Before you vote this November you should think about where the world would be right now if for the last year we had a strong politician instead of a strong leader as President. George Bush is a rare breed who cares more about what is right rather than what is popular.
Let’s look at one year ago. The Iraq situation was not good. Just about every politician from both sides was calling for us to immediately leave Iraq. In the midst of calling the Haditha Marines cold blooded killers, John Murtha called for this immediate surrender and then promptly voted against it. Pelosi, the so called leader of the House, accused Republicans of continuing the Iraq War because they like war and at one point threatened to sue the President over an Iraq spending bill. On the other side of the building, Senate leader Harry Reid said the following, “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.”
If there was no one to stand up to these people we would have left Iraq last year before their forces were capable of sustaining security. Iraq would be a cesspool of terrorist activity, even more so than before we launched the war in 2003. Their fledgling Democracy would have undoubtedly failed and been replaced by the Shiite version of Saddam Hussein. Muqtada Al Sadr. Other powers such as Iran and North Korea would be bolder in their ambitions for nuclear weapons because the only world power willing to stand up to them has shown their lack of intestinal fortitude to do so.
Now look at who you want to make our new commander in chief. Barack Obama has said from the beginning that Iraq was no threat despite all the evidence that says otherwise. The terror organizations he supported, the WMD programs that he confessed under interrogation he was going to restart, and the atrocities against the human race I guess were not evidence of a dangerous man. A dangerous Regime.
Now Obama, who also wanted to pull all troops out this past year calling the surge a failure, still refuses to take the advice of a general whose name I have heard recently mentioned with the likes of Patton. He sticks firmly to his 16 month troop withdrawal plan. With these antics he has just proven himself another politician, not a leader.
As for myself, I thank God everyday that we have had the good leadership of President Bush over the last eight years. A man who lives by the age old adage of my Alma Mater. A man who chooses the harder right over the easier wrong.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
In your forth paragraph it makes it sound like Obama is the terrorist. Uh, okay…
What about the situation in Darfur? Iraq too important than that I suppose? Only 10% of the fighting in Iraq came from Al Qaeda so I don’t see how you can say it was all terrorism there.
The Iraqi Prime Minister and the Iraqi National Security Adviser both agree with Obama’s timetable for withdraw. Even McCain has come out and endorsed a timetable (then he went ahead and unendorsed it… flip flops happen a lot with McCain). If things are so good in Iraq now, we should withdraw. Simple as that.
Yeah Bush has did a lot over the years. Shrank the middle class, nearly doubled the national debt, made the gap between the rich and poor ever bigger, higher energy prices thanks to the Enron loophole, made us more dependent on foreign oil, the list could go on and on.
Jan,
I guess I could have been more clear in that paragraph, but I am sure a reasonable person could see I was not calling Obama a terrorist. I was talking about Saddam and his regime.
My article really wasn’t about Dafur because that is not where the majority of our troops are at this time, but on that topic I believe that each situation is handled differently based upon the circumstances that exist. I would say more but I haven’t done enough research on Dafur to give specifics. One of the obvious points is that you do have to pick your fights. We chose Iraq.
When I reference terrorist organizations supported by Iraq’s old regime I am just not talking about Al Qaeda. There are multiple terrorrist organizations that Iraq supported and operated in Iraq both before and after the war began.
As for the timeline for withdrawal. In the article I clearly was talking about politicians from both sides (minus a few) wanting an immediate troop withdrawal last year when times were not so good and the Iraqi government could not sustain a democracy. Not today.
In this light, the two reasons the Iraqi PM now agrees that we can withdrawal our troops is because of improvements in security and improvements in the political situation. Also, the UN mandate for authorization of Coalition troops is running out and some type of formal agreement needed to be made. What was actually agreed upon between Bush and Maliki was a general time horizon for eventual troop withdrawal.
