Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
--Theodore Roosevelt
Listening to the fatuous Al Gore claim his undeserved Nobel Prize and maunder on about how America is ruining the planet makes me realize how fortunate America is to have as its president George W. Bush. Yes, Bush has his ample share of failings. He occasionally speaks at the fifth-grade level. He is too willing to surround himself with cronies and sycophants. An unsupple man, Bush sometimes reminds me of the toy soldier who walks into the wall and keeps going.
Bush's weaknesses, however, are more than compensated for by his one great strength. This is a man with unbelievable tenacity. No American president in my lifetime, not even Reagan, had Bush's guts. Perhaps one would have to go all the way back to Franklin or Teddy Roosevelt to find comparable determination. On the international stage, Bush's stamina recalls that of Churchill. Consider: when Bush was elected in 2000 with the tiniest conceivable margin--a margin so slender it required Supreme Court intervention to place him in the Oval Office--I was sure that Bush's proposed tax cuts were dead. But no: Bush pushed ahead and got most of what he proposed. And the subsequent health of the economy--low interest rates, low unemployment, steady growth--has undoubtedly been nourished by Bush's tax cuts.
Then in 2006, after the midterm debacle, I thought that Bush's Iraq policy was finished. And you could hear the pundits and the newly-elected Democratic congressmen and the pathological Bush-haters gleefully declaring, "Now he's going to have to start pulling out of Iraq." Instead Bush pressed for an increase of 20,000-25,000 troops. Incredibly, he got it. Congress shrieked and howled but went along. The American people were very doubtful, but Bush serenely told them to "wait and see." Bush has seemingly singe-handedly pursued his vision for Iraq even when his allies both at home and abroad have dwindled or lost their nerve. And once again Bush's policy seems to be working. Iraq is becoming more peaceful, and apparently there are Shia and Sunni leaders cooperating with the Americans. The Bush-haters are still with us, but the wind has gone out of the antiwar movement.
Bush has had a tough second term in office. But I think history will be kinder to him than the opinion polls, at least in the past couple of years, have been. When the country looks back at Iraq and sees a standing, even if fragile, democracy, Americans will see that when they became impatient, Bush forged ahead. When they were ready to give up, he was undeterred. And as a consequence the Middle East has its first Muslim democracy, and a pro-American democracy to boot. The lesson of Iraq may well be: Thank God we didn't listen to those advocates of defeat on the left; if we had, it would have been Vietnam all over again.
The diplomat Clare Luce once wrote that history, which has no room for clutter, will remember every president by just one line. I'm not quite sure how Bill Clinton will be remembered: perhaps his only distinguishing mark will be the one that Paula Jones identified. As for Bush, he will go down in history as the president who refused to back down, and if staying the course in Iraq proves to be the right move, then Bush could be remembered as one of America's great presidents.
Reader Comments ( Page 42 of 42)
616. I find it hard to understand glorifing a man that has cost our troops and country so much suffering and loss!>>>
President Bush had the highest sustained presidential approval rating in our history.
Bush made the case, a case already made by the Clinton administration, that Iraq was a threat and the entire country was with him. 70%, lest we forget.
When the going got tough, Iraq became Bush's war.
When the going got tougher, Liberals had to justify their votes ... so they told the world Bush lied.
That's not all democrat leadership told the world. Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts accused our troops of torturing prisoners in the same manner as Saddam Hussein, stating “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management.”
June 14, 2005, Senator Durbin of Illinois compared our troops to Nazis and genocidal maniacs, stating “If I didn’t tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in their treatment of their prisoners.”
December 4, 2005, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts alleged that our troops were terrorizing Iraqi civilians, stating “There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, women.”
October, 2006, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts suggested that our troops were lazy and stupid, stating “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”
September 5, 2007, Senator Schumer of New York denigrated our troops as being inept and useless, stating “And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect those tribes from Al Qaeda said to those tribes we have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves.”
On several occasions Senator Reid of Nevada has suggested that our troops are utter failures, stating, notwithstanding extant evidence to the contrary that “The war is lost,”
It seems to me that the lying is coming from the Left ... not Bush.
** When President Clinton bombed a factory in Sudan, he said: "The factory was built by Bin Laden to make WMD for Saddam." This was the only operational link made between Saddam and Bin Laden, and it was made when Bush was the govenor of Texas.
That while eveyone knows he nagged us untill we threw our trust and beleif in himto attack such a benign and Non WOMDs little country! That with full knowlege that his familys friend and oil king, Saudi Arabia, produced the men and money of 9/11!!! >>>>>>>>>
So how much money has Bush recieved from the Saudis? I don't know, but I doubt it's more than the ten million President Clinton accepted (post 911) for his library.
Impeach this loser, dont Glorify him!!!!
>>>
Liberals don't impeach Bush for only one reason. Liberals did all the lying and the last thing they want to do is prove it.
I'm all for impeachment hearings. In fact, if any of the claims made by democrat leadership are true it's their constitutional duty to impeach. Didn't they promise to hold the administration responsible? So, I guess raising the minimum wage was more important ... right?
Thomas J Gassett at 4:01AM on Dec 18th 2007
617. it seems according to the demorat politicians and their sheeple, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack on america,nor was it a declaration of war, it was simply an invitation to a holy ramadon feast!
Harry ried screamed grab your eating utinsils comrades we done been invited to an islamic halal bbq pork rib feast!
Thndrbang at 6:21AM on Dec 18th 2007
618. Thomas Gassett, certainly right!
Bridget at 3:12PM on Dec 18th 2007
619. People must be insane to think that Georges "war on terror" has done anything but;
1) Weaken our national defense by overextending our military.
2) Create new fanatical enemies by causing so much death in Iraq.
