Bush? Really?--Bush, Really!So the fine men who write this blog want to know if I can really claim to like Bush. Here's my answer:
This week marks the third anniversary of Reagan's death and everyone's summoning him. Let's ignore the Iran-Contra scandal, and give him credit, he was more popular than Bush. Bush has plenty of flaws, but he is honest and is steadfast.
The critic's biggest issue is without a doubt the war in Iraq, so let's take a time machine back to 2001, in a September 20th address, Bush stated:
Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.
Guess what? Bush hasn't changed his game plan. He never promised us a short fight. It's the American public that has ADD.
At this point there is always the quick shot that we entered the war under false pretenses: there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and most other prominent politicians also believed that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Not backing down? Let's look at the deaths of thousands of American soldiers. While every death of a young, healthy American should be mourned, we need to keep the numbers in perspective. During Vietnam, there were 58,000 deaths. During the American Civil War, there were 500,000 deaths. In Iraq, there have been approximately 3500 deaths in four years of fighting. Each year 3800 Americans die in accidental drownings. Should we fill all swimming pools?
Plenty of intelligent, well intentioned people disagree with our presence in Iraq, and even Afghanistan, and I respect their position. Bush, however, is an upfront leader. He will not make a decision based on the ever-changing whims of half-informed nay-sayers; he has his beliefs, and he follows them. I may disagree with some of his economic policies, but I'm not ashamed to say that I voted for him, both times.
5 comments:
You are right about Bush following his beliefs. In many ways, that is precisely the problem. With common sense thrown out the window, "the Decider" belligerently refuses to change.
Rather, he tunnels blindly through a war that not only has caused 3500 deaths but also more than twenty thousand injured men and women. I know the right wing loves his "steadfastness;" however, he could benefit from taking a cue from yoga master Eric Shiffman and remember that even "trees sway."
I think you make an important point about his steadfastness and decisiveness. In those respects, he is a consistent and determined leader and to his credit--I guess--he doesn't care what polls convey and what people think. If the mission, as he once said though, were accomplished, I think things would be different. Lastly, albeit Iraq is his monster there are other areas in which he has grossly faulted: giving the troops proper equipment, basically outsourcing the American dollar, economny, edge on competition, and debt to Saudia Arabia and China, and....Katrina. Even my Republican family members in the Gulf Coast can't get over what a f**k-up he is. Truthfully, I think you are angry over the ream of paper--snap out of it. Nonetheless, I thank you for your views :-)
I definatley think Bush has his flaws...and I think some people blame him for things that were beyond his control or which he inherited. There's no way to give a full analysis of Bush in one entry. On the steadfastness-I think he would change his direction, if he were convinced it was in the country's long term best interest. Do you really think he is trying to hurt our society?
It's not about if he's trying to hurt our society or not. Was Carter or Clinton trying to hurt our society? Of course not. Then why do many Republicans not like them?
I feel President Bush has taken many steps to weaken our country. This is why I disapprove of his job performance.
Kindel-On the hurt our society comment...
I think sometimes people make decisions without a true understanding of the consequences that may follow. Example: Nathan is almost 4. On the beach today, he was pretending to be "yucky man." In doing so, he throws dirt in a girl's face and clobbers another girl over the head with the shovel. Now, did he set out to hurt these girls? Of course not. He was merely being yucky man.
Similarly, as our president assumes the role of the end-all and be-all Decider (perhaps another version of yucky man), he has consequently hurt many.
Regardless of so-called "intent," bad behavior is bad behavior and should be dealt with accordingly. If one continues to plow through life not considering consequences (and reality), this is a problem for society at large.
Post a Comment