The Bravest President

National Review ^ | 05/23/06 | Michael Novak

[Wolfstar]

Yes, my predictions of this nature, are often accurate and I suspect will be in this case.

Just a wee touch of ego you have there. [/sarcasm]

[TAdams8591]

"The list of his conservative achievements is long. There is always more than can be done. Always. But this in no way negates the facts of his conservative achievements in social policy, judicial and other appointments, foreign policy, and a host of other areas."

Don't forget he listened to conservatives particularly regarding Miers and also Dubais.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I vote based on national security. That is MY number one issue, and President Bush has done very well with it. As a bonus I got lower taxes, no Kyoto, two good Supreme Court Justices, and a lot of roll-back on environmental stuff.

If you want to hold down spending, I suggest you turn your eyes to the House and Senate. I don't expect ANY President to veto a spending bill submitted by his own party, particularly when the votes for an override are there.

[kabar]

The Nazi threat never had the power to project itself across the Atlantic (the fact that the Nazis were defeated much quicker than Al Qaeda has been or is likely to be shows the degree to which Al Qaeda is a more daunting threat) and the Soviets were deterrable.

The Nazis were working on the development of nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them. They came perilously close to beating us to the punch. AQ is really not the threat, but rather, militant Islamic fundamentalism. The threat has more to do with the ideology, the abillity to mobilize millions to follow them, and use asymetrical warfare than it does with any actual military capability of AQ. Militant Islam has the potential to be more threatening than the Soviets, but in terms of actual threat, there is no comparison.

The Soviets, as brutal as they were at home, at least outside of the Soviet client states maintained a certain level of adherence to international norms, isolated outrageous acts like the shooting down of the Korean airliner notwithstanding (an incident the Soviets were embarrassed by, one by which Al Qaeda would be emboldened and proud of if they had accomplished.)

You are comparing apples to oranges, i.e., a state actor versus a non-state actor. It is far easier to respond or retaliate against a state actor, which actually occupies a defined territory. AQ is in over 60 countries, including our own.

The Soviets were also very attuned to public opinion in the West and to trying to cultivate something of a positive image, especially in Western Europe. Sure there were proxy wars, but never was the US homeland likely to be attacked.

The Soviets tried to introduce nuclear weapons into Cuba. The Cuban Missile crisis is probably the closest we came to going to war against the Soviets. It was so close that a number of USG officials secretly sent their families outside of the DC area. The Soviets had ICBMs, Polaris-type subs, and bombers capable of attacking the US Homeland. Some of us remember the "duck and cover" drills in school and the building a bomb shelter in your backyard craze. How old are you?

Do you see any such restraint coming out of Al Qaeda? Are they deterred by the idea of being wiped out or in any way responsive to the idea of Western public opinion, entreatable through diplomatic, economic and cultural mechanisms or accountable to the norms of international law and behavior? Are they bound by treaties or the need to maintain trading relationships to keep their economy afloat? Do they have a basically Western cultural mindset which the Soviets at least had to an extent? Absolutely not!

Apples and oranges again. If AQ were a country, they would be susceptible to the same kinds of restraints. The Chinese don't have a western cultural mindset.

Measuring a threat merely by the size of its army is simplistic at best. On September 11th Al Qaeda killed more Americans than the Soviet Army ever did.

Maybe directly, but the Soviets gave arms, ammunition and advisors to the North Koreans and Vietnamese during our wars with them. We have some fairly reliable information that the Soviets manned some of the the SAM missile baterriies in North Vietnam and flew some of the NV fighter aircraft. We fought the Red Chinese in Korea.I see Al Qaeda as being one of the most dangerous enemies America has faced, if not the most dangerous, precisely because there is no regulators or brakes to their behaviors and they are not governed by any need to play to public opinion or to keep to norms of international law and diplomatic behavior. The author is quite right if you stop and think about it.

AQ is just one of similar terrorist groups that pose the same kind of threat. We also have the threat of state sponsors of terrorism who use terrorist groups as surrogates. The Chinese or Iranians could use a terrorist group armed with WMD against us. Against whom would we retaliate and how? Asymetrical warfare is the real threat and the only way our enemies can confront the world's lone superpower.

[Wolfstar]

Quite simply: If we had invaded Afganistan ahead of time we would have been on a war footing, mking 9/11 much less likely. The South attacked the North to begin the Civil War. The logic is the same.