I also disagree with both candidates on the amount of time it will take to withdrawal. (It took us longer to shut down 1 base with only 2 battalions. ) McCain actually said that he agreed with the amount of time it would take to complete the task. He still would base this on Petreaus’ recommendation.
The economic comments were way off topic, but I will address them. I do not see how you can blame Bush for shrinking the middle class or any wealth gaps. Economies are cyclic entities meaning the economy will face bull and bear markets. The two main ways the government controls these cycles is with the Fed (non-partisan entity) and with taxes. Bush did not raise anyone’s taxes; he simply cut the top bracket from 39.6% to 35%. Maybe you think that giving 40% of yoru income is fair, but I really don’t. It is way too socialistic for me. There are plenty of other countries that have socialist economies if you like it that much. You get ahead in our country by working hard; the government doesn’t hurt or help you that much in an economy based upon capitalism.
Your energy comments didn’t make much sense to me. Energy prices are decided upon by supply and demand. An increase of oil use in third world countries as well as Americans unwillingness to use less or even drive slower has driven prices higher. Only recently have Americans begun to change their habits and prices have fallen slightly.
The only way to become less dependent on foreign oil is to find more domestic oil supplies. For his part, the President has opened these lands up for exploration. Congress has refused to do the same. Obama’s plan to use alternative energy sources for 20% of our energy is a good goal, but that still leaves 80% that must be supplied by oil and gas. Again, the only way to become less dependent on foreign sources is to find our own.
All that said…thanks for stopping by….. I am interested in what is on the rest of your list.
@SteadyConservative
You’re giving W an awful lot of leeway here. He’s made the world a more dangerous place with the Iraq war. Most Americans agree with this, according to most polls. There was no yellowcake uranium and no evidence to support that Hussein was going to restart Iraq nuclear plans. Repeat… there was no evidence. No matter how many times you on the right repeat this lie, it doesn’t make it so. Period.
Iraq is now THE recruiting ground for jihadists. This is common sense. Most Iraqis don’t live their life as part of a regime… they were just people… that is until we started dropping bombs on them.
I’m so sick of people like you making up excuses for the Republicans and playing your games of … well, it was Clinton’s fault or “It’s just that Liberal Media”. The Bush Administration has set back the US immeasurably with his lying and Delay and the rest of the Republican led congress until 2006 abetted him by parroting these lies - look where that got them. I hear conservatives crow that the Democratic-led congress still has a low approval rating. That is because they haven’t impeached Bush and have let him go about his bullshit until the end. Things are going to change in January 2009. I just hope Obama and congress (in which the Democrats will have enough of a majority to actually do something) will be able to clean up his (and, by extention, your) mess.
But keep telling yourself he’s a great guy and that history will vindicate him.
Of course my first impression was to get angry. After all, I share in the majority view that George W. Bush is our most inept and unpopular president in the past century.
I won’t get into a debate about economics, an unpopular war, or energy.
What I will do is to tell you why I disagree with your basic point. Our system is set out by the will of the population. “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” comes to mind.
When we have a government that routinely says, “Trust us. This is for your own good” on things that limit our rights without any evidence to back it up, I have a problem.
When the president says that he has the prerogative to bypass laws without just cause, I have a problem.
When the administration says over and over again that “we do not torture,” and has evidence that we do with the administration’s blessing, I have a problem.
When during one of the most turbulent periods in recent history, the “rare breed who cares more about what is right rather than what is popular” spent more than a year and a half on vacation, I have a problem.
When I see an administration that have stated that they can monitor, spy on, tap phones, read emails, without any cause, court order, or warrant with impunity, I have a problem.
When I see an administration fraught with inept, unqualified people due to nepotism and cronyism, I have a problem.
When I see the checks and balances of our government shattered, I have a problem.
These are just but a few of the reasons why I do not see the white knight as you view him. I see someone that does what he wants, when he wants, why he wants, without concern as to what his constituents want. He is a representative of the citizens of the US. Shouldn’t he represent their views? If not, that’s not a leader. That’s a dictator.
