Posted on 06/10/2002 2:54:11 PM PDT by seamus
Date published: Sun, 06/09/2002
PRESIDENT BUSH'S finest rhetorical hour--his post-9/11 speech when he told the world that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"--were the boldest words uttered by an American president since FDR. They were described, not inaccurately, as Churchillian.
As Winston Churchill did with the Nazis, Bush framed our fight against terrorism in clear moral terms. We are on the side of freedom and peace. They are on the side of tyranny and evil. The fight, now that it has been brought to us by the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans, is nothing less than a struggle to preserve our way of life.
Though al-Qaida has been dealt a mighty blow by our actions in Afghanistan, the terrorists are regrouping at this very minute--in Pakistan, Iraq, the Philippines, and elsewhere around the world in "sleeper cells"--plotting more massacres. And they are being cheered on and most likely supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, whose fingerprints are all over 9/11 after it was revealed that at least one of the plot's masterminds consulted with Iraqi agents before the attacks.
We face the very real possibility of a nuclear attack that could kill millions and destroy a city whose rebuilding schedule would not be measured in years, but by the atomic half-life. In this regard, Saddam could prove most helpful.
Iraq has defied the United Nations-brokered peace after the Gulf War by keeping out inspectors who could
sniff out factories and labs producing weapons of mass destruction. And other than lobbing a missile into the country every few weeks or so, the West has done nothing to make him comply.
The U.N. has for years now largely ignored the threat of Saddam, much as the impotent League of Nations did nothing while Hitler broke treaties and built up his military in the 1930s. But in those dangerous times, one man warned the world of the grave danger
of Nazism: Winston Churchill.
Two new Churchill biographies--"Churchill: A Biography" by Roy Jenkins, and "Churchill: A Study of Greatness" by Geoffrey Best--remind us in these perilous times that the Allied victory in World War II was anything but inevitable. The near-clairvoyance
of Churchill, along with his gift for rhetoric and his bulldog-like tenacity, was indispensable in preventing Hitler from establishing a new German empire in much of Europe.
In 1934--when much of the world was either willfully ignorant of Hitler's ultimate aims, or still holding to naive dreams of peace through appeasement--Churchill publicly called the Nazis a regime that "cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force."
Sound familiar?
Larry Arnn, reviewing the two biographies in The Claremont Review of Books, points out that while no one would argue with that characterization of Hitler today, speaking those truths in 1934 took "a certain kind of genius" and "an amazing persistence and courage to advance it against the forces Churchill faced."
Yet since Bush's similar first moment of moral clarity and declaration of purpose, his rhetoric has become murky and his actions tentative.
Standing with French President Jacques Chirac on May 26, Bush said
he had "no immediate plans to attack Iraq." And just a few days earlier, the Washington Post broke a story in which top military brass "believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all."
One can only hope that Bush's "no immediate plans" comment was intended as a ploy to keep Saddam guessing, and that the Washington Post's mole in the Pentagon is wrong.
We cannot afford to wait very long before toppling Saddam. Years of intelligence gathering suggest that he is very close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction--either by stealing them, or, with chilling irony, leaning on Iraqi scientists who have studied the biological and nuclear sciences in America and Britain to develop what he needs.
In his review, Arnn likens Saddam and bin Laden to Hitler after the Allied invasion of France: "Like Hitler, they see us coming, and they work furiously on their anthrax spreaders, dirty bombs, and atomic bombs, just as Hitler did. Hitler's bombs and rockets and jet aircraft were almost ready in time. But for Churchill, they might have been. Unless we find another like him, Osama and Saddam will meet their deadline."
George W. Bush never thought he had to be another Churchill when he took office. But if he does not rise to the challenge--and quickly--the world could be as different and as dangerous as if Hitler had not been stopped.
JAMES G. LAKELY is assistant editorial page editor of The Free Lance-Star.
I can link you many articles, some even from CBS, that if you can connect the dots, show Saddam is all over the terrorism that has hit the U.S. since the end of the gulf war.
It still takes a state to sponsor terrorism, despite notions to the otherwise. The biggest is #1 in the axis of evil.... Iraq
You're " holding " Bush's feet to the fire " ? Not bloody likely, dear. When 90 % of Republicans / Consesrvatives approve of his handling the job, and his all around approval rating is 77 % , the squeakers and malcontents, on FR, don't mean a thing. Don't believe in polls ? Okay, wait and see ; just wait and see. These polls numbers have been this high and higher, for the longest period , on recorded history, of ANY president. Will they continue ? I don't read tea leaves, nor read a crystal ball. What I do , is understand politics , know how they work ( not how I wish they would ) , and NEVER assumed that this , nor any other president, would do everthing I wanted, in a month, a year, a term, nor two terms.