The time to "invade Afghanistan ahead of time" would have been on Clinton's watch. He had many provocations and could have done it. He didn't have the vision or the guts.

George W. Bush was president for seven and one-half months on 9/11/01. He didn't even have all of his appointments in place below cabinet secretary level.

[hosepipe]

[ Probably Bush is the democrats most coveted and secret weapon ever devised to date. / So. What's it like to have to struggle through life with such poor critical reasoning skills? ]

I don't know, is the answer in you're autobiography?..
Are you promoting your new book?..

AMNESTY for Sandy Berger(thru Gonzalez) and AMNESTY for multi millions of new democrats(illegal and legal insurgents) is what the White RINO House is all about..

AMNESTY!.. The AMNESTY President grants amnesty to all kinds of illegal things..
What a nice man....

[Miss Marple]

You are doing an admirable job of sticking up for the President. I have to leave and won't be back for about four hours. Thanks for your words of common sense!

[Wolfstar]

MikeA: I don't feel 'kicked' by him.

tabsternager: Then you're in the minority.

So, tabsternager, you know this, how, precisely?

I don't feel kicked by him either. I'm damned proud of him and of my votes for him. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat if it were possible.

[Miss Marple]

Amnesty is the complete forgiveness for a crime. In neither case is President Bush granting amnesty. Sandy Berger's sentence may not have been as severe as you would like, but he was convicted and fined. Same will happen with the illegal immigrants.

You guys have a bad habit of using words imprecisely. What you mean is that the president is not supporting penalties that are in line with the severity you wish.

However, he is not supporting amnesty.

[kabar]

The article on this thread equates Bush to Lincoln and Washington in terms of the threats and challenges faced. Some of us believe that this comparison is a little overblown and lacking in historical perspective. Comparing the threat of AQ to what we faced in WWII is a bit much. FDR and Truman on the American side and Churchill faced, in my opinion, far greater challenges and threats. Hence my question about Blair and Churchill.

[Wolfstar]

Don't forget he listened to conservatives particularly regarding Miers and also Dubais.

True. But, of course, the hallmark of a "real" conservative is perpetual dissatisfaction. Heck, they still hold Miers and Dubai against GWB even though he did listen to them.

[TAdams8591]

"Just a wee touch of ego you have there. [/sarcasm]"

Not really.

But I'd say you're a wee bit too defensive of this president. /sarcasm

[presidio9]

Do yourself a favor sometime and visit Gettysburg, and then get back to me on whether this President faces the same challenges.

[TAdams8591]

"But, of course, the hallmark of a "real" conservative is perpetual dissatisfaction."

Well, I don't.

For now, I am concerned about the immigration issue, however.

[Wolfstar]

I don't know, is the answer in you're autobiography?.. Are you promoting your new book?..

Well, since we're talking about YOUR reasoning skills, what do you think the answer is?

Oooooo...amnesty. Wait! AMNESTY! Please do shout it often. Eventually people will recognized you for the hysteric you are and tune you out.

[Right Wing Professor]

Sure are getting a lot of these Busholatry posts these days.

[Wolfstar]

You are doing an admirable job of sticking up for the President. I have to leave and won't be back for about four hours. Thanks for your words of common sense!

Thanks Miss Marple. I think MikeA is doing a better job. I'm just deliberately being...well, you know. ;-)

[RVN Airplane Driver]

The article on this thread equates Bush to Lincoln and Washington in terms of the threats and challenges faced. Some of us believe that this comparison is a little overblown and lacking in historical perspective. Comparing the threat of AQ to what we faced in WWII is a bit much. FDR and Truman on the American side and Churchill faced, in my opinion, far greater challenges and threats. Hence my question about Blair and Churchill.

Please answer one question for me...how many American civilians were killed on American soil during WWII?? If you don't think AQ is a threat equal or greater than any we faced from the Nazi's or Ruskies....you are like many Americans....terribly naive!!!

[Wolfstar]

But I'd say you're a wee bit too defensive of this president.

Defensive? Not hardly. Proudly and openly standing in his corner is more like it.

Do not mistake my utter distain for self-described "real" conservatives of the type infesting FR for defensiveness of any sort.

[Luke21]

Yeah, these people are hillarious. They congratulate each other on their brilliance and rightness just like liberals do. Reminds me of the Clinton knee pad squad. Funny stuff.