Disarming Dubya

The American Partisan ^ | 9 February, 2002 | J. King

[The Right Stuff]

Disarming Dubya
by Jennifer King, Senior Editor

February 8, 2002

"The Heretical Housewife"

Although never a big TV watcher, I’ll confess that since September 11th, I’ve had FOX News (logo, right) on just about 24/7. Primarily for two reasons. One, so I never miss the delightful Rummy doling out verbal spankings to the uninformed media hacks. Two, so that I can catch the wonderful speeches that Dubya has been making at a variety of venues across the nation.

These speeches follow virtually the same gameplan, and yes, Dubya does still mangle his syntax on a fairly regular basis. However, what shines through at every speech is the true sincerity and humility of George W. Bush. Dubya surrounds himself with locally important pols, business owners or whoever happens to fit into the “theme of the day”. He invariably points them out, and thanks them for coming. He graciously gives them the spotlight. He appears modest and self-effacing.

Having once met George W. Bush, and having seen him speak recently in Daytona Beach (last week, pictured right), I think this humble attitude is really a part of the man’s character. Humility truly has to be one of the more difficult attributes to attain, especially in our success driven society. Surely, it must be even more difficult to remain humble while surrounded by hordes of wildly cheering, flag waving fans. Yet, at one lull in Bush’s recent speech, a lady shouted out, “We love you!” And Dubya looked genuinely touched. He sheepishly smiled, and said, “Well, I don’t know what to say. Thank you.”

This humility, and the plain speaking honesty of this President have endeared him to the American people. Bush’s popularity is puzzling to the media elites, who are scratching their collective pointy heads over his continuing high approval rate numbers, but I believe the answer is simple.

George W. Bush himself really seems like a nice guy, an average Joe, someone who you could have over for dinner and a movie. Also, Bush is very pro-American in a way that we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. He is proud of our country, continually calling it “the greatest nation” - and he is proud of his fellow Americans, understanding that America‘s strength and power stem from the determination of her people.

For far too long, we have been force-fed a diet of anti-Americanism from those on the Left. From the media outlets to Hollywood to the universities, weary Americans have been beaten over the head with the leftist caricature of the evil, bigoted American. Bill Clinton, the archetypical Left-winger, is still giving speeches to the faithful blaming the 9/11 attacks on “American greed”.

George W. Bush, who has actually held down a job outside of the public sector, understands that the world terrorist problem is much more complex. Unlike Madeleine Albright, Bush understands that you cannot rely on meaningless treaties signed by dishonorable people. He understands that you must enforce peace through unwavering use of force.

President Bush has rightly seen that it is up to America to wage this war for freedom and liberty over tyranny and terrorism, and that it is our job to win it. He has told us repeatedly that we can, and we will.

The American people believe him. Dubya has given us back our national pride, and he has strengthened our faith in the basic righteousness of our country and her place in history. For that, Americans revere him. And he accepts that adulation, with grace. And, with humility. ***

© 2002 Jennifer King COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.

[Miss Marple]

I suggest you read the Washington Post series on the days following September 11. President Bush sets his policies and is very much in charge.

And here is a picture of a real leader, whose troops love him and will follow him into hell and back:

[ez]

I have argued that after the embarassment of clinton, the American people were just anxious for someone to live up to the honor of the office...and W. has delivered on that score.

[BigWaveBetty]

Aw shucks Ma'am, thanks.

[Naked Lunch]

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with some of it. Where we differ, is that you call the sum of your characterization of the President a example of a "non leader" while I call it leadership of a different stripe. So he doesnt waffle back and forth while expounding the subtle pros and cons of every issue. He is good at the cheerleading, the motivating, the exhorting, the empathy, the exemplification of good. And at this period in time, this is what we have needed the most. How lucky for him and how lucky for us.

[Naked Lunch]

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with some of it. Where we differ, is that you call the sum of your characterization of the President a example of a "non leader" while I call it leadership of a different stripe. So he doesnt waffle back and forth while expounding the subtle pros and cons of every issue. He is good at the cheerleading, the motivating, the exhorting, the empathy, the exemplification of good. And at this period in time, this is what we have needed the most. How lucky for him and how lucky for us.

[Always Right]

Reagan like Bush didn't have depth of knowledge...

Boy that statement misses the mark on both counts, especially Reagan who was flat out brilliant on his depth of knowledge.

