He is a humble guy who put his country first, even when his legacy and the future of the republican party stood in the balance,.
He showed time and again that he loves and respects his country so much that he refuses to respond to criticisms that he was wrong about the Iraq war, even while doing so might have saved his legacy and lead to a republican monopoly in Washington.
From the moment the Iraq war began in 2003, the Democrat Party, after a couple days of making it look like they were all for it because public support was, it didn't take long before the Democrat Party and the media began an ongoing, never-ending 24/7, 365 effort to discredit the effort, to discredit the war, to discredit the motivation.
During the initial fighting in Iraq there was no effort to search for WOMD, as the effort at this time was to secure the area. Yet one the fighting started to slow down in 2004, evidence started to come in that Saddam did indeed harbor such weapons. Yet even when Rick Santorum came forward with evidence back in 2006 (and, yes, he's gloating today), George W. Bush refused to release the evidence to prove Santorum right.
While the decision must have been that of George Bush himself, a new report suggests that Karl Rove is taking the blame for covering up the fact that WOMD were indeed found in Iraq. As evidence of discarded WOMD started coming in, he simply said, "Let sleeping dogs lie."
To me, that does not seem to be the type of decision that Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, would make. As political advisor, you'd think he would have preferred for such evidence to become vastly available for the media to pounce over in order to vindicate a president who had otherwise been vastly criticised by democrats in Washington and the media.
However, a decision to let sleeping dogs lie would go right along with how Bush handled his presidency, whereby he would often make decisions he thought were best for his country based on principle, and let the people decide for themselves.
In fact, as you can see for yourself in this video, in 2007 Bush ordered a surge in Iraq while critics were calling for a pull out. Bush, however, went on TV to defend his decision. He said:
"I know some in Washington would like us to withdraw from Iraq now. Begin withdrawing before our commanders say we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean we would risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq that they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean that we increase the possibility that U.S. troops will face on a later date an enemy that was even more dangerous."This was a surge that would indeed end up stabilizing the region. And, after Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS entered the region. ISIS, as you may know, is quite possibly the enemy that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
The problem with any news that appears to vindicate Bush is that it will always be underplayed by the media. Even as the New York Times reported that WOMD were in fact found in Iraq, they down played this news by saying, "but it was a pre-1991 weapons cache."
But what does it matter. The fact of the matter is that Bush was right. He was right to go into Iraq to in an effort to create stability in an otherwise unstable region, and to make it so terrorists could not harbor weapons and find safe havens that allowed them to regroup in their efforts to convert or kill non Muslims.
It appears, however, that Bush has indeed been vindicated.