Friday, January 16, 2009

Dear President George W. Bush,

In your final address to the nation last night you said , “I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.” But it is my honor to write these thoughts while you officially and exclusively hold the other title you have worn for eight years: the President of the United States.

A few hours ago you stepped aboard Marine One to spend your last weekend at Camp David. At the top of those steps you turned and waved at the crowd as you have done through the years, and I was pleased to see that in spite of the weight of your two terms, you still seem very comfortable in your own skin, and your smile still radiates from something deep within.

It was the same smile my wife and I saw when we met you in Iowa in the summer of ’99 (when I considered your's and your father's presidencies the perfect bookends to hold shut the pulp non-fiction of the eight years in between). My daughter Kim and I saw that smile again as we visited with you in 2000.
.
We’ve both aged more than eight years since that photo was taken, but I am glad to see that the unspeakable burdens of the Presidency have not taken your Texas smile. It is the perfect complement to the ever-gracious grin of your beautiful wife, Laura.

Of course, not much about any presidency can be defined in terms of smiles. There are far more moments where other emotions prevail. I'll never forget that September day when I stood with co-workers around a TV in our school, far from where any students would see. We watched in horror as the first tower fell, knowing that the second would soon follow. Then the Pentagon was hit, and we collectively held our breath all day wondering “what next?” That night and in the days to follow, my focus and jaw was set like the thousands who enlisted after December 7, 1941.

This visceral urge to fight and die (if need be) in defense of one's home is the untapped (and perhaps uncivilized) energy behind all civilizations. And as illogical as it may seem, I had a secret impulse to drop all other duties and commit fully to the yet-undeclared cause that drew this nation together in those dark days. When you addressed the nation that week, we saw the same desire to defend and preserve, and in your words we were reminded that our duty was to carry on--not to abandon the reasons we wake up, the people we serve, the routines that define our lives, but to carry on unafraid.

We first heard this call to carry on when you stood on that heap of smoldering rubble in Manhattan. A man you’d just then met was hunkered safely under your left arm. A bullhorn in your right hand helped hide your brimming eyes, and with steady, unscripted resolve, you reassured the nation that America would rise from those ashes. And in time we did. So much so that many have forgotten what they felt that day, and I fear what it will take to make them fully appreciate the seven years you oversaw with no other attack on our homeland.
.
You also warned that we were in a different kind of war, one unlike those waged in the past. This war was driven less by our enemy’s desire to win and more by their intent to make free people live in fear. It was then you understood and helped us understand that only people who know true freedom have the strength to rise up against those who would use fear and terror as a weapon against the world.
.
In many ways, you stood alone among world leaders in the effort to help the people of Iraq become a free people, but you were not alone. You were surrounded by the strength of legions, brave fighting men and women who were proud to call you their Commander in Chief. I have family and former students proudly serving there. Only time will tell if their tremendous efforts and progress in Iraq, largely unreported by the press, will continue under different leadership. If not, we know who will be blamed. If so, we know that that achievement will somehow be pinned on the chests of those who did the least to make it happen. I believe the latter will be true, and I admire that you care more about that hope of freedom for others than you do about a mention of your name.
.
It is man--not time--that masks the truth. As the future ever-merges with the past, history sometimes reveals what historians failed to see.
.
For most of the country, that day in New York City was your defining moment, but there is another moment that few know about that also defines the George W. Bush I will always remember.
.
It was a tragedy of a different sort (involving smaller airplanes) that occurred just four months before 9-11. I’m reminded of it each school day when I walk past a small memorial garden outside our school’s front door. In April, a missionary friend of mine was shot down in Peru. His wife Roni was a teacher in our school years before they left for the field. I had spoken with them outside my office door just a few months before as they proudly showed us their new baby girl Charity. As you know, in that preventable-but-accidental “shoot down” both Roni and Charity Bowers were instantly killed by the same bullet. The plane crash-landed into the Amazon River. Jim Bowers and his son Cory miraculously survived.
.
Later that summer, you invited Jim and Cory to the Oval Office. During the visit, you asked secret service and all others to leave the room and you escorted your guests to a small study off the office (a room made infamous during the Clinton impeachment hearings). On a table in that room was an open Bible. You told Jim that since your first week in office you used that room for your daily Bible reading and time of prayer. You asked Jim and Cory if they’d join you that morning. After reading a passage aloud, the three of you prayed together. Understandably, Jim who is a very quiet guy, just listened with bowed head as you prayed for him and his son during their sad loss.
.
Jim sent an email about it the next day. He did not dwell on this detail, but I was struck by your deliberate and honorable use of that small room. Through the years, I‘ve heard many other stories about your shared faith in quiet ways, one-on-one, with soldiers or those who grieve their loss. You‘ve openly wept with those who weep as Romans 12:15 says we‘re to do.