All of these things do not add up to a good leader, as you say. A “leader” has the support of their constituents. A “leader” has people that will follow out of trust. A “leader” by definition is “a person who has commanding authority or influence.” He does have authority, granted. But that is due to seizing more power than any one man should have.
If a politician is someone that will garner support and do what is the will of the people, then give me a politician over your view of a leader any day.
Chamberlin
I wouldn’t say that we made the world a more dangerous place by going into Iraq. I think we simply exposed a danger that already existed, but no one really wanted to face it. If you do just some basic research on the middle east you will find that Saddam supported multiple terrorists organizations to include al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, Nidal Organization, Hamas, PLF to include Abu Abas himself. And we also must not forget that he was giving safe haven to the 1993 world trade center bomber. I have a couple good articles that srape the surface of these things if you would like to read them.
The evidence that Saddam was going to restart these programs came from his own mouth. While he was in US custody, he admitted that he did not have the mass quantities of WMD, but planned to restart the programs once cleared by the UN. The scientists and labs were still in place and were found by our troops. I wouldnt be so much worried about what Saddam would have done with these weapons, but what his successor would have done….one of his two sons. When I was in Iraq, that is who the average person was afraid of. They were the ones that would come into a town and rape and kill young girls among other things.
And most of the people were affected by the regime. At least the shiites in the south and the kurds in the north, which is the majority of the people. Whether it be denial of basic rights, not allowing people to have jobs to sustain themselves or the 400,000 plus children that died of mal-nutrition in the 5 years leading up to the war. I would say many were affected.
I would not say that the Bush Administration lied. Iraq was guilty of 9 of the 10 major points listed in the 2002 authorization for war that a majority voted for to include both sides. They did not have the mass stockpiles of WMD, but that was based on bad intelligence. Saddam also admitted he put out false evidence to make people think he did have these weapons. We were not the only country nor the only administration to be fooled. Many in the Clinton Administration also believed these weapons existed which explained his actions toward the end of his term.
Your comment on the approval ratings is kind of a stretch. I would say that their low approval rating is because they have passed very little meaningful legislation seeing that they do have a majority now.
Tenacious B
First of all, the first point you made I completely agree with and that is why we have elections, but the people are not able to make every decision. You vote for a person based upon what they believe in and what they have done in the past. Like him or not, the one thing you cant say is that you dont know what to expect with regards to Bush. And based upon what everyone knew, he was voted in by the majority of the people.
To your points….Based upon your logic, the Iraq war was then justified. The authorization for war in 2002 was passed by Congress and the approval rating from the public was well above 70%.
And there was no lying done by the administration. The majority of the items listed in the authorization act were true and the stockpiles of WMD decisions were based on bad intelligence. Past administrations and other countries were all fooled by false information put out by Saddam. It was more of a failure of the intelligence agencies than anything. I would say the Bush administration didnt do a good job of explaining all the reasons listed in the resolution.
The leadership part of my article is really based upon finishing what we started. Whether you believe the original decision was right or wrong, we have the responsibility now to ensure that Iraq is secure and can sustain its government. That is when the unpopular support started and that is why I think George Bush is a great leader for choosing the harder right. Because of this and the surge Iraq is better off both with security and politically.
Some of your other comments were more of the usual vague type. The one I think you were talking about the Patriot Act, which helps the government track terrorist activity. I personnally have no problem with the government doing this if it keeps us from having another attack on American Soil. The legislation could not have been too bad because even Obama, who is usually very liberal, voted for it.
And as far as I know we still have 3 branches of government so our checks and balances system is still in place.
Sorry I don’t have time to discuss all you mentioned in your comment. Maybe I will a little later.
Tenacious B
I thought about it a few minutes and I noticed most of your comments show you are concerned with government power and civil liberties. I would have to assume then that you agree with Republican economic policies. If not, I would find that kind of humorous.
