For better or for worse, second term will define Bush legacy

By Bob Sommer

Presidential second terms are often seen as the opportunity for each incumbent to define his place in history. That doesn't necessarily mean a positive legacy and President Bush seems to be following in the path of his most recent predecessors, only in a more harmful manner.

The last three second-term administrations have brought dramatic scandal to the White House. Specifically, Watergate, Iran-Contra and Monica stained Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, respectively. For Bush it could be worse, as the more apt comparison may well be Lyndon Johnson's full term. While not a second term in the truest sense - he was sworn in following the Kennedy assassination, elected in his own right a year later and was eligible to run again in 1968 - the disaster that was Vietnam prevented him from seeking four more years.

Iraq is on its way to being Bush's Vietnam. Eerily for the president, his current approval ratings are virtually identical to Johnson's, in terms of his management of the war. Despite the administration's attempt to redefine Iraq not as a war but "as a struggle against violent extremism," the American public isn't buying it. And Bush has no one to blame but himself.

Much has already been written about the reasons the White House gave for invading Iraq. However, too little attention has been paid to what the Bush administration expected of Americans. As a war president, Bush squeaked through his run for re-election. No president has been defeated in time of war (though Johnson might have been the first had he run). But the Bush administration is now suffering because little was done to prepare the nation for the struggle now faced in Iraq.

Bush's aircraft carrier stunt declaring "Mission Accomplished" shortly after the invasion of Iraq now seems like a cruel hoax. It turns out that, in fact, the mission was barely started. Some may recall that just before the war began, the president boasted that he had finished reading "The Conquerors," a Pulitzer Prize-winning analysis of the deliberate steps taken by Roosevelt and Truman to ensure the successful transition from war to market economies in Europe and Japan, and Bush assured the public that he would follow in their footsteps.

In truth, the lack of post-battle hostility planning by the Bush administration has now been laid bare as nothing short of disastrous. At the same time, Americans have been told sacrifice at home was not on the agenda.

The president wanted to have it all: an "easy" war victory matched with nothing resembling sacrifice at home.

But Americans are beginning to get it. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Americans were told that creating a democratic nation there was the new goal. But Iraq is more dangerous than ever and American soldiers are dying more rapidly than a year ago. Perhaps more ominous than his approval rating as an indictor of public sentiment is that military recruitment is far behind projections. It seems potential soldiers are the most informed consumers when it comes to understanding the real impact of Iraq.

That's not to say that Americans won't make sacrifices. They will when asked. It's more that America's chief executive refused to acknowledge that there was a need _ and now it is too late. The president's speech last month from his Texas ranch about staying the course in Iraq rang hollow. Most Americans aren't on the same path any longer.

Much like Johnson with Vietnam, once a president has lost the support of Americans, especially when it comes to war, it becomes almost impossible to regain their trust. From forbidding photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq to foolish statements like Vice President Cheney's recent claims that opponents in Iraq were in their last throes, Americans are deciding not to believe the White House spin when it comes to the war.

However, unlike Johnson, Bush no longer needs to worry about running for office. But, for the Republicans, his leadership on Iraq may well be the issue voters are most worried about in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections. Indeed, in a race last month for an open House seat in a bedrock Republican district in Ohio, the Democratic candidate, who had fought in Iraq, received 48 percent of the vote, after calling the President a "chicken hawk." Republican officials called it a "wake-up call" for the White House.

So, with the war perhaps getting worse by the day and polls showing that a majority of the nation no longer believes the invasion has helped to prevent future terrorist attacks, it is time for the president to stop trying to bamboozle the public. Americans know that a war is a war, no matter which words are used to describe it.

More important, a war going poorly cannot be brushed over. The president must realize that to lead the nation, he must confront the reality that is now Iraq. Either he has to bring the troops home or he must speak honestly to the nation about what it will take to remedy the problem that has been created.

In asking Americans to sacrifice at this late date, the one thing that can't be sacrificed is the truth. His legacy depends on it.