Man of the Year: George W. Bush, 2001 (Steve Forbes)

Human Events ^ | 12/15/01 | Steve Forbes

[Jean S]

A successful leader is a person who has two primary assets. First, he knows where he is going and is going to the right place. He has a vision, a plan, and a set of fixed principles—a North Star—to get himself there. Second, he has the ability to persuade others to follow him. He recruits strong individuals, builds a powerful team, and empowers that team to achieve the vision using their unique, God-given talents and skills.

We have all witnessed George W. Bush emerge as an exceptional world leader when we needed one most. For this he deserves to be Human Events Man of the Year.

1. He unified the country. Just a year ago, America agonized through one of the most divisive elections in our history. Bush won, but narrowly. Many questioned his legitimacy. No more. His handling of the September 11 crisis has been masterful. Principled. Decisive. Tough. Empathetic. Bush quickly figured out where we needed to go, and brilliantly set about to rally the nation, and the world.

He declared America at war. No Carteresque hedging. He vowed to "smoke out" bin Laden and the "evildoers" from their caves and bring them to justice. He quickly linked terrorism with those who harbor terrorists. His performances at the National Cathedral and the joint session of Congress were inspired, as was his trip to Ground Zero to meet with New York’s finest and bravest.

2. He chose a superb Vice President. Dick Cheney was born for this moment. Three decades of experience. Cool under fire. Great on TV. No future political ambitions. But only Bush seemed to get that—instinctively—18 months ago. Thank God.

3. He chose a first-rate national security team. Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher and Sandy Berger were the keepers of the counter-productive Clinton Doctrine: Do nothing of consequence, but have lots of photo-ops. Clinton and his team had eight years to get bin Laden "dead or alive," but didn’t. They could have avenged the last World Trade Center bombing, but didn’t. They could have truly gone after the Khobar Tower killers, but didn’t. Not so with Bush and his team. The world sleeps better knowing Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and Colin Powell are on the job. Now they just need to let Paul Wolfowitz convince them Saddam Hussein should be next in line.

4. He made missile defense a top priority. And stuck to his guns. Bush gets this issue. He knows America is extremely vulnerable to missile attack. And he is relentless about getting it done. It helps that the Air Force tests are finally going well.

5. He is developing an historic relationship with Russia. If Bush didn’t have a sound national security vision, his early schmoozing with—and gushing about—Russian President Vladimir Putin may have been cause for concern. But Bush, impressively, has persuaded Putin to be on our side in the war on terrorism, and to keep an open mind on missile defense. He’s dispatched Commerce Secretary Don Evans to strengthen our economic ties, especially with Russia’s emerging gas and oil industries. He’s also repeatedly praised Putin’s move last year to scrap Moscow’s corruptingly complex tax code in favor of a 13% flat tax. No wonder Russia’s economy is finally beginning to grow at a healthy clip.

6. He has restored honor and dignity to the White House. The man wears a suit and tie in the Oval Office. Always. Enough said.

7. He is open about his faith. One of the truly wonderful things about Bush and his wife is their comfort-level in talking about their faith in Jesus Christ, without setting off alarm bells in people who believe differently. Clearly, faith and prayer are deeply important to this President, and with great results. They have clearly been a wellspring of strength and comfort and compassion for him during this crisis. And in turn the President has helped encourage a stunned and rattled nation to turn its eyes towards the God who loves us and can guide us through the valley of the shadow of death.

Challenge ahead: Bush has mastered the art of war. Now he must master the art of growth. He must publicly and aggressively put Tom Daschle and the Democrats on notice: Pass a bold, sweeping, pro-growth tax cut (including sharp, across-the-board, marginal tax rate cuts; accelerated expensing; and a cut in the capital gains tax rate), or be personally responsible for putting millions of Americans out of work. Expanded unemployment benefits are nice. But people need jobs, not handouts. Vaclav Havel once said: "The real test of a man is not when he plays the role that he wants for himself, but when he plays the role destiny has for him." George W. Bush is passing with flying colors.

[Sabertooth]

The arms race isn't over until all the bombs have been either implemented, taken apart, or destroyed. Nobody's won it yet. Nobody may ever, though we all might lose it. The only way to win it is to end it. So if it begins again, America is one of the losers.

Not one of these sentences is true.

In fact, you appear to be rehashing a lot of nuclear freeze dogma. Trust me, because I once thought this way. I remember being aghast when, during the 1980 Presidential Debates, Ronald Reagan openly declared that he was going to play the arms race card against the Soviets, and that America would win. Peace through strength.

He proved me wrong.

Bill Clinton tried the approach you advocate during the 1990s... Strength through wishful thinking.

9/11 proved you both wrong.

[Texaggie79]

Here here!!!!

[Jean S]

Strength through wishful thinking.

That sums up Clinton's foreign policy perfectly.

[ZDaphne]

I saw Time mag's cover on TV tonight and OBL was Man of the Year! Anybody else see this?

[Victoria Delsoul]

:-)

[seeker41]

LOGIC ISN'T YOUR STRONG POINT IS IT. Do you not remember what Reagan did?

