Posted on 06/29/2006 7:22:34 AM PDT by rob777
I agree, but in the interest of fairness, we should probably consider his strengths as well. While I have been a critic of the President since the 2000 GOP primaries, I see no reason why we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Bush's weakpoints are idological, his strong points are character related. We need a leader in 2008 that is strong in both aspects.
That has to be one of the more moronic introductory sentences I've ever seen. This president has faced more unconventional challenges and crises than any since at least Roosevelt.
every notice that republican leaders are branded as intellectually deficient? First he was just plain "stupid", then he was cheney's puppet, now he is unimaginative.
Bush's weakpoints are idological, his strong points are character related. We need a leader in 2008 that is strong in both aspects.
-----
Exactly! And there is NO PLACE in the White House for ideological or personal elitist agendas. The job is running the United States of America based on its laws and the will of its people.
Our next CONSERVATIVE leader must recognize and respect that. No President has '007' powers to carry out personal agendas at the expense of America.
That is bass-acwards.
This president has faced more unconventional challenges and crises than any since at least Roosevelt.
That is the whole point. The challenges are unconventional, so the method of dealing with them should be as well.
Iraq is working brilliantly, THIS is what Iraq is about. Killing Terrorist THERE so we do not have to kill them HERE.
American Voters should beware of Do Nothing reactionaries who would have American DO nothing about Terrorism but hide under their beds. Iraq is the war on terror. Anyone tells you different is lying.
For the Neo-isolationists, HERE is what we are up to in Iraq.
Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943
Here in a nutshell, is the military reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.
Which exactly what Bush had done and this idiot is bitching about. He wants a Clinton style President. Throw a few missiles into an empty Terrorist camp, declare victory and run away until they hit us again. More utter nonsense from the Do Nothings who simply are too arrogant to admit THEY let this Terrorism problem spin out of control.
The trouble with pundits is that they can think outside of the box and have none of the responsibility of the consequences of doing so.
The Presidency is very much an inside-the-box kind of job. Presidents that get too creative with their job tend to get into much more serious trouble when they get caught. Clinton was an out-of-the-box thinker. He saw nothing wrong with accepting money from foreign agents, pardoning criminals for benefits, and blackmailing the opposition.
Well, at least two of us agree!!!!!
Formally declaring the next world war is something no President would have been likely to do - I'm not sure Ronald Reagan would have gone that far. Since it seems all too evident that the line between Islamist terrorists and the average Muslim is a very fine one indeed, such a statement would have been tantamount to telling over a billion people that the US is declaring war on them.
The mistake was in trying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of simply punishing them for 9/11 by totally destroying their military capabilities. As the author points out, their hatred is religious, and the only way to blunt it is to make them suffer to the point that they begin to question the power of Allah. We could have finished off Syria and Iran by now if we weren't tied up with nation-building.
And they are.
Moronic, indeed, and thanks for the response. I read that first sentence and just thot, 'Who is this guy, so smug in his Monday-morning analysis of Bush's tremendous challenges?' Moronic is exactly right.
War meaning fighting and fighting means killing. GW Bush has been the best terrorist killing President we have ever had or will have. The 100%er merely scream bile at Bush rather then change their Neo-Isolationist doctrine of "Hide under the bed and wish the monsters go away".
The article makes some good points, undeniable points. So do the posters. I like Bush, but sometimes wonder if he is focused. I think he is, but he often doesn't do a good enough job of making it clear to us where that focus is and why.
The author's ideas about what is inside and outside the box are very "conventional".
The Presidency is an inside-the-box job. The President acts within the box as much as possible, using precedents as much as possible. Bush tries to use as much precedent as possible when making his decisions, and this ties his hands - but he's not adverse to setting precedents. It is just that most problems have an inside-the-box solution set, and going outside the box for a solution would be an exercise in wasted energy.
To be clear, what the author probably wants is for Bush to step out of the box far enough to expose him to impeachment.
Clinton was a great out of the box thinker. He didn't care about precedents or what he was leaving behind for his successors. He went and did what he wanted, and let the country hang. God spare us another out of the box thinker like Clinton, and perhaps our country will make it another 100 years intact.
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.