George W. Bush took on some of the toughest challenges in our nation's modern history — the worst attack on our shores, the worst natural disaster, the worst global economic situation in 75 years and he did it without ever whining or bashing others.

President Bush left office quite differently than he came in.

He came into office, through no fault of his own, facing a divided nation after the most contentious election in history. He came into office following a classless Clinton team which had torn up the old executive office and surrendered power with a reluctance that bordered on political malpractice. 

The president he succeeded granted scandalous pardons to a number of folks, did all he could to hog the stage that should have rightly been the new President's (remember the event at the airport) and dragged out his departure to a remarkable degree.

But this year, because Bush is a class guy, it is much different. The new President has been treated with great respect in what all, even Bush's critics, agreed was one of the smoothest transitions in history.

And there is nothing atypical in this. Bush has been a class act from beginning to end during one of the most difficult periods in American history. He has rarely leveled personal attacks, has always conducted himself with dignity, and has shown a deep respect to the office he held and to the country he served.

That he disagreed with his critics on the war in Iraq and other measures he considered essential to protect this nation is a matter that historians will sort out, but this much can be said: he was far kinder to his critics than they were to him, which is particularly amazing when you consider he helped keep this nation safe for seven years when almost all agreed we would be attacked repeatedly.

But this is typical of the media and the Bush critics. If Bush was the one being inaugurated yesterday, you can rest assured that the media would be obsessing over every dollar spent, the fact that there might not have been enough portapotties for the large crowd, or that he gave a mediocre speech (and there was little special or memorable about Obama's remarks).

Blaming Bush, from the 2000 election until now, has been almost relentlessly the mantra of the anti-Bush crowd. We can argue about Katrina from now til the end of our days, for example, but it was mostly a local and state failure. Neighboring states handled hurricanes and even Katrina with far more efficiency and effectiness than Democrat-run Louisiana, and yet somehow it was all Bush's fault. Interesting.

The economy is a global crisis which Bush has actually tried to defuse by building a consensus around approaches that most Democrats and many Republicans have supported — and yet it is all Bush's fault, even though Democrat mortgage lending policies had a great deal to do with stimulating the crisis.

No question Iraq and Afghanistan have posed serious challenges, but the military and the Defense Department run wars. Wars are by nature chaotic, violent and difficult — the exception (the first Gulf War) is not the rule, but the exception. But, of course, it is all Bush's fault that terrorists want to blow up innocent people, apparently. Hindsight is 20/20 and in some respects the war was not well managed, but few presidents have been confronted with such a hostile opposition during time of war.

Had Bush's ideas been followed, immigration would have been handled smartly and humanely. Had Bush been heeded, we might have found a way to deal with social security. Had Bush (and McCain) been listened to, we might have avoided an economic disaster stimulated in large measure by Democrat housing policies put in place years ago.

But instead we have the right wing hammering Bush for trying to take proactive action on the economy through a bailout strategy (which, I agree, has not been handled all that well), and the Left hammering him because, well, that's what they do. And the European Left couldn't resist either, the same European Left that hammered Reagan who protected them and eventually helped liberate half the globe.

I won't argue that Bush was a great president, because being great requires luck, skill, character and timing. Bush has been about as unlucky as they come, but interestingly he never indulged in self-pity (Johnson, Carter, Nixon), never unleashed against his adversaries (Nixon, Clinton), and never made excuses about not knowing about this or that particular issue (as even Reagan did in Iran-Contra).

He took on some of the toughest challenges in our nation's modern history — the worst attack on our shores, the worst natural disaster, the worst global economic situation in 75 years and he did it without ever whining or bashing others.

That he was a bit stiff and defensive with the media is unfortunate and one reason he has gotten such bad grades. Time will tell if his approach was right in Iraq or whether his decisions related to terrorism were thoughtful or overboard, but I will argue, nevertheless, that Bush faced a relentless drumbeat of criticism the likes of which this nation has rarely seen. 

That he ended his two terms with grace and generosity speaks to his character and, we can hope, will give President Obama a better start than Bush was allowed by his political opponents.