This has been floating around out there since Sunday. It started with Andy Card (for Bush Chief of Staff) that Sunday, on through last night's waste of time interview with Condelezza Rice. How much credit does former President Bush really deserve?
Now, there are a number of people (including the current President) that have been generous, trying to share the stage with the former President as a way of healing the divide. And a part of me understands that. But on thinking about the issue, I have come to one unapologetically simple conclusion:
George W. Bush deserves absolutely no credit for the raid that killed Bin Laden.
Zero. None. Zilch.
Granted, I'm a Liberal and I will freely admit to hating on the former President.
But, believe it or not, Politics, nor my own ideology does not come into this. If it was just a matter of Politics or Ideology, I'd probably be more generous.
But this is really about the workload involves. Who did the most work (between the Presidents --as Seal Team Six did the actual work), and at what cost?
Mathematics reveals all. The answer is revealed by simply reversing the components of the formula in question. Instead of how much credit would George W. Bush been given or accepted had the mission to kill Bin Laden gone badly? The question is now:
How much blame would George W. Bush been given or accepted had the mission to kill Bin Laden gone badly?
Whatever number you come up with is the answer to how much credit George Bush actually deserves.
If my Father (the...you know...actual Professor of Mathematics) has any notes, I'll post them when I get them.
