Jump to content

Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

Recommended Posts

Rooster, Bush might not be the man people think he is, you're right. On the other hand, the fellow has had eight years of being in the national spotlight as the most powerful individual in the country and perhaps the world, six of those eight with his own party supporting him as the majority in Congress. If, in that time and with that kind of a platform and backing, he has been unable to show us what sort of man he really is, then the fault lies with him and nowhere else.


As for being conservative - I have no problem with people who espouse conservative ideas, though I frequently disagree. It is very possible to disagree and still respect coherent and thoughtful world views and ideas. I'm just not convinced that GW Bush had very many coherent and thoughtful, let alone what could actually be considered conservative, views and ideas. Not on fiscal matters, not on the size and scope of the federal gov't, and maybe not even on social matters (except perhaps to trot out the right empty phrases every couple of years for electoral purposes). Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even George HW Bush provided reasonable evidence of being ideologically conservative. George W. Bush, it seems to me, provided clear evidence of merely being willing to do and say whatever was necessary to gain temporary political advantage. Despite not being a conservative, I happen to think conservatism is more, and better, than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"And it should go with saying, we should never sacrifice any of our freedoms to achieve some sort of peace with our would-be oppressors."


I'll remember that next time I go through an airport.


No, I didn't agree with the Iraq war. My opinion has been proven by the Iraqis' failure to step up to the plate and run their own country. I am convinced that Democracy is not for everyone, especially if they aren't willing get off their butts and put in the effort.


But what I've seen of the Democrat party doesn't impress me, either. Oral sex with interns (how soon we forget, but it's OK because we were prosperous under the Clintons). Racist and criminal associations. Empty rhetoric without detail. Auctioning off Senate seats to the highest bidder. And now Caroline Kennedy, who thinks she's qualified by virtue of her family lineage and huge fortune. The reason we seceded from England was precisely because of things like this. Have we forgotten?


Link to post
Share on other sites



I'll remember that next time I go through an airport.


I dont know how much, if any, that we disagreeand I dont want to go on a hunt for a nit to pickbut just to be clear: I think there is a colossal difference between a) relenting to searches by your own government, and experiencing a travel delay associated with the same, in order to ensure public safety of a momentous nature (i.e. exploding planes and the like), and b) being forced by a foreign power to give up ones faith and/or allowing them to dictate what you should believe and how you should behave.




Regarding Bushs conservatism, your assessment of him may be more accurate then I care to believe. Still, my defense of him is mostly in regard to the war effort. Theres plenty of conjecture from the Left about how and why Bush made decisions as President and ultimately about who he is (as man of character), but few facts to back up that conjecture. I believe he has defended our countrys interests and his motivation is derived from his patriotism and faith. Others believe differently. Until I see some real evidencesomething concretesomething other than an ideologue spouting all sorts of non-sense while salivating over an upcoming election - Im likely to continue to believe that hes a good man. Perhaps Im nave. Perhaps Im fair-minded. History, hopefully, will show us one way or the other. Regardless, I think theres way too much talk about Bush without thought being evident by those who chose to hate him. Their motivation is plain to see.


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a bit ironic that some of the most pointed criticism of Bush is now coming from his own party and even his own staff. Bush was the RNC's chosen candidate. They didn't want McCain in 2000 and their guy got elected.


Now, I don't think there is any group that would like to see the clock tick faster on the Bush administration than the RNC. On January 21, all the ills and woes of the country will become Obama's and the Democrat's and the neo-conservatives in the Republican party can go back to complaining on talk radio and playing the victim of a liberal socialist government. I can't imagine what could make them happier.


While I may not be totally enthralled with the Obama administration, I'm willing to give it a chance. I just hope in 4 years we don't forget where the current version of the Republican party left us. Hopefully, the party of Reagan, McCain 2000, Powell, and other pragmatic conservatives finds itself or we'll end up with a choice between Sara Palin and the current incumbent. Democrats would be thrilled with such a choice.





Link to post
Share on other sites

On January 21, all the ills and woes of the country will become Obama's and the Democrat's and the neo-conservatives in the Republican party can go back to complaining on talk radio and playing the victim of a liberal socialist government. I can't imagine what could make them happier.


I can think of one thing that will make them happiernot actually being a victim of a liberal socialist government.


Lets hope he focuses on the war and the economy. If he does that and doesnt screw up anything else, Ill happy.


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is the real world. If our government offers everything it knows for public consumption and political debate, they will surely aid our enemies.



You have a good point.  To think that being truthful and open with the US media would be the best and that there could be no violation of national security.

Bush Sr. counted on this during the liberation of Kuwait.  Predisent Bush announced that the USMC would lauch a major beachhead with 2 Marine Divisions on the beaches of Kuwait.

Well this was the plan.  Saddam placed his best military forces on the beach, laid out thousands of land minds and dug in real well.  WOuld have been a close repeat to D-Day,  If those landing craft were full of marines.

NOPE, the major attack came from the West with the charge of 101st Air Assault, 82nd airborne, 1st Armor, and many many more along with the USMC division that were supposed to be coming onto the beach.  No one landed on the beach.  But the Iraqi soldiers were there waiting, because Mr. Bush said we were coming that way.

So being honest can work for the US, but for the most part it can work against the war effort.

Remember that next time you watch the news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...