Bush Artifacts on Display at SMU

Bush Baseball IMG_0040The pistol taken from Saddam Hussein upon his capture in Iraq was a 9mm Glock. The bullhorn W brandished during his first visit to Ground Zero on Sept. 14, 2001, was a Fanon model. The former president autographed the baseball (photo by Jeanne Prejean) he used to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at Game 3 of the 2001 World Series.

These are just a  few of the objects you’ll see up close–and learn about–when SMU and the George W. Bush Presidential Center present a “teaser” exhibition about the fledgling center starting Saturday at SMU’s Meadows Museum. “There’s no word except ‘cool’  for some of these” artifacts, says Alan C. Lowe, director of the George W. Bush Presidential Library. The preview exhibit, intended to pump up interest in the Bush Center,  runs through Feb. 6.

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

  • B. L. Powell

    Apparently a “rift” has reopened at SMU over the library. With mounting publicity over the throng of protesters set to attend the groundbreaking of the Bush Center and articles like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/22bush.html) appearing in the New York Times, perhaps it’s no wonder. I would venture that the vast majority of us who have ties to the school recognize the important opportunity for study and examination the library brings to SMU, and we are pleased to host it. It seems the controversy stems from outside the University itself.

  • tom

    So tired………….This ground has been plowed sooooo many times. McElvaney needs to go change his depends………….

  • Laray

    If it’s not too much to ask, can we examine the library and its opponents with a little more circumspection? Soon after the 9/11 attack, President Bush explained to the American people that we had been attacked because the terrorists
    “hate our freedoms–our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” So, if one of the reasons we went to war was to protect and defend “our freedoms, ” why the anguish over those who plan on peacefully protesting the library? Those who choose to exercise their freedom of speech?

    Would also add that when people enlist to serve in the military, they take an oath to protect the Constitution. That is where “our freedoms” are enumerated. In some ways, to hit the pavement and exercise free speech is a fulfillment of the very thing that so many say we are in other countries fighting wars for. They’re only ideas on paper otherwise. And if we only allow those we are in agreement with to exercise freedom of speech and public protest, that’s something closer to Fascism or totalitarianism, not a democracy.

    Power to McElvaney.

  • B. L. Powell

    Ok, Laray. I guess we’ll be seeing you on Dublin Street on the morning of Nov. 16 with picket signs in hand, right? My hard-earned pennies have gone to support the building of the library, so naturally I’ll be there supporting it.

    Picketing/protesting is fine. Go for it. But perhaps you and your ilk could remain civil? Freedom of speech is one thing, but deliberately being a jackass betrays nothing but an intellectual deficit that limits your ability to voice your opinions in a more constructive manner. The library will be built — that’s a 100% certainty. Any protest will a waste of time and breath.

    But you go right ahead.

  • Glenn Hunter

    Laray, I don’t think anybody’s arguing against McElvaney & company’s right to protest. The point is that it’s all reheated rhetoric we’ve heard ad nauseam from the Bush haters. At some point you want to say, Get over it already. Same view I’d have of protesters picketing the Clinton library because the president pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists or helped set the stage for 9/11 or sexually harassed a series of women.

  • Jack E. Jett

    Great photo of his brain.

  • Laray

    “The point is that it’s all reheated rhetoric we’ve heard ad nauseam from the Bush haters.”

    If you knew McElvaney, you’d know he isn’t a hater. And isn’t that statement a little bit of the same ( i.e. “reheated rhetoric”)? The implication of that phrase is that all grievances with the Bush Administration–from a certain segment of the population–can be boiled down to an irrational hatred and fixation on Bush.

    Should we only allow Republicans to offer criticism and analysis of the Bush presidency because we would know with a greater measure of certainty they aren’t haters? Or should everybody “Get over it already?” If we followed that statement to its end, why build a presidential library at all? I am certain that some activities inside the building will involve vigorous analysis and reflection. What if a scholar investigating papers isn’t able to “get over it already?” Should we have a sign installed that says,” “Haters Exit Here?”

    And as far private contributions to the library, that’s great but taxpayers will pay for the federal archivist and staff for the long run. So in principle, we’re all contributors. And that extends to every presidential library.