I am on vacation right now, but I figured I would go ahead and address the other issues I skipped before.
Tenacious B
First of all, you completely avoided my argument that we would have been in deep trouble if democrats were leading us this past year so I have to assume that you have no argument against my actual point. You simply made a bunch of general criticisms against Bush.
Secondly, your definition of leadership is very flawed and just shows that you have never served. Leadership is not a popularity contest; it IS about trust, and this is the reason why. The President and his staff has access to more intelligence, especially when it comes to national defense issues. Liberals always want to know everything the government knows, which is neither possible or an intelligent thing to do. Lets tell everyone our classified information…..great idea. You have to trust your leadership to make decisions based upon the intelligence they have.
Nepotism and cronyism basically mean the same thing….giving jobs to people because they are family and friends…these people are actually called advisors…every president appoints his advisors to positions. I am sure some of these are his friends, but so are the advisors of every other president. Once again you made a vague comment and didn’t specify who, but I do applaud you for using big words in doing so.
You did not quote where you got a year and a half of vacation from so I imagine you took it off another blog and are passing it on as fact. I can only compare your year and a half to how many days a normal person would have off in the same time period. This vacation time comes out to 2 1/2 years. (52 weeks x 2 days off each week, plus 10 vacation days) So Bush has taken less days off than an average worker plus you forget to mention to everyone that many of these so called vacations include meetings with foreign dignitaries and staff meetings at his ranch. Of course you didn’t put this into perspective for anyone.
With the comment of bypassing laws I assume you are talking about Executive Privilege. Executive privilege has been used by Presidents every since our first President, George Washington, who was the first to use it. It was used by Thomas Jefferson. Eisenhower used it a total of 44 times. In fact it was used by every President from Kennedy through Clinton. Every time a President uses it, it can be reviewed by the judicial branch so this is not a break down in separation of powers as you assert in another comment.
For the most part I have answered these bogus arguments so others will know how to answer them because I have given you plenty of time to return and back up what you are saying but you haven’t done so. I am sure that is mostly because you haven’t thought through what you are saying and are just passing off information from websites with the same liberal bias as the media.
I don’t think we should be in Iraq and here is why. Do I think Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator? YES. Was he responsible for numerous crimes against the human race? YES. But ask yourself this…If the crimes of a foreign government against its people justify our invasion, will there will be an end to the fighting? The answer is no. Saddam Hussein did much to support terrorism in the Middle East and used terrorism as a routine tool of state power. However the primary target of Saddam’s terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq. Saddam’s primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power. In Short he was a run of the mill dictator who led a brutal but SECULAR Regime. He was not a Radical Islamic Fundamentalist. I feel that now Iraq is more vulnerable to such leadership. So we have cleared the way for a democratic election, there are now strength in numbers of people who I feel are more of a threat to us than Saddam and his broke down regime were. He was telling the world he had WMD’s because he too feared Radical Islam. He was not linked to AL Queda as we were led to beleive since this began. The PentagonReport form March of this year admitted that was not true, read for yourself. Institute For Defense Analyses - Pentagon Report Executive Summary: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redaction%20EXSUM%20Extract.pdf
I feel the war in Iraq was more about our need to control the Middle East Oil than anything else. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and I feel they were no IMMEDIATE threat. I feel like the war in Iraq has greatly impeeded our success in Afghanistan where we know we are fighting a just war. I know people who have served in Afghanistan and they say that due to the media and political pressures for results in Iraq, that troops in Afghanistan are getting the short end of the prverbial stick. And while I am on the topic, weren’t the majority of the 9/11 hijackers of Saudi Arabian nationality. If we want to fight a corrupt middle eastern government who supports terror organizations why are we not kicking the Saudi Door Down. There is no denying the Bush family ties to the “Kingdom” I just wish they were honest about why we went there.