I'm no " sheeple ", nor an extreme ideolgue. Politics is the art of the possible. Timing is everything ; especially for those who aren't power hungry, corrupted, venal sociopaths.
A la the other reply, to my suggestion ... since " miracles " were a dime a dozen, in the ancient world, par for the course, for any and ALL Messianic figures , nope, Jesus's miricals wouldn't have impressed you at all then. You would have expected a WAR LORD / a SAVIOR ( as promised ), who would slay the enemy ; just as you demand a " pure " CONSERVATIBE ( your kind of Conservative ! ) president. hehehehe
Just something for you to ponder, dear. : - )
Bush has rallied SQUAT! The very idea that we need to rally the world is disgustingly offensive. The greatest most devastating attack this nation has ever suffered ... and we run around rallying the world. Sickening.
He says: (from another article posted at FR)
In his remarks on homeland defense, Bush touched on his pledge to act - pre-emptively, if necessary - to prevent America from being threatened by weapons of mass destruction.
"I've made it clear that we'll use all tools at our disposal," Bush said. "One thing we are going to do is to defend the American people, and make sure that these terrorist networks don't hook up with these nations that harbor bad designs on us and at the same time develop the worst kind of weapons."
Bush has made it clear that Iraq is his biggest concern, and has shrugged off U.S. allies' objections to military action.
"When we see evil, I know it may hurt some people's feelings, it may not be what they call diplomatically correct, but I'm calling evil for what it is. Evil is evil, and we will fight it with all our might," Bush said, without specifically mentioning Iraq.
What I see here is a certain consistency. He is serving notice that "it would be nice to have y'all onboard, but we will go ahead without you"
Early on, the President makes overtures to the Muslim world. He attempts to make a distinction between the what some would deem the 'average' Muslim, and the 'radical' Muslims. He goes as far as to seek their help in fighting terrorism, invites them to join in the fight.
They have declined by virtue of their actions.
He makes statements to the effect that 'you are either with us, or the terrorists'.
Again, they decline by virtue of their actions.
He makes statements expressing a willingness to call evil what it is----evil. Not some weak-willed declaration of 'moral relativity' or some other such nonsense.
He is giving them a chance, and they refuse to take the opportunity. Muslim terrorists respond by stepping up attacks, issuing new threats, and in general have opted to escalate the conflict.
The President has begun to make statements (intended for foreign consumption) that we will act without them if we have to.
The President has given them chances time and time again. Time and time again, they do the wrong thing.
Now, when the hour comes for action, each and every one of us can be assured that we have tried to seek every solution other than war.
We as Americans have tried over and over again to show mercy on them, as God would have us do.
They refuse. They continue to assault us. They respond by threatening more attacks, attacks of greater magnitude than those preceding them. They obviously have intentions of using weapons of mass destruction if and when they obtain them.
We have demonstrated that we are not a bloodthirsty, vengeful people, and by our actions shown that we are on the side of good in this fight.
When the time comes for military action, they are going to reap the harvest of their evil deeds.
They were offered a 'good' way out, and chose the evil path instead.
I pray the Lord will see this, and deliver us from our enemy. I truly believe He will.
As to W's popularity polls I say .... FAUGH! His dad had good numbers once too. If he continues on this present tack the dims may slip in Edwards as the great 'new guy' just like they did with clintoon and jimmuh before him.
W is making the unwashed unlearned middle very happy though. He will probably be elected by a wide margin in '04. A fat lot of good that's going to do for conservative causes. The fed will grow exponentially, we will become even more deeply indentured tax slaves, American families will disintegrate even further and faster and our circling of the toilet bowl will only accelerate.
But YOUR man will be in the White House. WOO HOO!
What can you do for me by way of explaining W's domestic contortions?
I don't like everything the President does. Nobody ever said one had to. Somebody once told me that if everybody liked you, then there is something wrong with you. I think it's very true.
President Bush the elder, had high poll numbers ONLY during and slightly after the Gulf War. That ended quickly. The War on Terror won't end quickly at all. The econmy isn't putrid, Enron and everything else, that the Dems have trued to tar President Bush with, hasn't " stuck " and neither will anything else they try .
