Posted on 05/21/2006 12:53:53 AM PDT by FairOpinion
President George W. Bush strides across the world stage as much as the U.S. dominates the world's stage.
This is very good news for those of us who still believe in decency and democracy.
So forget what some slanted opinion polls say about the leadership of the 43rd president and his patriot countrymen.
Recall, Sir Winston Churchill was once one of the most detested men in Britain, then went on to save the free world.
That's Churchill's undisputed legacy.
In another era it may be Bush's legacy, too.
This past week, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of America's strongest allies, was in Washington on a state visit.
He was hailed by one and all in the nation's capital.
Later, Howard was in Ottawa to visit America's latest allies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the newly elected Conservative government of Canada.
And we all know British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also one of Bush's -- and America's -- strongest allies.
Bush and America have many other allies throughout the world, too, although to read the nauseating Lib-Left news media, one would get the impression Bush is a pariah and America a rogue state.
Well, would you rather have the likes of Communist China, Communist North Korea, or Communist Cuba soldiering the world?
How about Middle East sheikdoms such as Iran, Libya, or Yemen running the show.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already let it be known when his nation gets its hands on nuclear weapons he will use them against the Western democracies.
North Korea's president Kim Jong-il boasts he already has nuclear weapons and is building intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry them to western countries.
Back in the 1960s, Castro tried to install Soviet missiles on his island nation aimed at Canada and the U.S.
Do you honestly believe Bush, Blair, Howard and the like do not have a duty to safeguard us against these types.
Or would you rather have a stack of African dictatorships in charge -- nations ravaged by tribal warfare with their hands constantly out for billions of dollars in western aid that invariably is used to build luxurious palaces and deposited in secretive Swiss banks.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is a mess -- democracy there is in danger -- and old Soviet-style hawks want to take it back to the days of Stalinism.
Many of its non-Eastern European vassal states are in a mess, too, governed by local chieftains.
In Latin America bullies such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are on the rise.
Their hero, Fidel Castro, lives in luxury while his people continue to live under decades of food rationing.
India and Pakistan -- always at each other's throats, and courtesy of past Canadian Liberal regimes loaded with nuclear missiles -- pose a constant threat to that part of the world.
In Italy, we just lost Silvio Berlusconi, one of Bush's and America's best friends, in favour of left-winger Romano Ponti, and we don't know where he stands on preserving the international rule of law.
In Spain, when the Conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar fell, and Socialist Jose Zapatero came into power, the Spanish quickly capitulated to Islamic terrorist blackmail.
Thankfully, NATO and Norad are still holding together, and some perceptive Europeans leaders are even talking about a missile shield against rogue nations similar to the one proposed by Bush and rejected by weak-kneed types such as the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals.
Gutless, every one of them.
Talk about 21st century Neville Chamberlains!
So we're left basically with Bush, Blair and Howard and whatever smaller nations such as freed Soviet slave states in the European Union can pull together.
Yes, we've all read in the midst of this international war on terror that Bush has slipped this month to an all-time low in opinion polls at just 29%.
But recall that back in 1951 during another war on terror -- the attempt to prevent Josef Stalin's hordes from advancing into Western Europe and the all-out effort to save South Korea from advancing Communist North Korean forces, backed by Red China -- Democratic President Harry Truman fell to 23% in the polls.
The anti-America mobs can howl all they like, but I'm sticking with Bush, Blair, Howard and other true leaders of the western democracies.
I hope you are, too.
It's called "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
People need to stop the anklebiting, while President Bush is trying to keep us safe, keep the economy going, and is succeeding, despite huge odds.
Well we disagree then.
Ah, okay.
"On May 18, 1974 – less than two years after then prime minister Indira Gandhi authorized scientists to build a bomb – India set off the "Smiling Buddha." India called it a "peaceful nuclear explosive." Pakistan called it a threat. India relied on technology supplied by a nuclear reactor that Canada helped to build."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/nuclearweapons/
Please tell me, how is Bush trying to keep the economy going and keep us safe, and why is it that you think he is succeeding in these regards?
If I had to throw you something to chew on, I’d say one thing we both noticed in Bush’s second term (especially the administration), is that his ‘attention-span’ on the war has dropped off considerabley—especially right after his reelection. He launched right into saving social security, and since then his focus has never been the same.
To sum it up more, my husband and I firmly believe that when America goes to war, the entire country goes to war too. The average Joe on the street still doesn’t understand what we’re doing and why we are doing it and doesn’t think much about it. The President continually tells us to go about our normal daily lives, but this is the wrong attitude completely, in our opinion. We are at war and cannot simply go about our daily lives as though everything is fine and normal. It is not, and to us, this is a HUGE mistake.
Anyway I can go into a lot more detail tomorrow after I get some much needed sleep now. Night!
Viva Bush.
tax cuts, limited regulation, prosecution of white collar criminals, attempts at tort reform, aggressive prosecution of Al Queda terrorists
"The President continually tells us to go about our normal daily lives, but this is the wrong attitude completely, in our opinion. We are at war and cannot simply go about our daily lives as though everything is fine and normal. It is not, and to us, this is a HUGE mistake. "
===
When you are getting down to specifics, it's making a lot more sense. I agree with you, they should spend more time on PR and getting the American people to support the WoT -- the problem is that if people are in fear, they don't buy, invest, which hurts the economy, when they are not in fear, they don't appreciate what is being done. It's a d*&ned if you do and d*&ned if you don't situation.
Ping...
The pay was ok.
I got a phone call once every three weeks or so. Calls were only about 10 minutes long...if the phone system didn't go down.
My husband didn't have access to any email. It was hand written letters which took anywhere from two-to-three months to send and receive. About 1/3 of the mail didn't make it.
Other than that, I had to keep myself busy and not worry about my husband coming home in a body bag. (What part of that is "extremely easy", again?)
Taxcust, AFghanistan, Iraq, AQ is on the run -- but I guess that's not enough for you.
Suggest you read post 46, it may apply to you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635762/posts?page=46#46
Whether you realize it or not, your starting to sound like mother sheehan
Your not the only one who's had someone under fire in Iraq. There's thousands of us out here and some haven't been as lucky as you and have their loved one return home to them.
Please thank your husband for his service to a grateful nation, and you please quit your whining and grow up!
http://www.goodolddogs3.com/HonorOurVets.html
Millions of us have been through the same and made it just fine. Just be thankful that he came home.
Interesting. I thank God every day that Bush has my back on the WoT and protects my butt. I share that opinion with any and everyone.
But I should hold my tongue on CFR (perhaps if more of us had howled back then he wouldn't have signed it), the borders, the budget and entitlements because that's mere ankle-biting and isn't leadership? Sounds more like "my party right or wrong" to me.
So if we have a kick butt President on the war on terror but he decides that the Second Amendment isn't a good thing we should just shut up else we'll elect a democrat? Gee, after all look at all the other good things he's done? Where in your book does one draw the line and become seriously concerned? Is there such a line or is it "my party right or wrong" or even more scary "my party can do no wrong"?
No, I'm an American first, a conservative second and a republican third. By being a conservative and a republican I don't check my voice at the door else I'd be no better than a liberal. Apparently the current litmus test for a republican is to keep your mouth shut.
Funny, that's always been one of my observations about liberals.
We are not dealing with red herrings here, we are dealing with reality.
Your pulling in the Second Amendment is pathetic,pretending that Bush is somehow trying to abolish it.
This kind of ludicrous hypothetical red herring just make you lose credibility completely.
Duly noted.
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.