I would Like to Personally than G.W.Bush

me | Today | FreeLuna in Ohio

[FreeLuna]

Thank you Pres. Bush for being a wholly inarticulate educator of and a hypocritical example of conservatism. Thank you for creating more Rinos than the Serengeti plains. Thank you for the greatest increase in government spending since ever and thank you for ignoring the obvious lack of troops in Iraq for so long that America turned against a fully winnable and incredibly justified war. Thank you for Pres. Obama. really....thanks.

[lonestar]

Yes, Bush couldn't give inspiring speeches. Bill Clinton could give a wonderful speech but what made his legacy was Republicans with a Contract for America...after the first two years of disaster of the Clinton Administration.

All of this is NOT the fault of GWB. He inherited a military and CIA in shambles. Remember the first bombing of the WTC? Clinton didn't even go there!

Remember the W's missing from WH keyboards?

I think Bush will look better in history. He won't have Leno and Letterman to determine public opinion.

Laura will not be stealing the WH silver when she goes.

Stop bashing a man who kept his morals and respect for the office!

Bush didn't have a Repub congress with backbone!

[ladyjane]

Speak for yourself if you want to blame conservatives.

President Bush was elected on a platform we supported. He let us down.

The Republican National Committee let us down too.

[Mouton]

Let me see, when was his first veto? No, Bush was no more a conservative than any of the Senate Rino’s from Maine. One of my buddies, a devout Texas lefty, responded to my comment about Bush's win in 2000 with this prescient comment: I am confident he will be a disaster because most people make the right decision once in a while, he will always make the wrong decision because he is a F UP.

Let's review: leave Afghanistan go to Iraq...Fight war on shoe string...leave Dems in his administration...Harriot Myers fiasco...Medicare Drug program...proposing social security change before getting his party on board...Illegal alien Citizenship...to name a few.

[Finalapproach29er]

I’ll never vote for a Texan again.

He never gave a damn about defending our party. Loyalty is a one way street with the Bush family.

[maclay]

I second that.

[lonestar67]

President Bush defeated John McCain in 2000 because the public rightly perceived him as more conservative.

His two appointments to the Supreme Court have probably saved this nation from the disaster on the Court that Obama would bring. Obama will likely only get to replace Ginsburg and Stevens. Those are both very liberal justices. Replacing O Connor and Rehnquist would have been an immediate and irrevocable national disaster.

President Bush is an awesome leader by his manner of not reducing himself to the ignorant hate that dominates his critics on the right and left. Despite his continually alleged ineptitude, he was on so many issues successful with his agenda— most importantly protecting the nation from further terror attacks.

The winning of two major wars is an astounding extension of American deterrence that makes the Somalias and Lebanaon fiascos look like well. . . fiascos. American deterrence is higher than ever because of his incredible leadership.

In reading the criticisms of Bush you always see the same consistent shallow demeaning attitude. You are forced to recognize that Bush was what his critics most wanted to be: a leader.

Bush was of such extraordinary character that he did not like Bill Clinton try to impose himself on this election or make it about the defense of his legacy— which he would be more than entitled to do. He allowed McCain to happily campaign against him. Its hard to see where that strategy yielded any electoral fruit .

I honestly believe that had he defended Bush more, he would have won more electoral votes.

Bush did reach across the aisle and unlike McCain, he pulled his opponents toward his position. He pulled Lieberman toward his position on national security. He pulled Zell Miller toward his positions on foreign policy. He pulled Senator Kennedy toward his position on educational accountability.

Despite his heroic military service, McCain defined reaching across the aisle as also stepping across the aisle to compromise core principals. McCain happily compromised freedom of speech with Feingold. He happily compromised free market principals on global warming. Reagan, Bush and others reached across the aisle with strength to pull their opponents toward them— rather than the other way around.

I believe McCain may from an optimistic point of view, be the end of the apologetic Republican that emerged after Watergate. His generation still believes that when conflicts arise it is our patriotic duty to give in to the angry and meet them half way. Such an attitude has incited the Left to be angrier than ever knowing that splitting the difference is the best way to get the most.

