Recently a very nice man I know mentioned with venom in his voice that there is no way this country would elect another Republican President after George Bush. I didn't ask him what President Bush has done that makes this so clear to him but I do wonder. There seems to be a lot of people who truly hate President Bush but I doubt even they know why. As a Bush defender I am simply exhausted and a little sad and resentful. I don't agree with everything President Bush has done but I know he has done nothing to merit the treatment he has received from the media, the Democrats and a portion of the American people.
The left in this country is nonsensical. They hated, absolutely hated Richard Nixon. What for, no one knows. They will say "Watergate" but they were after him long before that whole mess materialized. Richard Nixon tried to placate the left. Nixon created the EPA and OSHA, shouldn't the left appreciate that? Richard Nixon ended the Vietnam War, a war the left railed against for it's entirety. A war, by the way that was started by a Democrat, Kennedy, escalated by a Democrat, Johnson and ended by a Republican. The media was out to get Richard Nixon and Watergate gave them the opportunity to do so. Nixon was not involved in the break-in and had no knowledge of it at the time it occurred. He did come to know about it and was involved in the cover-up. When the time came he did the honorable thing, he resigned. At the time lying to the American People was a big deal, during the Clinton administration it was suddenly insignificant for the President to lie, even under oath which is an actual crime.
The most unfortunate product of the Nixon Administration is this, the leftists in the media learned that they could take down a President. Journalism schools thrived as young lefties lined up to learn how to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. Conservative voices were silenced as liberals took over the management of every news room in America. The New York Times depreciated under the management of a lesser Sulzberger. Arthur senior was nicknamed "Punch" Junior is called (behind his back I'm sure) "Pinch" and he took over in 1997. Since then the motto of the New York Times should have been changed from "All the news that's fit to print" to "All the news that fits our Agenda".
No matter how hard people like Pinch Sulzberger and Dan Rather were pulling for the leftist Democrats to win they continued to pretend they were "objective journalists". Dan Rather is a good example because his bias was so poorly hidden. Recall the vicious interview he did with the First President Bush when he was still the Vice President, in which the usually genteel Bush turned the tables on him with the way his eyes welled up when then President Clinton called him on the phone during a broadcast with co-anchor Connie Chung. The "hardened news man" gushed "If we can just be one one-hundredth as great as you and Mrs Clinton have been...blah, blah, blah".
Once the 2000 election came around even the pretense of objectivity was dropped. Thank heavens by then Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for two decades and we had the Fox News Channel growing by leaps and bounds. The gloves were off on the left but normal Americans had alternatives. If we didn't want to see Chris Matthews tear up as he reported that Gore had finally given up his quest to overturn the election results in Florida we could tune to Fox News Channel. If we were horrified to learn that Dan Rather used forged documents to discredit President Bush and his service in the Texas Air National Guard we could read a book written by John Kerry's "band of brothers". Not the few he carried with him, but the over 200 who said he was unfit to be president.
You see, something else had happened in the recent decade. Books with conservative points of view which were once refused by publishers had been found to be huge sellers. Now those books were published and read by millions. If CBS refused to tell you about the many inconsistencies in Kerry's rendition of his military service (which they did) you could buy the book. Now the big network news folks wouldn't investigate the questions raised, they would only investigate those raising them, but word got out. Think about it, three purple hearts and he never spent the night in a hospital?
Anyway, I digress. The truth of the matter is Bush, however imperfect has never knowingly lied to the American people. Bush has consistently done what he thought was best for this country. Not was was most popular, not what was the most expedient but what he actually felt was in the best interests of the United States of America. So Bush Haters take heed. Your hatred of President Bush has nothing to do with him. it is a choice you have made and one day in the not to distant future Bush will no longer be the president but you will still be filled with hatred and rage. Which is what you deserve and compassionate conservatism aside, I hope you choke on it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow...I stumbled upon your vitriol and am now convinced that you are in need of several history lessons although being the Right of Rush I am sure you sould not grasp the gist. George W Bush, will prove to you soon, why he has not proven to you by now one will never know, but he will prove even to you to be the worst president this country has ever known. Bar none. Look at the constitution. Look at the Geneva conventions. Open your eyes to habeus corpus. Open your mind to the truth of this administration now and you might see it.
Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.
No previous president appears to have squandered the public's trust more than Bush has.
"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extradordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy," said the 2001 Nobel Prize laureate who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley.
Instead of using all the U.S. government’s national security resources to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, Bush invaded an unrelated country, has become bogged down in a quagmire and civil war and has unintentionally provided a training ground for and fuelled the hatred of a jihadist terrorist movement that will probably attack U.S. targets for decades.
If he had been president at the beginning of the Second World War, Bush would have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Nazi declaration of war on the United States by invading Romania. But, surprisingly, this Iraq fiasco is not the most dangerous thing the president has done.
He has used the never-ending war on terror to claim unlimited power for the president during wartime. For example, he has flouted the Constitution by detaining prisoners without trial, spied on Americans without the constitutionally required warrants and blatantly said he will follow a congressionally passed law against torture when he feels like it.
None of the other post-war presidents has claimed unlimited power during wartime or crises. This is a truly dangerous claim, especially when the war is perpetual.
The individual liberties guaranteed to citizens—unique to the American system—could be threatened by even greater future executive authoritarianism.
In the Constitution, in reaction to the despotic monarchs of Europe, the founders narrowly restricted the executive’s power. Bush’s arrogant power grab, which attempts to eviscerate the checks and balances that are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, probably makes him the most dangerous—and therefore the worst—president in the post-Second World War era.
Poetryman, you have a lovely vocabulary and the post you commented upon does contain some vitriol, more than I usually apply. Nothing compared to that which is directed at the President. You are wrong about the "Narrow" powers given to the President in war time; he is called the Commander in chief for a reason. Congress holds the purse strings, if they want the war lost NOW, they can defund it. The Geneva Convention? Until al Qaeda signs the Geneva Convention it does not apply.
President George Bush hasn't divided the country. He speaks ill of no one. It's the idiots chanting Bush lied kids died and claiming the President knew about 9-11 or even had a hand in it who are dividing this country.
No one has ever fought a perfect war, nor will they ever. Mistakes will be made. We have changed strategy; it's called "the surge" and it hasn't yet been fully implemented. Democrats, some of whom were demanding more troops for weeks before the announcement of this new strategy now claim we have already lost the war or pretend there has been no change in strategy.
You must have a very short memory if you think this President has squandered trust. Don't you recall a former President looking straight into the camera and telling all of America "I did not have sex with that woman” I’ll give you a hint; he was wagging his finger as he told this bald face lie.
Bill Clinton was the "golden boy" of his generation and avoided every tough issue during his administration. He always did whatever was easy, popular and best for his poll numbers. With the exception of serial sexual harassment of women, that one thing he did just for himself.
You can quote Berkley Professors all day. We know they take the side of the terrorists.
If Bush was President when the Japanese attacked us he would have done exactly as we did. Did you forget that we attacked Germany first then Japan. Holding enemy combatants is hardly unprecedented; didn't FDR detain American citizens of Japanese heritage?
This war is bigger than one man so getting OBL is not winning the war on terror. We took out a viscous dictator who had signed an agreement with us that he would disarm and prove that he had done so. Instead he led the world on a decade long game of cat and mouse. He and those two mad dog sons of his are gone. Who are we fighting in Iraq now? al Qaeda! This war had to be fought in the Middle East. That is where the enemy is. Fighting them there kills some of them and keeps others too busy to attack us at home.
You are the one who needs a history lesson and it is history that will judge the George Bush presidency so what you "think" might not carry much weight. As bad as Clinton was I can't imagine how there could be a worse president then Jimmy Carter. Perhaps you are too young to remember stagflation and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Thanks to Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran and then allowing him to be overthrown we have Islamic Fascism today. Let’s not forget his post presidential handling of North Korea. We can also thank Carter, with help from Albright and Clinton for North Korea having nukes.
I sense you believe what you wrote but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Post a Comment