The "benefits" of one more Bush Administration.

0
--

Oklahoma Joe wrote:


'Bush Country'
By Carol Devine-Molin
February 23, 2004

The book "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving
Liberals Insane" proffers some of the best analysis on the Bush
presidency and the nature of Democratic "blood sport" (the politics of
personal destruction) that can be found in the literary marketplace.
Author and journalist John Podhoretz has written a very clever,
well-researched and entertaining tome, which explores eight "Crazy
Liberal Ideas" leveled at President Bush. These Leftist allegations run
the gambit from "Bush is a moron", "Bush is a puppet", "Bush is a
fanatic", "Bush is Hitler - Only not as talented", to the attack du jour
that "Bush is a liar".

Unquestionably, Bush "character assassination" has reached an all-time
high during this Democratic primary season by Left-leaning politicos and
ideologues, and their elite media cronies, who are all in the throes of
a massive conniption. This motley crowd just can't tolerate being out of
power - They crave Democratic control of the White House. It's only now
that the systematic attacks against President Bush are marshalling
rebuke from the Republican camp. In his book, conservative writer John
Podhoretz is clearly helpful to the GOP cause, providing welcomed
rebuttal to some of the bizarre claims being bandied about by the
President's venomous political adversaries. Podhoretz notes that "The
Bush-bashers have grown ever more alarmist over time, their rhetoric
ever more purple, and their opinion of him ever more contradictory". Is
Bush a "moron" or is he the Machiavellian "liar"? He is being cast as
both by the crazed Left.

Podhoretz begins with the notion of "Energy in the Executive" that is
characteristic of good government as cited in the writings of Alexander
Hamilton. In short, Podhoretz explains that any president must act
"decisively, creatively, and consistently" with an emphasis on "the
protection of the community against foreign attacks". And Bush has been
a shining example of these classic standards. In the wake of 9/11, Bush
boldly eschewed the ineffective methods of the prior Clinton
administration and its wrong-headed law enforcement approach to
terrorism. Out with the old paradigm of "law enforcement" and in with
the new paradigm of the global "war on terror". Interestingly, the
presumptive Democratic candidate John Kerry appears poised to return to
the antiquated law enforcement model of tackling terrorism, which failed
miserably.

President Bush promptly grasped that the attacks upon NYC and Washington
DC were part and parcel of a global terror war being waged by radical
Islamists and rogue regimes that aided and abetted them. Podhoretz
states that Bush took a "breathtakingly ambitious posture - one far more
ambitious than anybody, friend or foe, expected. The most notable
example of this was his announcement that we would make no distinction
between the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and those (that) harbor
them". It was also clear that "deterrence" and "containment" would not
work with terrorists and their Islamo-fascist sponsors such as Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.

Moreover, since there exists a "natural terrorist hunger to acquire
WMDs", Saddam Hussein would have loved nothing better than to provide
terrorist surrogates with catastrophic weaponry to use against mutual
enemies, with America, Great Britain and Israel at the top of the
hit-list. All this "combined to make Iraq a new kind of threat", a
unique threat to America and the world at large. Therefore, bringing
down the lawless Iraqi regime "was an integral part of Bush's war on
terrorism", not an adjunct to the effort and certainly not a "war of
choice". In Iraq, the Bush doctrine of preemption was correctly applied,
since America ousted Saddam Hussein before he could pass on WMDs to his
terrorist cohorts. Podhoretz states: "The world will never know what
kind of threat Saddam Hussein might have posed with a fully
reconstituted WMDs program...That is the gift George W. Bush has given
to the world".

Despite President Bush's failure to win the popular vote, and no clear
mandate, he was still a Reaganite intending to largely govern as such.
Podhoretz underscores Bush's political savvy, discipline, moral clarity
and political courage in the face of tremendously difficult
circumstances. On the homefront, President Bush succeeded in two
significant tax cuts that are spurring economic growth, and he continues
to spearhead the restructuring and modernizing of the military.
Furthermore, Bush has engaged in a bit of "triangulation", or stealing
the issues of the other party, a strategy popularized by Bill Clinton's
former advisor Dick Morris, and which led to the enactment of: "No Child
Left Behind" legislation (education accountability, with uniform testing
across the nation), Campaign Finance Reform, additional AIDS Funding (15
billion over the next five years for AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean),
Medicare Reform with a prescription-drug benefit, and continued
stem-cell research only on those stem-cells already isolated for research.

In foreign affairs, President Bush has presided over two major military
campaigns, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of the "war on terror" to
ensure our nation's safety and security. Bush's initiative to bring some
semblance of freedom and democratic reform to Iraq is pivotal to
improving the overall dynamic in the Middle East. As the author notes,
"Bush again thought about what had previously been considered
unthinkable, and he concluded that the solution to terrorism and
militant Islam was nothing less than freedom...Freedom and democracy are
his answers".

Podhoretz also cites one of the defining moments in Dubya's young life,
when, at the age of 18 at Yale, the university's "rock-star-famous
chaplain" William Sloane Coffin denigrated his father who just lost a
Senate election. Coffin stated, "Oh yes, I know your father. Frankly, he
was beaten by a better man". Apparently, the young George W. Bush said
nothing, but Barbara Bush stated years later: "You talk about a
shattering blow. Not only to George, but shattering to us". Podhoretz
believes that this incident helped situate "George W. Bush at odds with
the Eastern Establishment", and was instrumental in his decision to move
back to Texas. My sense of it is this: It was probably a notable episode
among other unpleasantness within these elitist circles. And it
demonstrates that Bush was impeccably raised with good manners and
understands the meaning of restraint.

--------------------
Thought you forgot to put some thing worth while to read. JH