From Esquire

When a biographer says that George W. Bush "is in many respects the founder of ISIS," some will question the source. After all, in his capacity as a Donald Trump shill, Rudy Giuliani has said similar things about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Jean Edward Smith, author of the recent biography Bush (Simon & Schuster), is no carnival barker. People on both ends of the political spectrum praise Smith's work. Conservative commentator George Will once lauded Smith as "America's greatest living biographer."

Smith claims Bush's decision to nation-build in Iraq will "easily go down in history as the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president," but that's not where his criticism begins. In his estimation, the 43rd president made some of his most consequential errors in the months leading up to September 11, 2001. It wasn't that Bush was merely "asleep at the switch;" it's that he ignored the explicit warnings included in nearly one out of every five intelligence briefings that crossed his desk in that period. And then there's Iraq.

Have we ever had a president so publicly open about the role of religion in their policymaking?

No president other than Bush has believed he was God's agent placed on earth to lead the fight against evil. Woodrow Wilson, a devout Presbyterian, believed in predestination, but that is significantly different from seeing yourself as God's agent. Bush's belief that he was implementing God's will is the common denominator behind the domestic excesses of his administration, such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, and the foreign policy blunders, such as the war with Iraq. Bush believed that removing Saddam Hussein was the final showdown before the last judgment depicted in the Book of Revelation. No other president has been so determined.

Photo credit: Stephen Jaffe/Getty

Bush took a long time deliberating his decision on embryonic stem cell funding, and even wrote a lengthy New York Times op-ed about it. Yet no such public debate or explanation occurred in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Story continues

Bush did not think the invasion of Iraq was a debatable issue. He genuinely believed he was fulfilling his duty as God's agent and that Saddam [Hussein] was the personification of evil. No one in his administration argued with that. What is not generally recognized is that after 9/11, the administration was strictly chain-of-command. Bush wanted war, and that was that. It is a failure of the American system that a president can do that. Rumsfeld, Powell, and the military did not object and saw their role as one of implementing the president's decision. You can trace this back to FDR in World War II, but when it comes to military action, the president is commander-in-chief and his subordinates salute and fall into line.

When told a preemptive war on terror went against international laws, Bush reportedly exploded in response and said, "I don't care what international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass." He was also quoted as asking [deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz if Germany was a member of NATO. Do these examples show the seeds of a new strain of Republicanism that took pride in ignorance and that remains today?

Bush knew little about the world or international relations and the results were tragic. If you genuinely believe you are God's agent, the law of nations is irrelevant. Does this lead to where the GOP is today? I don't think so. Donald Trump has many flaws, but he does not assume he is God's agent put here on earth to destroy evil. There is an arrogance similar to Bush's "kicking ass," but I don't think it is the same. As for taking pride in ignorance, that is a common failure of American politics, and might apply to members of both parties.

You call the decision to invade Iraq "easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president." Yet, by June 2015, six and a half years after he left the White House with an approval rating of 25 percent, Bush's approval was at 52 percent, which was higher than Obama's at the time. What does that mean, and does it give us any indication of how his presidency will be viewed a century from now?

Bush's approval rating has gone up since he left the White House because he has been an exemplary ex-president. He has not taken part in politics, has not criticized President Obama, and has stayed out of the limelight. By the time Bush left office, he realized that he had messed up and was glad to be out. I don't think Bush's new approval ratings have anything to do with the policies he followed. To the contrary, rejection of the war with Iraq is now common wisdom. And I don't think Republicans miss Bush. Look at Jeb's aborted campaign. Bush's new ratings reflect the fact that he is a nice person with no political connections.

You begin the book by stating, "Rarely in the history of the United States has the nation been so ill-served as during the presidency of George W. Bush." By the end, however, you concede that he "may not have been America's worst president." Who else could take that mantle, and why?

Bush made many mistakes, but he also accomplished some important things. He contained the financial meltdown in 2008, aided the auto industry, took positive action to improve public education, added prescription drugs for seniors to Medicare, and led the international fight against AIDS. He also championed immigration reform and had no racial prejudice. These are important achievements and so I don't think he is without merit.

The worst president by a long shot is Herbert Hoover, who stood by and took no action to avoid the Great Depression. It was also Hoover who ordered the Army to displace the bonus marchers in Washington in 1932. Some historians think James Buchanan was the worst for not taking action to avoid Southern succession, but I think that is a long shot. Bush was bad, but Hoover was worse, and with no redeeming features.

How much can we credit the rise of Donald Trump to voters rejecting the Bush family White House legacy represented in Jeb Bush's campaign?

That's a good question. I think Trump owes a great deal to the failure of the Bush family. Note that Trump has been much more critical of the war in Iraq than has Hillary Clinton. And of course the Bush family has hit back at Trump, which probably helps him even more. Jeb was a poor candidate, and Trump pummeled him, and you're right that much of Jeb's demise related to the fact that he was just another Bush.

Photo credit: Paul J. Richards/Getty

Some conservatives argue Bush couldn't have prevented the attacks on 9/11 because the warnings were drowned out in a chorus of threats. But your book indicates almost 1 in 5 intelligence briefings detailed bin Laden's determination to strike in the U.S. Why did they ignore the signs?

Bush and his staff ignored the warnings about a possible 9/11 because they were concentrating on other issues and had no interest in al Qaeda or the situation in the Middle East. The staff of the National Security Council and Condoleezza Rice were Cold War specialists from another era. They were not cognizant of the threat posed by al Qaeda and resisted advice to the contrary. That's what happens when you avoid staffing an administration with recognized experts.

In a 2006 speech, Bush said, "We do not create terrorists by fighting terrorists." Yet an intelligence report found "the Iraq conflict has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters of the global jihadist movement." How much is the rise of ISIS linked to the invasion of Iraq-or would a new group have sprung up in their place either way?

Bush is in many respects the founder of ISIS. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he kept the lid on sectarian violence. Under Saddam, Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East. The Baathist party ruled Iraq, and there was no ISIS or al Qaeda presence. By invading Iraq and toppling Saddam, the United States set the stage for the founding of ISIS. And by dissolving the Baathist party and disbanding the Iraqi army, the Bush administration contributed further. Bush's decision to bring democracy to Iraq, announced on the carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, is the root cause for the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. It is again illustrative of Bush's failure to grasp the fundamentals of international affairs. And it is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS.

You Might Also Like