[FreeLuna]

I agree with your assessment of Bush’s leadership qualities,his dignity and ability to get his policies enacted. My problem is that all too often his policies were liberal and his commitment to conservative values was weak. His “new tone” was the wrong strategy in a time when we needed a true leader, one who could fully articulate and follow through with a conservative agenda. The Medicare drug plan was the first step toward what we now see. I respect W immensely. May God bless him and comfort him in the coming years. We are in for a battle to save this nation, no doubt.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

GW deserves all of this scorn and much much more....but don’t forget to thank his brain, Karl Rove.

[beckysueb]

I have a few comments. One in particular. When 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, several other severe hurricanes, tornados, fires and other natural disasters, and everyone had their hand out for a handout and Bush was demonized for not caring, what was he supposed to do. Everyone wanted money for everything but now its Bush’s fault for being a big spender. OK

[Kirkwood]

“Speak for yourself if you want to blame conservatives.”

There are a lot of people who agree with me. You can find a scapegoat if it makes you feel better, but it doesn’t change the fact that too many conservatives got lazy and complacent and fought like children over non-conservative issues.

[Paul Ross]

Supposedly he kept us “safe”. I don’t feel particularly “safe” right now.

Ditto.

[lonestar67]

I appreciate your points and think they are pretty solid.

I think a lot of people confuse my defense of President Bush with a lack of desire for more conservatism. I would like to have a more conservative President. I would also like to win elections.

Bush winning two elections did accomplish a huge relative advantage for conservatives. His soft conservatism was better than hard liberalism. I would love for conservatives to figure it out and win with some other candidates.

Most of the sniping at President Bush strikes me [not yours] as counterproductive and undermining the emergence of a conservative voice. I think if a conservative candidate had lead the ticket this fall I think Bush would have again graciously allowed the Republican to use him like a punching bag and say that we need a “real conservative” in the White House. What kind of person has that kind of gracious character?

He has been tough as nails on America’s true enemies: Al Qaeda, Saddam, islamic radicalism. And yet he is so gracious to his domestic back stabbers at home. I really doubt Obama will pull that off.

[Paul Ross]

And when he veered to the center, why didn’t you do more to help him move the country back to the right?

We did all we could do. He was already busted and almost out in the open in the First Term, but hut he was covered for by his party apologists. He was really already showing his philosophy as non-conservative, but he camouflaged himself with a few good appointments, and some careful rhetoric, and pointed appeals to conservatives.

But some things were just rather clear, from his pre-election multiculturalism pointed out in My Bush Epiphany by Lawrence Auster, to the conduct of his first term:

"Change will not come by disdaining or dismantling the federal role of education."

"The rate of homeownership amongst minorities is below 50 percent. And that's not right, and this country needs to do something about it."

"I proposed doubling the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy to $80 million."

George W. Bush talks like a liberal. He governs like one too. In The Bush Betrayal , James Bovard painstakingly documents George W. Bush's addiction to big government. In doing so, Bovard introduced a welcome perspective--a right-leaning one--into the cottage industry of books criticizing the preside

He was a rogue. And as a lame duck he showed more of his true colors, instead of being more conservative... as Richard Vigurie, among many others, noted. On just a short list of his numerous abdications on conservatism and national security in the Second Term:

1. His selection of Harriet "Glass Ceiling" Meiers for Supreme Court. We blocked it. Got the two okay appointments we did.

2. His support for selling out to Saudia-Arabia and Dubai on the 55 American ports container handling control. We blocked it. He still didn't learn. He called us anti-Arab bigots.

3. His support for the Law of the Sea Treaty (which sets up the UN as supreme over us and can tax us)...which treaty Reagan had explicitly withdrawn and fired all of the negotiators from the State Dept. that had tried to foist it on us. He elevated only Admirals who supported it. Appinted them to the Joint Chiefs, etc.

