March 9, 2005

President George W. Bush

His Remarkable Legacy

Joan Swirsky
Wednesday, March 9, 2005

There are only a few of our 43 presidents – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and Reagan come immediately to mind – whose legacies are emblazoned in the glorious history of our embryonic "experiment" in democracy. After only 200 years, we are now recognized as the most generous, powerful, wealthy country on earth – and the envy (and therefore animosity) of all others.

George W. Bush can now relax vis-à-vis what is sure to be his remarkable legacy. With his second term in office only beginning, he already has changed the configuration of the world! And on domestic issues, he has introduced the most sweeping reforms in the past 50 years.

As the president noted in his January 20 Inaugural Address: "For half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire."

His immediate solution: "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom," he said.

Indeed, since the catastrophe of September 11, 2001, when over 3,000 innocents perished, President Bush has effectively exposed former American leaders (excepting Reagan) as well as many of our foreign "allies" for the ineffectual appeasers they have been by focusing his laser-like vision on the threats from both inside and outside our country and acting to bring about the most extraordinary, world-changing landscape in human history.

When Might Is Right

First came the toppling of the repressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan and most of the al-Qaida terrorist network that had wreaked its havoc on America through the previous decade – with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of American embassies in Africa in 1998, and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

True to the Bush Doctrine that mandates fighting terrorists worldwide, zero tolerance for governments that harbor and finance terrorists, and telling countries throughout the world that "you're either with us or against us," the victory of the U.S. and its allies against terrorists in Afghanistan resulted in the first free election in that county's history, with an 80 percent turnout – 10 million people!

Then, responding to Iraq's decade-long flouting of 17 United Nations resolutions to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction (which there is now good evidence were ferreted out of Iraq to Syria and to Lebanon's Bekaa Valley), and after spending months on end in go-nowhere, U.N.-fueled "diplomacy," the president invaded Iraq, promptly toppling its sadistic dictator, Saddam Hussein, and scattering the country's brutal Baathist regime.

What followed was the establishment of an interim government and, on January 30, a stunning democratic election in which 8 million people – risking life and limb under threats by terrorist insurgents – turned out to vote in the first free election most of them could ever remember.

Liberals, who had little to say about human rights violations in Afghanistan and nothing to say about Saddam's vicious murder sprees and rape rooms, had plenty to say about Bush. Throughout his entire first term – including the 2004 presidential campaign – they conducted a relentless campaign to discredit, undermine and sabotage his efforts.

The Contagion of Freedom

But something funny happened on the way to history. While the liberal establishment and its de facto employees in the left-wing media were screeching, writing, distorting and contorting, millions upon millions of people throughout the world were watching that history unfold before their eyes.

The results have been staggering, starting with the resoundingly victorious re-election of President Bush. Then came the following:

  • In December, a crooked election in Ukraine was overturned and a pro-Western candidate became prime minister.

  • In January, the Palestinian Authority held its first free elections ever, with the elections commission saying that 70 percent of the 1.28 million registered voters cast their ballots.

  • Last month, Saudi Arabia held its first local free election and its leaders promised that future elections would include the votes of women.

  • Also in February, after the assassination of the former prime minister of Lebanon, a spontaneous and unprecedented uprising demanded that Syria end its occupation, the puppet government resigned, Syria has now agreed to withdrawal, and Lebanese citizens are now demanding their own free elections.

  • In the same month, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak acceded to having free elections in the upcoming presidential election.

    After all the naysaying and nitpicking and skepticism and cynicism,

     it turns out that President Bush was right.

    The Real Vision Thing

    As the President noted in his Inaugural Address: "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

    His address expanded on this vision: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

    Finally, the president expressed an idea that millions of people have already begun to grasp – and act on. "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

    Success Has a Thousand Fathers

    Saying that "the freedom genie is out of the bottle in the Middle East," journalist Gary D. Halpert notes that "even some in the liberal media are finally having to accept that the rise in freedom around the world is a good thing and (gasp!) that President Bush deserves some, if not most, of the credit for it."

    Halpert cites one of the Iraq war's premier skeptics, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who recently wrote: "… this has so far been a year of heartening surprises – each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances."

    Who was it who said "Success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan"?!

