BUSH THE STATESMAN

New York Post ^ | 11/26/03 | RALPH PETERS

[kattracks]

November 26, 2003 -- HISTORY isn't a popularity contest. It judges by results, not yesterday's opinion polls. And history may prove as generous in its evaluation of George W. Bush as a foreign-policy president as his detractors are merciless.

Our president is becoming a statesman of vision and remarkable courage. Anyone noticed?

[kattracks]

ping

[Defender2]

Good Post, Kattracks!!!!:-)

[goldstategop]

Liberals have become stuffy anti-American elitists.

[samtheman]

Much of Bush's domestic agenda, from his disregard of the environment to his disinterest in woman's rights, is deplorable.

What's this, a sop to potential leftist readers? Because it certainly isn't true. What's their evidence for this stupid sentence, that Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban (which most women agree with him on) or because Bush tossed Kyoto into the trash can (where most of the world agrees it belongs)?

Why do they feel they need to put in a Stupid Sentence like this? To appear balanced? The addition of a stupid unsupported allegation doesn't add balance, it adds... stupidity.

[milan]

Everyone knows that Bush is an idiotic, warmongering buffoon who rejects the greater wisdom of the French . . .

That is by far the most sarcastic and hilarious line I have read in some time...it's a keeper.

[alwaysconservative]

When those Americans educated beyond all common sense snicker over Bush's grammatical blunders, their sarcasm makes Americans rally round the president. We don't speak perfectly, either. And we don't like it when stuck-up do-nothings laugh at us.

I love it. And everytime a leftist demeans our President's grammar, more people recognize them for the "stuck-up do-nothings" they are.

[Reb Raider]

"Much of Bush's domestic agenda, from his disregard of the environment to his disinterest in woman's rights, is deplorable."

I noticed President Bush went to great lengths to use new enviromental technology throughout his ranch home. The Gore's that 'care so much more' did nothing but build a pathetic rendention of the White House they so craved that they tore the nation apart trying to obtain it. I haven't noticed the Clinton's using any 'enviromentally correct' technologies in their new mansions. The Senate would never have allowed the Kyoto to pass as it is nothing more than a way to severely hurt our economy.

Bush put his money into solar energy and many other things the liberals rant about while the Gore's left their renters in a run down house with sewage problems they couldn't be bothered to repair for several months.

The above remark was out of line by the NYP writer, but the rest of the article was excellent. Great find as usual kattracks!

[Paradox]

Bush uses conservative means to achieve liberal ends on the global stage. In the process, he's revealed the left as more concerned with its dissident status than with practical results.

Nailed it! Some of this column is so good, it approaches Stynlike quality.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[jonno]

bump

[stevem]

But because George W. Bush made that speech, our intellectual establishment largely ignored it. He's given the left the policies they've clamored for - liberation, human rights, massive foreign-aid increases - and the left is proving its insincerity by rejecting its own doctrines when they come from a Republican.

What planet does Mr. Peters call home? When has the left ever clamored for this? Let's look at the left's pantheon. Stalin. Castro. Allende. Saddam. Arafat. Mao. Ortega. When in the world have freedom and human rights ever been doctrines of the left?

[mewzilla]

We don't know just when to pick up the glass at a royal banquet...

And the rest of us don't bloody well care.

[Bombard]

They have always called for these things. But only on their narrow terms. As usual they are all talk and hot air.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

But W. cracked the code: The fundamental problem of our age is not too much change. It's that global elites, from Paris to Pyongyang, reject change.

. . . He's given the left the policies they've clamored for - liberation, human rights, massive foreign-aid increases - and the left is proving its insincerity by rejecting its own doctrines when they come from a Republican.

Freedom for the wretched of the earth? Sorry, folks, the left didn't really mean it.

All the barrels of ink and hours, nay years, of broadcast time expended to declaim that America should never have any truck with a Ferdinand Marcos or a General Pinochet but should have helped the little guy to throw off his shackles . . .

but let GWB threaten to enforce UN Security Council resolutions against Saddam Hussain, and what did we see? Past aid to Iraq against Iran adduced as reason not to act against him!

Let Americans under Bush's orders work to establish security and freedom previously unknown in the entire history of Iraq, and we do we see? De facto cheerleading whenever an asssassin commits murders!

Those who have the PR wind at their back--journalists and other "liberals"--find second-guessing to be fun and profitable. But the truth is that American "conservatives" are interested in conserving and expanding the possibility of change by we-the-people known as freedom rather than in ossifying the status quo. Whereas self-styled "progressives" want "progress" in the form of the increase of their own power and thus the ability to diminish other people's freedom.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

[GWB has] given the left the policies they've clamored for - liberation, human rights, massive foreign-aid increases - and the left is proving its insincerity by rejecting its own doctrines when they come from a Republican.

Freedom for the wretched of the earth? Sorry, folks, the left didn't really mean it.

[mylife]

"The best results will be imperfect. But W. cracked the code: The fundamental problem of our age is not too much change. It's that global elites, from Paris to Pyongyang, reject change."

[anniegetyourgun]

Seriously. I couldn't get past that statement either. Disinterest in women's rights? Tell it to the numerous women he has appointed to high ranking positions in his administration. And what about those female judges he has nominated (that lib/dems are standing in the way of)? And, oh yes, how 'bout those tax cuts....they don't help women? Is he showing disinterest in his wife by honoring her rather than taking up with an intern in the Oval office? Gad....the press can't see past itself.

[mylife]

Last week, newspaper columns made fun of Bush's trivial gaffes while exchanging toasts with the queen. What the smug commentators missed is that the average American didn't see a fool, but himself or herself. We don't know just when to pick up the glass at a royal banquet. And we're suspicious of those who do.

When those Americans educated beyond all common sense snicker over Bush's grammatical blunders, their sarcasm makes Americans rally round the president. We don't speak perfectly, either. And we don't like it when stuck-up do-nothings laugh at us.

An outstanding Oped.

[paulsy]

Bush is vital history in the making; eventually most people will figure this out.