Posted on 01/30/2007 11:48:24 AM PST by presidio9
After the State Of The Union speech a few days ago, a muttering chorus of media critics told us endlessly that Bush was irrelevant, a loser, out of touch, even pitiful. NPR actually had Merle Haggard, the Okie from Muskogee, claim that the state of the nation had never been worse. And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush, just the way they did against LBJ and Nixon and tried to do against Reagan. They cannot impeach Bush because only Congress can do that. But the media is doing what it can to basically oust Mr. Bush while still leaving him lifting weights in the White House. Look, Merle Haggard is a great singer. But he knows nothing of what's up in America right now.
The truth is that we are in a huge economic boom. We are coming off a mammoth real estate explosion that put the most Americans in history in their own homes. We have totally full employment. After decades of stagnation, real wages are rising. The nation is wealthier than it has ever been (although this is very unevenly distributed). Most important of all, there has not been one major or even minor successful terrorist incident against the U.S. homeland in over five years. Bush may not have done it by himself, but he had something to do with it.
True, we are mired in a war without end, costing us far too many great young and old Americans and too many limbs and wrecked families and vastly too much money. But we all know we're getting out soon.
It was a huge mistake, but I'd like to see a President who did not make immense mistakes. What about Vietnam? What about Korea?
True, the rich often get away with murder in the executive suite. Bush is partly to blame, but all politicians cater to the rich. What America's high degree thieves suck out of the system is nauseating and I fight it constantly, but that's life.
Let's be honest. Let's admit that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to some serious failures.
But no one elected the media to anything. In the TV studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. Mr. Bush is the only President we have, and, with all his faults, I trust him a lot more than I trust the unelected princes and princesses of the newsroom.
I can't understand why people here are so blasted weary.
You've got two choices; you can help to shoulder the burden and support the troops, or you can ignore the effort and just go live your life.
But don't think you're helping because you feel tired.
Unfortunately we are. We have had Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and now an attempt at Pax Americana. However US 'leadership' is different than the other two. But make no mistake, it is still a form of leadership that is reminiscent of prior empires. Unfortunately, unlike the British and the Romans with the capabilities of travel, movement of troops being much faster, other nations being more powerful, more involved in world affairs, and a myriad of other reasons Pax Americana cannot, and will not, last as long as the others.
Are we seeing the first failure in Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. But we are seeing a slowdown at the very least. I sincerely doubt democracy will be established in Iraq for a long period of time, no matter how many stills of purple fingers Fox News runs across the screen.
It is not the wind that fells the mighty oak; it is the rot at its core.
Yes because pointing out blatant errors is not for responsible citizens. Rather blindly follow and cheer eh?
"True, we are mired in a war without end, costing us far too many great young and old Americans and too many limbs and wrecked families and vastly too much money. But we all know we're getting out soon."
I agree. Very troubling coming from Ben.
I do not consider that the behavior of a responsible citizen, unless you want to share in the responsibility for disaster.
Could you for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi? Would you want to give up your hopes for freedom because Nancy Pelosi sees political convenience in it?
Who says following is blind?
Ben Stein is not an entertainer. Far from it, in fact. He is a author and pundit whos credentials include service in the White House. Merle Haggard, on the other hand, is a entertainer.
Oooh, oooh, oooh! I know the answer to this! People being fed into wood chippers, rape rooms, wide-spread torture, gassing villages, executions of rivals and dissidents, new palaces built while everything around it decays, games with weapon inspectors, nervous Kuwaitis not to mention others in the region, building of centrifuges, more WMD R&D, payments to suicide murderers....to little space to mention the rest.
bump
It's just a song. Not a message about his address. Tony Bennett never lived in San Francisco...
Also Saddam was paying $25,000 to the Palestinians to blow up in Israel.....
I, and it's a very big if, Iraq was a mistake, then it was a strategic mistake in the War on Terror, a mistake in chosing the next theater of operations after kicking the terrorists out of Afghanistan, much like the Dardanelles campaign was a strategic mistake in WWI. These were not policy or moral errors, as they have been presented.
Personally, I do not think Iraq was even a strategic blunder. True, there have been multiple tactical bloopers, but, given Iraq's geography, the nature of its regieme, and it's economic importance, it may have been a strategically brilliant maneuver. Once the country is pacified, we will have a friendly base of operations and supply, right in the heart of the terror-sponsoring middle eastern states, from which we can threaten the terror-sponsoring governments in Syria, Iran, (which we will have surrounded) and Saudi Arabia. The terrorist know this, hence their desperate, all-out offensive to prevent us from pacifying Iraq.
Ah yes. Because speaking out against foreign policy forwarded by 'dear leader' or the 'party' is verboten. Eh, comrade?
Could you for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi?
No, because I'm not. They want freedom, let them do what needs to be done in their government. None of my business
Would you want to give up your hopes for freedom because Nancy Pelosi sees political convenience in it?
Well if I was an Iraqi and I understood the history of this nation of states, its noninterventionist policy before the crusades of 'spreading democracy' (pre-1898), I would understand that these United States shouldn't have been there in the first place. I would suggest a rereading of several of the Framers on this issue but the 'conservative' argument is 'times change'. Of course being rewrapped early 19th century Progressives that you are, you would say that to support the ever expanding attempt of trying to establish US like government in other nations. I would remind you that other empires have tried that in the past, and failed from the long view, but it would be futile.
Saddam was great at supporting terrorists so I'm sure he could do better.
Sure it does. We've been spreading democracy since our inception.
Funny how all the attacks on America ended as soon as W put Saddam out of the terrorist business.
Sorry. I missed that one.
The "peace activists" would say the Palestinians deserved it because they are victims. Yeah, right. Probably the same peacenik students that walked out of a presentation with three former terrorists. Idiots.
Nonsense.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1001e.asp
????? Did you mean to say 'The Taliban'?
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.