Citing History, Bush Suggests His Policies Will One Day Be Vindicated

As the door begins to close on his tenure, Bush is increasingly drawing on selected events of the past to argue that history will vindicate him on Iraq, terrorism, trade and other controversial issues.

Historical analogies have become a staple of Bush speeches and interviews this year, whether he is addressing regional leaders in Egypt or talking to workers at an office park in suburban St. Louis. ...

Rush was making the same point earlier today: Why have conservative leaders ceded the public dialogue to the Dems and their Big Media allies?

“I’d like Rove to answer that if he is on the board today.”

Yeah, and is there any way I can get him to do a jacket blurb for my book? He’s practically a neighbor of mine in the Texas Hill Country!

-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

why doesn't he fight back

Because he doesn't want to subject the country to the same kind of politics we had under Clinton when it was a different kind of back and forth every day and where the President uses 80% of his time in the gutter wrastling with pigs. This President uses his time on the WOT and building relationship with world leaders.

The Clinton MO of fighting the media increases the media's power. What have we seen under Pres. Bush? A DECREASE in market share for all major media. I say Bush has done it the right way. The War is being won and he will be vindicated anyway in the longer term.

I’m in Canada and don’t get Rush, but I’m curious about his take on it. Does he give answers?

Cool futurist fantasy book. Should see if it can become a screen play. Some progressive, lib Hollywood type producer might go for it, but you’d have to rewrite all the bad parts out or, at least, give it to Republican characters.

Thanks. Actually, my book has a section which looks at how Hollywood would have glorified a Democrat president after 9/11. Of course, the president decides to take the matter to the U.N.. Without giving away too much of the plot, by delaying military action the U.S. becomes involved in a much more catastrophic conflagration. Needless to say, I haven’t had any calls from Hollywood producers yet!

Rush’s take was very similar to yours. Conservative leadership has abrogated their responsibility to actually lead. While I didn’t hear him mention Big John by name, he described Republicans who have been seduced by the attentions of Big Media, naively believing that the folks with the klieg lights and reporters’ notebooks won’t turn on them.

-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

I don’t know if President Bush will be vindicated or not. He did inform the American people and the world shortly after 9/11 that fighting terrorism would be his number one priority for as long as held office. The media didn’t say squat about it at the time. They waited until he was up for re-election to a second term. And by the way, I think Dan Rather burned down the Texas Governor’s mansion over the weekend. And I have that on good authority faxed to me from a Kinko’s in Austin. :o)

Well that’s an interesting and reasonable take on it... the first I’ve heard.

I have read posts where people doubt that the MSM will go the way of the dinosaur and that they are still very powerful — powerful to the point of calling for Hillary’s withdrawal. One can argue that the Bush administration has a moral obligation — owed to the soldiers fighting on other fronts — to address the Democrats who have done everything to make America lose the WOT and, thereby, gain power. Also, the president can use the bully pulpit or fireside chats like Reagan had done. Whether this would take up 80% of his time is debatable — but then maybe it would because the Democrats have had a free ride for seven years (I also thought that the media covered for the Clintons when they were in power). I don’t believe the president is not a great communicator because he does speak simply and, at times, very eloquently; the message is not complex and a simple understanding of English will suffice. I believe the spin on the president is what people took away from the MSM, that and the tarnished image of America as some unjust, superpower losing to some morally superior enemy who fights against America’s imperialism. The polls show Bush at a low level, as well as congress — and congress’ low poll points may have a lot to do with not stopping the war. But because the media has a champion with Obama you will see the next Carter elected, who in many ways was the result of the Vietnam war as Obama will be the result of the Iraq war. Long and short story: the Democrats sold the public on losing the war through the media, the public buys it, Obama is sold as the antiwar answer of hope and change. And Obama will be weak on Iran’s nukes as Carter was on hostages. Only difference is that he already knows it.

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.