Condi Rice: America Will Thank George W. Bush

In an interview with CBS's "Sunday Morning," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attempted to put her spin on the legacy of her boss, George W. Bush. Not surprisingly, she argues that, while a record percentage of Americans currently disapprove of the job that the president has done, in the long run, the country will come to recognize Bush as a competent, effective leader:

"This isn't a popularity contest. I'm sorry, it isn't. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run--not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment. And I am quite certain that when the final chapters are written and it's clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gone in favor of an Iraq that is favorable to the future of the Middle East; when the history is written of a U.S.-China relationship that is better than it's ever been; an India relationship that is deeper and better than it's ever been; a relationship with Brazil and other countries on the left of Latin America, better than it's ever been...

"When one looks at what we've been able to do in terms of changing the conversation in the Middle East about democracy and values, this administration will be judged well, and I'll wait for history's judgment and not today's headlines."

With all due respect to Ms. Rice, her list of foreign policy accomplishments is more than a little suspect considering that all out war has erupted between Israel and the democratically elected (at the insistence of the Bush Administration) Hamas government. That suicide bombings are on the rise in Iraq. That India and Pakistan have edged closer to military conflict. That Afghanistan remains an ever precarious nation-state, despite our best attempts to rehabilitate it. That the reason our relations with China and Brazil have improved might also have a lot to do with shifting economic fortunes (including our own).

Let's face it, every outgoing administration pushes the "history will look back kindly" line. And while it is true that the Bush years were marked by incredible challenges, the ultimate verdict on whether the administration rose to meet them, or made them that much worse will not be left to those officials currently working the image makeover circuit-- Rice, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush himself. By that same measure, an enduring historical assessment of our 43rd president might not mirror the one put forth by the authors of "Goodnight Bush," either.

It's also silly to think that History, with its capitol H, is something that falls from the sky like a smart bomb and pinpoints the absolute truth about a president or world event. Our collective understanding of the job our leaders have performed is something that is already in the process of being shaped, and does not gestate for an untold number of years, only to be born--perfectly formed and autonomous--after the White House principals are dead and buried.

While legacies do change over time, they always start off as popularity contests. Does that mean that as time passes, and the passions of the moment cool, that we come to a clearer understanding of how good or bad those times really were? Yes and no. So, weigh in, history hangs in the balance: