Ruth King

On January 10, 2007, promoting a “surge” in troop levels in Iraq, the President issued these strong words: “The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”

He made a perfunctory reference to the “Palestinians” but omitted any mention of the “two state (dis)solution which had become a staple of his policy statements since 2003. It seemed that the President had chosen a path to victory rather than a “road map” to retreat. In the penultimate year of a presidency, all leaders confront their role in history, and it seemed that President Bush clearly saw his.

But then something funny happened on his way to a legacy.

One might have thought that the chaos in Gaza, a nuclear threat from Iran, an increasingly belligerent Russia, a bellicose Chavez increasing his influence in Latin America, the growth of jihad in Africa, a derisive North Korea, along with problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would weigh on the president’s mind.

Yet only seven days later, in his annual State of the Union address, President Bush returned to his idee fixe: “With the other members of the Quartet-- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia--we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.” There he went again.

In a dramatic flourish he renewed his pledge to make America “energy independent” by introducing a plan called 20 in 10—reducing gasoline consumption by 20% in ten years by adding more government regulation, clean coal, safe nuclear energy, ethanol. (There was the requisite vow to confront global warming.) But this time around he left out domestic drilling and his strong statement in 2006 (in connection with his proposed Advanced Energy Initiative): “America is addicted to oil, which is often (often?) imported from unstable parts of the world.”

Alas, the facts belie the promises. Nothing, absolutely nothing has been done to make our economy, our national institutions and our foreign policy independent of the oil producing states.

Instead of penny ante alternatives such as ethanol and batteries, how about encouraging private investment in technology for switching to clean coal? National deposits can produce enough energy for 400 years. Equally important, instead of caving in to the “climateers” of Bali whose true agenda is de-industrialization of the West, why not take real steps to renew the building of nuclear energy plants? The President has now signed an "energy bill" whose most dramatic recommendation is an end to the incandescent bulb. Wow! This "dhimming" of lights will leave Americans in darker homes still reliant on foreign oil to keep warm.

The president applied moral zeal to advancing research for non-embryonic stem cells. Why did he not apply equal zeal to energy independence? That would have burnished his legacy to make him an equal of Ronald Reagan and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

How about immigration reform and homeland security? Americans want immigration controls with national identity cards, “profiling” and tracking. Where is the president on all this? Hiding behind platitudes about a “melting pot.”

And what about Russia? Putin won and consolidated his autocratic rule, but Condi, supposedly an expert on Russia, was busy demanding concessions from Olmert in preparation for the Annapolis ball and the launching of a new terror state in the heartland of Israel.

And, finally, what about the war on terror? We were solemnly told that the Annapolis gang-up on Israel was designed to consolidate “moderate” Arab support for an initiative against Iran and “the war on terror.” In fact Annapolis was a display of vulgar and flagrant anti-Semitism by what Ralph Peters has called “fat men in white robes with oil cans in their hands.” The guest list was impressive. Everyone needs a break from committing genocide, so a representative from Sudan attended and Bashar Assad made sure that while he was gone, the dissidents in his jails were “controlled” with methods that make waterboarding look like an “extreme sport.” The robed thugs whose citizens are jailed and flogged when they are victims of rape, overtly “dissed” the entire Israeli delegation.

Two states (four if you count Jordan and Gaza) and a divided Jerusalem are now a given, and to show he means it, Olmert released more than 750 terrorists to wreak further havoc on Israel. According to Olmert, only those terrorists “without blood on their hands” were released. One would assume that during their incarceration they did wash their hands.

And then, poof….the entire State Department “rationale” for Annapolis collapsed with the release of an NIE report that Iran was not so close to realizing its nuclear ambitions after all. In spite of serious doubts by serious intel experts, the Bush administration took the less proactive path and sought “dialogue” with Iran with no let up of pressure on Israel.

When President Ronald Reagan was buried, I kept observing the faces of ex-presidents, who were no doubt thinking of their own legacy. Ronald Reagan held fast to his vision of “the Evil Empire” and the end of Soviet colonization is his great legacy. Presidents Carter, Clinton, the first George Bush and the late Gerald Ford may get nice funeral processions and big libraries but no lasting legacy.

President Bush, our steward during the horrible days of September 2001, the man who ostracized Arafat and stood up to Al Qaeda, toppled Saddam Hussein and withstood the assaults of dhimmi-wit legislators, is a major disappointment to those of us who liked and encouraged him. One may blame Condoleezza Rice for what John Bolton has called the “free-fall” of America’s foreign policy, but legacies are made by the President and the buck stops there. •