That first missile went into place in Alaska, I believe. Others have gone into place in California (and there's a live "test" missile in Alabama) for the NMD system. I know of no cool nickname for it, though. Sorry!
Posted on 03/08/2005 3:47:20 PM PST by CHARLITE
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 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, a New York-based journalist and author, was a former obstetrical nurse and taught Lamaze classes for 20 years. She can be reached at joansharon@aol.com
I understand the fear but this is a different time. Yes, she could be nominated. And yes, if nominated, she could win.
But we're more informed now. The important thing is to not go frothing mad if Hilary is the dems nominee, but just work hard doing whatever it takes to defeat her.
And in the meantime, doing what it takes to get Bush's Supreme Court and other court nominees past the nuclear option the dems have been employing for the last six years, or is it only five? Well, whatever it is, since our electeds have no spine and value the opinions of the NY Times over the opinions and desires of those who got them elected, we have to constantly ride these Senators esp. but the congress critters too.
It'd be nice if we could intercept their copy of the Times every morning and replace it with more reasoned reading material.
Brilliant!
Tony Blankley has already stated that he believes GW will easily surpass Reagan. That may bother some people, but not me. GW was a sort of protege of Reagan's and it's just fitting that GW learned a great deal from being associated with him.
I'm sure GW watched him the whole 8 years his father was VP. Then, GW got to witness even more when his own father was President. For 12 years he watched the democrats wield their arrogant power over the country - surely his policies today reflect what he learned during those 12 years.
IMO, Hill is going to have to dig deep to even win that nomination. H.C. is not likeable with most of the General population. Those that fawn over her do so because they believe it necessary to their career, or because she's married to Bill. People DID love Bill Clinton. Just isn't the case with his wife.
Further other Dems are tired of a Junior Senator that got her office because her last name was Clinton, make no mistake that is what they are really thinking behind her back, calling the show. She made enemies even so far back as presuming to be co-President. Nor is the base content to pretend "moderation" in hopes IF she wins she'll govern as they want her too. They feel they did that with Kerry.
Kerry, meanwhile, has chosen to go for the Hard Left crowd and may end up playing the role of Howard Dean. The primary will be interesting. Whether she can pull off not being dragged into the Far Left where she is really at home, if she can win the nomination with a slight wink to the base while pretending to be conservative is anyone's guess. Four years out is a long time. Right now, the answer would be no.
I've gone out on a limb to suggest I wouldn't be surprised if the nominees from the Reps and Dem fields were virtual unknowns in '04. I think the country wants new blood. Not the same old names, that is just my impression. I'm also of belief how well we do in '08 is dependant on how well we govern as a majority now and '06 which is why I'm trying to tell Rep Senators to catch a clue before it's too late. Who will want to change the power structure if Reps are doing a good job? That's the foundation we want to build an '08 campaign around.
I also believe that the president isn't going to hang us out to dry in '08. One of the hallmarks of his tenure has been to build the Reps into a lasting majority. My guess is that behind the scenes he'll be actively involved in finding and pushing a successor, if he hasn't already spied one. With Reagan, Bush 41 was the defacto successor. G.W. has more liberties at his disposal since Cheney will not be running.
Not only that, he helped run his father's campaign. I believe Rove is a brilliant man, imo G.W. exceeds him as a campaign strategist. If he hadn't wished to be President, he could be doing Karl's job easily. He's had a unique vantage point that most people with political aspirations would envy.
And, I don't think it would be an insult to say he could be greater in the books of history than Reagan. My position has always been that that we shouldn't seek to live in the past. Instead of wishing time to stop with one President, we should wish the next President exceeds the previous achievements. One President building on the lessons of the other. In the way parents wish better for their children, it should be our natural inclination to encourage better for each President. In that manner the successes are linked, a credit to all not just one. A credit to our nation as a whole.
I have no real idea where Reagan or Bush will rank 150 years from now when history has occured, and it's movement critically assessed. I do think both can credibly be said to be great in present. I will say I've felt the longest period G.W. is comparable to Lincoln. Reagan I'm not too sure. FDR maybe? I know some conservatives may think that to not be a compliment, but I mean it so and Reagan himself stated FDR was a favorite of his.
That may be, but as strong and visionary leader as Mr. Bush is (and he does deserve mega kudos), he is merely extending the vision of Mr. Reagan.
You're right. I know Joan. She's fiercely loyal to this president, as am I. She says that among her great pleasures is exactly as you put it - driving these "superior" and "elite" liberals bonkers with our successes, and most of all, the ongoing success of our "dumb Texas cowboy" president!
Someone from Bush's inner circle said, shortly before the election, "You know, George W. Bush is one hellova good poker player. He really is! He's playing rings around the "smarty pants" liberals. That's for sure!
Great post soul seeker. CyberAnt, I agree with you and soul seeker. We are fortunate to be witnesses to this.
I so agree with the things you said, especially:
"He's had a unique vantage point that most people with political aspirations would envy."
And:
"... we should wish the next President exceeds the previous achievements."
My actual choice for comparison with GW is Churchill. When the Nazis were gaining more and more strength - Churchill was the only person willing to risk his political career to do the right thing.
Great post Southack. Where does that lovely missile reside?
It's very pretty.
My 17 year old daughter likes it also. She wants to know if it has a cool nickname. Do you know?
That first missile went into place in Alaska, I believe. Others have gone into place in California (and there's a live "test" missile in Alabama) for the NMD system. I know of no cool nickname for it, though. Sorry!
bttt
bttt
Can we start calling him "the liberator" now ?
Very fortunate indeed!
Thanks Southack.
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.