Bush II!!

HotAir. With this kicker:

I had hoped he might do it, now it appears that he has.

In his final acts of clemency, President George W. Bush on Monday commuted the prison sentences of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents whose convictions for shooting a Mexican drug dealer ignited fierce debate about illegal immigration.

Bush's decision to commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who tried to cover up the shooting, was welcomed by both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. They had long argued that the agents were merely doing their jobs, defending the American border against criminals. They also maintained that the more than 10-year prison sentences the pair was given were too harsh.

Rancor over their convictions, sentencing and firings has simmered ever since the shooting occurred in 2005.

Ramos and Compean became a rallying point among conservatives and on talk shows where their supporters called them heroes. Nearly the entire bipartisan congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.

Bush didn't pardon the men for their crimes, but decided instead to commute their prison sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations, a senior administration official said.

The action by the president, who believes the border agents received fair trials and that the verdicts were just, does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes, the official said.

Compean and Ramos, who have served about two years of their sentences, are expected to be released from prison within the next two months.

Great news. Its interesting that Compean and Ramos seem to be at the opposition end of the Supreme Court's generosity towards police error.

Glenn Reynolds has started an interesting debate about the exclusionary rule--a legal principle that provides a defendant a defense based on how evidence was collected, rather than whether it proves a crime was committed or not.

Moonbat hatred of Bush is in someways understandable--see my post on the neosavages. Yet last year, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came to address a BYU forum, he couldn't help but mar an otherwise excellent speech with a little Bush bashing on the way out.

This wasn't the usual politicking--throwing a little red meat to the far-left faithful to get them to give another five bucks on-line. This was Brigham Young University, where Bush is popular, and when not, at least respected (a very civilized place, BYU...). Reid made the comment because he couldn't help himself, because he was angry at Bush.

I thought of that when I read Bill McGurn's editorial at the Wallstreet Journal today on why the Washington elite hold nearly universal opprobrium for the outgoing President.

It's not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush's disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.

I had the instant sense that this was correct. You hate what threatens you, and Bush's real threat to the Democrats and other know-it-alls is that he was right, and they were wrong.

Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.

Whether the morons in Washington like him or not is inconsequential, but Bush's victory in the struggle with radical Islam is not--not by a long shot.

"The Princess Bride" features the following axioms--only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Presciently perhaps, Vinzinni drops dead immediately after his chortling.

Bush has dealt the Democrats an anatreptic on the Vietnam mythology--we can win a land war in Asia--we just did. Forevermore, Democrats can't pass the buck on national security issues on the basis that any war is going to end up like Vietnam, and I think that's ultimately the real burr under their saddle.

Mr. Obama seems aware that, at the end of the day, he will not be judged by his predecessor's approval ratings. Instead, he will soon find himself under pressure to measure up to two Bush achievements: a strategic victory in Iraq, and the prevention of another attack on America's home soil.

Bush is like that guy who has the perfect lawn, makes big money, stays in shape and cooks gourmet meals for the family. He raises expectations and complicates everybody's life.

Goodbye Sir, we'll miss you. Enjoy the ranch, and I hope to see you sometime around the Presidential library and finally shake your hand.

UPDATE: I'm a big fan of irony, which isn't fashionable these days (but then again, neither am I...). The Anchoress delivers a big heaping dose.

President Bush, using dubious (but largely agreed-upon) intelligence, and inspired by his view - a view some would call “alarmist” - that terrorism is the greatest threat to humanity life and liberty on the planet, went to the UN and called for international movement to depose Saddam Hussein and engage Al Qaeda in a ground war. Some say Bush brooked no debate and suggested that dissent was “unpatriotic.” Those opposed to the war, both outside of the press and from within, cry “why did the press not ask more questions? Why did they simply go along with what Bush said?”

Al Gore, using dubious (but somewhat agreed upon) intelligence, and inspired by his view - a view some would call “alarmist” - that global warming is MAN MADE and the greatest threat to humanity on the planet, has traveled the globe calling for international movement and legislation that will threaten human liberty and whole economies. He refuses to debate, and suggests the press not report upon dissent. Some of his supporters suggest that that dissent on the issue is akin to “holocaust denial.” Those who take a differing view are now crying, “why will the press not ask more questions? Why are they simply going along with what Gore says?”

Future generations will not confuse Al Gore with a great man, they may think that Bush is though.

Peter Berkowitz wrote a great editorial last week in the WSJ: Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin. If you've ever been just plain flabbergasted at the unicorns-sneezing-skittles adoration from some Obama supporters, with all their kittens and soviet propaganda and condescending YouTubery, this lays it out. Snap:

Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students' absorption of their professors' lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion.

An Obama voter with buyer's remorse.

I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush's was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

We had a lot of that last year. While John McCain clearly won his nomination on biography, the same is true for Obama (although much of his biography was hidden from the electorate by a complicit state media...). Left behind were two candidates with obvious abilities and experience--Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

Is Obama's profound incompetence an object lesson for the American electorate on the dangers of voting romantically?

Probably not, but I think 'experience' is going to weigh more heavily on the scales next time around...

I've written in favour of George Bush for his personal quality and his political bravery. The hobgoblins of the left invented a demon called Bush for a scapegoat, so its a public service to defend him,

BUT

I must link to Michelle Malkin's "Things I don't miss about George W. Bush" for a cold shower. The phrase "pre-socialized the economy for Obama" will linger.