The Case for George W. Bush i.e. what if he's right?

Esquire Magazine ^ | Aug 01 '04 | Tom Junod

[oldtimer2]

Esquire does not allow any posting of its content. Here is a link to the article, which is from a "liberal" author in a "liberal" magazine. His conclusions will surprise all Freepers.

[alnick]

I wanted to write him and ask him to take a second look without the filter of the media, to read Kay's last report and Duelfer's report(s) and the 9/11 report and read the president's words rather than the wire services' versions of his words, etc., but I could not find his e-mail address.

Anyone who looks at the facts as opposed to the media's version of them will come to the conclusion that GWB is right.

[don'tbedenied]

great post, great analogy.

Mistakes will be made but we need to keep moving South.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The real gap between us and them is we believe there are absolutes of right and wrong. They believe everything is grey, as in "who am I to judge?"

As Dr. Laura wisely said, "To not judge is to let evil run wild."

[Expressway]

Of course, the Left will never admit such a vindication. If (when) we are hit again, the refrain will be that he made us less safe by invading Iraq, isolating us from the world community and increasing anti-American anger in the Arab world. To some extent, Edwards is right. There are two Americas: One that sees the world as it is and one that sees the world as it wishes it was. Unfortunately, the age of wishful thinking is past.

[WOSG]

Then you may like this post too... posted originally on the Liberating Iraq blog

The total US casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom is almost 900 since the US went into Iraq, and yet that number is eclipsed by the Iraqis killed by terrorists in the past year. The latest car bombing that killed Nine people many of them policemen and recruits is an example. The news story includes a picture that just shows the immensity of the bombs that terrorists are throwing at the Iraqi people, police, and the Iraqi officials. Looking at that huge crater, I wonder "only 9 lost their lives?" and I understand the weariness of many Iraqis:

Lesson: Don't underestimate the lethality of the enemy. And understand that if terrorism didnt work at some level, it would have been defeated already. Despite the losses, which are heart-breaking, the real war of attrition here is the attrition of the spirit. That is what the terrorists want to do - wear US and the Iraqis down to giving up on making the new Iraq a better place. The terrorists' goal is to make us give up, like this man wants to, on liberating Iraq. Wrong answer!

We must remember Churchill's words - in 1942 - when tens of thousands of British civilians and soldiers had been killed already, with Britain defeated at Dunkirk, Norway, Singapore, Burma, North Africa, and advancing nowhere, with the British Isles ringed by German U-Boats sinking Britain's lifelines of sea cargo. To some it seemed hopeless, yet Churchill said this:

" Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy ... Do not let us speak of darker days: let us speak rather of sterner days. These are not dark days; these are great days--the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of our race."

Let us honor the fallen, Iraqis and coalition, by finishing and winning the fight. It is ours to win if we persevere with the honor and skill that we possess. The only thing that can defeat us is defeatism itself.

[Paul_B]

Good piece. I think it will appeal to thinking middle of the roaders. Enquire is a good place for it.

[UB355]

There was no day in the civil war where 7000 men died. If you are referring to Antietam there were 7000 casualties I believe.

[wisconsinbushvolunteer]

Great article!! I hope the Republicans and President Bush do as good a job making their case at their convention.

[knews_hound]

This should be required reading for any of the fence sitters out there.

I think he nearly gets it, yet, he is held back by his desire to maintain his Liberal credentials (note the a$$hole comment).

In the current battle for the world, and it IS a battle, the blinders might come off of the reflexive Bush haters.

Note that I said might.


Cheers,

knews hound

[Wolfstar]

I applaud your insight. Never, ever ask a question of, nor debate, Leftists on a basis which concedes their premise. Always challenge their premise. (Don Rumsfeld is great at this. So is the Vice President.)

I heard an example today while at lunch of why doing so is to argue from a position of extreme weakness. Caught a brief bit of the Hannity radio show. He was interviewing Janeane Garafalo. He asked her why she opposed Bush. One reason she gave is because she has problems with people who claim God tells them to do something, like attack Iraq.

Hannity, instead of calling her on the false premise (lie), said weakly (and fawningly), "Well, that's fair." That was early in his interview, and he lost the debate right there.

[Wolfstar]

"Mcg," unless I am much mistaken, I believe you misunderstood Psycho_Bunny's point.

[Wolfstar]

...because he is undercut by evidence of his own dishonesty...

How unfortunate for the author. He appears to be trying to make the essential case that GWB is right about radical Islamist terrorist, yet the author can't get past the DISHONESTY OF THE LEFT of which he is a part. It undercuts his entire article.

