Mark Steyn: How Bush blew his chance

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 09/16/2002 | Mark Steyn

[The Great Satan]

Four months ago, I wrote that if war with Iraq isn't under way by the first anniversary of Sept. 11, George W. Bush might as well nickname himself President Juan Term.

Sorry, Mark, that's because you've never understood WRGO (What's Really Going On). You were too busy bloviating over the irrelevant peccadilloes of fat-cat Saudi princes to connect the dots.

WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
YOU CAN NOT STOP US

It's called Chicken, and it's the only game in town.

[jwalsh07]

Apparently Mark wanted the war to start in the middle of Iraq's summer so that when our troops have their CBR togs on it will be 212 degrees in their hoods. Having not accomplished the mission of frying the brains of our best youngsters obviously was a mistake by President Bush.

[Cacique]

I think the man has it right on the mark. Though a lot of Bushites will defend their man's inadequacies and go into a state of denial.

It is not an atractive trait of Clintonite sycophants and it is even less atractive a trait in conservatives.

[JSteff]

"And one other thing Bush doesn't care if he is a one term President, he cares about defanging the radical Islamists."

Yes but if he partially defangs them and a 'rat gets into the presidency we will be right back where we started. Disrespected and laughed at by the rest of the world as our next 'rat president destroys the office like herr rapist and hitlery did. When the 'rats are in terrorist and the ilke advance their powers and agendas. Just look at history.

We need Bush back in if we are going to really have a chance to hobble terrorists for a while and to advance the non-'rat agenda once again.

[Polonius]

Despite the flags and the more robust country songs, Bush has allowed the culture to lapse back into its default mode of psychobabbling self-absorption.

After observing the spectacle of 9-11's first anniversary, is there any doubt as to the truth of this statement? I certainly wouldn't place all (or even most) of the blame for this phenomenon at Bush's feet, but I do think Steyn has a point — Bush seems to have an unfortunate tendancy of not pressing the advantage when he should for the sake of being a nice guy.

[Pokey78]

I agree. I appreciate a good, well thought out column even if I don't concur with many of it's points.

Liberals can't write columns like that. They are just cheerleaders for their socialist causes. Steyn, as well as many other conservative columnists will attack their own kind as agressively as their enemies when they feel the need to.

Steyn even admitted in a column a few months ago that, although it looked like Iraq would not be liberated by 9/11/02 and he would be extremely disappointed, he would be on the Bush bandwagon when liberation did take place.

Steyn is an ornery type. He wears his feelings on his sleeve, no matter who he writes about.

[Howlin]

You know, admittedly I'm not the smartest person in the world, but even I could figure that out. Sometimes I wonder what kind of day these guys have when they write these columsn.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In a way he is correct but for the wrong reasons. Bush has not used his "political capital" gained from 911 because he does not want to make the WOT a political issue. There is no doubt whatsoever that if he tried that it would be screamed from the headlines "Bush politicizes WOT". I don’t know when people will wake up to the fact that GW is NOT a politician and for that reason alone he squeaks out victories on the basis of his perception of right and wrong. That is NOT a bad thing.

The president could have said that, with so many suspected terrorists and their accomplices in custody, we can't afford vacancies and backlogs in our courthouses and my good frien' Pat needs to stop playin' politics with the federal judiciary. He could have said that wartime is no time for Congress to put preserving the integrity of Alaska's most pristine mosquito habitat over the energy needs of America.

There are two issues right there that Bush coulda run with, and mashed any charges of "politicizing the War on Terror".

• I could be wrong, but it seems to me a good common-sense argument that if we are going to put terrorists on trial, having some judges available to try the cases is a Good Thing.
• I could be wrong, but it seems to me a good common-sense argument that if we are going to War in the Middle East, domestic oil we produce ourselves is a Good Thing.

What woulda stopped Bush from running with these two, at least (just for example)?? The Media says what it will, but most Americans favor energy independence; and while less Americans follow the matter of "judicial appointments", it seems like an easy argument to say, "we're detaining suspects; we need some judges". What woulda stopped Bush from running with these two?

