Who do you suppose said this:
So, the hot news now is Barack Obama.
Obama this, Obama that… Naturally, it is very laudable that the United States may have chosen to look beyond the issue of race and opted for a person purely on the merit of his character. But what will they find?
AdvertisementThe usual hot air that Washington politicians seem to have made their own. Mr Obama is no different. We’re just too politically correct to say that the only thing refreshing about him is his colour. So we say he’s “bipartisan”, or he’s a “uniter”. . . .
Of course you think Mr Obama is going to make a difference, but as I write this, he’s already giving all the signs of somebody who will say anything to get into power only to act in exactly the same way as the Washington clique he aims to replace!
Or this?
Whatever happened to leadership and honesty as presidential traits? I happen to believe that the only leader in the West to have these two admirable qualities in droves is the leader of the free world: George W Bush.
Or this?
Bush may not have the slickness of his predecessor, but he is a man you can trust and who prefers to tell it like it is.
This is refreshing, and very scary for us who are used to our politicians always talking grandly about principles and hiding behind political mumbo-speak.
The fact is you guys hate Mr Bush because he is not a hypocrite and you are used to hypocrites as your leaders. We hate what we don’t understand.
Must be some knuckle-dragging old-fogey white guy with a trust fund and Texas fortune behind him, right?
Wrong. It’s by Sameh El-Shahat, writing in the London Telegraph a couple of days ago. The Telegraph also posts this short video by Mr. El-Shahat.
Final query: why doesn’t the herd of independent minds ruminating in the pastures of The New York Times, CNN, NPR, and the purlieus of the left-liberal Obama-besotted elite get it? George Santayana said that those who don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Have they forgotten Jimmy Carter: Mr. “Misery Index” (21.98 percent when Carter lost to Ronald Regan in 1979), the fount of prissy, hectoring talk about the necessity of living with diminished expectations, the architect of the foreign policy disaster of Iran–the Ayatollah, the hostage crisis. Obama will not, I predict, be the next President of the United States, but if he were, it would be Carter redux, with more charm, possibly, but less experience and even more programmatically left-left-leaning let’s tax-’em tax-’em tax-’em instincts. Meanwhile who will remember George W. Bush. Not the elite punditocracy, of course–until, that is, they wake up and find that tout le monde is wistfully remembering what a strong leader Mr. Bush was (he will be then be referred to as Mr. Bush) and the victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome will be like the rock- and bomb-throwing 60s radicals: quaint players in a rancid drama whose plot no one can quite remember.
“… if [Obama] were [elected], it would be Carter redux, with more charm, possibly, but less experience and even more programmatically left-left-leaning let’s tax-’em tax-’em tax-’em instincts.”
I think it would be worse that “Carter redux”. It would be Carter on steroids, in a world that is significantly more dangerous than the one Carter faced when he was in the White House.
The Democrats of Carter’s day may have had some grasp of reality. Today’s Dems seem entirely devoted to a radical Left-wing agenda, that an Obama election would remake America into just another European state. An Obama election would mean a radical Left Congress, a radical Left President, and a Supreme Court that would be filled with radical Left jurists.
I cannot understand why some conservatives think this is would mean Americans would then elect a “true conservative” Congress and President. To put it another, Obamacons think they would win by losing. I’d love them to show me where that has worked.
Bush IS a great leader and will be remembered as such.
And I really really hope that you are correct in your assessment that Obama will not be the next President of the US. However, right now, Intrade gives him a 2 to 1 lead over McCain. BUT this is July, and the real stuff starts in September…
The truly frightening thing is the mass incompetence of the Congress, which is going to get worse in November, given the large number of Republicans who are retiring…and the Republicans have definitely NOT covered themselves with glory.
And in the meantime, we all, in the West, continue to export our wealth to the middle east, whilst arguing about oil shale and ANWR.
My first thought was ‘What is the ‘ever’ doing in the headline?’. Makes the writer sound like a five year old. “EVER!”
Daniel
More complicated, maybe? But more dangerous? I felt a great weight being lifted at the end of the cold war, and nothing, I mean nothing, has bought it back.
Thinking about Carter and that time:
1978 – 79
Israel-Egypt peace,
Iranian revolution,
the invasion of Afghanistan.
It has often been said that the 20th centruy was a short century: running from WW1 to the fall of the soviet Union in 1991.
Maybe the 21st Centruy started in 1979. And, looking at that short list, maybe things were just as complicated then too!
