Skip to comments.President George Bush Landing on the Aircraft Carrier
Posted on 07/27/2017 5:18:24 PM PDT by mairdie
The May 2, 2003 landing of President Bush on the aircraft carrier. The speech will be up and available on this same link half an hour from this topic posting.
Globalist, Islamist, No Borders puke.
That was a great event, and what the media did to him to diminish how magnificent the visual was is exactly what they do to Trump after a great State of the Union, or G20 address, or Foxconn announcement. They seek to diminish, and if they can’t, ignore it. With Bush, they went after the ship’s banner, which was congratulating the ship, not the entire war effort. They knew it was fake news, but no one pushed back in those days.
I criticize Bush for a lot of things, but defeating Iraq easily and celebrating a great victory with the military is not one of them.
Bush had his ups and downs, but that was a moving and memorable event for any patriot.
Bush is a NWO PROSTITUTE.......
SOLD THE US OUT
I lament the day Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush as his running mate over Conservative Sen. Paul Laxalt.
Toppling Saddam, who was keeping a lid on the Jihadists, and standing in the way of the complete chaos the NWO (using Obama and Hillary) has since unleashed in country after country, including Europe? You admire W for his role in this?
President Bush landed that plane. No specially picked pilot would ever have bounced the plane like that. But President Bush was rusty and missed the cable and bounced.
Also, the look on their faces was like the cat who stole the milk.
I don’t want to get into a long rehash of it.
I was fine with getting rid of Saddam as a stepping stone to regime change in Iran, based in Iraq and assisting the forces of moderation who hate the mullahs. That apparently, it came out later, was never the plan. It was a stupid plan to topple Saddam and remake Iraq into a western democracy. It was possible, perhaps, but not while fighting a PC, nice guy war, and not with a press that goaded the terrorists into constant attacks and that was actively fomenting opposition within the US.
I thought Bush had a strategic plan to engage islam in this battle of ideas and civilization. He didn’t; he was in bed with the Saudis, didn’t want to extend into Iran and only wanted to get rid of Saddam out of some revenge for an attack on his dad. Even given all that, it would have been ok to take out Saddam if you had a plan to install a pro-western strong man a little less brutal who could take over and keep it together. That was not the plan, and, although Bush was able to keep Iraq somewhat stable until he left, it was very fragile and Obama’s treachery sent it back into chaos. 3000+ lives lost for no strategic gain. Iran now rules Iraq, more or less—the opposite of what I thought we needed to do.
I was a fan of Michael Ledeen, who wrote constantly of Iran from 2002-2006, expecting us to do something there. He ended every column with “Faster.” He, like me, thought we were going to do something eventually.
As I said, the war in Iraq was fought brilliantly. We took the entire nation with fairly low casualties. That’s what I thought was worthy of celebrating on that ship. At that point, we should have left a garrison in a defensible position, and put someone in charge, assuming we weren’t going to follow up in Iran (and Syria). It would have given us a base and a middle east nation that we could get alone with.
I Know it’s fashionable to hate Bush now but I never keep pace with fashion. He had strengths, weaknesses etc. but when 9/11 hit, he was the right one. He went against popular opinion to say “You are either with us or against us” and the press and the UN rejected him for it. In fact, he ran against the press twice and won. I recall a pundit remarking that the left must hate him so because as stupid as they claim he is, he won against them twice. E.g., if he’s just an ape wearing a tie, why did he win against the establishment twice? and how humiliated they were for it.
I hear all kinds of raves about what he is and isn’t. He was there in the rubble of the twin towers on 9/11 and when his megaphone wouldn’t function, he yelled, “I hear you!” to the workers gathered to dig out the tours and they loved him for it. The military loved him. He had the press and left hating him and the military and blue collars loving him. No, I don’t have to like what he did afterwards. I don’t have to like his excessive HOmeland efforts etc. - but I’ve never known a leader that was all of what I wanted and none of what I didn’t want in a president. I looked around on 9/11 and was glad it wasn’t any of the others who ran standing up as POTUS then.
You state the case beautifully for me. I was so grateful Bush was there when 9/11 happened, and that Clinton was gone. And I hoped that the Afghan and Iraq wars would make us safer. I thought of Bush as a decent man, but he turned out to be too idealistic to do what really needed to be done. Thus my deep gratitude that we now have Trump, whom I trust doesn’t have the problem of wanting to be overly nice rather than effective. I never realized before Bush that a leader could be TOO decent. And I think his orientation as a Globalist was just wrong for the country. Trump is forcing the pendulum back to the middle, where it needs to be.
“I was a fan of Michael Ledeen, who wrote constantly of Iran from 2002-2006, expecting us to do something there.”
He posted here for a while back in the day.
Beautifully said. We sometimes forget just how sleazy the Clinton years were, and what a relief it was to have George and Laura Bush in the White House. You didn’t cringe anymore when you heard “Mr. President.” As Congress is proving the old adage, it’s possible to let the perfect get in the way of the possible. He was better by far and on 9/11, he absolutely was the right man on the job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.