    The bandwagon effect, grudging as it still is in most of the media, is fine and good as far as it goes, but as writer Jack Kelly has said: "Journalists demand accountability from political leaders for 'quagmires' that exist chiefly in the imagination of journalists. But when will journalists be held to account for getting every major development in the war on terror wrong?"

    Well, this is not one to hold one's breath about!

    But writer JB Williams' sights are elsewhere. "Before you know it," he writes, "even DNC constituents will begin to get the notion that people can actually govern themselves, and prefer to do just that! The tsunami-sized wave of democracy sweeping across a region of the world that has never known anything but war, death, torture and fear, is getting hard to deny – even for Democrats!" And even, I might add, for that ignominious, scandal-ridden body, the U.N.

    Whether the diehard leftists get on board or not, the train of freedom and democracy in the Middle East has left the station. In a remarkable article in Arabnews.com, the Middle East's leading English-language daily, Tariz A. Al-Maeena writes of a recent phenomenon that is sweeping the land: females driving cars!

    "Obviously, women drivers initially will be the targets of attention," Al-Maeena writes, "some of it unwarranted, if seen behind the wheel, in a society not accustomed to such a sight. What happens if they perchance are involved in a collision? In pockets of a culture that frowns on such independence, women may feel threatened. The answer is ZERO tolerance toward anyone bothering these women. Males caught in the harassment of women should have their heads shorn and their photos displayed in newspapers, as some countries in the Gulf do."

    Can anyone imagine this sentiment being expressed in a free Arab press even two months ago?!

    Journalist Michael Ledeen, in an article titled "The Lethal Weapon of Freedom," says, "Many of the brave people in the suddenly democratic Arab streets are inspired by America, and by George W. Bush himself."

    Yet Ledeen sees bumps in the road. "One of the most frustrating paradoxes of the moment," he writes, is that Bush's "vision is rather more popular among the peoples of the Middle East than among some of our top policymakers. For anyone to suggest to this president at this dramatic moment, that he should offer a reward to Iran for promising not to build atomic bombs, or that we should seek a diplomatic ‘solution' to Syria's oft-demonstrated role in the terror war against our friends and our soldiers, is a betrayal of his vision … yet that sort of reactionary thinking is surprisingly widespread, from leading members of congressional committees, from the failed ‘experts' at State and CIA, and even some on the staff of the National Security Council."

    Nevertheless, it is clear that George W. Bush is an expert himself in confounding critics, dismissing reactionary ideas, and forging ahead with high-mindedness and faith. Even if his heroic efforts should falter in the short run, his legacy – his prophetic dream of spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world – will be hailed in the long run as visionary.

    Why? Because throughout recorded history, humans have yearned and fought and died for freedom, risking and too often sacrificing their lives to live free or die. The president – whose actions have freed over 50 million formerly oppressed people – understands the yearning for freedom and has put his presidency and his legacy on the line to embrace and fight for it.

    Not to worry, Mr. President. Your legacy is already being lived!

    Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist

  • George W. Bush

    43rd President of the United States of America

    This is the link to the Inaugural Address Jan 20, 2005

      This link takes you to an article on the The U.S. Constitution

    This link takes you back to Pathways

     

    The following, by Richard Reeb, is an article borrowed from

    The Claremont Institute

    1-20-05

    http://www.claremont.org/

    Experience is a Great Teacher to Those

     Who Can Learn From It

    The President's soaring Second Inaugural has started a national conversation more concerned with the responsibilities of this nation, and the nobility of assuming them, than any I can remember. More is at work here than some stirring phrases or memorable lines. George W. Bush is simultaneously appealing to the better angels of our nature and the authentic wellsprings of our human identity. Bush used the term "idealism" frequently, but I do not see this speech as the triumph of idealism over realism, nor the merging of the two. Rather it is the marriage of high principle and sober appreciation of the lessons life has to teach the wise. We are engaged in a national realization that old policies that overlooked dangerous evils must be replaced by new ones that provide conceptual clarity and appreciation of limits.

    Much has been made of the boldness of the President's speech, but there are antecedents not only in his speeches following the Islamo-fascist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, but in his First Inaugural, where he said: "The stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led."