To understand how a President governs, people must first know what governs his heart--not when the cameras are rolling--but behind closed doors. What governs your heart shows when you reach for Laura’s hand; it shows when you speak of your father; it shows in your brimming eyes and in the smile you brought to and have kept through your presidency; it shows in the respect you have shown for the office you held and in the gracious words you've used in passing that office to your successor. We share your hope for his success in all that's best for this nation, and we pray that he in time will more fully understand the difference between cool confidence and the humble strength that comes in knowing one's own frailty and the feel of the White House floor on bended knees.
Thank you, Mr. President.
.Sincerely,
.Tom K.,

13 comments:

the walking man said...

Tom; while we both acknowledge there is little commonality in our political leanings; I do however understand how and why you respect the man who is about to relinquish the mantle of the office of President of the United States.

Prior to 9/11 I looked at his record as Governor of Texas and was not singularly impressed and as president my biggest hick-up was simply that he was from another political dynasty whose family started down this road in the same generation as the Kennedy clan (not a fan of them either).

After September 11, 2001 I then, and still don't, see the rationale for invading Iraq, Afghanistan yes, but not Iraq. Iraq is a war I have opposed from the outset yet the troops who were and are sent to that particular hell, go and do what they must to return to the shores they are familiar with.

In that I agree the nation owes them a debt of gratitude and ongoing benefits for their service, medical, educational, and housing.

By every account I have read, George W. Bush is a leader in all aspects of the word. Charming, gracious and, diplomatic, not adverse to decision making and taking on hard questions, yet like Ulysses S. Grant, I think history will judge him as the wrong man in the wrong place at the right time. But that is my judgment, not truth's.

In 3 more days there will be a page turned and the new administration will of necessity focus on domestic policy ahead of foreign. As the days roll on and history continues to be made I have no idea how time will judge either Bush or Obama, neither man has reached the final page of the their personal chapter yet.

I personally look more forward to the last page of the last chapter than to the chapters in between the first and last. That is when all the human spin will be removed and al;l of the truth as it is, will be shown.

patronus incognitus said...

Mark (TWM),
I know that took discipline to write and I appreciate it.

Never has it been less popular than now to find nice things to say about a man. I'm not blind to the "Bushisms" that have made us shake our heads, and I do recognize those actions in the past eight years that have brought criticism on himself. I'm just able to see both sides of the Bush quarter (though I doubt one will be minted).

For instance, the soldiers I have talked to in Iraq hold views about their service there that mirror President Bush's. (I realize that our fighting men and women tend to be about 75% flag-wavin' Republican, with leanings toward stereotypical traditional, conservative views, but I do think there is far more to be told when history unfolds about that particular war.)

I appreciate that you held back a bit... probably because you understand that the point of an "open letter" is to be positive and personal (the way we are when we're asked to give a eulogy) so I wanted to include that account from my friend Jim Bowers.

America as a whole probably doesn't care what a President does in that private study as long as "peace and prosperity" coincides with his time in office, but I and millions of others appreciate the respect Bush showed the oval office and the position of President. On that score, I do believe President Obama will do equally well (and I think shock and disappointment would rock this country if Obama lapses into the kind of moral narcissism that preoccupied both Bill Clinton and JFK).

I listened to Bill Cosby tell how he took portraits of his mother, father, and deceased brother into the voting booth with him. I was moved by the meaning of his story, and the importance of this moment in history is not lost on me.

