Mark Steyn: How Bush blew his chance

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

[Texasforever]

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.

You didn't huh? Look I may need a beer but you are a 6pack beyond coherence.

[Polonius]

Perhaps we never will see eye-to-eye. If you take the defeatist position that media bias is an obstacle that can never be surmounted, even by a sitting president, you will never see your way clear to victory. I only hope the administration is not similarly limited in its thinking, especially on issues such as the Homeland Security bill, which are so crucial to our nation's safety.

PS — You may see a Bush veto of the Homeland Security bill as a victory, but it's a pyrrhic one at best if he ultimately doesn't get what he wants. If the Democrats are allowed to set the terms of the debate, for whatever reason, they will always have the upper hand.

[witnesstothefall]

This analysis is almost Dowdish in its shallowness. The enterprise that Bush is undertaking is a bit beyond the scope of understanding of quite a few in our soundbite media. Constructing a tortured metaphor of the 2000 election makes it appear Steyn was desperate to fill his 1000-word allotment. Lots of words + little meaning = peanut gallery.

[Mr. Mojo]

I feel like I'm conversing with a 6 year old, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you:

I said Bush family has had business dealings with the Saudis for a long time, and I stand by that statement.

I DIDN'T say that their fortune was made by these dealings. (I'm quite aware that it was made in West Texas, as you mentioned).

If you can't understand this simple distinction, you're beyond help.

[Texasforever]

I said Bush family has had business dealings with the Saudis for a long time, and I stand by that statement.

What business dealings?

[jwalsh07]

I'm a defeatist? LOL

You choose to ignore political reality. You choose to ignore what a veto means. A veto means lots and lots of press coverage. A veto is the Constitutional method for bringing an issue to the public eye. Bush will win and he may win without a veto ever being needed.

[Texasforever]

I feel like I'm conversing with a 6 year old, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible for you:

Look friend you have made statements of fact assertions that there is a Bush-Saudi business relationship. A 6 year old would take that at face value… an adult requires documentation. So put up or shut up.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your first point would be valid if the plan was not try terrorists, except for US citizens, before military tribunals and I doubt that any realistic estimate of citizen terrorists would be high enough to be used as a justification for more Judges. I agree on the domestic oil issue though.

Yeah, you make sense.

[Lurker]

"In the end, even Bush's magnificent moral clarity faded away into a Colin Powellite blur. Long after it became clear that 3,000 Americans were killed by Saudi citizens with Saudi money direct from members of the Saudi royal family, Bush was still inviting Saudi princes to the Crawford ranch and insisting that the kingdom was a ''staunch friend'' in the war against terror. This is not just ridiculous but offensive."

What exactly do you disagree with?

L

[Polonius]

I very much hope you're right, but it's not a win if Bush doesn't get what he set out for in the end.

[blondee123]

After observing the spectacle of 9-11's first anniversary

What spectacle? I thought his visiting with family members at ground zero for over an hour, not rushing each one, but really listening to them, did more for his image & his sincerety than any long winded speech could have done. He is a president of the common people, he doesn't use a tragedy to advance himself!! Is that SO wrong???

[Timm]

I hate to say it, but Steyn has two good points here:

(1): Bush erred in refusing to use his political capital to further domestic conservative issues. He caved in on the oil drilling, unionizing the airport workers, and education.

(2): Not attacking the self-loathing left mercilessly. Some discussions one shouldn't stay above...

Having said these things, I am afraid I think the Republicans in Congress are guilty of both of them as well. I don't know that Bush has some particular flaw. Republicans chronically refuse to get serious about attacking the Democrats. They persist in the delusion that if they're nice to the Democrats, if they help them up off of the floor instead of finishing them off, the Democrats will stop trying to cut their throats at every opportunity.

[mercy]

We oughta cast this in bronze, bolt it onto a large chunk of granite and give it to George for his epitaph.

[paul51]

Let' see. Either Steyn knows best or Bush knows best. I vote for Bush once again. Monday morning quarterbacks that don't have access to a fraction of the information or resources that the Pres. does don't cut it for me. Either Bush is the luckiest person I have ever seen or he knows what he is doing. If Steyn is so smart, he should run against Bush and make his case.

[Lurker]

Yep.

Regards,

L

[Polonius]

I should have specified — the media spectacle. It was a nonstop pity party on TV. However, the public remembrances in my area were also excessively focused on grief and "understanding" rather than justifiable anger for this outrage. That's what Steyn was talking about, and what I was agreeing with. The culture at large is still too obsessed with feeling and healing in the wake of 9-11, and the nation may pay the price of another attack as a result. If we "put it behind us" and go back to sleep, America will still be vulnerable. Self-pity and navel-gazing (as a nation) are exactly the wrong reaction, and a surefire way to lose the War on Terror.

[ganesha]

With regards to the "staunch friend" comment, I think Bush has a tendency to go overboard with personal compliments when a foreign head of state does what he wants. The Arabs got pretty steamed when Bush said that Ariel Sharon was a "man of peace" after Sharon agreed to pull back from some area that the Israelis had occupied earlier. These compliments are not broad statements of character but an acknowledgement of cooperation on a specific point.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Look friend you have made statements of fact assertions that there is a Bush-Saudi business relationship. A 6 year old would take that at face value… an adult requires documentation. So put up or shut up.

[Dead silence.]

[jwalsh07]

What exactly do you disagree with?

The House of Saud is currently rushing to the front of the line to house American troops when Iraq's time comes to pass. If you and Mark Steyn were in charge I suppose that would not be possible.

[justshe]

(dead silence)

LOL!