4. His clear attempts to create an "American Union" A.U. analogous to the EU, all denied officially, but each and every "free trade pact" and secretive SPP meetings belied those. He had his proxies ridicule concern for this as "black helicopter conspiracy nuts."

5. His repeated attempts to force throught Illegal Alien Amnesty despite 85% of the American people opposed to it. We blocked him again and again, and he called us ....(Drum roll please) "selfish and bigoted".

6. His refusal to fix the porous borders...sitting on the fence, rather than building it.

Trillions in just this year for taxpayuer Bailouts for Goldman Sachs and their Friends. But no protection for U.S. manufacturing from the destruction by a Communist enemy nation. None.

7. Just the last three weeks: As As Frank Gaffney warns us:Bush is having his Treasury Dept. begin adopting "Sharia Finance" principles to kow-tow to Saudia Arabia to help bail us out of the financial mess he has created.

8. Loss of 3Com to China. We got CFIUS belatedly to object, but due to his inaction... Now a fait-accomplice. Their CEO is now a Chinese national and moved the HQ to Hong Kong. Our national security is now likely completely compromised, as the PLA will be able to penetrate our firewalls at will soon, if not already thanks to this.

9. And his background support for the McCain candidacy ...sending Rove out to circumspectly oversee the "future" of the Party. I.e., over more truly conservative options. His encouragement of the RINOs who pretended to be anti-amnesty to dilute the field so that McCain could win New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other primaries...and stampeded opponents to quit early, before half the states had weighed in... thus seal the nomination ...to create a false "unity" behind the candidate-SElect.

[Paul Ross]

He has been tough as nails on America’s true enemies

Bogus.

The Chi-Coms and Russia under the Putin-KGB are a far, far, far, far bigger threat.

The United States is the most successful country in the world today. Only after we have learned all of its useful experiences can we replace it in the future. Even though we are presently imitating the American tone “China and United States rely on each other and share honor and disgrace,” we must not forget that the history of our civilization repeatedly has taught us that one mountain does not allow two tigers to live together. We also must never forget what Comrade Xiaoping emphasized “refrain from revealing the ambitions and put others off the track.” The hidden message is: we must put up with America; we must conceal our ultimate goals, hide our capabilities and await the opportunity. In this way, our mind is clear. Why have we not updated our national anthem with something peaceful? Why did we not change the anthem’s theme of war? Instead, when revising the Constitution this time, for the first time we clearly specified “March of the Volunteers” is our national anthem. Thus we will understand why we constantly talk loudly about the “Taiwan issue” but not the “American issue.” We all know the principle of “doing one thing under the cover of another.” If ordinary people can only see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should be able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these years, according to Comrade Xiaoping’s arrangement, a large piece of our territory in the North has been given up to Russia; do you really think our Party Central Committee is a fool? To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land, because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However, if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people migrate there. Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to “clean up” America? Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships won’t do; neither will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese.

He has been their lap-dog. Both of them. From the outset.

And need we mention Iran? He has explicitly not only kept us from doing what needs doing...but kept Israel from doing anything either. His hyper-liberal State Dept. runs the show. They are de facto running the White House.

[lonestar67]

I hope you are not the future of Free Republic because your argument is pretty bad.

The military attacks on the Taliban and Saddam are major attacks that are unmatched since Vietnam.

Whether you admit it or not, paleocons and antiamerican war reactionaries coordinate their contempt for military action to make it nearly impossible for the US to make military strikes on the enemy. That is the major reason for no attacks on Iran. The left and right have joined in restraining the Bush administration. I still hope the election might slip that restraint. It is hard to tell.

You speak in a vacuum. He did far better than his father, Reagan or Clinton in attacking our enemies.

[Paul Ross]

I hope you are not the future of Free Republic because your argument is pretty bad.

Too bad for you then. You are outvoted on China. And let me ask you this...who has the most formidable nuclear arsenal on the planet today...and is now explicitly deploying more and reneging on their promises to dismantle anything?

