It is said, and truly, that a wise man never dissents with a wise woman. I fear I am about to prove I am not a wise man, but I must.
In her article Saturday, The Anchoress said the following:
I am sorry to differ, milady, but you are wrong. And the error must be challenged.
I am not anti-Clinton, per se. Recently I wrote an article defending President Clinton somewhat, with regard to his efforts on National Security. While I agree with criticism in some specific instances, I agree with The Anchoress that people who use only hindsight demand an unreasonable perfection, and hold officials to an impossible standard.
I also wrote recently about a disturbing article in the off-mainline press which tried to cast Clinton as a madman, and if true in its specifics it admitted to a deliberate attempt to weaken National Security rather than allow the President to do his job.
But that said, the attempts to equivocate between elected officials named Clinton and elected officials named Bush are disingenuous and more, dangerous in their falsity. While I do not blame pre-9/11 officials for not being able to foresee and therefore prevent that monstrous wrong, I stop short of suggesting that such a viewpoint is appropriate or tolerable in a national official now. To show what I mean, just consider that Tom Harkin, Democrat, claimed that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, that every nation on earth, including (and Harkin emphasized this part) Islamic governments. Harkin charged that President Bush "squandered" that "good will". (ht Powerline)
Think about that. First off, we've heard a lot things like that from Democrats for the last five years, so Harkin can fairly be said to represent the Democrats' voice. And I challenge his claim. We all knew within days that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden were all directly responsible for the attacks. Did Afghanistan offer to turn them over for trial? Did Saddam Hussein offer to help round them up? Did any Islamic government step up and offer to catch the monsters?
Obviously, no, not one of them made any such offer. They made public gestures of sympathy, but in action they were silent, or worse. I do not know whether the threat attributed to Mr. Armitage is true or not, but if so it raises my estimate of the man; that was precisely what needed to be said at that place and time.
I am old enough to know the evils of war. But I am also old enough to have learned that such evils show up many times when someone believes that cowardice will be safer, that the expedient will somehow cost less; the butcher's bill is always paid, and always by those with the resolve to say "This ends here" to men like bin Laden, Hussein ... and men like Ahmahdinejad, Assad, and Jintao.
And so I look forward to 2008. Uneasily, because the Democrats have abandoned almost all pretense of a fair fight, and they will use pretty much any device or method to gain control of the White House. The Republican candidate therefore must win in 2008, of the nation will suffer for it, because - and it is sad to have to say this about a major political party - there is no chance at all that the Democrats' nominee will be competent or resolute in the charge to defend the nation. Thus the GOP nominee must be attractive to the public in a way the Left cannot easily pervert, and I believe this is what The Anchoress means. That said, this nation cannot stand a Republican in the White House either, if that Republican lacks the vision, resolve, or backbone to face down the enemy, whether in Teheran or across the aisle in Washington. Therefore, this nation cannot afford to see someone named McCain, Frist, Hagel or Tancredo. We need another George "Dubya" Bush.
No, I am not saying find a way for the man to run again, nor do I mean that it's time for Jeb. But whomever plans to represent the party had better be planning to learn from our current President and apply his doctrine. They can make their own name on a host of domestic issues and pressing concerns, but where defending the nation is concerned, there must be a strong Crawford flavor to the next President's policies and directives.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (5)
Jeb Bush has been one of th... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Corky Boyd | September 24, 2006 10:25 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jeb Bush has been one of the finest governors of Florida. He is admired by members of both parties. It's unfortunate he is not running for the US Senate, a Democratic seat he cold have had. It would also have positioned him for a presidential run in 2008.
I suspect his failure to seek the senate seat was an outgrowth of a deal made with Katherine Harris two years ago. Harris wanted run for the Senate then, bur national and Florida Republicans feared she would become a lightning rod for her role in the 2000 Presidential election that would coalesce the Demaocratic vote against her, throwing Florida to the Democrats in the presidential race. According to reports she was given clear sailing by Jeb Bush to run for the 2006 senate race. That's too bad. Here is a Democratic seat that could be gained, but Harris will lose handily.
