Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- We Joined…Will You, Please?
- This is no Way to Treat Our Elderly People
- Yummy Homemade Holiday Treats
- Shhh..Don’t Tell The Taxpayers
- Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
Recent Comments
- Sue on Does Reid Do This On Purpose? Apparently So
- ~J~ on Honesty and Civility..A Good Place To Start
- Sue on I Haven’t Deserted You
- ~J~ on Can You Relate?
- ~J~ on Happy Thanksgiving
- Piano Girl on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- David M. on Does Our President Have to Go to Church to Prove He’s Christian?
- ~J~ on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- David M. on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
President Bush has not been Conservative enough for some.
For others he has been nothing more than a man who stole an election with the assistance of the United States Supreme Court.
He has been vilified for his handling of the Iraq war, sometimes deservedly so, but it you read, really read the words of those who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, most seem to have a clear sense of exactly what their mission has been. I’m not speaking of the arm chair Generals who conduct war from a television studio, but those who have seen the horrors and triumphs.
Through it all and with all his mortal faults (show me any President who does not have them, or any man or woman for that matter), I have remained a supporter of Mr. Bush and there has always remained one central reason why..National Security. My position has never wavered on this and no doubt never will..it is not a matter of fear, it is a matter of this country’s survival.
It came as quite a surprise to run across this article penned by a New York City resident who did not vote for the President in either 2000 or 2004:
With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it’s notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.
This is a difficult issue for me. I didn’t vote for President Bush – twice. And as a human-rights law professor, the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, along with various elements of the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency’s wiretapping of Americans, are all greatly troubling to me.
Yet I live in Manhattan and I was present on Sept. 11, 2001 – admittedly 100 blocks from the murder scene, but I was here, trembling along with the rest of America. Remember those days?
Mr. Rosenbaum gets it. Very few speak of the President and his determination to carry out his primary responsibility. Does anyone honestly believe that if not for his steadfastness in the fight against terrorism we would not have been attacked again, possibly more than once?
Perhaps historians will understand the perils we faced over the past decades. It is my belief the terrorists understand that this time they chose the wrong man to “take on,” and the Professor appears to agree:
Yes, there are those who maintain that our promiscuous misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel have rendered America even less safe. That the president has further radicalized our enemies and alienated our nation. That the animosity for America now, improbably, runs even deeper. Whatever resentments and aspirations gave rise to 9/11 have grown and will not be easily dissipated. For this reason, no one should draw comfort in the relative safety of our shores.
Maybe so. But when a professed enemy succeeds as wildly as al Qaeda did on 9/11, and seven years pass without an incident, there are two reasonable conclusions: Either, despite all the trash-talking videos, they have been taking a long, leisurely breather; or, something serious has been done to thwart and disable their operations. Whatever combination of psychology and insanity motivates a terrorist to blow himself up is not within my range of experience, but I’m betting the aggressive measures the president took, and the unequivocal message he sent, might have had something to do with it.
Americans, admittedly, have short time horizons and, perhaps, even shorter attention spans. Our collective memory has historically been poor. But had there been another terrorist attack or, even worse, a dozen more in cities all over America – a fear that would not have been exaggerated on 9/12 – would we have allowed ourselves the luxury of quarreling over legally suspect counterterrorism measures, even though such internal debates are credits to our liberal democracy and constitutional freedoms?
More at the link above.
Written by Sue
| 
~J~ Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 2:57 amVisit ~J~
Amen! To you for finding this and for the person who wrote the piece. How many times have we thought about being attacked again during this president’s terms? Less and less as time goes by and instead we hear stupid statements about him being a moron etc. Thank God He gave us the right man at the right time and I feel history will be kind to him as it was to Truman who was also unpopular when he left office.
Guss Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 6:05 amVisit Guss
Hi Sue, I think that this administration is going down in history as the worst, so far. Maybe it’s bad luck or maybe it’s the lack of attention to the crises that’s going on now in the United States and there is one if you are living hand to mouth like most people are.
I think that the memory of 9-11 has been replaced with the fear of not being able to provide for ones family. Gas and the price of heating fuel have gone so high that most people are worrying whether they are going to be able to make it to work or heat their homes. The value of the dollar has taken a dive. The price of food is rising. Property values are taking a real down turn while property taxes remain the same. I could go on and on.
When one doesn’t understand economics they tend to blame the person at the top whether deserved or not. Most people know that it’s not.
President Bush is no moron. I just think that his priorities are different than most.
To the people mentioned above, the terrorist are on wall street.
I know that this comment will draw a lot of disdain but that’s OK. It’s only my opinion and in the grand scheme of things, probably doesn’t mean much.
Sue Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 8:46 amVisit Sue
Hi Guss:
I see no reason for disdain.
Whether or not President Bush’s priorities are different than those before him could be a point of debate I suppose. War time Presidents do seem to have different perspectives.
As for the economy and other domestic affairs, I agree with you that many Americans are struggling. I also concur that people do not understand how little control any President has over many of these issues. Take property taxes for instance..that is a state (or county) imposed tax.
As for housing and the mortgage industry, the decision to purchase a home is an individual one. Those companies which chose to write and the banks who financed loans for those who could not afford them are now paying a dear price. But, the President did not force anyone to buy a home or the industry to follow unscrupulous practices.
As to energy..well I would defer to COgirl’s piece. No President has “control” of that industry. My only other thought is that after the November election we may see some correction in those prices..just a feeling which I hope is wrong as I hope it is sooner.
I don’t believe individuals should obsess about 9-11 but I do think this author was correct that we have very short memories. As for individual opinions, I think you know how I feel Guss. Each one is important..now if we could just get those in power to listen.
