against pre-emptive war, particularly Iraq's, check out the American Conservative Magazine.) I don't think I have to explain how launching an invasion is different to countering an invasion.

The Standard makes the next point: "The only problem for liberals, of course, is that the architect of all this is named George W. Bush, and this poses a considerable conundrum. It's been instructive to watch the shifts of opinion at The New Republic, long the flagship of responsible foreign policy liberalism in the Democratic party. Originally strongly supportive of the invasion of Iraq, the magazine's writers have become increasingly disenchanted as the interest-based arguments for the war--Iraq's presumed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction--have collapsed."

See that boldened part? That's exactly why liberals, who initially supported the war wholeheartedly, stopped. And not just that, because if Bush had merely made an error that would be one thing, but the WMD Fiasco wasn't a huge everyone was wrong, everyone was warning George about it! type thing. For one thing, one of the CIA's best sources was some guy code-named "Curveball." But if the public, and more Senators, I think, had known this, they wouldn't have voted for the war.

Excerpt: The only American who met a now-discredited Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" repeatedly warned the CIA before the war that the Baghdad engineer appeared to be an alcoholic and that his dramatic claims that Saddam Hussein had built a secret fleet of mobile germ weapons factories were not reliable.

For another thing, as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill makes clear in The Price of Loyalty, Iraq was always on the table: They had the "why" for starting the war since they first entered office (Iraq was de-stabilizing the region, and taming it would deter other rogue nations from being naughty) and were merely looking for the "how." Richard Clarke backs him up on that. Not that my readers need to have this reinforced to them, but it's essential to my point about Truman and Bush.

Truman never sat back asking for the "hows." Truman analyzed issues then made decisions and said, "I did what I thought was right, and tough if you don't like it." George Bush says the same thing, but he doesn't analyze his topics. As O'Neill painfully recalls, Bush would say little if anything during his meetings with him. As Clarke recalls, Bush's staff informed him that Dubya isn't "a big reader." So there's yet another difference between Truman and Bush.

Truman vowed to protect free countries from Communism at any cost, and Bush has essentially vowed to protect tyranic countries from themselves. Both have freedom at the agenda, but Truman was more of a realist. I don't think Harry Truman ever sat in the White House and said to himself, "Why, jeez, I just might have to invade a communist country, set-up a capitalist Democracy, and all the other countries will follow suit." Bush did in Iraq, and there's another difference.

So let's get this straight, all right? Truman was a resolute war-time President who had to fight a war and held a "Like-it-or-not-it's-what's-right" attitude; Bush is a resolute war-time President who has to fight a war that he started, who also holds a "Like-it-or-not-it's-what's-right" attitude. There is a huge difference between these two in the means-that-justify-their-ends.

The war in Iraq, if it produces a capitalist Democracy which is our goal, should be successful, and I pray that it is. But I'm bothered by the dishonest way they promoted their war; I'm appalled by the damage they've caused our credibility by "being certain," without any doubt, that "we know where they are!"; I don't like the way nobody's been fired for messing up. And there's another difference.

Douglas McArthur mismanaged the Korean War, blamed Truman, and then demanded a dozen nukes to hit China with. Truman rightly fired him. Wolfowitz claimed we'd be greeted with flowers; Rumsfeld tried to fight this war on the cheep; Rice has never been right on anything. And no one's been fired, or even demoted! This stands sharply against Truman.

I believe in freedom. I believe in the ultimate cause of the Iraq War, but if you're asking me if I like, or even have moderate feelings for, the handling of it, the "selling" of it (and, by the way, I hate the way the Bush White House sold this war as though it were a product) and I dislike the way we've crapped on countries that didn't join the initial coalition. Truman wouldn't have done that, and never did. In his willingness to admit mistakes, and to attempt to rectify them, Truman is fundamentally different than Bush. In the way he processed information (see, Truman liked to be shot-straight with; he didn't like to have people pussyfoot around him and tell him what he wants to hear, as opposed to George "loyalty to me matters more than loyalty to truth and process" Bush.) he is different than George.

There are small similarities, sure, but in their context George Bush and Harry Truman are as different as a green skateboard and a blue sedan. Don't let the right slander Truman anymore by comparing him to Bush. I find it offensive, frankly.