Jump to content

The Sacrificial Presidency of George W. Bush


Geee

Recommended Posts

the_sacrificial_presidency_of.html
American Thinker:


"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," former President George W. Bush told an audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan in June 2010. "I'd do it again to save lives."

When Bush said this a year ago, the howls from the left weren't as loud as usual. And why would they be? The "angry left," as Bush called it -- and felt it more acutely than anyone bestriding the planet -- didn't care much anymore. Waterb oarding had been a tool for the left's purposes: to demonize and defeat Bush. It had usefulness just as Iraq once had. It had gotten the Democrats not only a gigantic Congressional majority but also the presidency, ensuring $800-billion "stimulus" packages, ObamaCare, nationalization of GM, and decades more of Roe v. Wade. In the ultimate progressive coronation, waterboarding, like Iraq, like Gitmo, like Abu Ghraib, like so much more, enabled the election of the most anti-war, anti-Bush, and generally most left-wing of all Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama.

And so, when Bush made no apologies for waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed last June, the normal hysteria was a mere din.

Further tempering the usual shouting were the suddenly cooled voices of mainstream Democrats, who, though not as far to the left as the extremists in their ranks, still read the New York Times as if it were Gospel, or their daily bread. These Democrats are governed by the anonymous power of emotion and the fads and fashions of the moment -- and by what had been their party's only definable operating principle: If Bush was for it, they were against it.

They had been against practically everything George Bush did from 2004 to 2008. I never saw anything like it. As someone who studies and teaches history, foreign policy, and the Middle East, I watched in great frustration as Democrats opposed things they had always supported when their guy was commander-in-chief, and no doubt would again, once back in the White House. They slammed away at George W. Bush, scourging the man, roasting and toasting and turning and skewering, politically crucifying him. It was ugly -- and so unjust. Finally, after eight years of Bill Clinton, we had a president who cared not a whit about polls, completely giving himself for what he believed was right, and liberals torched him.

Still, Bush quietly carried his cross, turning the other cheek, accepting the torment, sacrificing his presidency for what he thought was best for his country and citizens. He could've closed Gitmo. He could've stopped the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees. He could've stopped waterboarding. He could've picked up and packed up and abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan.(snip)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

righteousmomma

AMEN!!!

 

AND:

 

They had been against practically everything George Bush did from 2004 to 2008. I never saw anything like it. As someone who studies and teaches history, foreign policy, and the Middle East, I watched in great frustration as Democrats opposed things they had always supported when their guy was commander-in-chief, and no doubt would again, once back in the White House. They slammed away at George W. Bush, scourging the man, roasting and toasting and turning and skewering, politically crucifying him. It was ugly -- and so unjust. Finally, after eight years of Bill Clinton, we had a president who cared not a whit about polls, completely giving himself for what he believed was right, and

liberals torched him.

 

Still, Bush quietly carried his cross, turning the other cheek, accepting the torment, sacrificing his presidency for what he thought was best for his country and citizens. He could've closed Gitmo. He could've stopped the "enhanced interrogation" of detainees. He could've stopped waterboarding. He could've picked up and packed up and abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Bush hung in there, devoting himself to preventing another 9/11. Even many Republicans fled him, especially those who for bizarre political/psychological reasons subject themselves to corrosive doses of CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Many of those Republicans emailed me daily, taking the bait, constantly panicked by the latest unsubstantiated silliness spun on the liberal gristmill to feed the mainstream media's anti-Bush appetite. The accusations would have been laughably stupid if not so viciously sad.

 

Did it work? Oh, you bet it did. Going into the final year of his presidency, Bush had the worst approval of any president since Truman, somehow below even Carter and Nixon. Everyone was against him.

And yet, as even liberal sources from the Times to the Washington Post are forced to concede, it was the totality of the things the Bush administration did, including interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which led to Osama. Even if, as some liberals are claiming, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged key information under "standard interrogation" after he was waterboarded, obviously the mere thought of another waterboarding worked wonders in making him talk.

 

Because of that, and more, bin Laden now follows a legion of Islamist ghosts extinct because of a process begun by George W. Bush. The 9/11 architect joins a roster of Hall of Terror corpses that include Saddam Hussein, Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and more. They're all dead. It's a world vastly better than the 9/11 world first confronted by George W. Bush, not unlike the vastly improved post-Cold War world that Democrat Bill Clinton inherited after two terms of Republican Ronald Reagan.

 

And now, the headlines of history -- which the political left writes via media, academia, Hollywood, and the publishing industry -- will read "Obama Got Osama."

 

But how? That's the story behind the headlines. With the help of everything Bush had done. Heck, Bush may have gotten Obama not only Osama but a second term. And liberals wonder why conservatives find it bitterly difficult to credit President Obama?

For that matter, will the left credit Bush? Will there be a public confession or apology or commendation for this man they pilloried, who helped make possible the triumph enjoyed by the president they revere -- the political messiah to the Bush devil? No. There's no faith, hope, or charity.

 

AMEN.

 

I think in the sane common sense voting public's rational mind "the chickens done come home to roost."

God Bless America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pollyannaish
Bush hung in there, devoting himself to preventing another 9/11. Even many Republicans fled him, especially those who for bizarre political/psychological reasons subject themselves to corrosive doses of CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Many of those Republicans emailed me daily, taking the bait, constantly panicked by the latest unsubstantiated silliness spun on the liberal gristmill to feed the mainstream media's anti-Bush appetite. The accusations would have been laughably stupid if not so viciously sad.

 

This is a great article that made me tear up something fierce because I believe in it so strongly. I'll be honest. I can forgive the left because they are so partisan they can not see. They have very different eyes, childlike eyes in many cases, with which they view the world.

 

But I have had a very hard time, and will continue to have a hard time, forgiving the right for what they did to President Bush. The far right's treatment of him, their inability to understand what governing ALL the people in this country not just them requires, their perfidy in the face of great danger...made me see many of them as rabidly unthinking as many on the left. Not just blatantly partisan, but just as unthinking, unreasonable, ugly, selfish and immoral. It was a profound disappointment to me.

 

The yells of standing on principle mean nothing if you can not understand the need to prioritize in times of crisis.

 

I did not agree with everything President Bush did, but I am fiercely loyal to a man who was personally attacked in horrific ways for simply doing what he believed was best (based on all the data) for the safety and security of the country he loved.

 

May God bless this man. We were very lucky he stood up to serve when others melted under the task before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • 1714955725
×
×
  • Create New...