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.
LOL!!!! OK put down the crack pipe and back away from the table. Where are you reading in all this Clinton love, simply because we disagree with Bush's positon on illegal immigration!
They want a do-nothing, emoting nobody, instead of a leader who takes charge and tries to solve insoluble problems.
Well, I would have to say Bush isn't showing much leadership or inclination to stop the flow of illegals. His speech last week didn't seem like someone taking charges; it sounded more like pandering. So far hes been hands off on the issue.
What's so hard about closing the borders first and then having a dialogue about what to do with the illegals already here. It is becomming obvious to many republicans and dems alike that this amnesty scam is a done deal already agreed to by the elitist and us common folk are not being told the real reasons. Some of you just havn't gotten the drift yet.
from the May 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0519/p09s02-cods.html
Bush may be losing his base
Conservatives are openly dissenting from policies of Republican leadership.
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - The term "base" is not in William Safire's political dictionary, but he tells me it will be included in the next edition. "Base" refers to that solid core of political supporters who will stick with you through electoral thick and thin as long as you are perceived as advancing their principles. Most often, the term is applied to religious conservatives.
Something seems to have gone off the rails between President Bush and his base, judging by a recent Gallup poll that shows his support among conservatives down from a long-standing 80 percent to a current 50 percent.
Religious conservatives have found the administration and Congress falling short on issues such as same-sex marriage, obscenity, and abortion. They have expressed disappointment that the president has not been more active in seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The issue of the week is immigration. In what he called a compromise proposal in his television speech on Monday night, the president sought to allay the criticism of conservatives by proposing to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops along the Mexican border.
There may be less there than meets the eye. The Guard troops will be mainly in support roles. The arrangement may not last more than a year. And the president, who also has a business base, felt compelled to propose a "guest-worker" (not amnesty, repeat, not amnesty) program.
At the same time, the administration was trying to shift attention to consensus Republican issues such as tax cuts and judicial nominations. But, the dissension within Republican ranks was evident. The $105 billion war-spending bill, passed by the Senate, was called "dead on arrival" by House speaker Dennis Hastert. When Senate majority leader Bill Frist called Gen. Michael Hayden the "ideal man" for CIA Director, Speaker Hastert announced his opposition to having a military man in the job.
Influential conservatives have begun speaking openly of their reservations about the Republican leadership. Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has said that he might turn critic of the administration unless it does more to deliver on conservative goals.
At this point, the thunder from the right may be in the nature of admonition. But I can recall a time when evangelicals shunned the ballot box. If that were to happen again, it would change the face of American politics.
You are of course right. They always are looking for principled leaders who will do what they think is right and never ever bend to the will of the people.
They crave a dictatorship with a guy they agree with in the dictator's seat.
If you look for principled leaders, the list is not all that long... Hitler was one, Stalin another, Mao a third, Hirohito a fourth.
Those on the far right reject the idea that they want someone like a Hitler. But they do. They did not like Hitler but they want a Hitler type person that agrees with them.
Fortunately such people will never achieve power in the USA. Hitlers and Stalins can achieve power in a single party system, and in a multi party system such as Germany. But they can't do it in a two party system. That is a very good thing.
from the May 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0519/p09s02-cods.html
Bush may be losing his base
Conservatives are openly dissenting from policies of Republican leadership.
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - The term "base" is not in William Safire's political dictionary, but he tells me it will be included in the next edition. "Base" refers to that solid core of political supporters who will stick with you through electoral thick and thin as long as you are perceived as advancing their principles. Most often, the term is applied to religious conservatives.
Something seems to have gone off the rails between President Bush and his base, judging by a recent Gallup poll that shows his support among conservatives down from a long-standing 80 percent to a current 50 percent.
Religious conservatives have found the administration and Congress falling short on issues such as same-sex marriage, obscenity, and abortion. They have expressed disappointment that the president has not been more active in seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The issue of the week is immigration. In what he called a compromise proposal in his television speech on Monday night, the president sought to allay the criticism of conservatives by proposing to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops along the Mexican border.