What could have launched Jeb into bigger and better things in Washington will end up as a major loss for Republicans. Hopefully W will promote his able brother to a cabinet level position (Home Security or the like) when he retires from the governorship to give him national exposure.
1. Posted by Corky Boyd | September 24, 2006 10:25 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2006 10:25
2. Posted by Dave | September 24, 2006 11:36 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In a world with cartoonish villains (Chavez, Ahmadinejad) of the likes we haven't seen since the height of the Cold War, it's clear that whoever occupies the WH has to be tough enough to make the decisions that will protect this country. I suspect that the American people will respond favorably to this sort of candidate, as they did during the era when Khruschev banged his shoe on the podium at the UN. While Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, et al, were all quite diverse regarding domestic policy, style, and so forth, all were tough guys on the foreign policy front, and I imagine that the electorate will begin looking for leaders with comparable temperments given the current state of the world and our position in it.
All of that said, one of the big disappoinments of the Bush years has been the ease with which the MSM and friends have been able to sour otherwise conservative northern voters in places like Pennsylvania to Team Bush based solely on cultural cues and the president's lack of Hollywood-style communication skills. Unfortunately, today's age of sound bites and 24/7 media coverage basically make a great communicator a must for either party's presidential candidate. People now expect their presidents to speak with the flair of a West Wing actor, and that won't be changing. The GOP candidate for 2008 must be able to communicate with an ability to persuade and a force of presence that our current POTUS could not. I can think of several who fit this bill: Rudy, Rice, Gingrich, Romney...
Also not to be ignored though is what I call the "cultural cues" issue, and by that I mean that Bush was so regional that the MSM was able to frame him in a negative light to voters in states that are culturally much different than Texas. Bush's evangelical Christianity was morphed into "scary religious guy." His regional mannerisms were used to make inferences about his intelligence. And a lot of working-class and middle-class guys in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who had never been to Texas were convinced Bush wasn't competent and voted the other way. I've always said if Bush had been the same guy, but from Milwaukee instead of Midland, he would've won two landslides over Gore and Kerry.
I think the trick is to find someone who is a national figure and who can't be pigeonholed into one regional, demographic, or religious group...once again we're back to Rudy, Newt, Romney, Condi. And of course someone who won't put up with Congress' nonsense on spending would be beneficial as well.
2. Posted by Dave | September 24, 2006 11:36 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2006 11:36
3. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | September 24, 2006 11:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Obviously, no, not one of them made any such offer. They made public gestures of sympathy,
--------------------------------------
Except for the countless thousands (millions?) who celebrated and danced in the streets when they heard the good news...
3. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | September 24, 2006 11:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2006 11:41
4. Posted by Alex | September 24, 2006 3:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Are you fucking retarded? Maybe you've been in a cave for the past 6 years, so let me recap George Bush's presidency.
1. Before 9/11 Bush spent 42% of that time on vacation, while ignoring all warnings about Bin Laden; such as a report entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States".
2. Bush lied to the country when he said that there were WMDs, that Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein was buying Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger.
3. When we had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush redirected troops to Iraq where there was absolutely no threat to us.
4. He has purposely used terror to scare voters into voting for him as demonstrated here
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Terror-Nexus-8-14-06.mp4
5. He has created the largest deficit in US history, out of the biggest surplus in US history created by President Clinton.
6. It took him days to order federal response units into Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
8. He has repeatedly condoned torture, and violated the Geneva convention.
9. He has also violated the constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps on innocent Americans.
10. He has vetoed only one bill, for stem cell research, a bill that would save lives. Instead the stem cells will just be discarded.
Those are just a few of the hundreds of things that this president has done wrong.
4. Posted by Alex | September 24, 2006 3:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2006 15:11
5. Posted by hnav | September 24, 2006 9:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
outstanding MR. Drummond
5. Posted by hnav | September 24, 2006 9:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2006 21:20