It's absolutely true that Bush got a lot of flak for things that were pretty clearly not his fault. I'll give just one example, but there are many: blaming Bush for 9/11 is pretty simple-minded, memos notwithstanding. It is absolutely true that a memo crossed Bush's desk saying that Al Qaeda planned to fly planes into buildings, but we have to remember the signal-to-noise ratio here. That memo was likely preceded, and followed, by dozens of equally alarming ones that amounted to nothing in the end.
Not to mention that Bush was pretty new at his job, and had no real relevant experience--he had a pretty steep learning curve that first year, and even the most ardent Bush-basher has to admit that after a very tough start, Bush did get a little bit more competent.
But I certainly don't remember any of this nonsense about millions of dollars when he attended the Winter Olympics, or when he went to baseball games, or when he went to Crawford Ranch to clear brush, etc. etc. Presidents travel. It costs money. That money is the cost of doing business for the POTUS.
This "controversy" is silly. I'd call it a storm in a teacup, but it's really more of a thimble. In order for this to have any legs, you either believe the "optics" are bad, which they aren't proving to be, or you believe the cost was enormous, which it in all probability was not in relation to the daily cost of doing business in the White House.
We can make up numbers all day long if we want, but here's the truth: none of us knows what it cost. If the cost were exorbitant in relation to daily presidential costs of business, it likely wouldn't have been done.
If this is Obama's big controversy, he must be having a pretty good presidency so far.
|