Replies

When the author and the rest of the naysaying, doubting,Anti-Bush,pro-democratic party, "gotcha", "don't care how the majority of Americans feel" media...

I think you misunderstood the article. The author has some criticism for President Bush, but he doesn't criticize him for being "unilateral" and "simplistic" and a "Texas cowboy"--on the contrary, he's saying he's not "unilateral" etc. enough! IOW, he wants him to be more Republican. That's hardly the way a Rat talks!

And he doesn't criticize President Bush specifically; rather, he objects to "decades" of politically correct foreign policy, going all the way back to Carter. He is saying President Bush should not let his decisions be shaped by this ugly "tradition"--that he should uncompromisingly pursue a pro-American, pro-freedom policy, no matter how loudly the PC crowd scream.

Well, that's my take, anyway. I don't know who this Onkar guy is, but Front Page Magazine certainly isn't a leftist rag. Just take a brief glance at their home page to see for yourself.

My criticism with the piece begins at the last 3 paragraghs. Up until then, no problem.We've had do-nothing presidents. It's his conclusions that I disagree with.
President Bush (and Rumsfeld,et al) are trying their best to push ahead with their plans to try and make the world a safer place and rid it of terrorism and nuclear threats.
"...when Bush does strike at militant Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Bush feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties."
His complaint is that,Mr.Bush "does so only haltingly". That is because they are forced to look over their shoulders all the time because of people in Onkar's profession jumping at every opportunity to report (whether true or not)(exaggerated) civilian casualties..."
I repeat:
"If the press and news media would try printing stories that would HELP any of these situations, we'd get rid of the terrorists a lot faster.They could be printing articles and editorials that are patriotic, uplifting, affirming, supportive,and encouraging."
The quote you referred to from my response to the piece, was in response to the author's statement that Mr. Bush was "morally unsure of his right to protect American lives". What an ASSumption! I don't believe Mr. Bush's morals are foggy in any way. He states this as if it's fact. AND doesn't understand that our foreign policy doesn't operate in a vaccuum. Every move the White House makes is criticized and scrutinized by the media. A media that for the most part, does it's best to try to undermine every decision Mr. Bush makes. Is the author so naive as to suggest that the White House can go off and make plans on it's own and carry them out without anyone else finding out? They have senators and congressmen feeding the press Intelligence secrets all the time. AND the press has no problem printing every detail, every rumor. It's not just some "PC crowd". We're not talking about Hollywood and environmentalists. The media shapes the way people think. That's why they repeat a non-story for 10 days in a row; "Flood the zone". If the White House just went full speed ahead and never looked back, the media(and politcal foes) would be screaming for impeachment every day, non-stop. And eventually they'd get it. What would be the point of that foreign policy?
The press,the media are the enemy of the success on the war on terrorism. It's not the White House and it's not President Bush.

(I'm familiar with Front Page mag. and the Ayn Rand Institue.)