As I said back on November 5th,I, too, eagerly look forward to the potential and promise wrapped up in Tuesday's festivities.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Nancy said...

Thank you Tom for putting "pen to paper" and expressing this in a way that no one else could. You have a big heart with a compassion for humanity that makes this world a better place. I know God has to be saying "WELL DONE" and to that I say, AMEN!

patronus incognitus said...

Thanks, Nancy. Regardless of one's political leanings, the strength, stamina, and yes intelligence required to be President should preclude the kind of ridicule this man has endured. The incoming presidency is historic in many ways--one of which is the level of infatuation gushing from the press during the primaries and post election. May he have at least another year before the honeymoon fades. I will feel free to disagree with him on policy, etc. but I will do my best to show respect as he earns it.

Anonymous said...

You have an eloquent and easy manner with the written word that I wish I could portray. The thoughts from within one's heart!!

I love what you had to say. Our country has lost it's way for respect for authority AND the position of our leadership. I think that happened with the '60's generation...truly I do!

I "get" what you were trying to say about President Bush and I would have to agree. I also respect TWM's comments...he has the right to his thoughts and to also express them (just as you do). THAT part is also what is missing in our culture. People "expound" and "bluster" thoughts but if someone is different there isn't a "respect" given.

To go on here probably is just "preaching to the choir"....I keep praying that I too can have a compassion for ALL people just as you seem to have!!!
WSL

Helen Mac said...

I thought at first that this post was satire! I honestly thought it was a spoof. I am a Brit and I had the impression that your countrymen were mainly anti-Bush. I'm sure he is a lovely personal man BUT he has led your country into wars that have achieved nothing and set dangerous precedents. Even worse he has dragged a weak leader (ours) into his schemes and has the blood of our and your soldiers on his hands. I could forgive him the lives of your soldiers - you elected him - but to use his influence on Blair, knowing that he would lap it up like a puppy dog was evil.

Is this really such a proud legacy? I could not thank him for being my president.

Mrs. Geezerette said...

Tom, I want to add to yours my own expression of gratitude to President Bush. He is one of the bravest men I have ever known, because he did not cave in to popular opinion but did what he thought was needed in order to keep our country safe and defeat terrorism eventually.

Angel Helen, I am surprised that you took Tom's post as satire initially. I guess I shouldn't be considering how loud Bush bashers have been about their hatred of the man. I suppose the voices of Bush supporters have been drowned out by the voices of the Bush haters giving the impression to the outside world that we do not exist.

A few years ago I was watching a political discussion on TV. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been the National Security Advisor to President Carter, was on the panel. I will never forget what he had to say about the presidency. He said that the American people have no idea how very demanding and difficult it is to be President of the United States. He said that if the public could only appreciate the terrible responsibility which a President faces and the great difficulty involved in making good decisions for the nation, they would be much more sympathetic and much less critical of the person holding that position. With that in mind, I intend to refrain from criticizing President Obama harshly when I disagree with him about something. I will speak my mind, but with respect. I will extend to him the respect he deserves as President of the United States and as a person. I am confident he will try his very best to serve this country and its people.

Angel Helen in the near future, President Bush plans to write a book in which he will attempt to explain to the American people why he made certain decisions and took certain actions which turned out to be so unpopular with the majority of us. I hope you will reserve some of your judgment of him and his decisions until you have had an opportunity to read his book when it comes out.

As to your Tony Blair, I have great respect for him as a leader and a person. I think he has been one of your greatest leaders. I am surprised that you consider him a weak leader. Do you feel the same way about your Margaret Thatcher?

Helen Mac said...

This is an interesting debate that I have stumbled into!

Susie, I think your comments are well made and I agree that any state leadership is terribly hard, whichever country it may be.

As to Tony Blair, well yes he was far weaker than many realised because he would always bow to pressure from outside. Blair would always do what LOOKED good. Hence following the lead of your president without thought. (Couldn't do to oppose the USA, oh no.)

I suspect you also missed the pure acting that so often happened when he was on the public stage. His insincere and gushing address when Princess Diana died was the most disgusting cringeworthy piece of theatre I have seen, and there were other such speeches. The man deserves an Oscar!

