It has become politically popular in this election cycle to criticize the presidency of George W. Bush. Obama is out there saying that electing McCain would be the equivalent of a third Bush term. Clinton never misses an opportunity to make our President appear foolish. And McCain, evidently in reactionary mode, has chosen to distance himself from Bush rather than defend him.

Some of this is understandable given that Bush’s approval rating at an historical low. But his small approval has as much to do with the fact that for the first time in modern politics there is not an incumbent president or vice-president in the race who can defend the administration’s record than it is a reflection of the actual record itself. So, more than anything, it has become politically convenient to bash Bush. Americans should realize the challenging party has a vested interest in making the incumbent administration look as incompetent as possible.

The facts, however, tell a different story, and I believe history will regard George W. Bush as one of our greatest presidents. Among his accomplishments is the undeniable truth that there has not been a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11. Democrats can say what they want about Iraq and how it might be reducing our effectiveness in Afghanistan, but this is the longest period of time the United States has gone without being attacked in thirty years; really since the rise of Islamic Fascism.

Contributing to this statistic is perhaps the most underrated aspect of Bush’s presidency: his support for free trade. President Bush has signed more free trade agreements than any other U.S. president, and he has done it with tiny countries that would otherwise have been susceptible to becoming terrorist havens. Not only have we, under the leadership of President Bush, helped boost the economies of countries like Morocco and Bahrain, but we’ve sent a signal to the world that they are an ally of the United States. 

How effective have these trade agreements been in keeping terrorists out of these countries? We might get to see first hand if Congress continues their refusal to vote on the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.

American voters need to understand what our Democratically-controlled House of Representatives did last week under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi. If you’ve been following the news, you may have heard about Congress’ refusal to bring the free trade agreement negotiated with Columbia up for a vote in the House. Here is what happened, and why it’s important.

The House voted 224-195 to suspend indefinitely Trade Promotion Authority. This is a rule that requires the House to conduct an up or down vote on trade legislation within 90 days of its submission. The purpose for this rule is to give foreign countries the confidence to negotiate trade agreements with the United States in good faith. In other words, countries can make their concessions during negotiations knowing that our Congress will not indefinitely delay approval of (or ignore altogether) the United States’ own concessions. Why is this a big deal? Because it isn’t just about Columbia. Suspending this rule affects our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other nations.

Economic Effects

The Columbian Free Trade Agreement is (or was?) a win-win for both sides. Currently, Columbian goods enter the United States tariff-free and are sold at market price. U.S. goods entering Columbia, however, are subject to a tariff of around 20%. The free trade agreement eliminates this tariff, thus allowing our goods to be sold tariff-free in Columbia, which in turn helps to create American jobs. Columbia benefits because the agreement makes permanent the arrangement allowing its goods to be sold in the U.S. without tariffs.  Under current law, this must be renewed every few years.

National Security Effects

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is expanding his influence in South America. There exists a threat he might invade Columbia or otherwise place political pressure upon them. A free trade agreement signifies that Columbia is an ally of the United States and effectively places a “Beware of Dog” sign in its front yard. The message sent by the House of Representatives last week, however, is just the opposite, and the importance of maintaining an ally in South America right now, with a dangerous man like Chavez on the prowl, cannot be overstated.

So why did they do it?

Nancy Pelosi reportedly announced that the House will not vote on the Columbian Free Trade Agreement unless President Bush agrees to issue a second round of economic stimulus checks. Given that the trade agreement itself is a positive stimulant for the economy, not to mention that we are in an election year, Pelosi’s words give the appearance of holding a lesser concern for economic improvement than for who gets the credit when the economy does improve.