Skip to comments.Dubya Speaks
Posted on 06/05/2010 9:47:00 PM PDT by Steelfish
NY Post Editorial Dubya Speaks
June 5, 2010 Former President George W. Bush, who's kept a dignified low profile in the year and a half since he left office, made a splash this week with a vigorous defense of some of the most contentious decisions of his incumbency.
And good for him.
Asked at a Grand Rapids, Mich., forum Wednesday night about his decision to authorize the waterboarding of al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Bush said he'd "do it again to save lives."
The invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein? It "was the right thing to do, and the world is a better place without him."
The 43rd president himself has admirably refrained from criticizing his successor, but his tone provides a refreshing contrast to Barack Obama's frequent equivocations.
Bush understood the threat from radical Islam that the country faced and was dogged in his response to it.
That's the kind of resolve that can overcome a litany of mistakes.
The former president clearly also understands that a confident and honorable nation doesn't need to apologize for the hard calls it makes to keep itself safe.
Keep talking sense, Dubya.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The most contentious decision of his presidency was to leave the Mexican border undefended and porous as a sieve.
It was deliberate, unconscionable, and is leading - directly - to the destruction of the United States.
He turned the country into a hospital gown - demure in front (Iraq), nothing in back (Mexico).
If you miss George W. raise your hand.
Worse yet, Obama makes me miss Clinton.
Worst of all, Obama makes Carter look competent.
He can be rightly criticized for his shortcomings regarding the influx of illegal immigrants, but IMO, your statement goes too far.
I would implore all who criticize him to clearly remember part of his legacy: never mind his “Harriet Meiers feint” (a consummate insider assures me it was such)
...George W Bush gave us TWO of the most rock-ribbed and reliable conservative constitutional adherents on the Supreme Court of the United States...
Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice, Samuel Alito. On balance, our nation gained immensely, as Reagan appointee Sandra Day-O’Connor was never better than a swing vote.
Recall the Chelo v. New London property rights case and reflect that this 5 - 4 margin is probably ALL that stands between our nation and a political/moral ABYSS of truly biblical proportions for right now.
If the margin was tilted 5 - 4 in the other direction, what WOULDN’T the socialist-progressive attempt, knowing they could rely on the international law/case-law based imprimatur of a Constitutional revisionist SCOTUS for the better part of a generation.
Close your eyes for a moment and indulge a nightmare...imagine another Sotomayor on the court as Chief, instead of Roberts, and another Bader-Ginsburg, Souter, or Kagan instead of Alito.
That’s what we would have gotten with AlGore or John eFfin’ sKerry, and we would be well and truly screwed as a nation
not that things aren’t difficult enough as we face them right now, but seriously...imagine the horror were we unprotected by SCOTUS.
In fact, if the health care insurance reform legislation countersuits make their way to the Supreme Court’s docket, Obama may come to severely regret his moment of abysmal and demeaning hubris in tauntingly criticizing the SCOTUS decision during the State of the Union address, with the court members seated in the congressional audience.
The Conservative members may make the most of such an opportunity to stick it to zer0bama, saying in effect, “Up yours, buddy - this is NOT Constitutional - not under the commerce clause, or any other we find...”
God I love this man! Didn’t always agree with him but he and Laura have class. Something the ODunderheads are sorely lacking.
I felt safe with him. Regardless of domestic issues I always felt secure. My husband now has an arsenal and I have a food supply.
I love the idea that Meiers was a feint.
Agree-100%. Even worse, he was McCain’s collaborator in WH-chief to ram amnesty down our throats. But he really put the boot on the throat of Islamic Terror and the axis of evil unlike the current apologizer in chief.
Repeat a lie often enough and you’ll get some idiots believing it ....Yep W was for a form of amnesty ...he was always honest about it ...he lost the fight and then did a hell of a lot to close the borders ...not perfect? it is impossible to turn it around overnight ...but great strides were made
The border wars on this site show just how complicated the issue is....I never thought you can totally close down that border. build a fence and they build a tunnel .Most of the experts who tell us how Bush failed never have seen the border
Come on down and fix it
That is SO stolen....
I missed W when I saw O’s hand on the bible takeing the oath of office.
Yes I am a W supporter and always will be.
And YES I would of preferred McCain/Palin any day compared to the strawman Obama.
Great Post....W was never for amnisty..period
Do you really think that Dubya put Harriett Miers through virtual hell for three weeks, just to fake out the Dems?
Cherry or grape?
Now there’s a word you will not find when describing Obama, Clinton, Carter, Reid, Pelosi, oh the list is practically endless.
Wow. The perpetual doormat actually shows some life and speaks up to defend himself. Don’t think this will last. He’s always been perfectly content to bend over and take it from liberals and political enemies.
I miss him & Laura alot.
Wish I had a similar sign on my property here in Nevada.
There were plenty of folks who got really angry with Pres. Bush for not talking back to the press, when they said ugly things about him. We see now, though, with Barack Obama, just how petulant that looks, and how petty he seems when he does it. Pres. Bush looks like a real statesman, in comparison.
A guy I work with is going to see how much it costs to get a billboard - I don’t think it’s too expensive, especially when several people pool their money together.
Does W support recent AZ legislation?
Thank you - I appreciate the compliment!
Thank you very kindly!
Like I said, I have been assured by someone well-positioned to know that it was exactly such - a deliberate, preplanned feint in every respect - including advance consent of Meiers, and the fact that the vetting of now-Chief Justice Roberts was already well underway...None of what happened in that scenario was accidental. The Bush team knew the tendencies of the loony lib left cold - and played them against themselves - in full view of a salivating media machine.
Harriet not only knew in advance - she consented.
Kool-Ade in this case involves swallowing the dominant media-promoted paradigm - which is, that Bush ever intended that she be confirmed as a SCOTUS appointee.
That one is for people who neither think for themselves, nor have well-placed political contacts. I think outside of the box, and ask questions of those I know have answers.
I recommend the grape, BTW...others who drink it say it covers up bad flavours. LOL!!
If that's true, then that was very admirably played.
I said I loved the idea, not that I believed it!