Blair was terribly stupid. To really imagine that Iraq had missiles that could be launched to hit our country in 45 minutes is farcical. We cannot even do that with our own! He had no evidence and colluded with your president to invade a country.

The war on terror has not yet achieved anything. Terrorists get their money from drug trafficking mainly, and over 90% from Afghanistan. Despite us losing soldiers every day out there, last year was a bumper crop of opium for the Afghan farmers.

Margaret Thatcher was a very strong leader, and that strength was her ultimate undoing because when she needed to listen to advisors she did not. She took us into a war with the Argentinians, and USA did not support us and did not allow our planes to use American bases. That war was about territory. The Falklands were our sovreign territory and our forces went there to repel the invader - the Argentinians. It was an entirely different political situation to the second Gulf war.

The Falklands War however secured Margaret Thatcher a greta deal of popularity and I believe that Tony Blair was trying to emulate that when he sent our tropps to Iraq. It backfired on him. But far worse, it has backfired on the families of the dead and maimed soldiers.

No one in the forces minds fighting for one's country. But fighting to overthrow a leader that we don't like by means of a fabricated excuse is not what our forces signed up for. We have not protected our country one bit, in fact we have made our standing even worse in the eyes of many Muslims around the world, including many who are our countrymen.

It's not just sad, it is pure tragedy.

Helen Mac said...

I forgot to say. Check out a page in my blog from Tuesday 11 November, which is called Help for Heroes. It isn't political but it might just get you thinking.

patronus incognitus said...

WSL,
Oh, my, I hadn’t checked this page since Monday and then just now as I start lunch break I see I've missed out on some fun. Thanks for "getting me." =)

Last night I watched President Bush in Midland, TX, and his remarks echoed what I wrote here last Friday. I may add a link if I can find the clip.

Angel Helen (A.H.),

First of all let me thank you stopping by and for commenting candidly and with the civility we Yanks assume prevails in Britain (until we watch the House of Commons on C-Span and are reminded that people are people regardless of their accent =).

Perhaps the most interesting thought from your initial observation, based on your own views but mostly on public perception, is that you assumed that anything “positive” about President Bush must be a set-up for the sort of lampooning American cynicism has produced for years. But rest assured, A.H. that there are millions of Americans who hold both President Bushes in high regard. I know some of my subscribers and blogging friends feel the same way you do. I’m okay with that, and it’s probably what compelled me to write this letter. The truth is, I could have gone on and on about the things I admire about President Bush.

As for the acting of Tony Blair—what national leader doesn’t have “to act” a good part of every day. Any time we think outside ourselves, for instance, when we put the interests of others ahead of our own, we’re “acting” in a sense because our nature is to be selfish. Whenever I do “the right thing” when my inclination is to do what I please, I suppose some could say “I’m acting.” So in that sense, I don’t mind when leaders “act” so long as their actions are based on true convictions. But like you I admire it most when something real and deep inside is coming through the eyes and words of a man of character, and I have seen that in President Bush many times.

Here’s something you might find funny about the way many Americans think. We often mistake the proper sound of a British accent with intelligence. I know I do. Whenever Prime Minister Blair and President Bush did joint press conferences, I always thought Blair sounded brilliant. Both men could say essentially the same thing, but to me (a true Bush fan), I always thought the Brit sounded smarter saying the same thing. And let’s face it, George W. Bush has said some pretty funny things when he’s tongue tied. But I think you would also concede that you don’t really think either of these men is stupid. You may disagree with their ideas and actions, just as I do with say Barney Frank, but it takes more intelligence than most of us bloggers can muster on our best day to be Prime Minister of England or President of the United States. These are intelligent men. And having spent some time reading your blog, I’ll add that you, too, sound like a very intelligent person (and when I imagine your Northampton accent behind the words, you sound even brighter).

