Posted on 12/30/2006 3:57:46 AM PST by Clive
Those who may share U.S. President George Bush's anguish in these recurrent winters of our discontent are not many.
It is easy to describe Bush as a beleaguered president in a war that a majority of Americans now question as the November mid-term election demonstrated. They want an end to the war in Iraq without having to admit defeat.
The agony of Bush is compounded by his knowledge of the enemy.
That and the constraints placed, in a free society within the context of our integrated world, on his office and its ability to wage the sort of war necessary to defeat the enemy.
U.S. presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman were also reviled in their times and during their respective winters of discontent.
But their circumstances in defeating the enemies of freedom were much different, and less onerous than those Bush has to contend with.
The Confederates were slave-holders, bent on destroying the American Union, rather than give freedom to their slaves.
Despite doubts about Lincoln during the worst months of the long Civil War, the enemy was clearly visible and victory was precisely defined as saving the Union and crushing the Confederacy.
Similarly, Roosevelt and Truman fought the fascist and militarist powers of Germany and Japan who were on a rampage across the world.
Even in the darkest moments of World War II their political opponents could not, dared not, publicly doubt the objective of securing the unconditional surrender of these enemies.
But the enemy Bush is contending with -- while a majority of Americans and America's allies pretend it doesn't exist -- is not merely an alliance of states or a mix of ideologies or a cause that the United States must fight and defeat.
ATAVISTIC IDEAS
The current enemy is the outcrop of a broken civilization of the past, spewing forth from its rotting bowels an endless horde of militants and fellow-travellers, carrying with them the most atavistic ideas about faith and politics that modern civilization, which Bush represents, hesitates to name for what it is.
We have to go back to the declining years of the Roman Empire to find a parallel with our times. Rome had spread civilization far and wide around the Mediterranean basin, but over time it became besieged by barbarians from outside its frontiers and then from within.
Civilization is more supple, hence fragile, than the iron and steel from which it is built. It might be likened to a garden, delicately laid out and carefully maintained.
When ignored or unattended, weeds destroy what human artifice builds with much labour.
Over time, people take their civilization for granted, become careless and unwilling to bear the burden of protecting it. Then its defences are breached, as Rome was, and the city is overrun by those who envy or loathe civilization, bringing ruin in their wake.
Radical Islamism and Islamist terrorism have already made a wasteland of the greater Middle East. Where once a great Islamic civilization prevailed, now, in its place, there so often thrives a culture of bigotry and tribal violence, with their effects spreading outwards across land and sea.
Rome did not know how to defeat the barbarians before they overran her. Those who endlessly fault Bush for the shape of the world visible since 9/11, will one day cry a river if he and his successors fail to save civilization from its present-day enemies.
Michael Novak, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, named Bush "the bravest president" for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians, despite the venom of his peers.
In the dark winter nights, some of us will have prayers for Bush, knowing the difference between what he represents and those who would prey upon civilization.
"It's akin to calling Nazism a peaceful political philosophy that's been hijacked by a few extremists."Excellent analogy.
Patan y payaso. How would you like to have your home town, in which you grew up, taken over so completely by a group of foreigners that you don't recognize it? When did we ever get a chance to vote on our communities being overrun with so many poor people from other countries that we have to close the hospitals that our grandfathers founded and supported? The fact of the matter is, our borders need to be secured for reasons of national security, and for reasons of national identity. We cannot accommodate every last Mexican, Latin American, Eastern European and Asian who wants to come here and take advantage, let alone the Muslims who want to come here and overthrow our government. And don't play your ethnic BS card with me, I am Hispanic.
Right on the mark, Angela. A clear majority of Americans agree with you.
Bump, our so called "brave" leader does not even have the courage to speak the enemies name.
And thank you Lurker for adding your wisdom, especially this:
We're engaged in a war with several foreign governments who have made a conscious decision to use terrorism as a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.
I would add that more will soon jump on the bandwagon, due to the moral feebleness of our response.
I'm not referring to our actions against Iraq and Afghanistan, for these were appropriate. But they needed to be followed with other similar actions, and the courage of our convictions.
That said, George W. Bush is the president, not the king of America. I feel he went as far as he thought he could, and if he lacks allies in our own legislature, not to mention some outright enemies, who can doubt he tried his best to turn them around?
That's what Ted Kazinski said, too.
I can't however, make you understand them.
Thankfully, this is true. I have no wish to 'understand' the babblings of fools.
L
So, you're already into the insults?
Patton, whom you brought up, identified the enemy (Russia), had a plan, was a formidable warrior, and was capable of ending the Russian threat at the end of WWII.
How did his invasion of Russia go?
The threat from Islam posses a clear and present danger unlike any we've seen in nearly half a century. Next to it, Mexicans crossing the borders is nothing.
As a matter of fact, if I remember my history correctly, the last time American men had to go fight Fascism abroad, we used Mexico to supply us with labor to replace them.
If Europe falls to Islam, as it now appears that it will, what use will secure borders and less Mexicans do for us?
Do we then count on China and Russia to help us?
Or will they look to destroy us before facing their own Islamic threat?
With Islamofascism controlling European markets, where do we sell our goods?
If you truly believe that a relatively small number of Mexican peons can bring about the fall of this country from the world's sole hegemony to the status of a Third World nation by their mere presence here, then you can't possibly believe that we can defeat anyone or anything anywhere.
They control one continent, most of the Middle East, and are now well on their way on their conquest of Europe.
Open your eyes.
Illegals are dumping @$7 billion dollars per year into the Federal coffers, and that's just in unclaimed, untraceable social security payments.
That's not a good argument.
Bring back the Bracero program, it worked in our favor during WWII, and was dismantled by the Unions.
"Illegals are dumping @$7 billion dollars per year into the Federal coffers, and that's just in unclaimed, untraceable social security payments."
However, they are consuming upwards of $20 billion in services and increasing our crime rates. Uncontrolled movement over our borders is also a security threat.
"That's not a good argument."
Your data is incomplete.
Before you enter into this discussion with me, you need to examine historical data and not just post unsubstantiated suppositions.
In fact, guest workers DO leave, as the Bracero program proved.
People entering the country illegally don't leave for fear of not being able to re-enter.
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.