Posted on 10/07/2005 7:09:43 AM PDT by SJackson
The world has been quietly watching US President George Bush lately to see if he has lost his nerve. The continued deadly attacks in Iraq, a fumbled response to a natural disaster, and the failure to gain traction for his major domestic agenda item (reforming Social Security) have all given the impression of a presidency on the rocks.
Friends and foes alike have been on the lookout for signs of recovery or its alternatives – muddling and collapse. If recovery is in the offing, months from now its seeds will likely be traced back to a remarkable speech Bush gave yesterday to the National Endowment for Democracy.
In one of the most coherent and determined outlines of his foreign policy given in the last four years, Bush laid out the goals, means, scope and enemies in the current war.
"The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans," Bush said. "Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places – in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad and elsewhere Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane."
Significantly, this description refuses to pretend that the jihad against Israel is disconnected from the global war. But then Bush went even further to correct a previous tendency to speak amorphously about terrorists and "evildoers" as the enemy, without saying who they are and what they believe.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam," he said.
Though Bush is rightly at pains not to declare Islam or Muslims as the enemy, he is also right to more bluntly state what is as blindingly obvious as it assiduously avoided: that the enemy is wholly concentrated in, and a subset of, the Muslim world.
Equally important, Bush spelled out the goals of the global jihad: to evict the West from the Middle East and to take over countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. In the final stage, the Islamists "believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation."
All of this might have been enough moral clarity for one speech. But Bush pressed on, laying out a three-part strategy for the war that is not new for him but seemed to have been diluted or forgotten.
The first two parts, hunting down terrorist organizations and denying "weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes," are, in principle, uncontroversial.
With the third part, Bush seems to be returning to what appeared to be the heart of his post-9/11 Doctrine: "We're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."
Bush's description of the war, its stakes, and what is needed to win it is cogent and undeniable. What is incredible is how alone he seems, both among the nations and in his own country, in seeing the world this way. Yet at least Bush himself has returned to saying what must be said. What remains to be seen is whether he can take what is now seen as a voice in the wilderness and transform it into an effective blueprint for action.
Just my opinion.
Clinton was popular, but was a flawed but accepted President because he tried to appease the left and the middle - he knew he could never charm the right.
Dubya is no Clinton. Praise the Lord.
I think we forget this, but despite all the carping, the world is watching. I am so grateful to have President Bush in the White House.
HA! Even the author of this 'article' is afraid to do it
Islam is another death cult and as such is the enemy of 'life'
Proverbs 8:36 says that "all they that hate Me love death."
imo
Why is the MSM and even the conservative press so ready to accept these premises for beginning an argument. They could begin by stating: The continued response to terror in Irac, A major federal effort in the Gulf Coast hurricane relief and ongoing dialect in the domestic agenda ----. But I guess bashing Bush would be harder to do then. Do these people not understand that they are also tearing down our country and endangering their children's future when they support the terrorist.
President Bush has shown that he can take everything the terrorists have to throw, everything France and germany (russia and china too) have to throw and even take everything that DEMs here at home have to throw. He stood tall for RE election and he has not waivered he has faltered and he has not failed. They see it, they just focus on something else (negativity) cuz they do not want to admit that he has not lost his resolve no matter what they say or do in opposition to him or his policies.
Why is the MSM and even the conservative press so ready to accept these premises for beginning an argument. They could begin by stating: The continued response to terror in Irac, A major federal effort in the Gulf Coast hurricane relief and ongoing dialect in the domestic agenda ----. But I guess bashing Bush would be harder to do then. Do these people not understand that they are also tearing down our country and endangering their children's future when they support the terrorist.
Sorry about double post must be the coffee.
Excellent observation. It's funny, when I go abroad, even people who hate Bush (which, in the case of Europeans, is most of them) really hang from his every word. Here we discount him and try to make him look like an idiot.
And therein lies the problem.
If his "friends" were indeed his friends, it would only be us against them, not the President against everyone else, supposed friends waiting until the MSM indicates it's safe to be his friend again.
With ever-increasing attacks from the libs, it's times like these that W needs unwavering support. He's not going to withdraw his pick - that WOULD look weak. He's not going to back away from Iraq - THAT would look weak.
He needs trust - not self-serving "I'm not so sure this is best..." second guessing.
Friends don't stab friends in the back - and no, I don't think his pick was a stab in the collective conservative back, but their reaction to it sure has been.
Clinton was popular because he did nothing but popular things, one of which was fiddle with a 21 year old intern.
Because it's true, the media and the international community are watching to see if we hold the line against terror (other issues could be included), or retreat out of political expediency. This editorial seems to think he'll stand firm, but that's not universally accepted. Witness the emerging controversy over judicial appointments. The question is out there.
I presume you're talking about the Meirs nomination not terrorism. Support doesn't have to be blind. She's a qualified nominee, may well turn out to be an outstanding jurist, but imo a poor nomination as there were better qualified, though less politicaly expedient, choices out there. As well as campaign promises to be kept. GWB isn't immune from criticism, but a lot of it is over the top. If Meirs turns out to be a lousy jurist, that doesnt' sustain electing Hillary.
This statement angers me, as has even FNC's current rhetoric depicting President Bush as weak and faltering.
What I have been watching is something quite different. I have been watching to see how many Republicans and conservatives have begun to lose their nerve, something I'd never accuse the President of.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure!! We know!! Totally different! That's our story and we're sticking to it.
They really don't. And it's amazing the sputtering you get if you actually challenge them and ask them for their solutions!
Exactly. And with McCain out there running around blabbing, it ia apparent we are supposed to fight a PC war.
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.