There may be less there than meets the eye. The Guard troops will be mainly in support roles. The arrangement may not last more than a year. And the president, who also has a business base, felt compelled to propose a "guest-worker" (not amnesty, repeat, not amnesty) program.
At the same time, the administration was trying to shift attention to consensus Republican issues such as tax cuts and judicial nominations. But, the dissension within Republican ranks was evident. The $105 billion war-spending bill, passed by the Senate, was called "dead on arrival" by House speaker Dennis Hastert. When Senate majority leader Bill Frist called Gen. Michael Hayden the "ideal man" for CIA Director, Speaker Hastert announced his opposition to having a military man in the job.
Influential conservatives have begun speaking openly of their reservations about the Republican leadership. Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has said that he might turn critic of the administration unless it does more to deliver on conservative goals.
At this point, the thunder from the right may be in the nature of admonition. But I can recall a time when evangelicals shunned the ballot box. If that were to happen again, it would change the face of American politics.
Thanks for your excellent, reasoned posts on this thread.
The problem is that some people just want to throw temper tantrums, instead of thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Yeah, I caught his speech and was not impressed. It did not leave me believing he would do anything meaningful. The argument that we are helping Democrats because we don't tow the party line is getting old and tired.
We can take the fast train to socialism with the dems or we can take the slow train with RINOs, but the train will utlimately end up at the same place. I will not simply sit down and shut up to make you or anyone else feel more secure that a (oh the horrors)Dem isn't in office. If this country is stupid enough to vote in Witch Hillary than so be it.
"The argument that we are helping Democrats because we don't tow the party line is getting old and tired."
===
You may not like hearing it, but IT'S TRUE.
You came out of the woodwork to post this?
What has he ever struggled with? Seriously?
He grew up in a wealthy family and never wanted for anything. He doesn't have to pay a mortgage and worry about bills. He probably never has had to worry about those things. He has probably had help with raising his children using nannies and housekeepers.
Really, what struggles has he had? How can he possibly relate to the average American and at the same time forget to secure the borders after 9-11?
It's really easy for you to sit comfortably in your house and take cowardly potshots at him from your living room.
I bet Bush is in his living room right now.
And you're an anonymous, safe at home chicken.
You know nothing about me. You are too self absorbed and too enamored of Bush to be rational.
I tire of this canard. You cannot change my mind by threatening me with a bogeyman.
6. Stop illegal immigration -- which President Bush is doing. What is the problem with the guest worker program, our unemployment is very low, it's not as if they would take jobs from unemployed Americans, and as long as they also secure the border, what's the problem?
Seeing that the immigration issue is number six on your list, I suppose you don't see the problem with the equivalent of one third of the total US population migrating in to our borders. If you don't think that having 1/4 of our population consist of foreign nationals who don't subscribe to the principles that make up the American identity is a problem, I don't think there is anything I can do to convince you otherwise. So I suppose I am wasting my keystrokes.
Read up on the history of Byzantium, Rome, the Middle East, Albania, and Russia to see what mass migration does to nations. Heck, just look at the United States and early colonialism for a good example. Have a look at the French riots and the problems in Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
We cannot absorb that many people and expect to keep chugging along like everything is same old same old. 190 million migrants are going to need education, health care, jobs, retirement and everything else that our Rooseveltian society assumes are "rights".
The nation as we know it will not survive this.
Am I fearmongering? Perhaps, although this is not my intent. I just am simply witnessing the asphyxiating canary in our coal mine, and I thought I might mention it.
APf
It has nothing to do with whether or not I like hearing it; rather I no longer view the (woe is me the rats will get in) argument as meaningful.
I have a very good friend who is a retired a full bird Special Forces Col. During his career he spent two tours Vietnam, the first Iraq war, and served in several sensitive post throughout the world. My friend was fairly high up in the Army political food chain and even now has several contacts in the Pentagon and close to the white House.