Now that we are there I agree with you. We must finish the job. I credit Mr. Bush for listening to his Generals. I applaud the leadership of the US and allied forces. So if the commander in cheif is to be applauded for any success on the ground he should also be held accountable for the gross mismanagement of U.S. tax dollars in Iraq. We are bankrupting ourselves as a nation with this war. You congratulate Mr. Bush for his tax cuts, which in most cases I would agree, but if we can’t get control on spending then tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible. The level of government / contractor froud in unacceptable. A Pentagon audit of $8.2 billion in American taxpayer money spent by the United States Army on contractors in Iraq has found that almost none of the payments followed federal rules and that in some cases, contracts worth millions of dollars were paid for despite little or no record of what, if anything, was received. I hate the NY Times but I think they got this story right. Here is a NY Times article about this pentagon report as well as the report itself. I encourage you and your readers to see how your government is wasting your tax dollars. Are we really paying allied soldiers with US tax dollars to help us fight this war? NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/middleeast/23audit.html?fta=y
Pentagon Report: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy08/08-098.pdf
I also have to disagree with you on your stance on the Patriot Act as well. You say you have no problem with the Government overstepping its bounds to prevent an attack. You obviously trust your government more than me. You state that even Obama supported the Patriot Act. Of course he did… 9/11/ just happened, everyone supported it. You know as well as I do that there is no way in hell any legislation that complex could have even been drafted, much less passed without the events of 9/11. I beleive Benjamin Franklin said it best ” Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” I feel the American Government as a whole including the Bush administration has used the “Shock Doctrine” for political purposes way too much since 9/11. Our personal liberties were bought at a very high price by the founders of this country and we are giving them away and once we do it is almost impossible to get them back.
I must wrap up this post and get home. Thanks for letting me vent. I look forward to your rebuttal. Basically I am just fed up with the whole damn thing. War times are never easy for anyone. Soldiers pay the ultimate price and for that I am eternally grateful. I am just sick and tored of the politics of it all. The assholes making the decisions are not the ones those decisions affect. I just hope it can all end soon.
As James Madison wrote over 200 years ago: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. There is an inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and, degeneracy of manners and of morals … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Chad….First off….sorry your comment got sent to my moderation queue because of the links and I didn’t see it right away.
I would say that I partially agree with most the things you said, but I think there are some additional things you must consider.
I agree that Saddam himself was not a radical fundamentalist, but he did support anti-US terrorist organizations that were. Saddam used his internal assets to terrorize his own people, but the organizations he supported were using Iraq to plan, train and support terror operations around the world just as al Qaeda did from Afghanistan. You know as well as I do that if in the future another attack occurred and it was learned that it was planned out and preparations were made in Iraq everyone and their mother would say….we had all this information about how they supported terrorism and we did nothing.
Saddam did not put on his WMD fasad because he feared radical Islam. He did this to prevent another country, especially Iran, from invading Iraq. I am sure he feared retaliation from using chemical weapons against Iran in the 80’s.
The executive summary did not mention anything about al Qaeda, but that does not mean that Saddam did not support this terrorist organization. In the summary it states that not all documents were reviewed, especially those held by government organizations. The document was mostly a short list of some documents that were reviewed to include one that described Iraq’s efforts to target Americans working as UN aid workers.
Iraq did have connections to al Qaeda. Perhaps not the 9/11 attackers, but that is still debatable. That connection is single source so it is hard to prove. Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda organization in the Philippines claims that Iraq supported its organization. This is confirmed with cell phone records showing calls made from an Iraqi Diplomat to 2 of the groups leaders before and after an attack. This attack killed an American. Another connection was with a familiar name, Al Zarqawi. Al Zarqawi was wounded in Afghanistan and immediately fled to Iraq where he was treated, ran an Ansar al Islam training camp (al Qaeda linked organization), and was responsible for the assassination of US Diplomat Lawrence Foley; all before the war started. There are other links as well.