    Granted, Bush did not talk as much about foreign affairs in that speech as he did today, but he already knew what our compass was. Those are the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and implemented to the greatest extent known in the United States Constitution. While we knew that we had enemies in the Islamic world, we did not know their evil plans and therefore did not know how to counter them. But we have been through a crucible that, because our national goals are clear, has pointed us in the right direction. America could not permanently be on the defensive, and not only because as a practical matter that policy is self defeating. Ronald Reagan showed us that a forward strategy for freedom, not containment, alone has the capacity for defeating the most powerful enemies of freedom. Now George Bush has shown that more is necessary even than taking the war directly to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq or elsewhere. America must clearly articulate, tirelessly support and forcibly defend liberty against its enemies. We cannot acquiesce in despotism when we know that too often the result is the encouragement of unending threats to our national security.

    Bush's more thoughtful critics may consider his speech, especially the declaration of American policy to seek the end of tyranny and the promise of still greater victories in the future than in the past, as an immodesty unworthy of and dangerous for the country. But I contend that bracketing the cause of liberty with tasks that develop the best character is the essence of modesty. This is the cultivation of human excellence which classical philosophers held out as the highest task of a regime. This is the ennobling work that marks a great nation.

    Unlike some of his more illustrious predecessors, President Bush did not indulge the fantasy that the spread of liberty is inevitable. He said rather that it was right and necessary for the justice and peace of the world. We still have the choice, constrained by circumstances and our own resources, to act as we think best in each situation that comes along. Indeed, carping critics have already accused the President of inconsistency because he does not, indeed, he cannot, insist on the full implementation of natural rights everywhere. But his speech is even now igniting a fire in the hearts of imprisoned dissidents, bullied women and children, and even seemingly despotic souls soon to repent of their crimes. Liberty is a fire that does not go out. The President has lifted our hearts and our minds in the direction of our highest duties. The future consists in more battles to realize human freedom with an abiding faith that sustains us during our disappointments and comforts us in our losses. For our citizens at home it means enjoying the liberty that our sacrifices will continue to maintain.

    We may never think more clearly about our national character than we do today.

    Richard Reeb

     

    President's Radio Address  January 22, 2005
        

    THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

    My fellow Americans, earlier this week I had the honor of taking, for the second time, the oath of office as your President. The inaugural ceremony is simple, yet its meaning is profound. Every four years, the American people hold an inauguration to reaffirm our faith in liberty, and to celebrate the democratic institutions that preserve it. To place one's hand on the Bible and swear the oath is a humbling experience, and a reminder of the high trust and great responsibility that the presidency brings. With deep appreciation for your support, and mindful of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, I'm eager to begin the work of a new term.

    In the years since I first swore to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution, our nation has been tested. Our enemies have found America more than equal to the task. In response to attacks on our home soil, we have captured or killed terrorists across the Earth. We have taken unprecedented steps to secure our homeland from future attacks, and our troops have liberated millions from oppression.

    At home, thanks to pro-growth policies and the hard work of the American people, we overcame a recession and created over 2 million new jobs in the past year alone. Now we move forward. We remain in a war the United States will continue to lead -- fighting terrorists abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home. We will strive to keep the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists and tyrants. And our nation will stand by the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build free and democratic societies in their own lands -- because when America gives its word, America must keep its word.

    As I stated in my inaugural address, our security at home increasingly depends on the success of liberty abroad. So we will continue to promote freedom, hope and democracy in the broader Middle East -- and by doing so, defeat the despair, hopelessness and resentments that feed terror.

    At home, too, we will expand freedom. We will continue to bring high standards and accountability to our public schools, so that every child can learn. We will transform our retirement and health systems, reform the legal system and simplify the tax code, so that all Americans enjoy the dignity and independence that comes from ownership. In this ownership society, every citizen will have a real stake in the promise of America. And our most valued institutions will be better prepared to meet the new challenges of a new time.

    This week, Washington has been marked by pomp and circumstance. In a free nation, these ceremonies are more than pageantry. They underscore that public office is a public trust. America's elected leaders derive their authority from the consent of the American people, whom we serve. This is a high privilege, and that privilege carries a serious responsibility: to confront problems now, instead of passing them on to future generations.

    As long as I hold this office, I promise that I will serve all Americans and will work to promote the unity of our great nation. And working together, we will secure the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but for generations of Americans to come.

    Thank you for listening.

    George Bush

     

     

    NOW HERE IS RUSH LIMBAUGH.....

