Was Trump right in confronting Bushes

The United States of America is a federal republic. The term ‘republic’ has many connotations but the literal meaning of the word ‘republic’ when used in reference to governance of a state, is that real authority lies with the citizen and those chosen by the citizens, there is no monarchy in a republic.

Anybody in the US who is at a position of power is there solely by merit and emphatically not because they happen to be born in the right family. This is how it should be, as being born is a mere happenstance, an individual is what he or she is because of accomplishments. But the absence of royalty does not mean that the US is immune to being enamored by quasi royal families. There have always been families who, for the lack of a better word, are regarded as ‘special’. In politics, all through the 60s there were the Kennedys, and then in the 90s and beyond there were the Clintons among the Democrats and the Bushes among the Republicans.

These families are almost a become brand name and there is a tacit agreement in the establishment of both of their respective parties that nobody will utter a critical word about the members of these ‘special’ families and that people will get on their knees wherever these first families offer themselves for public office.  But their charm is wearing a little thing in recent times, with Hillary losing the presidential nomination in 2008 and currently struggling against a 70 year socialist in her party while Jeb Bush find himself doing rather poorly in the polls and debates.

But the reverence is still there and is particularly strong among the establishment. During the GOP debate on Saturday, the audience in the auditorium jeered at Trump at regular intervals for his ‘controversial’ utterances while Bush, Rubio and even Kasich got a smooth pass and even cheers. Many pundits said they have never seen a display such as this before at an intra-party debate. It was clear that the establishment was trying to humiliate Trump and elevate their candidates. To be booed by an entire audience has to be demoralizing, but the irrepressible Trump not only confronted them, he turned the tables right on them by openly called them members of the establishment, big donors and special interests. Thus astutely working the jeers to his advantage as the real voting public is the audience at home. Interestingly there has been no denial from the establishment, which proves that is indeed the case. Trump had a similar confrontation at the New Hampshire debate, the results were spectacular. It is impossible to imagine any other politician confronting boos in such a fashion as the usual instinct is to appease. During the early part of his campaign the GOP got Trump to sign a loyalty pledge, I wonder why this pledge doesn’t work both ways.

Then Trump launched a scathing criticism of the George W. Bush’s tenure. Specifically, he called out Bush for not being able to thwart the 9-11 attacks and for involving the US in the Iraq war. The conservative establishment threw itself into a conniption. “How can he say that?” “This is something even a democrat will not say” “He sounded like a left winger” “This is proves he isn’t a real conservative”. Many termed it as an outburst, presuming that Trump had really lost his temper and has said a lot more than he had planned and this was the beginning of his end.

But was there any validity in Trump’s assertions? Let’s examine the first allegation of blaming Bush not being able to prevent 9-11. We go back to October 2000, over a year before the 9-11 attacks when the USS Cole was bombed at port in Yemen. This was an attack on a US asset and needed to be taken seriously. Two month later, in December 2000 the CIA was able establish that Al Qaeda was behind the bombing. The departing Clinton administration passed the obligation of retaliation to the Bush administration. In January 2001, CIA reminded Bush that Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole. But no action was taken to deal with Al Qaeda or remove them from Afghanistan, despite the fact that it was common knowledge that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan provided a safe haven to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. A pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan would have weakened Al Qaeda, sent a firm message to potential perpetrators, perhaps prevented an attack on US soil. But the lack of action probably emboldened them.

In 2002 the Senate and House Committees on Intelligence held a joint inquiry into the performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Their findings detailed the lack of co-operations between the FBI and CIA. It also highlighted their failure to use available information to disrupt the terror plots that led to 9-11. Since Bush was the commander in chief the ultimate responsibility fell on his shoulders. This was not a fault finding mission, it was an important activity to learn lessons from mistakes committed so that nothing like this ever occurred again on US soul. One would assume that the Bush administration would welcome this move but instead it attempted to stonewall the activities of the committee and employed delay tactics. When the report came out they demanded portions of the report be classified. If the Bush administration was not at fault there was no reason to withhold vital details of the report from the American Public. Even if it was their mistake, the right thing to do was to publicly admit their mistake rather than indulging in subterfuge.

Now for the Iraq War, it is clear that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who brutalized his people. But sometime there are no good choices available, and among the entire gamut of unsavory choices, Saddam was perhaps the only man who could keep that country under control. Upon his departure the worst elements in the region took over, that lead to the establishment of ISIS. Currently ISIS holds many major cities in Iraq and has control of the oil well. ISIS is wealthy and powerful and has inspired many all over the world to conducts deadly terrorist attacks. The Iraq war cost the US over 1.8 trillion dollars, casualties in order of millions, a destruction of good will in the international community, some of the immediate effects of the disruption of Iraqi oil production led to the price of oil skyrocketing at that time but most importantly it diverted focus from the war on terror. A colossal mistake by any standards. It has to be noted that Trump had called out Bush for the Iraq mess and termed him as one of the worst presidents ever, back in 2008.

Here's the interview from 2008, on CNN with Wolf Blitzer

In an interview to Fox News, former V.P. Dick Cheney termed Trump’s criticism the Bush administration like that of a liberal Democrat. But Cheney and the Bushes seem to forget that the principles of conservationism is non-interference i.e. you do attack unless there is real threat. By intervening in Iraq, the basic principle of conservatism was violated. In fact George W. Bush’s father who was a conservative himself had decided against entering Iraq as he knew it was an unwinnable situation and would end up destabilizing the region. Let’s look at other principles of conservatism that the Bushes claim to be custodians of. George W Bush doubled federal spending during his presidency, he also doubled the size of the Department of Education; he sent billions of our tax dollars to brutal dictators such as Gaddafi in Libya and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, he supported a big entitlement expansion, he ordered bailouts for banks and auto company bailout and he was ineffective in taking measures to curb illegal immigration. Under his watch the economy collapsed largely due to the massive bills incurred by his wars and ineffective policies.  

Let’s look at this move of Trumps from a strategic point of view. The primary in South Carolina is open which means that Democrats and independents can participate in the process. Calling out the Bush for his mistakes will win many of them over. Adhering to an ideology is a good thing, but does one become an ideological prisoner so blinded that he cannot see when a folly is committed? Being loyal to one’s party is a good thing, but does partisanship trump national interest? Is it not in the important that any President be called out for his incompetency and blunders irrespective of his party? Also, this notion that the Bushes are to be treated with veneration is fast fading, if the Bush brand was still strong, Jeb would have topped all the polls and would done well in Iowa and NH. What Trump has done is proving to his potential voters beyond his base, that he is not afraid to show the powers that be the mirror even if they are the all-powerful Bush family. It must also be remembered that grass roots of the GOP feel betrayed by Bush. As a long term plan for presidential elections, this is an effective way of countering the perpetual 'Blame if on Bush' strategy by the Democrats. The Democrats have consistently attacked Bush and his Iraq war, leading to the GOP going on the defensive. That clearly will not work now.

A poll conducted after the debate shows Trump’s numbers surging both in SC and nationally. Clearly this has worked magnificently and quite easily will boost Trump’s chances in securing the nomination. It will also prove invaluable during his contest versus Hillary.