[mcg1969]

That may very well be the case. I've been known to do that :)

[Wolfstar]

The left's distaste of George Bush has clouded their conception of reality to the point they just don't get it...

With all genuine and due respect to you Misterrob, I just don't agree with this point. They do get it. They hate GWB because they get it. You see, the Left wants this nation to, if not go away, then certainly be diminished. My tagline makes precisely that point, and the sooner more people who are not Leftists understand it, the better off we will all be.

The Left is a collectivist, statist movement. Its version of equality is false, because it subjugates all people to the state. Individualism is discouraged, if not outright squelched (think tyranny of political correctness). Individual liberty is anathema to them because it leads to conditions in society the Left considers unequal. (In truth, upper-class Leftists everywhere don't mind individual liberty, but only for themselves.)

More than any president in recent history other than Ronald Reagan, GWB has been an activist for individual liberty. The Left, both here and abroad, hates GWB because they fear him. They see him as turning back a number, if not many, of the gains they've made over the past century.

The tragedy is that, just at the moment when such a president comes along and could use all the help he can get, he doesn't have firebrand congressional Republicans like Newt Gingrich to help him. Congressional Republican leadership has reverted to the milquetoast type that kept them in the minority for so long.

I genuinely and most humbly thank the good Lord that GWB at least had Tony Blair, John Howard, and a handful of other foreign leaders who understand the real threat of Islamic radicalism.

[wingman1]

IIRC, it was after Cold Harbor that Mary Todd Lincoln referred to Grant as a "butcher".

My memory of history of that war is not what it once was, but overall, both sides made blunders during and after nearly every major battle. The criticism of Bush is nothing that has not previously occurred. Maybe he fancies himself as the "lightning rod" so that his commanders in the field do not have to bear the criticism.

As long as he does not back down, we will win. Also, guerillas are dependent on popular support. Truck bombs that kill innocent civilians will not win them friends or allies among the Iraqi people.

[WOSG]

"There was no day in the civil war where 7000 men died. If you are referring to Antietam there were 7000 casualties I believe."

I was speaking of Cold Harbor, June 3, 1864.
I had to revisit the data bank to ge this clarified:
Should have stated "7000 casualties in a useless charge" not 7000 "dead".
Union losses (killed+wounded) at Cold Harbor total was 12,000 in the battle:
http://americancivilwar.com/cwstats.html

This broke out to be 1905 Killed,10570 Wounded.
Still a grevious loss for a battle that didnt even make it into the top ten bloodiest civil war battles and caused no groud to be gained by the Union.

One source says: "At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000."
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Cold harbor wasnt even in the top 10 of bloodiest battles, but in Gettysburg, the total casualties were 51,000:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

Anyway, there were 7000 casualties *in 30 minutes*:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor
"Grant lost 7,000 men in about 30 minutes, and the only reason he didn't lose more was that his corps commanders ignored his orders to advance again."

The battle caused anti-war sentiment in the United States. Grant became known as the "fumbling butcher" for his poor decisions. It also lowered the morale of his remaining troops. But the campaign had served Grant's purpose--as foolish as his attack on Cold Harbor was, Lee was trapped. He beat Grant to Petersburg, barely, but spent the remainder of the war save its final week defending Richmond behind a fortified trench line: see Siege of Petersburg. The end of the Confederacy was just a matter of time."


And that was my real point: Grant had lost thousands of men in the bloody "Wilderness" campaign, but he didnt turn back.
Neither must we. And knowing that, as a country with 1/10th the population, we sustained a 4 year war that took over half a million lives, we can certainly overcome a terrorist enemy at a price that is far less greivous.

[Toskrin]

As a conservative who was raised as a liberal, I recognize in this author the same machinations I went through. He has been ingrained with phony liberal ideas from the get-go. He is finally freeing himself from it. Give him some more time.

[WOSG]

"My memory of history of that war is not what it once was, but overall, both sides made blunders during and after nearly every major battle."

Oh absolutely ... McClellan had the opportunity to take Richmond in 1862 and he didnt - too timid. Many Union generals were hapless, and the CSA was unealistic and ruined their economy trying to run the Govt on thin air and bogus money. And both side had no clue how bloody it would get.

"The criticism of Bush is nothing that has not previously occurred. Maybe he fancies himself as the "lightning rod" so that his commanders in the field do not have to bear the criticism. "

here's another take on that thought, from Victor Davis hanson and the mistake of World War II allies, which were many:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/07/historys-verdict-vdh.html

[headsonpikes]

Good post thread bump. ;^)

[wingman1]

Thanks for the link.

So very true.

The actions of the Left in this country are disgraceful. I firmly believe that the chickens will come home to roost in the not too distant future.