3) Make it impossible to guard our borders. Troops there would be nice.
4) Spend our treasure and increase the national debt more than any previous president, by far.
5) Oh yeah, cause the death of 500,000 innocent people.
Good job potus.
You should be in jail or on a deserted island.
>>>>
I think your ugly liberal bias got in the way.
Bush removed two of the worst despotic regimes on the planet, and he did it losing less troops than we lost just in practice for the D-day landings of WW2
Bush gave over fifty million people the chance for freedom, and he did it losing less troops than froze to death in Korea because they didn't have winter gear.
Bush has done more for women's rights than any president in our history. Before Bush removed the Taliban, the women of Afghanistan were PROPERTY. Today they have the constitutional right to an education and even hold elective office.
Bush's tax cuts got us through a recession, the stock bubble and scandals and oh yeah ... 911, giving us a better economy than clintoon.
Thomas J Gassett at 5:40PM on Dec 18th 2007
620. Brian, let me offer something of substance to the discussion. You said I "can look at an argument like 'The sky is blue' and, as long as an athiest or a liberal said it..."
Okay, are you ready for something of substance? "The sky is blue" isn't an argument, it's a proposition. An argument is a set of reasons supporting a conclusion. So there! I've just helped you understand what a key term means, one which you like to use but apparently don't understand very well. Surely this is something of substance, isn't it? After all, when we reason we make use of arguments; if you can't even recognize an argument when you see one, or if you mistake other things for arguments, you can't reason very effectively. But perhaps that explains a lot about your posts.
I also find it interesting that you think the proposition, "The sky is blue" is just so darn obvious that only a "pretender to intelligence" could question it. You don't know much at all about the history of ideas, do you? The problematic nature of this very sort of proposition has a well established two thousand four hundred and fifty year history, beginning with the atomists and continuing to the present day.
I have said before that for many people, atheism is little more than a source of self-esteem. If you define an atheist in such a way that one becomes, simply by virtue of his atheism, more intelligent (or more rational) than all believers, then you've just defined yourself into the top 10% or so of the world's population with respect to intelligence. I think it also explains why so many sit and wait to pounce on the stupidest possible religious posts on these blogs. They're easy to shoot down, and they make you feel so much more intelligent by comparison. But many of you only take your committment to critical thinking so far, and this, Brian, is evidenced by your blithe reference to "the sky is blue" as an obviously uncontroversial remark. And the reason you take it so far and no further is, in my opinion, that you only want to think critically when discussing religion with the ignorant theist to make you feel better about your own capabilities. Anyone who takes critical thought any further, and who perhaps (perish the thought!) turns reason on atheism or even on 'reason' itself, is immediately attacked with a vociferousness only found among the truly dogmatic. Your 'committment to critical thought' is a pose, and you hate it when others recognize this.
eric at 7:18PM on Dec 18th 2007
621. Your article first stroke me as shallow and unproffesional, but I find it interesting that you are willing to learn and respect the achievments of the dark arts, as sinister and horrifying as they may be.
mani at 2:59PM on Dec 19th 2007
622. From the posts i'am reading it appears some of you people have an higher education.i.e. college.Let me tell you from a high school graduate that whats happing in America and Iraq is determined by what happens in the streets. So get some street smarts before you start opining about whats right or wrong with America or Iraq.Your eloqent English and grammer means nothing in the state of world affairs.
Joe at 1:30PM on Dec 19th 2007
623. This article is completely true...............Bush has balls.
Jason at 1:46PM on Dec 20th 2007
624. I am disappointed in ALL our elected officials...Dont any of you find it interesting that OUR interests are NEVER put into the equasion? Both Libs & Repubs rub each others shoulders in private & quarell like sissy girls in public. I dont really think that it matters anymore who is in charge. The ball of twine called Congress is totally out of control quit representing me & mine long ago. Who in their right mind would want to be Pres. anyway.....I would LOVE to be in Congress, however. You are set for life!
I might add that I sure hate to think about Hillary becoming the leader of the ole USA....
MRsteele at 1:46AM on Dec 20th 2007
625. Dinesh is a "Hegelian". He beleives, along with the renowned philosopher of nationalism, that conflict, especially armed and deadly conflict is ultimately a good thing in history because it gives the opportunity for the winners (those with the best ideas and values) a chance to win the "game of history" and do their share in moving towards the enactment of God's will on Earth,for Hegel the ultimate and , of course inevitable, goal of history. But let's at least look at the other view fo Iraq/Bush/Gore, etc. Our Iraq policy has served to galvanize the anti-American feelings an entire generation of Muslims, some of whom will choose to be bombers; the effects of this will go on for at least 40 years. Alternatives fro dealing with Saddam H. were, in fact, available. To compare him to Hitler(as McCain does today) reveals an egregrious ignorance of recent European history (1930's), or a willingness to lie and manipulate to get elected through fear-mongering, or some combination of these factors. Shameful in any case. As to Al Gore: the science on global warming is powerfully clear. There is a CHANCE that natural cylces are responsible for the warming that is clearly happening, but that chance has been defined as about 5%. The scientists who disagree with this are a fringe group representing about 5% of the climatology community. Dinesh is fond of Pascal's Wager. What about this wager? Of course, the damaging effects of global warming will fall hardest on the poor and helpless. If this comes to pass, no doubt Dinesh will organize all Christians to come to their aid. The Bible does attribute a few comments on this matter to Jesus, so I assume Dinesh will consider his soul at stake if he doesn't help.
C Boyd at 7:59PM on Dec 20th 2007
626. But we won't, I assume. He will be too busy calulating the next "invasion by God" whereby the advance of Christian truth can prove its truth in blood. How common. What idiocy.
C Boyd at 9:19AM on Dec 21st 2007