Dear Mr. Kimball,
Jimmy Carter was dealt a bad hand. The severe economic crisis he walked into was not of his doing. Remember Jerry Ford’s WIN buttons? The proximate cause of the severe inflation that he inherited was Nixon’s closing of the gold window. This was a massive devaluation of the dollar. Of course, it was a forced move because our putative allies in Europe were raiding our treasury for $35/oz. gold. This was an abrogation of the 1948 Bretton Woods agreement.
So, Jimmy Carter was unjustly blamed for the economic crisis. Having said that, he still managed to be especially feckless in every other aspect of his presidency.
Regards,
Roy
Bush has convictions. And they are ironclad.
The conviction that it is his highest duty to protect us from another 9/11 has kept us safe since that attack.
The conviction that it is incumbent on him to welcome the Mexican invasion has forever weakened our fabric and especially that of the American southwest.
He has been both a great protector and a great weakener of our country.
Ok, so Bush is a great leader, eh? If he’s such a great leader, then why is he sending our boys to Iraq? I couldn’t help but notice that the reasons for the Iraqi War are quite obscure. If Bush is such a great leader, then why has our economy gone to shit since he first got elected? What about Guantanamo Bay? If our “great leader” is infringing on the Geneva Convention and on human rights in general, then who is to say that he won’t infringe on our rights as well?
Why do you people hate Obama? At least he’s trying to improve our country as a whole. I don’t know about you, but I’d like it if my wife were paid as much as any man. I’d also like it if my gay son were allowed to marry. Plus, I believe that black people deserve to have the same rights as white folks. Try going on google and type in ” Obama’s Plan”.I did this, and his plan was right there, easy to read and comprehend. Now, try to type in “McCain’s plan”, and I promise you that all you will find is a series of obscurities.
The point of this comment is that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents the USA has ever had the misfortune to have in office. If any of you would like to debate this, I have WAY more proof that I’m right than you could ever obtain.
Feel free to reply,
Mr. Locke
President Bush’s undoing (as far as the “liberals” are concerned) was 9/11 and our subsequent involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Before that, as I recall, he was just “another president”. Would he have been a “great” president without 9/11? We will never know.
But is he a “great” president because of 9/11 and subsequent events?
I don’t know that either. Other than our Founding Fathers and Lincoln, I have etymological problems (or, as they’re called these days – issues) calling any president “great”.
But what I often ask myself is: “What would any other White House occupant have done differently?” And my answer has always been – nothing.
I can’t imagine any other president taking a completely different approach to the situation as it presented itself and developed. Somewhere along the way, this hypothetical president would have had to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s like the “Palestinian issue”. Doesn’t matter who our past presidents were or who the future president is going to be; he will inexorably be forced to deal with Palestine and Israel.
When I bring this matter up with acquaintances and ask them what they might suggest a president should have done in the face of 9/11, I generally get blank looks.
I don’t particularly admire the man George Bush except insofar as he dealt with an impossible situation in an admirable way. But I have no major “issues” with him either.
At the same time, I think Obama will become our next president hands down. All the signs point to such an eventuality.
More importantly, I don’t think it matters any longer who is president or which party is in power.
Global issues are now so large, difficult to categorize and impossible to control, especially in the field of foreign affairs, even a president is unable to have other than a symbolic leadership role to play. Events will follow their own logic and be settled not in Washington or Peking or Moscow but by subsequent events and forces that cannot be easily perceived nor predicted.
Whoever our next president is, I pity him.
My goodness!!! Does Abu-Ghraib or Guantanamo stand as anythiong for you? does it mean anything to you??? Well, at the least for the writer of these words, it means your Bushy-Brained president is so overratingly…….underrated!!!! only in terms of IQ is this president underrrated. Without doubt, the worst president in the history of the U.S. and time will tell, let alone the political criticism of his term, in forms of more than dozens of books and articles related to the subject. And still, Osama laughs endlessly at your heading!!!!!!
I’d like to agree with Roger, but a massive leftist government for 4 years (& yes, the agenda IS clear,)with it’s inherent tendency to authoritarianism, is not likely to hold historical accuracy in high repute. The winners write the history books. Those books will say anything necessary to make the Left look good.
T.S.Ahmed: You remind me of an old girlfriend of mine, who once said I was the most screwed-up person she’d ever met. I answered, “If I’m the most screwed-up person you’ve ever met, you haven’t met nearly enough people!”
Similarly, if you think Bush is the “worst” president, you are pretty ignorant of American history–or current events, for that matter.
Roger:
Bush has done a good job during a terrible time. Not every president could do half as well.
Could Bush have done better? Surely. For one thing, he could have done a much better job of reminding us who we’re fighting and why we’re fighting them. Let’s not forget, even during WWII–the most clear example of good vs. evil in recent history–there were vast propaganda campaigns to remind people of the urgency of the war. We have nothing similar today, so that the weeds of anti-Americanism are allowed to flourish unopposed.