[jwalsh07]

I believe that so much that just like last time my wife and I will max out on contributions to him and we are not "rich".

[billybudd]

Bush is not a politician? He acts on principle? Hehehehe! Don't make me laugh! Bush is the slickest politician around ('xcept fer maybe Slick Willie). Steel tarrifs, case in point. Bush talks up a storm about free trade and fast track, then signs the new steel (and other) tarrifs to buy votes. When the new tarrifs drive up prices AND global supply, and piss off everyone who's not working in a steel mill, Bush back-tracks and eliminates the tarrif little by little. Then he gets pissed off that the Europervs want their own tarrifs too. Face it, he's a pragmatic politician, though not a very good one.

[billybudd]

Mr. Steym, what make you think that Bush gives a flying f*** about conservative values?

[jwalsh07]

I find your statement incredible. Bush has put the UN and the dims in a box, there is no way out. The UN will either go along or they become the League Of Nations and the dims are eating their own and are staring on their feet.

The best way to get judges appointed and drilling in the ANWR is to win the Senate in November and that is what Bush is shooting for. He is not King, he is POTUS bound by the Constitution of the United States.

[swheats]

His points have merit, but Steyn's not sitting with the weight of the world on his shoulders and wanting above everything else to not make mistakes with other people's children sent to war.

We get impatient and want things to happen now, I'll trust Bush will move in the right time with the right intelligence. There might be a few more cells to shut down on our on soil that is capable of retaliation.

[Aric2000]

He has made some pretty good points, Bush SHOULD have used the Bully Pulpit more often and the speak softly less.

But I am not President Bush, he Probably knows a lot more of what's going on then I do.

So, I will sit tight and trust this great man to do what is right for the country. Because I do trust him, and that is a very different feeling then I had 2 short years ago.

[jwalsh07]

Bush is a politician and a damn good one. He made a promise on steel tariffs, he kept it. Inconsequential in the macro view. Reagan did the same. Any lasting effects?

[Texasforever]

You really should calm down before you stroke-out. Damn.

[Mr. Mojo]

Yet Australia's John Howard, whose boys fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan, didn't get an invite to Crawford, and the fellows who bankrolled al-Qaida did.

The difference: The House of Saud and the Bush family have been doing business, resulting in enormous finacial benefit to both, for a very long time now. Howard is merely a politician.

[MissAmericanPie]

I have to agree with him on some of it, it was offensive to have a Rhamadan celebration at the "People's House". I guess I am about the only one offended by that.

But this article isn't fair in some areas. Bush was ready to go to war, he was chomping at the bit for it, if it had been up to him Iraq would already be yesterdays news. But the "Perfumed Princes" at the Pentagon, the touchy, feely whimps that Clinton promoted told Bush we were not ready for war, and we were not.

Clinton took the "Peace Dividend" down to the bare bones, he gutted the military, we almost ran out of bombs in Afghanistan, all so Clinton's bottom line could be padded.

Clinton laid land mines from the White House to the Out House for Bush to step on, from the economy to the W's missing from the keyboards that scum sucking devils smell is on every agency.

Yes, Bush has blown some opportunities, he hasn't played his cards the best way they could have been played. He's far, far, to liberal and globalist for me, but he is conducting this war the best he can given the joker's Clinton slipped in his hand. I may not like Bush a whole lot, but fair is fair.

[M. Thatcher]

Steyn is an ornery type.

Agreed. And thank heavens for it.

[McGavin999]

The thought that we could invade Iraq by 9-11 sounds nice, but it's not at all practical. First of all it's a desert country with extreme heat. Anyone living in a desert can tell you that you WON'T be fighting a war there in anything other than the fall/winter. Add to it the fact that our troops have to be outfitted with anti-chemical suits and you are increasing the internal temperature of our guys to roughly the temperature of Prime Rib.

I think Bush has flawless timing. A lot is going on behind the scenes that is not publicized in the newspapers.

I love Stein, but this time I think he's off the mark. But then, I've always loved watching chess games ;o)