George Walker Bush

First term

His most controversial appointment was John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Democrats vigorously opposed Ashcroft, citing socially conservative positions on issues, such as abortion and capital punishment, though he was eventually confirmed. On his first day in office, Bush moved to block federal aid to foreign groups that offered counselling or any other assistance to women in obtaining abortions. [16] Days later, he announced his commitment to channelling more federal aid to faith-based service organizations that critics feared would dissolve the traditional separation of church and state. [17] [18]

Republicans lost control of the Senate in June, when Vermont's James Jeffords quit the Republican party to become an independent, but not before five Senate Democrats crossed party lines to approve Bush's $1.35 billion tax cut. Less than three months later, however, the administration released budget projections that showed the projected budget surplus decreasing to nothing over the years to come.

Second term

President Bush's second term has been characterized by misfortune both political and natural. Following his fifth State of the Union, the president pushed for Social Security reform, a measure which was initially supported by the president's party but was unable to pass the congress after bipartisan opposition arose. Ramifications of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Valerie Plame leak case caused loss of public faith in the Office of the President [19], and preempted the resignation of high level White House staff. The federal response to Hurricane Katrina and question of cronyism in August 2005 proved to be difficult for the president. Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist allowed for the nomination and appointment of two new justices. President Bush initially nominated John Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor, but on the death of Justice Rehnquist asked the Senate to confirm Roberts as Chief Justice. Harriet Miers was the president's second choice to fill the vacancy of Justice O'Connor, but after the withdrawal of Miers nomination decided upon Samuel Alito, who was successfully appointed to the Supreme Court. Currently a debate on the legality of President Bush's domestic surveillance program has led to public debate on the limits of executive privilege and some fractions within his own party.

Administration

Bush places a high value on personal loyalty and, as a result, his administration has high message discipline. Critics allege that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes and that he has surrounded himself with "yes men".

Bush's presidency has been characterized by a vigorous defense of executive privilege. Some commentators have claimed that deference to executive privilege was one of the principal considerations Bush's administration considered when he proposed his three nominations for the Supreme Court, and appointed John R. Bolton to the United Nations.

Bush has performed many of his presidential duties from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, dubbed "the Western White House". As of August 2, 2000, Bush had visited the ranch 49 times during his time as President, accruing 319 days away from the White House and nearly reaching Reagan's eight-year record of 335 days in 5.5 years. The administration has supported this policy as helping the president get a different perspective from Beltway thinking and that he is still working (the administration noted that Bush's longest visit to Crawford, in August 2005, included only one week of actual respite in the five-week visit.)

Foreign policy

His foreign policy includes such events as the plans to create a missile defense system and rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Days after taking office, Bush stated "I am going to go forward with... plans for a missile defense system." [28] To accomplish this deployment, Bush announced on May 1, 2001 his desire to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and deploy a missile defense system with the ability to shield against a limited attack by a rogue state. [29] The American Physical Society criticized this policy change, citing doubts about the system's effectiveness. [30] Bush argued this was justified as the treaty's Cold War benefits were no longer relevant. The official notification of withdrawal from the treaty was announced on December 13, 2001, citing the need to protect against terrorism. While there is past precedent for a President to cancel a treaty, most past cases have involved Congressional authorization. [31] Terrorism was Bush's main topic at the 2002 NATO Summit in Prague, calling for restructuring the organization from a Cold War focus and prepare it for new threats. During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, European leaders criticized of Bush for rejecting of the Kyoto Protocol. In 2002, Bush rejected the treaty as harmful to economic growth in the United States, stating: "My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem." [32] The administration also disputed the scientific basis of the treaty. [33] In November 2004, Russia ratified the treaty, meeting the quota of nations required to enforce it without ratification by the United States.

International leaders also criticized Bush for withdrawing support for the International Criminal Court soon after he assumed the presidency. Bush made the following comment: "I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecution can pull our troops or diplomats for trial."

Iraq

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration also promoted urgent action in Iraq, stating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that in the post 9-11 world it was too dangerous to allow unstable regimes to possess weapons that could "potentially fall into the hands of terrorists." Saddam, for his part, claimed to have destroyed all the chemical and biological weapons he had before 1991. The precise extent of Saddam's actual possession of weapons soon became a topic of great debate. While many western governments assumed that Saddam did indeed possess such weapons, the theory that Saddam had in fact destroyed his WMD capability as he claimed was supported by individuals such as former weapons inspector Scott Ritter [34] and the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. [35] Bush also argued that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security, destabilized the Middle East, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and financed terrorists. CIA reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material, had not properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons material in violation of U.N. sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions. It had been, since 1998, U.S. policy for the President to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power by a law (the Iraq Liberation Act) passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and later signed by President Bill Clinton.

Asserting that Saddam Hussein was both a potential terrorist threat and an obstacle to peace, Bush urged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. On November 13, 2002, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Lapses in Iraqi cooperation triggered intense debate over the efficacy of inspections. UN inspection teams departed Iraq upon U.S. advisement given four days prior to full-scale hostilities. [38]

Secretary of State Colin Powell urged his colleagues in the Bush administration to avoid a war without clear UN approval. The Bush administration initially sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the military force pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter but, facing vigorous opposition from several nations, (primarily France and Germany), dropped the bid for UN approval and, with over 20 other nations (including the United Kingdom) designated the "coalition of the willing", prepared for war.
Military hostilities commenced on March 20, 2003 to pre-empt Iraqi WMD deployment and remove Saddam from power. Because of its controversial nature within the international community, Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and other world leaders questioned the war's legality. Bush declared, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" [40], under a "Mission Accomplished" banner [41] on May 1, 2003. U.S. deployment and casualties (both military and civilian) have continued through early 2006 despite the capture of Saddam, because of ongoing Iraqi insurgencies.

On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation — including detainee interviews and document exploitation — leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." [42] The 9/11 Commission report found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, although the report did conclude that Saddam's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted. [43] In addition, the 9/11 commission found that despite contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda in 1996, "no collaborative relationship" emerged in regards to the attacks on 9/11. [44] On December 14, 2005, while discussing the WMD issue, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." [45]

However, after the invasion, al-Qaeda has used the war to great effect in its campaign. It is speculated that it is the organization which launched a coordinated string of attacks in Madrid, Spain. Three days later, a new Spanish government was elected which soon thereafter withdrew all Spanish forces from Iraq. [46] Osama Bin Laden also openly announced that al-Qaeda will attack any country which supports the war in Iraq