Skip to comments.Goldberg: Give Bush a break
Posted on 09/01/2006 8:39:33 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Lord knows I have my problems with President Bush. He taps the federal coffers like a monkey smacking the bar for another cocaine pellet in an addiction study. Some of his sentences give me the same sensation as falling backward in one of those "trust" exercises, in which you just have to hope things work out. Yes, the Iraq invasion has gone badly, and to deny this is to suggest that Bush meant for things to turn out this way, which is even crueler than saying he failed to get it right.
But you know what? It's time to cut the guy some slack.
Of course, I will get hippo-choking amounts of e-mail from Bush-haters telling me that all I ever do is cut Bush slack. But these folks grade on the curve. By their standards, anything short of demanding that a half-starved badger be sewn into his belly flunks.
Besides, the Bush-bashers have lost credibility. The most delicious example came this week when it was finally revealed that Colin Powell's oak-necked majordomo Richard Armitage - and not some star-chamber neocon - "outed" Valerie Plame, the spousal prop of Washington's biggest ham, Joe Wilson. Now it turns out that instead of "Bush blows CIA agent's cover to silence a brave dissenter" - as Wilson practices saying into the mirror every morning - the story is, "One Bush enemy inadvertently taken out by another's friendly fire."
And then there's Hurricane Katrina. Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don't call them tickle-parties.
The anti-Bush chorus, including enormous segments of the mainstream media, sees Katrina as nothing more than a good stick for beating on Piñata Bush's "competence." The hypocrisy is astounding because the media did such an abysmal job covering the reality of New Orleans (contrary to reports, there were no bands of rapists, no disproportionate deaths of poor blacks, nothing close to 10,000 dead, etc.). It seems indisputable that Katrina highlighted the tragedy of New Orleans rather than create it. Long before Katrina, New Orleans was a dysfunctional city in a state with famously corrupt and incompetent leadership, many of whose residents think that it is the job of the federal government to make everyone whole.
The Mississippi coast was hit harder by Katrina than New Orleans was. And although New Orleans' levee failure was a unique problem - one the local leadership ignored for decades - the devastation in Mississippi was in many respects more severe. And you know what? Mississippi has the same federal government as Louisiana, and reconstruction there is going gangbusters while, after more than $120 billion in federal spending, New Orleans remains a basket case. Here's a wacky idea: Maybe it's not all Bush's fault.
Then, of course, there's the war on terror. Democrats love to note that Bush hasn't caught Osama bin Laden yet, as if this is the most vital metric for success. Yes, it'd be nice to catch bin Laden - no doubt Ramsey Clark, the top legal gun for both LBJ and Saddam Hussein, will be looking for a new client soon. But even nicer than catching bin Laden is not having thousands of dead Americans in New York, Washington and L.A. Contrary to all expert predictions, there hasn't been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11. Indeed, the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly contains a long, exhaustively reported cover story by James Fallows about how the U.S. is, in fact, winning the war on terror, thanks largely to Bush's policies (though Fallows works hard not to credit Bush).
Political dissatisfaction with the president rests entirely on Iraq and overall Bush fatigue. The rest amounts to little more than Iraq-motivated brickbats gussied up to look like freestanding complaints. That's how hate works: It looks for more excuses to hate in the same way that fire looks for more stuff to burn.
That's why Bush's Democratic critics flit about like bilious butterflies, exploiting each superficial or transient problem just long enough to score some points in the polls, then moving on. Bush's Medicare plan was an egregious corporate giveaway, they cried, until seniors overwhelmingly reported that they like it. And the Patriot Act? Can anyone even remember what the Democrats were whining about? I think it had something to do with libraries that were never searched.
Look, things could obviously be a lot better. But they could be a lot worse too. John Kerry could be president.
He doesn't address the people on the right also criticizing Bush, but considering all the constant bashing he receives from the left, it's time for people on the right to appreciate all President Bush has done to keep us safe and "give him a break".
That's how hate works: It looks for more excuses to hate in the same way that fire looks for more stuff to burn.
The democrats to a T.
But that we have Iran surrounded.
"And you know what? Mississippi has the same federal government as Louisiana, and reconstruction there is going gangbusters while, after more than $120 billion in federal spending, New Orleans remains a basket case. Here's a wacky idea: Maybe it's not all Bush's fault."
Jonah Goldberg for President! Point by point, he makes more sense in this piece than the whole blasted meed-yah put together.
Nothing positive or helpful can be expected from the left, and upon an ever shrinking portion of the "right" falls the burden of supporting the war and the chain of command, to include the C-in-C.
There's a lot of negativity out there to be countered.
Not Bad. However, let's not sit on complacency/political correctness & how can we forgive ANY pol that allows this inept immigration policy to survive - for the good of the New World Order.
Yet if/when we catch bin Laden, the libs will be palpably disappointed. You can bank on it. The day we bag Osama, the Left's collective body language will say, loud and clear, "we are not happy campers".
Just like when we got Zarqawi, the MSM buried the news in a day.
Actually, the invasion went very well. The occupation has been difficult, but I believe the insurgents are at the ends of their ropes. The fact that they have concentrated their forces in Baghdad appears to be a sort of "last stand" for the insurgents. Plus, they don't care if they lose 100 or more insurgents just to kill one American. This is a fanatical enemy that needs to be destroyed.
Amen to that!
Sorry, Jonah, false dichotomy - there was no possible outcome to the Iraq invasion that could not be described as "bad." This particular one is considerably less bad than most of the alternatives and any of the reasonable ones. As for this being Bush's "meant" outcome, no, it is not, it is not even an outcome, it is an ongoing and dynamic process that was crafted by many more decision-makers than one George W. Bush. And that is how it ought to be.
It burns me he never gets credit for the economy. When Slick was Pres, that's all we heard.
Fine commentary but too many animal metaphors. Next time get that morning shave before you sit down to write! ;)
He taps the bars like a monkey looking for a cocaine pellet in an addiction study???
Who wrote this: Ross Perot.
Seen from france BUSH is great!
Can't see any other leaders today really making a tough job against the new totalitarian/barbarian threat on developed societies.
Extremists are always playing the worst game.It's enough to see our far-right nationalist(J.M.Lepen,far right,met S.HUSSEIN several times as a fellow) and far left with the same anti-israelian and anti-american ,anti-capitalism,anti-free-trade... mantra
I was listening to FOX News on my Sirius radio the otherday when Shepherd Smith, or William La Jeunesse were rporing from Biloxi, Mississippi and one of them was telling about the hospital that had been destroyed by Katrina. Instead of waiting for the government to come in and rebuilt it. The doctors did it themselves
When we catch Bin Laden, the Left will simply move the goalpost to something else, or claim the GWOT is over, so we can go back to 9/10, or it really wasn't Bush who did it, but something else, while wanting to ensure Bin Laden gets humane treatment, or any combination of the above. These people are fecklessly and egregiously shameless.
Yep, well we learned a lot about liberals during the Cold War. They were never really on board in that effort, and in the end seemed a little bummed that we won. Gorbechev is given the credit and Reagan (along with most other anti-communists) is dissed. It would be perfectly in-character for them to cop a similar thing with the WOT. In fact, that's precisely what we're seeing. It's like Rush says, liberals are liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.