The military attacks on the Taliban and Saddam are major attacks that are unmatched since Vietnam.

There are military actions far more important than conventional wars. Apparently you were oblivious to these facts of History: Reagan DEFEATED the Soviet Union. His military preparedness and deployments and restoration of military pride were keys to helping stop the pellmell rush to a Soviet domination of the Globe. And then his other four pronged attacks ended it altogether. Our greatest nemesis ever. Far graver than Nazi Germany. Unfortunatley, Reagan was never allowed to finish the job on the communist menace that the Soviets had planted here on our own soil...and it has continued to fester and grow until, with Bush's RINO help, 'oila, Obama.

Whether you admit it or not, paleocons and antiamerican war reactionaries coordinate their contempt for military action to make it nearly impossible for the US to make military strikes on the enemy. That is the major reason for no attacks on Iran.

No. Our own Joint Chiefs of Staff have warned Bush that it would be an unqualified "disaster" for the U.S. forces to make the effort. Which calls into question why Bush appointed them to their positions. Who do they really work for?

The left and right have joined in restraining the Bush administration.

The Right? Not really.

I still hope the election might slip that restraint. It is hard to tell.

No. It isn't hard to tell. He won't. Do. Anything.

You speak in a vacuum. He did far better than his father, Reagan or Clinton in attacking our enemies.

It is you speaking in a vacuum. Iran will soon be able to launch nuclear missiles at us. No action. China builds its own sneak attack capabilities to immense degrees. And Russia/NeoSoviet gets back on its KGB feet right under W's nose. And he does NOTHING.

He dismantled our MX missiles. Half our B-1Bs. Half our Minutemans. No new ones of any kind built. No Operation Looking Glass flying to thwart sneak attacks. And Russia continues to deploy new missiles.

[lonestar67]

Gates just gave a presentation last week advocating updates to our nuclear arsenal. This is the Bush policy.

Perhaps you have heard of some of our other branches of government— such as the legislative branch. It is presently controlled by Democrats— the party opposed to President Bush.

You have failed to refute my points about Bush attacking the Islamic radicals on their homeland. Reagan ran scared from Beirut. He did little strikes and ran.

Buchannan and other likeminded conservative nativists undermine support for the Bush doctrine.

People blame President Bush because they are too intellectually lazy to blame themselves.

[woofie]

You have arrived at the lowest rung of class with this thread congratulations.

The thought of being President frightens me and I do not think I want the job.....
Ronald Reagan

Now YOU try it

[Paul Ross]

Gates just gave a presentation last week advocating updates to our nuclear arsenal. This is the Bush policy

No it isn't. The policy of the last 8 years is the "Bush" Policy.

He never deployed anything.

He dismantled a heck of a lot. Hoping the Russki's would follow suit, but his stupid Treaty of Moscow in 2001 where he tied our hands, allowed them to blow off any disarmaments until 2017. Which not coincidentally, they have indeed done, and are now on the verge of revoking outright.

The apologists for W's extremely lame, anti-defense deployments policy are nothing but Liberal Kool-Aid Drinkers.

You are aware that he PROMISED both Russia and China that he wouldn't deploy a Global Missile Defense. And he has kept his promise. He puts up a token system wih a dozen interceptors. He keeps Aegis limited to a token number of ships.

He kills the space-based revival of Brilliant Pebbles, and he squats on the revival of the X-Ray Laser technology, which now makes EXCALIBUR a fully feasible global missile defense approach. We now know how to make durable X-Ray laser mirrors...not just for the soft x-ray frequencies, but the hard x-ray's in the 10's of angstrom wavelength range. THIS was The key stumbling block before. Now solved.

But where is Bush? Playing tit-for-tat kinetic-intercept ASAT games with the Chicoms. And lying about it, keeping the vast majority of our people in the dark of how precarious our nuclear and space security situation is vis-a-vis the unrepentantly Communist world.

Boy, that really makes me feel safe.

Not.

[pissant]

It’s gonna get ALOT worse now.