Posted on 05/23/2006 8:34:45 AM PDT by Pokey78
NNow when he is at his lowest point yet in the polls is the time for those who love and admire President Bush to say so. Depending on the final success of his already successful campaign to bring the rudiments of democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush, #43, may go down as a truly great president, who against fierce odds turned the entire Middle East in a new, more democratic, and more creative direction.
But I do not want to argue here the question of his greatness (I have heard voices call him the worst ever) because the question of ranking is above my pay grade and my foresight.
What I do want to argue is that, after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents. He has faced the most intense fire, hatred, contempt, heavily moneyed and bitterly acidic partisan opposition, underhandedness, betrayal, of any president in the last hundred years. He has faced hostility over a longer time, in possibly the most dangerous period of international warfare in our national history. He has remained constant, firm, decided, and generous (to a fault) with his opponents.
He has faced almost unbroken contempt from the academy, from the mainstream press, from Democratic elites, from Moveon and all the other holders of the Democratic-party purse strings, from the Democratic Congress, from his treacherous (if not treasonous) Central Intelligence Agency, and from many levels of the permanent State Department. Almost every day, he has been pummeled and undermined by powerful forces of American power. Still, he has stayed firm, with clear arguments, and an even clearer vision.
On the number-one issue facing the nation—the war declared upon us by fascists who pretend to be religious—he has not wavered, he has not bent, he has stayed on course and true.
In Iraq, civil society, nearly comatose under Saddam Hussein, is today alive and full of vitality. Newspapers and television and magazines are full of diversity and energy, political parties multiply, private associations are functioning by the thousands, most of the country is more secure than some American cities. Iraqi exiles from around the world, far from fleeing, are coming back in droves.
In Paris, France, more cars may have been set on fire this past year than car bombings in Baghdad. In the decade of the Algerian war some time ago there may have been more bombings in France per week than there are now in Iraq. A tiny band of extremists, led by a crafty but crazed Jordanian, are still capable of impressive resourcefulness and ruthless killing, especially within camera reach of the hotels in Baghdad, where the American press is bunkered down. But they represent only a small fringe of Iraqi voters—and of course they loathe democracy with all their writhing intestines.
Despite the depredations, beheadings, and homicide bombings aimed at American public opinion, and especially elite opinion, President Bush has bravely kept his focus on eliminating one by one the dwindling band of terrorists, on the reconstruction of Iraqi civil society, and on the ability of Iraqi parties to broker and bargain and argue themselves into consensus in a political manner.
Whatever American voters may say of him to opinion pollsters—and his polls are now very low indeed—the survival of democracy in Iraq will in the future count as an enormous achievement. Moreover, the exchange in Arab minds of the "big idea" of democracy for the grand illusions of the past (Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Baathist dictatorship, pan-Arabism), may a generation from now confer on President Bush the unmistakable honor of having been one of those presidents who actually changed the course of history. A president who changed the course of history, yes—and also one who did so against unprecedented opposition at home, bitter and hysterical opposition, even from those who were formerly of the party of democracy, human rights, and international outreach.
It takes more bravery to continue walking calmly through immense hostility at home, than to face down a foreign foe, with a united nation at one's back. This, as I say, is a very brave president.
It may also turn out that, despite currently swirling furies, the president's stout refusal to be merely partisan or to throw red meat to some of his best supporters (he knew as well as anybody what they most wanted now), alongside the five interlinked courses of action he proposed, will have empowered a much more thorough immigration reform than seemed possible even four weeks earlier.
Despite a normal diet of failures and setbacks, common to all presidents, it is also worth counting up his steady, always surprising successes in cutting taxes, in reshaping the Supreme Court, in getting personal Social Security accounts and personal medical accounts on the agenda of public discussion (the first president since Roosevelt to touch the third rail and live to tell of it), and in presiding over the most amazing economy in the world during the past six years.
Polls may be fickle. Notable accomplishments endure, as rock-solid facts. The full record of this president may yet turn out to be as highly ranked as his bravery is bound to be.
If you were in his shoes, would you not prefer the fame of 30 years from now to popularity in your own time? Being popular is neither within one's own control nor, in the larger scheme, a goal worth pursuing. Doing the right thing steadily, as best one can, is.
I like this guy. And I admire his guts, and his decency.
— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.
Just a wee touch of ego you have there. [/sarcasm]
Don't forget he listened to conservatives particularly regarding Miers and also Dubais.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not really.
But I'd say you're a wee bit too defensive of this president. /sarcasm
Do yourself a favor sometime and visit Gettysburg, and then get back to me on whether this President faces the same challenges.
Well, I don't.
For now, I am concerned about the immigration issue, however.
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.
Sure are getting a lot of these Busholatry posts these days.
Thanks Miss Marple. I think MikeA is doing a better job. I'm just deliberately being...well, you know. ;-)
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!!!
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.
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.
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.