      


    My friends, how many times have we talked about your individual life and your success track, and how many times have I tried to tell you, "If there's something you want to do... Let's say that you want to be a nuclear physicist. Don't go to people that flunked out of school, telling you, 'You can't do it,' and there are plenty of them. There are plenty of people who have failed at everything. Don't go talking to them. They don't want anybody else to succeed. They're obviously embittered and they're going to tell you it can't be done and even if you succeed, it isn't worth it because the people in that business will eat you up, chew you out, spit you apart, whatever. The thing to do is go talk to people who have gotten such things done. Go talk to people who are successful in the endeavor you seek to enter, and let them tell you how they did it. Be inspired and motivated by that.

     At any rate, when you think big, big things happen. When you think small, guess what you're going to end up accomplishing? Little or nothing!

     When you rely on someone or something bigger than yourself, such as God or faith, you end up thinking big and you end up being humble. When you realize there's something bigger than you, how in the world can you have hubris? But that's what they say they've got.

    I really never thought that I would see the day when a speech focused on liberty and freedom, the fundamental foundation on which this country is built, would be panned, would be ridiculed, would be said to be controversial.

    But the truth is, the elites everywhere are saying just that.

    You know what really is at root here? You know why they don't like hearing about God? You know why they don't like hearing about freedom and big visions and so forth? The elitist liberals play god all the time. That's what liberalism is all about, folks.


    Anytime God's mentioned by anybody in a political realm, who panics? The left! Why are they so afraid of God? Why?

     Those of you who believe in God, what's the basis? Why be so fearful of God you've got to take it out of your Founding Documents; you got to take it out of the Pledge of Allegiance; you can't let it be uttered by elected officials. Why? There has to be a reason for the fear, and I think when you look at libs who think only of themselves, God threatens them. God is a competitor to them.

    Faith in something larger than government, faith in something larger than ourselves, is competitive, is competition to the left. They don't like competition. They stamp it out. They wipe it out. It's called political correctness.

    They can't handle the competition! They can't handle something different and they can't handle change and they can't handle something larger than themselves, and so faith in God is a competition they can't win, so they besmirch it. They discredit it. They mock it, and make fun of it, and the people who have such faith, and if you doubt this, just look at the last presidential campaign and what it was based on, and look at the election aftermath when the left thinks that it was values and morality that beat them.

    Playing god is precisely what liberalism is all about. I may be overstating it a bit, but liberalism's biggest challenge today is religious faith, faith in something other than them and big government. That's the stumbling block they have. That's the largest obstacle in front of their recovery. They have people who will not survive if they make a practice of citing faith in God. The left doesn't want to hear this! The loony left in Europe, the socialist left, doesn't want to hear about God. They don't want to hear about religion. It's too threatening. It's too frightening, and all it represents in a basic human sense is the understanding that there's something larger than ourselves, and that's essentially what the left cannot deal with, because they believe they are larger than the rest of us.

     They are the elites. They are the ones that are smart. They're the ones that run the government. They'll protect us. They'll make sure we'll do the right things because we're too stupid to do it ourselves.

    We know that there are forces, however we define them, greater than ourselves, and we use that faith to improve ourselves.

    When the left sees that, they are in abject fear! The gig is up.

     I think, that's the central reason that George W. Bush is so feared. The llib's fear manifests itself in ridicule and insulting laughter and mockery, but make no mistake, folks: It is real, quake-in-their-boots, fear.

     Read the Declaration of Independence. Read all of its lofty talk about natural rights, God, equality and liberty?

     No wonder the left has school teachers that are trying to get that document banned from being taught in Cupertino, California! You want to read a lofty document? You want to hear about an ambitious vision of the future? Read the Declaration of Independence. Let's start making fun of that and then let's say, "Oh, no, that's not possible!"

     Go back to the 1700s and tell the people that wrote that, "Oh, you're silly. We can't do that. That's not possible. What do you mean? Only 37% of the people are in favor of this." Yeah, that's something lofty, and then the Constitution. Oh, oh, oh! Let's look at that. "That will never work, that will never hold up."

    The world and life is full of the Can't Do It's, They've got nothing to teach you.

    They have nothing worth inspiring.

    There are huge issues out there that have to be discussed that require a large vision and an understanding of the elements of freedom.

    Why is it assumed that we're going to militarily invade every non-free country?