I am sure oil had a small piece of the decision, but was not a major reason and was not listed in the authorization for war. Oil does run this world so you do not want a madman controlling it. As a sidenote, I think it is important to note that we asked Saddam and his 2 sons to leave the country to avoid war. This reveals some of the Bush Administrations thinking. Saddam was brutal, but he wasn’t crazy and he sure wasn’t stupid. You cannot say the same about his sons. I think a major reason for the war was to prevent them from having both control over oil and WMD. I personally think they would have used them and/or given them to the terrorist organizations operating in Iraq.
When you have to fight a 2 front war of course it is harder than fighting in just one arena, but I do not know how much one really affected the other. Especially during the first few years of the Iraq War and this is the reason why. You had a heavy fight and a light fight. By this I mean you have mostly heavy divisions operating in Iraq and light divisions operating in Afghanistan. If you sent my old division to Afghanistan we probably would have looked at you like you were crazy. We would have gone, but we wouldn’t have had the equipment to perform the mission. Changes in the Army structure have fixed some of those problems so we would be better prepared now, but the terrain there still better suits certain types of units. I would also say that by being in both places we were attacking 2 terrorist strongholds; taking away a sanctuary to re-group.
When you talk about going after countries such as Saudi Arabia, there are significant differences with that country vs. Iraq. There are terrorist problems in many countries around the world, but Iraq was a unique situation. First of all, as a country (not just individuals) they had proven themselves to be a danger to others and were openly defying UN resolutions that ended the last war they started. Secondly, their country was opening attacking US aircraft flying the UN mandated no fly zone along with other things such as trying to assassinate a former President. But the thing that allowed us to do what we did was Saddam’s oppression of his own people. Because of that we were able to directly take on this threat versus the other methods we use elsewhere.
Money is also a big issue in Iraq and how it was handled. There were some problems and I would say there is a shared responsibility for the problems from both the government and the Army. When we first went there was not a good system for tracking money, which explains why there were not good records for an audit. We were just given money and told we could spend it on contracts for whatever we needed. This money was given out to the Company level in many cases. People in the Army are not exactly the best money managers, for the most part we are used to open ended budgets. We did use a lot of it for quality of life items off the local market. It did get better, however, as time progressed. We also encountered problems working with Iraqi contractors backing out halfway through contracts along with a lot of corruption on the Iraqi side. At least we are honest and owed up to it with the audits. On the government contract side I am torn. On one side the government probably could have managed the situation better, but then again, there aren’t any organizations that could do what KBR did for us. I lived in Iraq without KBR support and then with it and the difference is night and day. They provided us with logistic support that we simply could not have done on our own. I would also say it isn’t cheap to do what they do so it does cost a lot of money. For once the Army contracted quality instead just going for the lowest bidder. None of these issues have anything to due with the reasons for the war though, they are just mismanagement issues. Its not like Congress does any better managing money issues.
I do not think that the government is overstepping its bounds with the Patriot Act. My reference to Obama is his vote this past year on renewing the Patriot Act. He was not in office when the original act was passed and signed into law. You have to remember he has about as much national political experience as I have engineering experience. He continuously talked about how awful the law was right up to the point when he voted to renew it in 2006. Obama is the most liberal senator in the Senate. That is why I said the act couldn’t be that bad. The Patriot Act has many great things in it that help the government track terrorist activities both here and abroad. There were a couple of controversial provisions in Title II of the Patriot Act that have been pushed by liberals as the entire act. I wouldn’t say that Ben Franklin’s comment applies directly to this situation because of this. I do like old Ben, but it is kinda ironic that government is technically giving up liberties in exchange for security…with respect to laws and such anyways.
Hopefully with the improvements in security, we will be able to leave Iraq soon. As soldiers we are the last that want to fight, but we understand that sometimes we must. Unfortunately there will always be those who do not wish us to exist so we must always be diligent in fighting them wherever they are. I am sure it is something that our forefathers did not foresee.