Understanding the intelligence of those with whom they may disagree is a mark of intelligence that few liberals in America seem to possess. They would rather label as “intellectually bankrupt” all evangelical Christians. They would rather tattoo “homophobe” on the forehead of anyone who values the time-honored definition of marriage. They would rather treat as stupid the Sarah Palins of this world, because by marginalizing the people who threaten their views they are free to peddle their smug cynicism uninterrupted (from Hollywood and cable talking-head shows).

So I don’t fault you for thinking all Americans dislike Bush as you do Blair. You were simply acting on the “bad intelligence” proliferated by those who want millions to think that was true.

I do thank you for these good thoughts. Please come again.

SQ,
Since the first comment when I met you somewhere out here in cyberspace, you set such a fine example of the kind of civil discourse that helps the process.

I appreciate the good exchange between you and A.H. in my two-day absence form PI. I, too, hold Margaret Thatcher (and her friend Ronald Reagan) in very high regard. Each leader and circumstance (and war as A.H. points out) are different, but I admire when people's character holds true in the face of adverse political winds.

I know you are on sabbatical from your own blog, so feel free to post "posts" here in the comments as the urge arises.

Tom

Helen Mac said...

How interesting to have intelligent debate. My "intelligence" on the way Americans feel about George Bush was in fact based partly on our press here but also on a visit I made to California last year, where my parents spend half the year. No one we met had anything good to say about him. My folks were left with the very strong impression that he was almost universally disliked.

I take your point about acting but honestly some of the things Tony Blair came up with... It was the insincerity of the man which gripped me. Taking the Diana performance as an example, I do believe that he would have done better to have read the speech in a dignified fashion than pretend the way he did. His wife is the same, but you have to remember that they are both lawyers, barristers, who learned quickly that they need to act well in the court room. Their training was completed many years ago.

Blair's popularity was hard to define. For the first few years he was very popular but as the cracks started to show, the conservative middle classes turned against him. The war that he thought would define him did exactly that but in a negative way unfortunately. Gordon Brown is not at all popular. He was never going to be but presiding over a financial collapse and a recession is actually bad luck and could have happened to anyone.

I'm sure you understand that I do not consider either Blair or Bush to be wholesale stupid per se. Some of their actions, in my humble opinion, were.

I find your comments about accent and intelligence interesting as it is a view I agree with. Whenever I hear a "cut-glass" English accent I try very hard to listen to the real words as you can be easily bamboozled by the way they sound on a person's lips. I find your Southern states accents like a country accent, which can give an impression of slowness, which is a damn shame. It's the same here though. Fortunately for me, I spent long enough in the Army to hone my own English to a nondescript "middle England"

I'm glad I came across your post, I have enjoyed the debate.

patronus incognitus said...

Hi,again, H.A.

This was an interesting discussion and I almost missed it due the busy nature of this week and another commitment I'm working on at a different blog.

I almost laughed when you said that you also based your assumption on what you heard in California last year. That sort of illustrates my point. The rest of the world thinks this country thinks like California and New York City. It's understandable why they think that. It's sort of like the rest of the country is the denim of America and L.A. or NYC are the "brand" sewn on the belt loops.

To illustrate this point, I've added the county-by-county maps of both times President Bush was elected.

Thanks for your thoughtful follow-up. I do fully understand your points. President Bush recognized the political winds and laid low this past year to let McCain be his own candidate. The Bush supporters laid low, too, but sometimes silent affection is the most enduring kind.

I may be away from comments here for a day or so.

Mrs. Geezerette said...

Angel Helen, I have to confess that one reason I like Tony Blair is because he reminds me of a young man I was fond of who my daughter dated for a while years ago.

I hope you caught Tom's addition to his post showing the maps he mentioned to you so that you can see what a vast area of the U.S. voted for Bush both times. It is true that he leaves this office with a very low approval rating. It is a much higher approval rating than that of Congress though. It is also higher than that of President Truman when he left office, and Truman was vindicated later on by the historians. Truman is now considered one of our best presidents. Perhaps President Bush will be vindicated too in time.

I hope you return to this blog. I have enjoyed your input. You will find that Tom is a very nice person who takes care of his readers. He is a gifted wordsmith and an intelligent, principled man. They don't come any better.

website tracking statistics
Flat-Panel Television