    That's not Bush's point.

    The goal is on to promote freedom through all our dealings with these other places.

     Why the hell should freedom be so friggin' controversial and why in the world do people come along and say, "It can't be done. It's just silly. Why, that's not possible! Who are we to deny the right of other people to be free?"

     What ought to be controversial today is the large number of people who think this isn't possible and shouldn't be done, and is too risky, and are worried about making the Chinese mad, worried about making the Pakistanis mad, worried about making who the hell else knows mad.

    That's how we got along with the Soviets for 30 or 40 years until somebody came long who didn't give a rat's rear end whether they got mad, because there was something larger and more important than whether somebody got mad at us.

     People on the left (world-wide) cannot get out of the notion that everybody revolves around them. They are the center of the universe. Their thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, their fears: That's what should define everything, and it has for too long, and those days are over.

    It began last night. It has carried on into this morning and today, and I know that some of the criticism is even coming from Republicans. I'm not going to address the criticisms of each individual specifically, but, rather, I want to try to take the apparent broad themes of the criticism -- especially from the left. The complaints from the left include that Bush did not mention any specifics about his  plans to promote freedom in the world,

    And that we had some complaints -- even one from the right -- that he mentioned God too much in the speech. "There was just too much God," and, you know, I think about other aspects.

    This is a philosophically ambitious speech. I find it fascinating. I really do here, folks, and in the plain old common-sense realm. I find it fascinating that standing for and desiring and promoting freedom can become so controversial. It literally stuns me. If you go back -- you know, one of the first things I would ask the left, who are raucously criticizing this speech, could we go back into histoire and could we ask ourselves, what was the purpose in the founding of the United Nations?

    Wasn't the purpose in the founding of the United Nations peace? World peace? Wasn't it supposed to be a body that was to promote the best of mankind? It was supposed to. Isn't that what it was all about? Now, the people who react to Bush's speech, who say, "Well, that's just silly. Why, that's sophistry. Why, that's too ambitious. Freedom? For everybody in the world? Ha, ha! What a joke. Ha, ha. You idiot, Bush. Freedom around the world? How are we going to do this? Are we going to invade every country that doesn't like us? Ha, ha, ha, ha."

    Well, then I might say, "Why  have a United Nations?" What is the purpose of the United Nations?

     The UN has become a home for renegade thugs, third-world pimps, tyrants and dictators and the last thing it's interested in is world peace. It is a corrupt body and nobody has a problem with it! Nobody but us. Around the world, the United Nations is looked at as the repository for all that's whatever in the world. Certainly isn't good.

    So here we have a president who talks about something as simple as fundamental to human existence as freedom and desiring it for as many people in the world as possible, and we get snickers, and we get hrumphs and we get, "Oh, yeah, right! Really! Ha, ha, ha!" a bunch of deriding laughter, and yet those same people look to the UN and see something godlike -- and therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies one of the problems with the critics.

     What's the demand here? You know, today is a good day. Defeating the axis powers, World War II axis powers, that was ambitious. So we get hit at Pearl Harbor and we decide, "All right we're going to clean this whole cotton-pickin' world neighborhood up." So we went to Italy and we went to Europe and we went to Germany. We went everywhere that we had to, to clean this world up. That was ambitious as hell.

     We saved this union. We had over 500,000 American citizens die to save this union. It was called the Civil War, for those of you who graduated from the American public school system. Ending slavery. We ended slavery. That was ambitious. We even had a stupid Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott, that said it was okay for one man to own another man. Those of you who believe in the court, ha, ha. Try bringing that ruling back today. Let's see how long the court survives. It was ambitious. We didn't accept a Supreme Court ruling back then. "We took up a great ambition and people in this country died to end slavery and to preserve the union.

     

    Winning the Cold War? That was ambitious.

    One man thought it possible; everybody else snickered.

     "You can't do that. What do you mean? Why, there has to be a balance of power. We can't beat the Soviets. It would lead to nuclear Holocaust. Oh, no, we're all going to die!"

     We won it without firing a shot!

     We just buried the man responsible for it last year,

    Ronaldus Magnus.

     Where are our memories?

