Column by Andrew Waldner

We officially have a new president now, but that doesn’t mean we have to move on and forget the last one as soon as possible, as much as we might like to. George W. Bush left office with the lowest approval ratings since they started measuring them, and he may well deserve it. But does his administration deserve this legacy it’s tried so desperately and vainly to dig itself out of? Yes and no.

Bush and his subordinates have done some reprehensible things during their tenure. As has come out recently, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was made over two years before we invaded and long before the public had any inkling of it. Hussein’s tenure was over, they decided, and they focused all their efforts in fostering public support for the war with false and possibly falsified “intelligence.” They framed their intelligence around this goal, rather than the other, more rational method of framing their goals around the intelligence.

Now thousands of American soldiers and many times more Iraqis are dead and the new democracy is struggling to right itself. In addition, the same terror we fought the war to stop is now more incensed against us.

Throughout this whole endeavor, the United States placed itself higher and higher above the world stage. Geneva Convention? Screw it. Torture and detention without merit, which the constitution absolutely protects U.S. citizens from, became commonplace with non-citizens. Under the watchful eye of Bush, Cheney and the Defense Department, numerous people were tortured and held for years without any legal reason beyond suspicion. To directly quote former President Richard Nixon: “When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” Bush seemed to subscribe to this philosophy without a second guess.

Did torture help them get better intelligence faster? Possibly. But I couldn’t care less. These are human beings, and they should be treated as such. There is no possible rebuttal to this argument if you are an American citizen, because our founding document absolutely rebukes this. That is absolute and final, especially when done to people you can’t prove have done anything wrong.

Bush’s tenure was partially defined by a seeming mistrust of the rest of the world. His inexplicable appointment of John Bolton, U.N. hater, as our nation’s U.N. ambassador is just a small example of this arrogance. I won’t say the U.N. is a perfect organization, far from it, but at least show some respect.

On the other hand, Bush has done some oddly wonderful things. His administration increased U.S. aid to African nations. In fact, Africa may be the one continent on the face of the Earth that will miss him. He helped the poor, starving and AIDS-stricken people of Africa with little political incentive to do so. The effects of his contributions are impossible to quantify, but the goodwill he’s engendered in the impoverished continent is absolutely priceless and could prove useful down the road.

The Iraq War hasn’t been without its good consequences either. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s just hard to deny that removing Hussein was a good thing, despite being done on false pretenses. He was a cruel dictator ruling a Middle Eastern powerhouse that had long been a festering craphole of oppression and terrorism.

Once the country stabilizes, and it will in time, it’ll be a powerful ally in the U.S.’s rocky relations with the Middle East. In addition, the spread of democracy is never a bad thing, despite how Bush-like and smug that sounds at this point.

And finally, the fault for the financial crisis has fallen almost squarely on his and his party’s shoulders. While it gives liberals a sick pleasure to watch, it’s unfair. Time will remove most of that taint, if not all. His economic and financial policies had little to do with the irresponsible actions of Wall Street and investors, although a little more oversight could have gone a long way in preventing some of the damage to the American people. In the end, it’s as much the fault of any of the previous presidents for not insisting on better oversight, so it’s unfair to blame Bush alone.

One of the points he’s tried to stress most recently is that he made America safer. This is a bit of a deception, but not an outright lie. Did Bush’s administration improve our safety? By fostering intangible goodwill in Africa and creating a new ally from a former enemy in the Middle East, yes. But did the world become a more dangerous place while the U.S.’s power and influence shrunk? Also, yes. So it’s debatable whether we’re safer or not, but Bush shouldn’t be blamed for that.

In the end, Bush will probably never be viewed as positively as he would wish. Will his legacy improve over time? Probably, but only as the seething anger of the country and the world toward him subsides into a simpler, more rational, and more justified, disdain.