David M Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pmVisit David M
I really do not think we are safer because of President Bush and I do think he has done more harm to our country than good. I do think we are less safe and how the negative–we have not been attacked since 9/11–can be attributed to this president is a mystery to me. We do not know how another president would have reacted to 9/11, but why are we in Iraq? We have not attacked other countries with brutal dictators (Myanmar/North Korea), so we cannot justify the brutality of Saddam for the invasion. Saddam actually kept the terrorists out of Iraq. We knew Osama bin Laden was, and probably still is, in Afghanistan and we don’t have him–not that it matters. He has plenty of underlings to take his place. And then there are our allies–Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The President could not convince the Saudis to release more oil reserves last week. And Pakistan will, I predict, fall to the Taliban very soon or become an absolute dictatorship. How can this man be a great President just because he was in office on 9/11? Any president would have reacted. I don’t see how anyone can say we’re safer today when we have more enemies. All we can say is that we haven’t been attached at home again. Why bother? We losing Americans to terrorists around the world. No country has become safer because of any action of President Bush. I don’t hate the President, but I think he’s been a terribly poor leader. We had immense opportunies when the GOP had the Legislative, executive (and Judicial) branches and the opportunity was squantered by a do-nothing Congress and the President has some responsibility for that. I’m with Guss on this one. I think the professor’s argument fails in the paragraph where he says there are only two reasonable conclusion why there has not been another attack. I think there are dozens of reasonable conclusions. Maybe only one was planned. Maybe it achieved its sole purpose by moving us into war. Maybe the attack was aimed to recruit more terrorists. I think the professor’s logic is very weak and extremely speculative.
~J~ Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 amVisit ~J~
David, my dear, dear friend. I find I must disagree with you on some of your post; the most important being that we cannot prove a negative, i.e. that we are safer now than on 9/11 and we do not know how another president would have acted under the same circumstances.
Let’s take a short walk down memory lane to get an idea of how another president would have acted.
The Iranians took over our embassy and kidnapped over 50 people while we stood around wringing our hands for over a year. In the meantime, an ill-conceived plan went wrong when we tried to rescue them with not enough helicopters to make a difference. (Carter)
In Lebanon our Marines were killed and we pulled out. (Reagan) The same thing happened at Khobar Towers though I forget if the president was Reagan or Clinton. We did nothing!
We allowed our troops to be killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu because our Defense Secretary would not allow the troops to have the proper equipment they asked for during a UN “Peacekeeping” program. (Clinton)
The World Trade Center was previously bombed and we did nothing. (Clinton) Curiously enough the man responsible or at least caught for this act was arrested and sentenced right around 9/11.
The USS Cole was bombed and sailors killed while it was in harbor and we did nothing. (Clinton)
These are just some instances I can think of off the top of my head, but our responses were always to tuck tail and run or consider these terrorists to be nothing more than your average bank robber, i.e. a criminal who should go to court if caught and not be wiped out due to the danger they posed to not just us but the world.
How would Gore have handled the situation if he had been president? The fact he was the Vice President in Clinton’s administration gives me a pretty good hint we would have tucked tail and hidden and Al Qaeda would have felt emboldened to do something like this or worse again. Ditto for John Kerry who couldn’t decide if he was for or against the war.
I think these examples by a republican as well as two democratic presidents show us how a different president would have acted.
It was the stated purpose of the United States under the Clinton administration that we should arrange a “regime change” in Iraq.
Take a look at Europe to see how safe they have been since 9/11. Spain was attacked just before an election (sound familiar?) where the incumbent was ahead and their troops were part of the effort in Iraq. Al Qaeda bombed a train and the Spaniards elected a government more to the liking of OBL, but if memory serves me they have been attacked again even after withdrawing from Iraq.
London has been bombed and has instituted even more safety precautions than we know about in our own country.
We went to Iraq not for democracy, although the advisers said that was the best reason to use, when in fact we went in to destroy weapons of mass destruction, which every prominent member of Congress, President Clinton and virtually every spy agency in the world insisted were there and would be used against us.
We found Salmon Pak in Iraq; an airplane set up to teach terrorists how to hijack airplanes.
Saddam Hussein was host to some Al Qaeda, even providing medical help to one of the higher ups who had lost or injured his leg. When it became clear this terrorist was a liability he let the world know he had been killed.
How impatiently did we as Americans sit from 9/11 until 10/7/2001, waiting to take revenge on Al Qaeda no matter where it took us?
Al Qaeda represents to me Satan himself.
Yes, North Korea is a danger to us as a nation. So are China and Russia, but to our knowledge have any of these countries infiltrated our borders and killed so many in one attack?
President Bush has made his share of mistakes in the advice he has taken in how to run this war and in other matters, but I believe in my heart and soul he has handled the situation in a way that will make these terrorists think again before attempting another attack on us, unless we get an appeasement president the next time around. And that’s what I’m afraid of.
I want my grandchildren to live in a safe America, or at least one that is as safe as possible, and if Barack or Hillary get the presidency you can bet I’ll be shivering in my boots for the sake of my family. My life is over half finished, so it doesn’t matter to me, but my grandchildren are all 12 or under.
No offense taken by your comment and none intended to you in this comment, David, as I love you too much to fight over politics and you are entitled to your opinion.
David M Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 amVisit David M
I’m never offended by an opinion, especially from a friend. No response from me however. Tomorrow is election day and the Federal Observers are coming in from D.C. to meet with me and my Native language coordinators today. I’ll have to work until the Navajo vote comes in tomorrow, which is normally 11 pm or later because of the distance. I’ll be a tired old man Wednesday morning. On the other hand, we have 10 Native precincts and 8 Native candidates on the ballot from both parties, so it’s an exciting election for our program and I’m expecting turnout as high as 78% from the Navajo nation.