Monday, August 02, 2004

George W. Bush: STEADY LEADERSHIP

Regarding the article linked to at the end of this post--- I will agree with it with a premise.

I don't at all agree with the anti-U.S., anti-business, anti-establishment talk. I don't at all see any evil in liberating the people of Iraq.

Why I do think it is important is this....

The only definite winner in this year's presidential election is the Pentagon. As I have coined: "We are either continuing the War on Terror that we know about or we are 'Going to War because we have to'".

Kerry's stump speech is about INCREASING the number of troops in Iraq and around the world.

The ultimate irony to me is that Bush's head is actually much clearer on the matter of the war on terror. Kerry is likely to be the more reckless of the two. His head is in a fog. He thinks he has to act tough to prove his weight.

Turning to Bush. A walk through the park-- today-- at this moment--- objectively looking at the reality of the world-- it is extremely peaceful. This war in Iraq is a very smooth, relatively simple operation. The U.S. economy is modestly marching along and again life in the world is generally really good. My suspicion is that we will remember these times under George W. Bush. These are good times indeed.

The antimosity in the world today is driven solely by Democrats (which is why I will never vote for one ever again) and the media. The media acts as if France (a state the size of Nevada) deserves equal footing. Democrats act as if no one supports the U.S. only because France and Germany (and now Socialist Spain) don't go along. Democrats say everyone in the world solely hates Bush. As if on November 3rd all animosity around he world will simply disappear if Bush is not re-elected. As if Bin Laden didn't declare war against the U.S. 6 times under Clinton. As if Al Qaeda didn't bomb the WTC in 1993. As if the USS Cole was not bombed in 2000. As if Beirut never happened. Animosity toward the U.S. in the Middle East has nothing to do with George W. Bush. Al Sharpton hates today's Republican Pary because Democrats fought harder for voting rights for blacks. I'm a Republican and my Republicanism has nothing to do with that. I don't say Democrats are the pro-slavery party because Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party to end slavery.

To sum up, the point is this: George W. Bush has clearly been a REMARKABLY STEADY hand since 9/11. Our response has been broad based but measured. Our attacks have been targeted and civil. Right now, rhetoric from Democrats aside, we are living in a stable and peaceful world. And that is a far cry from where I feared we would be today-- 35 months out from 9/11.

http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/aug04/iraqus.html

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home