Truman vs. Bush?

I don't get it... I keep hearing these people on the radio comparing George W. Bush with Harry Truman. OK, let's debunk some things right now: Dubya is no Harry Truman. Let's look at a few comparisons that don't work for me:

First, Harry Truman is a personal hero of mine - Dubya is not. I have paid homage to Truman by visiting his home and library and taking the tour then visiting his grave at the library... something I would never do for Bush. I will admit, this is simply my viewpoint but I felt that it's important for me to state this fact up front so don't worry, we'll go deeper for those who still feel that Dubya deserves to be on the same mantle as Truman.

Ten digits seperate Truman (33rd president) from Bush (43rd) but that is about as close as they get in my mind. Also, for the sake of keeping this post focused, I'll dispense with the obvious fact that Bush is a Republican while Truman was a Democrat, so there it is. Let's instead begin with the fact that Bush desired the presidency. Not only that, but he has since relished the fact that he is the president. Often referring to himself as "The Decider." as if he's the star in some pompous action flick: Coming Soon From Bung-Hole Pictures: George W. Bush is "THE DECIDER." Here is a man who couldn't wait to get the rains and do what his father opted (in better judgement, I might add) not to do and remove Saddam Hussein from power for fear of who or what might take his place. Now we have a group of insurgents who want nothing more than to kill Americans and anyone else who doesn't believe what they do! In sharp contrast, Truman never wanted to be president. He didn't fear it - he just didn't want it - he loved his simple midwestern life where he and Bess and Margaret could live quietly. In fact, some of his close advisors had to tell him several times that he needed to stop revealing his postion that he wasn't comfortable as the president - whether he wanted it or not - he now was the president and the American people needed him to stand up and be the president. The presidency was thrust upon him and not only that, it was done so at one of the greatest turning points in history. If you need to see this in more depth - I urge you to read Truman by David McCullough - it is, perhaps, the greatest biography of Truman done to date and provides great insight into his personal feelings as he ascended to the highest office.

Truman, a former military man who fought in the Argonne Forest in WWI, knew what was both right and practical: I doubt Truman would spend billions on a war to rebuild infrastructure at costs that range in the millions more than the original structures were even worth new yet that is what Bush is doing - I will point you to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that was referenced in a great article by Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent J. Fumo that stated Bush was spending millions on rebuilding an embassy - millions! He also points out that Truman would and did see to it that the military personnel had the proper equipment and protection in the field: Bush's administration has done little to nothing to even reinforce the armor on the Humvees!!!

Let's also look at the personal struggle with the use of the bomb. Truman grappled with this - what were the costs in terms of human life - not simply in terms of money. Bush gave little thought into the prospect of invading Iraq - instead, he spent all of his time devising a way to get in there - his only quarrel wasn't with "was it right or wrong" - no - it was "how do I get the American people to buy my load of shit?" Truman wasn't looking to deceive anyone - he knew how terrible this would be and that the decision was to be a heavy one no matter what.

Once the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - I don't beleive Truman decided to say - "OK - drop it - but avoid the churches!" Sorry, Dubya - but when the asswipes we're fighting are seeking refuge in the mosques - you can't bow to PC pressure and say, "nope - can't touch the mosques." If you really want to be like Truman - the unpopular decisions need to be smart ones. Of course, I do have to acknowledge on this point that we live a world entirely different from the one Truman faced in the '40s - newsreels were the prime source of news and Americans were not as concerned with what happened to our enemies. They weren't brutal but in war - people die - sometimes innocent people and it's better not to see this on the evening news or on 24-hour newschannels either. But this doesn't give Bush a pass either - if you want to fight this kind of war, you have to be ready for the bloody noses that come with it too.

Let's not forget another view of Truman's in WWII: Containment. Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, could not fall under the fascist sphere of influence. Does Bush seem to espouse the idea of containment? No, it's "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Umm... I wouldn't compare Truman to Bush here, that's for sure. I would think Truman would have sought to form alliances in areas surrounding the so-called "rogue nations" and contain those governments who sympathize with terrorists. We know who they are - he's defined them as "The Axis of Evil" et al. I know people will ask, "well, what about the terrorist cells in other parts of the world and here at home?" True, but this is where the work of the justice department should come into play - we have always had to deal with those who seek to hurt us from within and we probably always will so we have to keep on, keepin' on when it comes to this front.

Truman was also an internationally respected leader who sought and achieved strong alliances with foreign leaders; Bush has done a bang-up job of alienating them and the only allies we have are the "coalition of the willing" - I'm sorry, but other than Great Britain - we have zilch on this front. Dubya spent way too much time with his compadres eating "freedom fries" and pissing off potential allies instead of calling leaders together to come to a consensus - Potsdam anyone????

Let's also remember that Truman, while a politician, still worked well with his Repulican counterparts. Bush, on the other hand, simply dismisses the Democrats as "unpatriotic" whenever a difference of opinion surfaces. Doubt me? How can you?

I just want to see an end come to this foolish comparison to Harry Truman. There is no comparison. You want to like and support Bush? That's your perogative but don't compare him to Harry Truman just to make yourself feel better. Truman may have sagged in the polls, but that doesn't mean your poll-sagging "decider" is anything like the Man from Independence.