With a larger majority of GOP in the House, and a majority in the Senate, this president is going to push through Conservative measures . There'll be more tax cuts; NOT tax increases. His words and deeds ( as Governor of Texas and what he has done as president ) are proof of that. Will he do / attempt to do EVERYTHNG that I wish he would ? Absolutely not and I don't expect him to. Anyone, with such an idea, is a political naif, unsophisticated, gullible, and hasn't any understanding of political reality or reality in general.
I*t's not that it's " my " man in the White House. It's the fact that it's someone who, with enough support from both Houses , can get some of what I want pushed through, and NOT do a lot of what I absolutely do NOT want . No president can control / change / over ride the culture. No president can change , over night , nor even in two full terms, what it's taken 90 years, or so , to do to this country. Anyone, who expects this , wants a dictator; not a president!
Contrary to what you may think; most of us are intelligent adults,
who don't need someone to talk down to us, like we are fools
or children. I don't believe you like it when someone talks to you
like that; why should we take it from you? You may not agree
with us about G. Bush, but have you ever tried to disagree,
without being so condescending about it?
You'd get much farther by merely stating you support someone
else, and why, rather than bashing G. Bush's supporters. If
we need you to 'wake us up', we'll ask you! Besides, there
are a whole lot of people out there who seem to have the same
problem as you think we do. They admire G. Bush. Most the
people in the armed forces, and veterans, but many conservative
senators, and representatives, policepersons, and many other
people far wiser, and more educated than I, and maybe you,
voted for, and still support him.
So if you're so determined to bash people for supporting G. Bush
(and yes, you are bashing his supporters); you're going to be a very
tired, lonely soul.
bttt
The greatest enemy of America is not the terrorists or any threat from without. The enemy that has been destroying this nation for over fifty years now is socialism. Socialism manufactured and sold to the American people by the dimocrat left and their eletist RINO friends in the GOP.
Socialsim and the monstrous DC bureaucracy created by it is eating the very soul and substance of this country. Because of this welfare system largely begun by FDR and catapulted into the ionosphere by LBJ the American family has been chewed into little pieces and vomited into the sewer.
How? High taxes. Middle class families must have two wage earners to survive. Thus children are largely raised by the schools and their peer group. This along with values neutral education and brainwashing disseminated by the leftist government schools has turned the vast majority of this country into mind numbed robots absolutely soaked in materialism. ( I mean 'materialism' in the full breadth of it's classical meaning ... not just 'consumerism' as it has been bastardized )
Evidently, though you call yourself a conservative, this does not bother you all that much. Perhaps because you are totally caught up in it yourself ..... for when GWB passes the Farm Bill .... another great leap into welfare for all ... it doesn't bother you much.
AND he signs the Encumbant Protection Act otherwise known as CFR he insures that our rights to political speach and thus our ability to through him and his ilk out of office is even further emasculated.
Though I think GWB's prosecution of the so called 'war on terrorism' has been a dismal week kneed sloppy confabulation of mediocrity and political shenanigans .... I think his obvious socialistic popularist domestic actions ARE HELPING TO DESTROY THIS NATION!
So yeah, I'm bitter. At him and you. You should be screeming bloody murder along with me. The fact that you are not tells me that you are no conservative. You probably don't know WHAT you are. Whatever you are you are aiding and abetting the complete socialist takeover in the USA by standing quietly by as George Bush greases the skids of our hellbent sleighride.
Another thing, G. Bush is so much more concerned with military spending,
and getting the troops what they need. Surely you've noticed how much
more he's helped them than Clinton did, or Gore would have. Do you think
the defense of our nation would have benefitted under Gore? Seriously
now? I know some spending has gone up, but it has gone up in ways we
need it the most right now. But know, there are other people besides
conservatives in Congress, and a lot of them are not friendly to G. Bush's
agenda; you know, the "leftists". If G. Bush was such a friend to socialism,
would these people be so hostile and trying to work against him? Maybe
our views on what is conservative are just a matter of perception. Your idea
of what is conservative is different in some ways than what my idea is.
Those above are merely examples of what most people think are conservative.
I don't really care if you are bitter at G. Bush, because you have a right
to not support someone. And it's not going to break my heart, if you are
bitter at me, you don't know me from Eve, no matter what you may guess
from what I write. I don't think I'm going to change your views, and no,
you're not going to change mine; no matter how much you insult or degrade
me. But maybe I can seek to understand you, and you, me, a little better.
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.