Back in 2004 my friend and I were at odds because he said he was not voting for Bush. We joked about it quite a bit but he really was serious. I couldn't understand how an extremely conservative and decorated veteran could chose Kerry over Bush. My friend said he detested Kerry but that this country needed a change to the right and that Bush was not the man to do it; that he was an elitist with a one world vison like his father and was, in fact, quite socially liberal. My friend said that if Kerry was elected the nation would be so fed up at the end of 4 years that the country would take a hard swing to the right in 2008; something that would not happen if Bush remained in office for a second term. My friend would not elaborate but also told me I would not like what I see in Bush's second term.
I didn't believe him back then, but I am starting to think there was some truth in what he said.
"What is silly is for anybody to suggest that Bush is the world's best hope, that is silly, very silly."
If GWB is the "world's best hope", then were all in trouble. I voted for GWB twice, and I'm not sorry about that, I'm just sorry there wasn't another choice.
Yeah, just like I crave a supposedly conservative President and a supposedly conservative GOP Senate who ignore 80% of the American people and continue to ram through the Shamnesty program.
We are not a dictatorship yet, I believe the proper term is Oligarchy
sui
The whiners appear to be outnumbered by the whiners whining about the whiners.
Care to share some of my cheese?
Reminds me of a comment I made in the weeks after 911 in regards to airline security. "We're only as strong as our weakest link. We're screwed."
So if Bush remains the world's best hope, well....you can guess the rest. ;-)
I find it interesting that you are incapable of seeing any aspect of leadership other than immigration.......that you are willing to dismiss a thousand other things he has done with great strength because he hasn't done what you want him to do on one issue.
(However, I'm still not convinced that you're not a liberal........in which case it makes more sense that you and I have nothing in common....)
You should be ashamed of yourself.
..........................................................
Ashamed of myself? Not in the least and why should I be? The military is no place for Prima-Donna spouses.
What has he ever struggled with?? ....... How about the decision to send our troops into harm's way to protect us from terror? How about spending every moment of every day deciding how best to protect this nation from further attack? How about knowing that his decisions have resulted in the deaths and wounding of our finest in this fight for freedom and security, yet knowing that it was the RIGHT thing to do?? How about suffering the incessant attacks of the hate-filled, mindless left, being called a liar when he has told the truth, and being despised for loving America by those who hate it. You haven't got a clue. Not a clue.
I know that President Bush is sacrificing, and I know that our troops are sacrificing, and I know that my son, who has proudly served under his Commander in Chief has sacrificed to fight an enemy that you can't even see because you are a one-issued, tunnel visioned Bush hater.....of the worst order.
Open your eyes, blind man. Open your eyes.
I'm in awe that there are those so historically, and maturationally challenged, that they think the job of the President of the United States is to make them feel good all over and do whatever they want..........and if he doesn't, he's 'stabbed them in the back.'
Some of the people on this forum amaze, amuse and disgust me. But none of them make me whine.
The following is from that article:
"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to ..."
Now, what on earth would make you believe that an article in which Jerry Corsi claims to know what the President of the United States is "secretly pursuing" has even a sprinkling of truth?
Actually, I keep a very close eye on every aspect of national leadership. When I'm not working I spend 3 to 4 hours a day reading news and analyzing what I read. Unlike most folks, I don't get caught up in the bread and circuses or things like golf, football, baseball etc. I do not have the time.
What we have here, however, is a national issue that will result in a defining moment. The decisions made will be extremely vital to our national security and our very way of life. I find it incomprehensible that you (and other Bush can do no wrong types) do not understand the importance of it and what it will mean for our children and grand children.
At this time there is no issue more important and how it is handled will reveal the true intent of our leaders and what they really have in store for the country. When it finally happens (it will happen regardless of what the people think) I don't think you're going to like it very much.
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.