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.
My hubby just re-enlisted for another 4 years in the NG....he has already served 36yrs(he is full time Guard)....during these years he has served all over the world and has served 15mos in Iraq and 30 days in NO...I'm sure he'll be heading to the border since he is in an Aviation unit.......Now my son is also in the Guard...he was in school (ISU) when 911 occured....his unit was activated but told to stand down while waiting for deployment....this upset him so much, because his dad was over there that he dropped out of school and became an MP under OpNoble Eagle....seeing that his unit was never going to be deployed(at least in his eyes) he transferred to an MP Bn knowing that they were to be deployed late this summer......I am so proud of him, I just can't put into words..........thanks to him and thousands like him we are going to win this WOT.....he has not lost confidence, quite the contrary....he is stepping up where others aren't.......he is my son, my baby ....my hero!
This is evident in just about every one of these threads lately.
Again, twisting my words. I never stated that and you know it.
Nothing else you ever say will have any value. To you, I suspect not.
thanks for the ping
I'm sticking with Bush on foreign policy because he is the only dog in the race right now who is acceptable.
But that doesn't mean I agree with or support his position on pandering to Senior Fox, illegal invaders, his abandonment of an effective southern border defence, or his moronic, insidious, un-American "guest invader" plan.
Please..........explain how I have 'twisted' the words that have been in black and white on this very thread.
(Interesting how when you get caught you try to squirm and blame the one who called you on what you have actually said.......right here in public).
I’m sorry to say this, but AmeriBrit would be a perfect example of this. This all started when I initially responded to someone else way early on in the thread who viciously attacked my character (I should have chose to ignore it!!!!!! Argh!!!!!), so I responded by saying who I was and what I thought I contributed (as a military wife). Then out of the blue an active-duty spouse comes out of nowhere, and cuts me down unsolicited. This kind of thing happens over and over and over. All I was trying to do was explain who I was and that I felt I had contributed something, and all I got was a kick in the groin for not supporting my husband or our troops, which was a bizarre assumption that came completely out of nowhere. Things just escalated from there. I should have walked away from the attacks. I know better and I could just kick myself now.
Anyway, I have kept in touch with 160 plus reservist wives and most (not all) have had similar or worse experiences in support groups. Does it have something to do with my location? I don’t know. One very young mother had a desperate situation with a sick child in the hospital (btw, medical coverage for reservists is a whole other ball of wax) when she sought help from some of the active duty wives, she was lambasted for freaking out and causing problems by complaining. Not one active-duty spouse was able to offer any tangible assistance or advise. Like I said, I know there are good active-duty spouses out there, but there were none to be found for a long time. All this young girl really needed was someone to listen, and instead she was told that she was an unsupportive wife and that she was causing her husband unneeded distress and that she was nothing but trouble. Her son was in and out of the hospital getting surgery. The poor boy has had some very close calls.
Anyway. Sorry, for getting on my soapbox again, but I can only hope that in real life this spouse is truly a good person whom a reservist spouse can go to in a time of desperate need, and who can understand the differences between each other’s unique needs. I say time and again that the support structure, at almost every level is just not there for most of us. If you’ve never had a (reserves) spouse deploy, then this may not make much sense.
Anyway, I digress. Time for some dinner and Sopranos.
My hubby is an MP too! 36 years??!?!? Wow!!! Please thank your hubby and your son for me !!!! Thank you for being a support system for them!!! It must be so hard!
Clarification for factual accuracy. Your friend said that no matter how bad Kerry was, that it would do the country good to have him elected, because Bush was so bad, and we needed a change.
And you think there was 'some truth' in what he said.
Not a single conservative in the country would say that electing a traitor would be better for the country than President Bush has been.
That's exactly what you said you were agreeing with.
Please thank your son for me and thank you for supporting your son in the WOT.
That hasn't been the experience of the Guard members I have known (I am a Dad of one, not a spouse), but being deployed has a lot of stresses so I can relate to how stress affects the families.
I am headed for bed, but feel free to comment again if needs be and I will respond some time tomorrow.
'some truth'
Please thank your soldier from me and my husband! (sorry I meant to say that earlier)!
I've been thinking about what you've said.
I think there is a natural 'pecking order' in the military, and the Reserves are on the bottom.
Our son never felt any particular prejudice that he shared at any rate, but he personally felt that he wasn't sacrificing as much, or doing things that were as important as they were doing.........but that's the way he is......kinda humble. :)
I know that when he was in Iraq, while he was in support, his Unit was highly valued (of course they did supply water, which included showers and a make-shift pool ;), but I think his experience was that he was respected.
Our family support was made up of all reservists, so obviously there was no discrimination there.
How exactly would it be good (let's say for our military), to have a traitor as their Commander in Chief? How exactly would it be good to have a man who couldn't make a decision if his life depended on it in the Oval Office during a time of war? How exactly would it be good to have an amoral liberal elitest replace a moral, God-centered man of character?
Where is the 'some truth' that you agree with in your 'military conservative friend's' words?
Please explain to us stupid centrist sheep what exactly you mean.........I mean, explain how destroying the country we love would be good for it?
Just the 'some truth' that you meant when you said it.......
mystery-ak's husband is the coolest, bravest man on the face of the earth! :)
I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Dubya as well.
I've mentioned before that my two "kids" both wear the uniform of this great country, and trashing Dubya undercuts his Presidential authority, undercuts the troops, and undercuts their mission in the war on terror.
Whether one is for or against the immigration/illegal alien plans being argued in the Congress, these important issues will mean little if we lose the war on terror.
Looking beyond the War on Terror, if Hillary Rodham becomes president, I forecast that she and her judicial chums will repress political dissent in short order. Rush, Hugh, Laura, F.R. would be shuttered (in the name of "fairness").
I also forecast a tsunami flood of illegal aliens if Hillary were president, and they would become voting citizens overnight.
If this little scenario isn't what some here have in mind by dissing our President, I suggest these good folks consider the consequences of the current mob mentality.
Flame away (if Dubya can take it, I can too!)
.
Thanks for your excellent post and for the service of your "kids".
You have an excellent grasp of the situation.
I wish others would read your post and learn.
Me too.
Also, on the Iraq war: I think that we should have bombed the country into oblivion (since Bush decided to go in against better-judgement) and then left stating that we would be back if they didn't put a pro American government back in place. President Bush was right in the 2000 campaign when he said that we shouldn't be "nation building." Then, instead of wasting billions and billions of dollars building them back up, we could just come back with bombers if the next government wasn't west-friendly.
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.