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.
Nice article, but I can't imagine what "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" is making reference to. Past Canadian regimes responsible for India and Pakistan's nuclear missiles? Wha??
What do you think this is, a sovereign nation?
"Without his strong leadership, we would already have been attacked more than once since 9-11 . . ."
Maybe? Or maybe, if you're an AQ leader who can pull the trigger, you've decided not to risk uniting the civilized world at the present time?
Seems like India may have developed their nuclear capability using nuclear reactors they got from Canada.
I found this in a quick Google search -- but I don't vouch for it's accuracy:
http://www.ccnr.org/myth_2.html
Somewhere else I read that Canada was trying to negotiate with India and Pakistan unsuccessfully.
President Bush has been able to defuse the crisis between India and Pakistan, without fanfare.
We weren't attacked not because Al Qaeda wasn't trying -- but because we were able to foil their attacks.
"I'd like to but I feel so stabbed in the back right now. . . "
Crap.
Let remind you of something that your kindergarten teacher somehow failed to get across: the world is not all about you.
It's not even mainly about you.
The man in the White House has to deal daily with a world full of idiots who would gladly destroy both you and your countrymen. Your petty whines and single-issue prejudices are nothing but self-indulgent me, me, me. Stuck at five years old.
Nobody stabbed you in the back. Your back doesn't even register. The collective back of this fine nation DOES matter, and the fine man in the White House HAS OUR BACK.
Not yours, OURS.
If you won't be part of the solution, at least shut up and quit trying to make matters worse.
Having said that, people need to recall that Reagan was not seen as he is today until his death. I almost fell off my chair when I saw so many nice things said about him at DU--"He loved his country, unlike the current President" for example.
When we step back from the things so concerning us at the moment (how many times while complaining about the cretinous, evil Jimmy Carter have we posted the words "Bert Lance," a name that popped up daily for a period during that presidency?), we will see the true, historical record.
I believe that record, whether the textbooks or MSM note it or not, will show that when faced with an act of war, the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans, George Bush looked down the road and saw where the acceptance of terror by the world as a given, as something we just have to deal with on a case-by-case basis, which was accepted by, yes, Ronald Reagan (Lebanon), George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and thought, 'This must be confronted now.'
Bush saw that of course you couldn't eradicate terrorist actions, but you could show that the cost would be so overwhelming, that if any tyrant decided to go that way--as we see by the evidence Saddam was interested in very much--they would lose.
Has the execution of this policy been perfect? Hell, no. Please name for me the foreign policy initiative that HAS been perfect? There have been none, there never will be one. There is no Textbook Of Perfect Policies.
That's life.
Bush is an imperfect man who, to me, made one of the most frightening, yet bravest decisions ever.
History will thank him for it. He is making the islamofascist dream that much less likely to happen, far moreso than any President, any person, ever has.
His critics are toy poodles nipping at his ankles, while he is a figure about whom one can say "History would have been greatly different if he were never President." You can't say that about Clinton, his immediate predecessor. Unfortunately we have been spared from learning if that would be said of Gore or Kerry, as I think they would have altered history, too--to our peril.
That's the reality.
Amen. Well said.
His critics are toy poodles nipping at his ankles, while he is a figure about whom one can say "History would have been greatly different if he were never President."
==
Excellent post!
During his first term, Bush came out very strong, but in my opinion, he has morphed into something else completely during his second term. His focused changed drastically, and he has he’s forgotten about the war on terror, and only does the bare minimum to save face. (Yes, I know—the horror!—bring on the Viking Kitties).
My husband spent 16 months in Iraq doing very dangerous work, and was under fire daily (I didn't sleep the whole time he was gone); he feels more let down about the change in Bush than I do. A lot of other things tie into this which I am not gonna get into because it’s two in the morning (pacific time) and my eyes are going all swirly on me.
I want to ask how you can be so sure, but I won't.
Brilliant remark. (/sarcasm)
Bump to a straightforward post, hitting the nail on the head, putting things into context for some of our self indulgent posters, stuck on "me, me, me".
The bottom line is still that "President Bush is the world's best hope".
What makes you think this? Really, what on Earth makes you think this?
This is the first time I've ever seen Bush accused of not being obsessed enough with the WOT. The man speaks about it almost daily, recently asked for and got more funding... What do you expect him to do that's more if this is the "bare minimum to save face"? I mean hard examples, not just "more". His SOS and Defense were there recently in person; he has never stopped supporting our forces there; he is constantly defending such things as Gitmo and NSA wiretapping; he stands back when Iraq NEEDS to make independent choices such as in building its government.
It takes a lot to surprise me with a charge against Bush, but I would wager that of 100 possible complaints one could have about him, this one would be dead-last.
There were several things in the papers about foiled attacks, and do you think Cheney kept being in an undisclosed location, just for amusement? We were expecting some serious attacks, that thank God, we were able to foil.
White House lists 10 foiled attacks
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html
Good find!!
"Really, what on Earth makes you think this?"
===
Did you just drop in from Mars? Otherwise you wouldn't need to ask.
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.