[Naked Lunch]

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with some of it. Where we differ, is that you call the sum of your characterization of the President a example of a "non leader" while I call it leadership of a different stripe. So he doesnt waffle back and forth while expounding the subtle pros and cons of every issue. He is good at the cheerleading, the motivating, the exhorting, the empathy, the exemplification of good. And at this period in time, this is what we have needed the most. How lucky for him and how lucky for us.

[wattsmag2]

Does the W stand for Wahid? Or does it stand for Wasted?

[Dan W]

So you justify yourself by stooping to the level of the Taliban ? What about the cherished "rule of law," and the Constitution ? Thrown out the window ?

[Dan W]

Perhaps you could come up with some kind of argument to refute my post ? Just by parotting "tripe" doesn't say anything, except that it adds to the "tripe."

[Dan W]

You must earn your living as a comedienne. Try posting a cogent refutation.

[Dan W]

Try using something other than failed humor to back up your position.

[gabby hayes]

How appalling that he operates in a pop culture void. Probably doesn't even know the name of the backup drummer for Kinky Prevert and the Deviants.

[Inspectorette]

Remember we only loaned W. to the american people after eight years he comes home he loves Texas and we love W.He will not run off to ny.or some other place he will come home.

And we thank you for loaning him to us for eight years - he will definitely come home to you, his love of Texas is only surpassed by his love of God, his family and his country.

We in California were proud to lend President Ronald Reagan to the country for eight years. Now he is back with us, and he is loved and cherished more than ever.

[Dan W]

Thank you for your reply. The first one that has attempted an acutal logical argument.

I consider the attack upon the people in the WTC a barbaric, illegal act. The response to it though must be directed in a lawful manner at bringing to justice those who were responsible. If the military is going to be used to invade another country the Constitution requires that Congress first declare war.

A better response would have been to pursue the perpetrators through private investigative channels. This would ensure innocents and infrastruture are protected. Just as police do not vaporize an entire city to catch a thief or murderer, so the United States should not be bombing civilians and their villages in order to catch a few international criminals.

Finally, if this is a private "punch bowl" why is it on a public forum like "Free Republic?" What is your definition of "free?"

[A Citizen Reporter]

"This would ensure innocents and infrastruture are protected. Just as police do not vaporize an entire city to catch a thief or murderer, so the United States should not be bombing civilians and their villages in order to catch a few international "

Dear Dan,

Sorry you didn't get the memo, the Vietnam war ended in the 1970's. You are using the wrong rhetoric. Repeat, wrong rhetoric for this war.

[Dan W]

Part of the Free Republic logo reads "Defending the Constitution." Dubya's War is a lawless adventure, according to the Constitution, that has contributed to the carnage. It will only make Americans less safe, not more. You may not care for the Afghan dead, but perhaps you have brothers, or sisters, or sons, or daughters, or grandkids etc.? Do you really think they are going to be safer as the United States continues to bomb innocent people ? Terrorists and suicide bombers are hatched from the deaths of innocent children. The current U.S. policy provides the breeding grounds for future terrorists, and leads to the destruction of liberty, and the rule of law on the home front.

[The Right Stuff]

Hey Betty! Thanks for checking in. We've got 3-4' in NSB, with irregular wave activity. Cowabunga! Bring yer wetsuit!

[okie01]

"If the military is going to be used to invade another country the Constitution requires that Congress first declare war."

You are unfamiliar with the case of Stephen Decatur, the Barbary Pirates and the Shores of Tripoli, I gather?

"A better response would have been to pursue the perpetrators through private investigative channels."

Would you recommend we employ Columbo or Spade & Archer?

"Finally, if this is a private "punch bowl" why is it on a public forum like "Free Republic?" What is your definition of "free?"

Certainly, one is free to pee in the punch bowl. One would normally choose, however, not to do so in public. It's a matter of common courtesy and public hygiene.

[Dan W]

Your definition of "traitor" is rather broad. I guess it boils down to you are a traitor if you disagree with whatever your federal government does. I think the WTC terrorists felt the same way you do. They thought they had the right to do anything they wanted. Both postions are untenable.

Every legislator and the President take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution, the highest law in the land, states Congress is the only branch which can declare war. George Bush is violating the law by personally waging war on Afghanistan without a declaration. Who is the traitor here ??