     What do you mean we can't do this? You shoot for the heavens; you shoot for the stars; you get there. You certainly are not going to get there by not aiming at them. For crying out loud, folks, what in the world is happening to our society where a broad-themed vision of goodness and kindness, and freedom for as many people as possible is snickered at, and in fact, has become controversial.

    A president needs to think big because if he doesn't, he won't accomplish anything.

    He becomes mired in the agenda of the bureaucrats, the diplomats, and the civil servants.

    If you tackle big visionary issues like Abe Lincoln, any number of other presidents, yes, you're going to have enemies. They're going to hate you; they're going to snicker, but boy, a vision of freedom? I tell you, you people who are having big problems with this, get Natan Sharansky's book, 'A Case for Democracy'.
    It will help put all this controversy, into perspectives.

     Clinton. Again for all the talk, Clinton was nothing more than an administrator of the government. He was nothing more than the bureaucrat-in-chief. He accomplished nothing. He chose not to think big, and the consequences were devastating in terms of our national security. He avoided dealing with real problems that were resulting in the loss of innocent American lives. He put them aside so as to protect his so-called legacy, and his approval rating. No one urged him to attack the Taliban and defeat those forces before they strike again and he didn't. Even in the Mideast, these constant negotiations he had with Arafat. That was the safe source. It was what the UN would do: Invest all of your capital in a terrorist. Invest your capital in a terrorist is what Bill Clinton did with Arafat, and from his point of view, that was the safe course.

     Bush finally comes to office, says, 'To hell with all this. "

    We got nowhere with any president that simply wanted to administer the government and throw parties and have state dinners and try to get the mainstream media on his side to talk about what a great guy he was.

     Who among us is actually intellectually opposed to freedom?

    Ah, that's an interesting question. Some people are acting like they are opposed to it. "Don't accuse me of opposing freedom!" Well, show me how your attitude would be any different if you were opposed to it.
     

     From Doyle McManus, Times staff writer: "Putting Democracy First May Test Key Relationships."

     Oh, see, this can't be done! We can't do it. Putting democracy and freedom first? Why, we're going to destroy existing relationships that we have. Why, we can't do this! "For more than a century presidents have wrestled with the recurring conflict between America's democratic ideals and its real-world interests, interests that sometimes led the US into alliances with unpalatable dictators.

     In his inaugural address on Thursday, President Bush boldly declared that debate over.

     'From now on,' he said, 'the principal goal of the US must be to promote democracy everywhere in the world, even where that may mean instability in the short run.' If Bush carries through on that pledge, it will be a significant shift in US foreign policy, which has often oscillated between promoting democracy and defending narrower military and economic interests.

     The president gave himself some wiggle room, but not much.

    "'The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations,' he said, but he added 'the difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it.'"

    Why in the world everybody thinks that we're going to load up the military and send armies all over the world to do this is beyond me. This is not how this is to be achieved.

    The president never said that was to be the manner in which this would happen.

     You know, it's like I said yesterday.

    This is so fundamental, it's ridiculous to have to keep repeating this, "and the test of Bush's sweeping new doctrine, though, won't come in Afghanistan, but in more powerful countries like China and Russia, where the US wants to maintain cordial relationships with repressive governments for practical, political and economic reasons."

    All right, you know, call me silly. Call me naïve. Call me stupid. Say I have hubris. But if you ask me, the ChiComs are loosing grip on their country. Now, it's not happening overnight but the very economic freedoms that are penetrating the ChiCom wall are proof positive of what can happen with the introduction of market economics to oppressed societies. Russia?

     What the hell does he think happened in Russia, the old Soviet Union?

     

    Thank you, Rush.

     

    Now....Excerpts from

    A Theory of W.

    by  James Lewis

    May 07, 2007

    George W. Bush poses a brain-busting Rubik's Cube to the liberals of the land, and it's only right to try to soothe their upset. Why does W talk that way? Why does he say "Noo-kyoo-lrrr" when every good liberal knows it's "Noo-kle-uhr"? Why does he openly practice monogamy, and even love his wife? Why did he name his dog Spot? What you see is what you get with George W. Bush. He has that in common with Ronald Reagan, though W is no Reagan. He is nobody but W.  This, for a conservative, is a Good Thing. It's why I voted for the man, and don't regret it for a second.

