[itsinthebag]

Excellent article.

[wizardoz]

Just because George W. Bush says something is so doesn't make it axiomatically wrong.

When you actually have to say that earnestly to people, you know you are dealing with drooling psychopaths.

[6323cd]

What? A pro-Bush op-ed in the Grauniad? The sensation you are experiencing is the universe reeling!

[BlueAngel]

I think many unlikely Brits were charmed by our President. We are not surprised.

[zarf]

The bombings of the British consulate in Istanbul and HSBC bank actually had the effect of rescuing the Bush visit from vapidity. The atrocities suddenly and violently invested the Bush-Blair alliance with a renewed seriousness of resolve and purpose.

In other words: We on the cynical, sneering left don't really believe 9/11 was "all that".

[MJY1288]

Great article, and needs to be bumped :-)

I have made a point of reading the articles coming from across the pond this past 2 weeks and before President Bush ventured over to London the srticles were quite nasty and skeptical.

Shortly after he addressed the croud at White Hall Palace with his excellent speech on the three pillars of peace and reminded the Brits what we fight for, the articles have taken a different tone, and now that they have had a few days to review the message President Bush delivered during his visit. We are seeing a major shift in the tone of the major news outfits in London.

I believe this visit to London was far from the failure predicted by the liberals in the London media. In fact I think his visit was a huge success. Fair minded people will see how rediculous the protestors looked pulling down that silly statue meant to look like President Bush. Eventually the leftists liberals in London and here in the U.S. will be proven once again to be on the wrong side of History and they will be mocked as the cowardly blokes they are.

It was the same mentally deficiant crowd that called Ronald Reagan a "Dangerous Cowboy" that would start a Nuclear War and they protested by the millions in New York and London in 1982-83, Reagan stood tall and deployed the Intermediate Range Nukes to Europe and continued with his vision of bringing the Soviet Union to her knees, and by ignoring these pacifist who would rather lick the boots of a Dictator than confront a gathering danger. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War and the world is a much safer place thanks to him

[Krodg]

Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office, highly energised about brokering a peace settlement in the belief that this would be his historic legacy to efface the tawdry aspects of his presidency. It was at this time, when the United States was working hard for peace and hopes that it could be achieved had never been higher, that Osama bin Laden planned his atrocities against America.

That was too easy!!

[jocon307]

"As for those protesters who toppled that papier-mché Bush in Trafalgar Square, they were made to look naive. The bombers, if they could, would happily slaughter them too. It is a delusion to think that all that is needed to make the world safe is a change to the occupants of the White House and Number 10. Charles Kennedy could be Prime Minister and Michael Moore might be President of the United States. Al-Qaeda would carry on killing. Because, to them, freedom is an ugly thing."

Excellent post, great find. Truer words were never spoken. I hope every left wing idiot reads this.

[RippleFire]

bump

[Servant of the 9]

In the two years since the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the United States has been slowly learning that military superiority, however colossal, cannot by itself defeat this sort of enemy.

Sure it can. All we need is the resolve to kill everyone who might possibly be a terrorist.

So9

[auboy]

BTTT

[Billthedrill]

There's no denying that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict would drain much poison from the Arab view of the West. But you can't leap from there to the conclusion that al-Qaeda terrorists would then become peace-lovers.

Bin Laden himself was massively disinterested in the Palestinian question. He was very specific in several speeches - his issues were U.S. presence on Saudi soil and U.S. cultural and military dominance in the Arab world.

The author clearly understands that al-Qaeda and their sympathizers mean what they have been saying for quite a long time now, that they really do intend to make war on all of the West, and that it isn't restricted to the verbal. It took 3000 dead in New York to make some of us take this seriously. For still others even that wasn't enough.

[dougherty]

most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate'.

Why did he believe the caricature of Bush in the first place? Most people are indeed sheep that cannot think for themselves and believe everything they hear from the media.

[WaterDragon]

The atrocities suddenly and violently invested the Bush-Blair alliance with a renewed seriousness of resolve and purpose.

Like the Democrats, the terrorists never learn. They thouht that attack in Turkey would counter what Muslims around the world were hearing from Bush's own lips, about freedom, and his intention to bring freedom to their lands. But these attacks will keep backfiring on them, just as the Democrats' attacks on Bush will keep backfiring.

[July 4th]

This is a great piece, in an unlikely paper. Bump!

[ImpBill]

Great find.

[Valin]

The one setpiece speech delivered by the President at the Banqueting House was more subtle, fluent, multidimensional and pitched to appeal to non-Texan ears than had been generally anticipated.

As a service to all the poor dumb Texans here who have trouble with big words I translate.
He done good, real good.


Pikamax, Thanks for posting this. I really don't know weather to laugh (at their stupidity) or cry (that they're that stupid).

[Valin]

I think this is the article we were talking about.

[dixie sass]

Good article, thanks for posting it.