[blackbart1]

You couldn't be more right. I love GW Bush and the way he has handled things since he came to the countries highest office. But I also respect Steve Forbes very much and think he would probably make a good president as well.

[Jean S]

Well, if PUTIN said it was fine with him, then i take it all back! Bush made a good decision pulling out of the ABM treaty! He didn't have to do it in order to build missile defense, but it's high time everyone had more missiles!

You're confusing creation of missiles with missile defense. It's a typical error made by liberals.

[Sabertooth]

If you want to insult and question me then explain what you're talking about. Otherwise you're just blowing crap out your a$$.

So...

Watchya drinkin' tonight?

[oyez]

3. He chose a first-rate national security team.

No kiddin'. Does anyone think Bill Clinton would have appointed sharp people that would out shine him? I think not. Incompetancy begets worse incompetancy. If Clinton had someone the caliber of Cheney and Rumsfield, they would have slaped him around the cabenet. The hot people Clinton picked was his own lawyers.

[Jean S]

The point is DumbYa didn't have to get out of the ABM treaty to build his missile defense.

The ABM treaty forbid the creation of missile defense. Read it. Your use of DumbYa verifies my first impression of you. Why do you need insults to make your point?

[patriciaruth]

Ping.

Nice to see he beat out OBL in Forbes Magazine, thank heaven.

[Sabertooth]

Very poetic, but no substance. You haven't addressed the central issue of winning.

Reagan said that he would break the stalemate with the Soviets by playing the arms race card.

He defined victory, executed a plan, and achieved it.

We call that "winning."

What makes you think, besides blind optimism in the future based on the past, that things will remain the same?

Here's a lesson: the best indicator we have for what the future will bring, since we're all blind to it, is to consider what has happened in the past. We refer to events of the past as "History."

We learn from History so as not to repeat its mistakes in the future. One of the mistakes the United States has made in the past is a failure to maintain overwhelming military superiority over any and all rivals. This was particulary costly with the Nazis and the Soviets. Our rivals then, as do the radical moslems and the Chinese Communists now, saw our failure as weakness, and were emboldened by it.

So military weakness is in the "mistakes to avoid" category.

But if I wanted to play your game for a moment, I might counter with. "What makes you think, besides the blind pessimism you've built on the downard momentum of your rant, that things will be any different?"

I have no love for Bill Clinton, but your statement doesn't add up. 9/11 isn't related to how many ABM's America has. What's the connection?

None, nor did I make one. Once again, not satisfied with the results of your own falsehoods, you create more to attribute to others... There's your friend, the Straw Man again. I said that Bill Clinton pursued a policy of Strength through wishful thinking, and your strings of ill-considered platitudes suggest nothing more.

It's been said he didn't need to get out of it to build missile defense. So then why?

"It's been said" that Santa is coming. Doesn't make it so.

An appeal to anonymous (and dubious) authority... Can't say as I've seen that particular form of fallacy from you before.

[Wphile]

Thanks for the ping. I read all the ones provided by the link, as well. All wonderful.

W deserves Man of the Year, no questions asked.

[Common Tator]

Jean the ABM treaty was with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

There is absolutely no reason to have such a treaty. They say it will start an arms race. Who is going to race us? Russia? Russia is broke. Has been for over a decade. The last arms race broke the Soviet Union. That is why there is no Soviet Union.. the arms race destroyed the Soviet Union.

The idiots say China could arms race us with SDI. Well China never signed the ABM treaty. It is not bound by the ABM treaty. Infact China is trying to build ABM missles as fast as it can.

If we build an SDI the Chinese will have to try to build an SDI too. And guess what. They would go as broke as the Soviet Union trying to do it.

The left is full of fools. They wanted to apease Hitler so we wouldn't have a second World War. What they got was a 2nd world war. They were convinced the Soviet Union would bury us, so we dare not challenge them to an arms race. But we challenged the Soviets to an arms race and they lost. Now the left says the same the same thing about SDI.

No one has ever put technology back in the bottle. It gets out and it gets a lot cheaper over time. This next century will see nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them as easy to come by and as cheap as a B52 is today. Any nation or terrorist group no matter how small or poor with the help of a bin laden type character will be able afford and acquire several nukes and the misisles to deliver them.

Can you imagine a bin laden type on a desert island in the pacific firing a shot from another island that takes out all of New York. THat is followed by the threat to take out Chicago, LA, Atlanta, and a surprise rural are with in the hour unless we surrender?

Can you imagine the idiots saying,"I am so glad I stopped George Bush from proctecting me from this attack." If we do not build a defense it will come. And if it is individuals and not a nation who do we attack to stop it.

The left is full of fools. IT is full of Deomocrats who would rather have 200 million Americans killed than for them lose an election.

The truth is there has always been an arms race. There was a race from teh club to the bow and arrow. From the catipult to the muzzle loader. From the rifle to the machinegun. From the gun to the cannon. From the cannon to the tank. From the bomb to the atomic bomb.

The fact is SDI is defense.

Only a rapist is harmed when the girl locks her doors. Only an aggressor is harmed when a nation builds a defense against missiles.

[seeker41]

ROTFL:)