    But leftishly speaking it makes no sense. For Democrats, the greatest politician of our lifetime is William Jefferson Clinton,

    Let  me bring you back to late 1999, when Bill Clinton was finishing his presidency. The Oval Office carpet had visible stains on it - visible in the public imagination if not in physical fact. Over the nation there hung a pall of dread, because Clinton had so deeply corrupted US foreign policy - imagine Madeleine Albright dancing corpulently with Kim Jong Il, while hundreds of thousands of starving North Koreans marched by in parade -- so that any sane observer simply knew we were in for some looming disaster.  The Chinese were sold missile secrets that allowed them to finally get their rockets into space and have them land anywhere on earth, fifteen minutes later. They paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the political slot machine and hit the jackpot.

    So what kind of man do you want as President after that unholy mess? Somebody you can trust, obviously. Now you can say anything you like about W, but he does what he says he'll do --- barring Hell or high water, or an Act of Congress. He has a spine of steel, and a traditional sense of honor (taking after his Dad and Mom). He talks like Midland, Texas, because he personally identifies with that place. W owned a baseball team because he truly loved baseball, not just to get his poll numbers up. (He's also a decent baseball pitcher). He had an alcoholic past, and repented fiercely. And he served in the Texas Air Force National Guard, flying one of the trickiest fighter jets ever owned by the USAF; one with a great number of fatal crashes, even outside of combat. If you think the Air National Guard is a cop-out, just look at Guard fighting in Iraq. No, George W's unit wasn't called to Vietnam, so he didn't go. But he didn't try avoid service like all the "progressive" Boomers. He didn't take home movies of his own heroic exploits, chasing imaginary Viet Cong through rice paddies. Just the opposite. W clears brush on his bone-dry Crawford ranch, because that's what ranchers do. You get brushfires if you don't do that kind of slogging labor in the Texas sun.

    Today we've had almost eight years of W in charge, with the liberal media going stark raving every single day, slandering him with every imaginable insult and alleged conspiracy.  Few presidents have been treated as badly since Abraham Lincoln was called a great hairy ape.  Yet the nation and the Administration have responded robustly to the first massive assault on the continental US since 1812. The Twin Towers attack was plotted long before this Administration came into office, making use of the unbelievable fecklessness of the previous Administration and various Democrat-controlled Congresses -- problems that couldn't be fixed in just a year before the ax fell. On 9/11, George W reaped what the Left had sown. It hasn't been an easy time since then, but much has been accomplished. The armed forces have been transformed for special ops warfare; and now they are forced to learn large-scale counterinsurgency in the middle of a very hot war.   We have fought two astonishing, faraway wars, with one still mired in uncertainty. (Lincoln, FDR and Truman would have recognized that part). We are suddenly in the midst of another Long War strategically, but hardly one of our choosing; and if a Democrat is elected in 2008, the Left will suddenly find out that it wasn't W who started it after all.

    No other nation in the world could have done it. A tax cut has kept the economy cooking in spite of 9/11 and all the rest. We've had more than our share of US Government screwups, many attributable to W's lack of ruthlessness in firing Clinton leftovers in the bureaucracy. But remember the "SNAFU's" of an earlier time? 'Twas ever thus. In spite of constant sabotage from the Left and the media, the nation has recovered so well that half the people have forgotten 9/11. Our success has become our biggest problem. Yet the United States and the world are beginning to focus seriously on nuclear proliferation and jihadi savagery, both lethally dangerous threats for the future. The nature of today's enemies is becoming clear even to some Democrats, and while leftists and Europeans whine up a daily storm, getting real about reality is something adults have to do.  Nobody said it would be easy. Think about all that for a second. Historians will see this as an astonishing record - hardly flawless, but certainly as good as other war-time administrations have managed. If Iraq settles down over the next few years, W will be seen as a president who forced history to his will for the good of his country, and yes, for the good of the world.

    To be sure, W has his limits. He is remarkably like Harry S Truman, another homebody in the White House. Truman was not articulate - if you've ever seen a movie of his halting and deadly boring speaking style before Congress, you've seen the rhetorical heights of Harry S. But he was a man you could trust, and that counted for everything -- after the death of FDR, the failure of the New Deal, the end of WWII and the Depression, the fearsome reality of Stalin with nukes in Europe and KGB-run traitors at home, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Marshall Plan, General MacArthur's insubordination, and the Iron Curtain slamming down across Europe. Not to mention the Korean War. This was a time for adults, not playboys, and Truman filled the bill. Then he simply went home to Independence, Missouri. W is amazingly like Truman. He is the anti-PR president. As a result, he keeps getting bloodied by the PR-driven media, which hates him as much as any Republican ever hated "That Man in the White House" in 1938.

