President George W. Bush: Kicking jihadi butt until January 20th, 2009!
Mark Helprin can go to Hell.
Put this guy’s picture next to the Monday morning quarterback definition.
If not for President Bush the terrorists would have controlled the whole Middle East by now, they would have hundred of billions of oil revenues under their disposal, and millions of terrorists to conduct terrorist attacks they are hundred of times worse than the 9/11 2001 terrorist attacks. If not for President Bush the world right now will be living in new Dark Ages.
Mark Helprin: fool
Dear Mr. President, please send a final message before you leave to our enemies, please send a message of shock and awe that only that only you have the power to do.
Yes. Well. Other than accomplishing Bush's primary goal that no one thought possible on 9/12/2001....
BDS with AIDs dementia is a terrible affliction.
What is itabout the so called opeders who push the Gay Agenda and their hatred of President Bush and now Governor Palin:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=MARK%20HELPRIN%20%20%2b%20gay&type=
Whatever happened to market differentation?
What a pantywaist.
“the country is.........exhausted.”
Plueezee!
Mr. Helprin makes so many idiotic assumptions right off the bat that his credibility as a pundit is extinguished.
When you want to alter a cat’s behavior given his basic instincts you spray a little water in his face ... unfortunately with humans it takes a little more effort. When was the last time any planes were hijacked?
Its true, Helprin is a idiot.
That said, Bush refused to fight back politically. some of us recall how he handled the DUI story the week before the 2000 election, and in hindsight the way he just let it ‘go’ with only one statement about it was a indicator of things to come.
To paraphrase W ‘He had his chance (after the 04 election) and he did not lead’.
I concluded three years ago W played ‘not to lose’ both on domestic policy AND in Iraq after his second Inaugural. He sat on a lead, much as a baseball team will do, and it cost both him and this nation dearly.
We got the most liberal House since LBJ, and lost the Senate. We got a Moderate RINO as the 08 nominee, and its GOING to cost us dearly over the next four years, maybe longer if the Moderates keep the GOP on this losing path.
Had W prosecuted the war in Iraq AFTER Saddam, its my view the GOP wouldn’t have lost the House, nor would it have lost the Senate.
And McCain wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on in the primaries with his ‘I was for the surge first’ nonsense (Guiliani, like him or not, was ‘first’ on that score, and no I wasn’t a Rudy supporter). Had W played to WIN in Iraq between January of 05 and the debacle of the 06 election cycle, we wouldn’t be in the position of praying Obama doesn’t repeat the worst of LBJ and Carter’s many mistakes in short.
You can’t find another President that gave up the PR battle to the liberal MSM as completely as W has done, folks.
I voted for him twice. Given the same opposing nominees, I would do so again, no choice.
But his second term has been one political disaster after another.
And thats what happens when you sit on a lead in American politics.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
President George W. Bush: Kicking jihadi butt until January 20th, 2009!
A few short years later the Clintonites and MSM had convinced the world he was an inadequate leader because he hadn't toppled Saddam.
They are all set to do the same for Bush Jr. They are about to revise history and convince the world that the President has left the world LESS safe when the opposite is true. Disgusting.
It is also true that the blame for our present confusion rests largely upon the shoulders of the same man.
George Bush never clearly or consistently explained to the nation who were were at war with, what was at stake, and why we needed to act.
It is often said that Success has many fathers but Failure is an orphan. I believe in the case of the "War on Terror", failure may claim a host of potential parents: the potent influence of foreign affairs bureaucrats in the State Department, poor advice from careerist officers in the Pentagon, flawed and sometimes intentionally politicized intelligence from CIA, a misbegotten strategic decision to create a new Homeland Security bureaucracy rather than improve the abilities and quality of the existing intelligence services, and finally, Mr. Bush's unfortunate and untimely lack of communications ability.
Due in varying amounts to all of the above, Americans who desperately needed clarity and light were instead given nothing but fog and muck. What they needed to hear was a message unencumbered by shading or dissimulation or politically-correct word-parsing, but that is what they too often received.
George Bush ought to have gone before the American people and told them that we are at war and that we are likely going to be at war for a long time. We are at war with a dominant branch of radical Islam that seeks nothing less than world domination, the destruction of Western society, and its replacement with Sharia law, forced conversions to Islam, and death to those who resist.
We are at war with an enemy for whom negotiation is not a prelude to peaceful coexistence but a tactic with which to buy time and plan for more effective and devastating attacks. We are in a long struggle the only outcome of which will be the defeat of one side or the other, as the enemy's own ideology makes necessary, our wishes and hopes to the contrary notwithstanding. This is not a War on "Terror", which is itself but a tactic, but a war between the forces of liberty and civilization on one side, and slavery and submission on the other.
Had George Bush made this argument clearly, consistently, and publicly, I believe we would be in a far better place today. Instead, we are about to inaugurate as his successor a man far more gifted with words, but far less likely to act decisively in defense of our nation and our civilization; a man elected on insubstantial promises; a man with a Muslim middle name.
I think Helprin’s right about Bush fighting this war on the cheap, despite the availability of political capital (for a fleeting moment) right after 9/11 to double the military budget and buy all the weaponry we need to both fight this war and keep our conventional rivals on their toes. I think that additional money spent on defense would have been preferable to the pork barrel deals made in Congress. But you know what they say about Humpty Dumpty.
It’s good that the Bushes have Barney and Beazley. Because the more I see, the more I know that old joke about loyalty in Washington...is no joke.
Wasn’t he the genius behind Bob Dole’s winning presidential campaign?