Scott
What rules of the Geneva Convention convention does Guantanamo Bay break? Should they get two prayer rugs? Two Korans? Is there not Tidy-Bowl in their toilets? Should we be giving them four squares a day and provide health care for their families back home?
Also regarding Abu-Ghraib – were not those who committed the “atrocities” put in jail? No president can prevent all bad things from happening, but he can insure those who did them are properly prosecuted. Bush has done that.
You may not like the war but its stupidity far beyond that of Bush that will prevent a person from acknowledging the victory we are achieving there and the good its done for the Iraqi people. Only spoiled pampered bratty Americans who have never lived under true oppression would deny this.
Typical liberal broken record rantings.
Mr. Bush would have been remembered as the FDR of his time had he attacked the enemy clearly revealed after 911- Saudi Arabia. His decision to be influenced by the greed of Halleburton and his own family’s interest resulted in America’a policy being dictated by and for our attackers for the first time in our history.
The generations of WWI and WWII took pride in our country in deciding to fight the enemy Germany and its allies, eventhough many Americans including BUsh’s grandfather were making millions financing the Nazis. Our country sustained intergrity and respect until Carter destroyed it by showing weakness in not protecting Americans in Iran.
At least we knew the enemy, we simply ran away under Carter.
Under Bush, the enemy who educated and trained the Saudi soldiers to attack on 9-11 was the Saudi Royal family. This Kingdom was allowed to actually dictate to our President and armed forces who the US should attack-Afghanistan Taliban who are not Saudis as is Bin Laden, who is protected by the Saudis who keeps getting away (yeah,right)and the long time enemies of Saudi Arabi- Iraq and Iran.
What kind of spin would have been necessary for FDR to attack China (Japan’s nemesis) after Pearl Harbor? or to teach Nazi culture in US schools where children would learn the Nazi salute as our kids are now learning to kneel and pray five times to Mecca?
FDR was like Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt, simply trying to protect American interests in the face of our enemies who sought our destruction. They did not consider whether or not their family could make a quick buck in the process.
At least Carter recognized the enemy. He did not use his presidency to convince Americans Iran’s religion or culture was better in order to make a few million as we have done since 911.
Under W and Pelosi, America has showed the rest of the world a side of leadership never before seen and hopefully wil never see again- a mere proxy regime to the highest bidder.
Neither McCain or Obama have such cowardice.
Jeff Sulman- Well… Let’s see…
Article2-In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.( Please feel free to correct me, but we are not at war with Iran and we are occupying Iraq. Also, Iraq is not part of the convention, but we are, so we shouldn’t be torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo.And yes, water boarding, or simulated drowning, does count as torture. “But it doesn’t kill you”… Well, let me ask you something… Would you want to be subject to water boarding?)
Article 3- 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.( Why are we treating Muslim prisoners worse than other prisoners?)
These are some of the many ways Guantanamo violates the Geneva Convention. If you would like to read the Geneva Convention, I’ve got the URL right here.
Locke
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Hey Jeff,
Ooooh, deprived of prayer rugs, so witty. I’m in dazzled awe of your provincial red neck wit.
How about the suspension of habeas corpus for detainees, some of whom have been held for six years without charge? How about waterboarding, sexual assault, and other forms of torture and intimidation generally frowned upon by the civilized world? How about semi secret meetings of key members of GWB’s cabinet where they decided this crap was decided to be put into action?
The deliberate cultivation of a fear driven mentality by this administration is a slap in the face to every life lost on 9-11. They used this horrible event to create a ‘war’ that will not end, with an enemy who has no fixed geographic location, in order to parlay that fear into votes to prop up a morally bankrupt regime.
Because if it were really about the evil deeds committed in the name of Islam, the psychotic misogynism, and the intolerant racism, I’m thinking there were more apt targets than what was the most secular muslim country in the middle east. Given our behavior, it seems as though our wonderful president doesn’t really have a problem with any of those things.
Remember, kids, it’s not fascism when WE do it!
To Jeff:
There is no victory associated with the Iraq war.Making such a judgment at this time of bloodshed and kind of civil war happening in Iraq, is too naive. For the way the the Bush adminstration is handling this war, I think the outcome is another Vietnam, plus money money money…from the Iraqi oil. This is the single reason for staging this war, believe it or not. And believe me……after the end presidency of Bush, as with all presidents of the US, the rot and waste of his presidency will rise and it will be bigger than any could imagine.
Carter “hectoring?” Finger-wagggling, sure. Scolding, of course. But in no way can James Earl Carter be stood alongside glorious Troy’s warrior prince.