    I've long wondered if W was a stutterer as a boy. His halting and self-conscious delivery is typical of former stutterers. He is terribly self-conscious in public, especially when confronted with the sadistic press mob, all of them drooling to pounce on any momentary lapse.  But in private, and when he feels confident, his speech flows easily and naturally. Stutterers often have the same behavior pattern, sometimes being able to sing music with real ease before falling back into halting speech. That would also explain W's fierce sibling rivalry with Jeb, the natural. W wasn't naturally glib. He was smart enough for Yale and Harvard Business School, and learned to despise (and be despised by) slick Eastern Establishment kids (yes, like John Kerry again). Afterwards he went back to Midland, TX, the last place any ambitious Yalie would want to live. And he made it work. He was the anti-Yalie in the family. (That's of course why he says "Noo-kyoo-lrr". 'Cause that's how they say it in Texas. He could pronounce it like William F. Buckley, but he'll be damned if he's gonna give them the satisfaction.

    Jeb Bush would have had an easier time dealing with the press, but W lucked into the job. As Governor of Texas, George W got along miraculously well with some of the top Democrats, and made things happen by consensus. Washington, D.C. wasn't like that, not by a long shot. So W ignored DC Society, and just got to sleep by 9:00 pm every night. Being ignored by the President drove naturally them to eight years of unrelenting collective fury. Why doesn't George W explain himself more clearly? Because he's more comfortable with action than talk. W is focused like a laser beam on the war on terror. He knows from his Harvard Business training that an executive can only accomplish two or three big things. The war is the biggest thing his administration has to get right --- and there is no doubt that W suffers, as Lincoln did, from the agonizing need to send young people into combat. He visits them privately, and cries at their flag-covered caskets. Privately. Get that. No photo ops, no marching US Marine detachments across the West Lawn for the TV crews. In fact, no funeral photo ops at all, because soldiers' funerals are not to be used to manipulate poll numbers. I appreciate that about him.

    Like Abraham Lincoln, W is guilt-driven in spite of his firm belief that this war is necessary, and that it will save lives over the longer run. What do you think it took for a man like Lincoln to pursue the bloodiest war in American history? When Lincoln was assassinated, in a sense he joined the soldiers he had ordered to war. He was prepared for it, just as he was ready to be killed on any day of the Civil War. I don't think he wanted to be shot that day in 1865, but he knew it was likely to happen. 200,000 dead Americans made Lincoln's assassination almost inevitable. The nation needed a last sacrifice, in order to live with itself. George W. is not pathologically guilty about the iron necessity of sending young people to war. But it takes a toll on him, like it does on Dick Cheney and all the decent people in this White house. They are Americans the way Americans used to be. 

    Meanwhile, corruption and demagogy are standard on the Left, because Democrats are never, ever scrutinized. They know the press will let them get away with it. Rarely in American history is morality and common decency so clearly on one side of the political divide. Republicans have no lock on decency. But the Sixties Left is cynical, self-indulgent and flagrantly immoral --- as Nicolas Sarkozy just pointed out in France. The Summer of Love turned into a Winter of Moral Decay a long time ago. It's too bad, but it's true. The Left is still drunk with self-love, enchanted with its divine right to political power. That won't change, because narcissism is not a curable condition. In reaction, Americans who despise intellectually lazy, morally self-indulgent Boomer Leftists have just switched parties. That's what parties are for.  The Democratic Party has slipped away from Middle America, and is now in bed with the worst elements in the country. It's too bad, but it will take at least a generation to change, if it ever does.

    So W. is the man. He's made the toughest decisions, and he was far and away the best choice for this very hard time. I admire him, and also see his limits. That's life. We don't get perfection in presidents. Lincoln had a squeaky voice. Washington had false teeth. Jefferson kept slaves. Humans are flawed. We're just blessed that in a time of real danger, the United States has lucked out again and found the right man for the job.

     

    Lois Crawford

    January 23, 2005....


     

    This link takes you back to Pathways

     

      http://www.llerrah.com.