Obama is great! Not!

Here is an article (not about Obama, but of President Bush!) which lays out a little about the greatest President USA has seen since Abraham Lincoln. This article lays out most of the facts well. Except maybe the gratitude of the software engineers in India who, by and large, are liberal and an ungrateful bunch, and rarely give President Bush any credit for his leadership. And this, in spite of the fact that President Bush promoted "Trade not aid" in most of relations, including that with India.

Perhaps his stellar character and personal faith in Jesus Christ is offensive to people. They like to look down on the USA as a morally degenerate nation, and so they want the President of the USA to be like Bill Clinton - someone they can look down on as a moral degenerate. But that's not President Bush!

I think this article is a good read.

Sept. 11 shaped some of Bush legacy

By: Hugh Hewitt

January 6, 2009 10:42 AM EST

President George W. Bush departs with low approval ratings. Appraisals of presidents sometimes change over time, and sometimes they don’t. Harry Truman was deeply unpopular in his time but is now revered. James Buchanan let the country slide toward civil war and is still considered our worst president. How will Bush’s legacy fare? Politico asked the experts to consider his place in history.

George W. Bush, like Harry Truman, was president when an unexpected attack inflicted a terrible defeat on the United States. Unlike the far-away launch of the Korean War, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, savaged the heart of Manhattan and came close to crippling the national government in Washington.

Bush quickly rallied the country’s confidence at Yankee Stadium, spoke to its sorrows at the National Cathedral and announced its firm resolve to the world in his address to the Congress. He then directed the takedown of the Taliban and, with it, the support structure and command-and-control capabilities of Al Qaeda, which began the complete overhaul of the national security apparatus of the United States.

This reorientation of America’s defenses toward the long conflict with radical and networked Islamist jihadists has been both remarkable and remarkably successful, and it has been begun in such a way as to avoid obscuring the growing competition with China and the threats posed by rogue states such as North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran.

The change from Cold War to no war to the long war ahead is far from complete. “You only get eight years,” Vice President Dick Cheney coolly remarked, conveying that part of a presidential legacy is a mature understanding that you cannot play to win just the matches in which you are captain.

Bush led the world to remove one of its most dangerous (and, thanks to Oil-for-Food, corrupting) dictators, devised a joint containment strategy of the despot of the Far East and completely but quietly disarmed Muammar Khaddafi of his massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction and his A.Q. Khan-supplied nuclear technology in the aftermath of the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

When Iran attempted to exploit the American intervention into Iraq, Bush countered that thrust with the surge, and as he leaves office, that counteroffensive is succeeding. New alliances with the states of the former Soviet Union are deepening as a result of the 43rd president’s strategic direction, especially in Poland and Bulgaria. A genuine missile shield has been deployed, and an archaic treaty that crippled America’s ability to defend itself has dissolved.

Our alliance with Israel is as strong as it has ever been, and our commitment to helping Israel repulse any thrusts by its enemies in Gaza and Lebanon is strong. Lebanon is better off than it was but not as free of Syrian influence as it should be. Hezbollah remains the cat’s paw of the Iranian theocracy, but the world does not doubt its true nature, and clarity is a valuable thing. There is clarity about Hamas, as well, and about many other networked jihadists. Even as Bush prepares to leave office, Israel is relying on the unwavering support of the president in its latest clashes with Hamas.

Bush’s much criticized communications strategy — I am one of the most frequent critics here — pushed key themes again and again. A relentless, though often ineloquent, focus on the evildoers has left no one in doubt about the central challenge of our time, and the Bush Doctrine is one of only three options in dealing with the combination of Islamist fanaticism and operational ability to deliver massive blows to our homeland.

The alternatives — fecklessness and appeasement (eloquent or not, it doesn’t matter) — may return to Washington, but if they do, the consequences will be at least as staggering as those of Sept. 11. Bush’s clarity about not waiting to be struck again and about the need to move decisively against rogue regimes that are believed to possess WMD is a model for future presidents that will be ignored at their and our peril.

Removal of the threat can be by force of arms, as with Iraq, or by force of will, as with Libya, but there is no safe alternative to the Bush Doctrine if the regime is a menace with the means to strike the U.S. directly or through proxies. Bush’s doctrines have defined the choices ahead, and will be used to evaluate his successors’ policies via the jihadists and their ambitions for WMD.

The complete overhaul of the strategic posture of the United States in the seven years since Sept. 11 is half of the central legacy of George Bush. The domestic accomplishments of this center-right president are large and interesting — No Child Left Behind and prescription drug legislation, to name two — and his failures were ambitious and politically significant, Social Security reform and immigration overhaul most prominent among them.

Bush’s grand achievement on the domestic side was the most recent turn of a triple play of tax cuts — John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s and his own — all of which prove the incredible economic wisdom of allowing people to keep more of the money they make. It is unfortunately a lesson that is as quickly unlearned as it is productive when relearned. We are watching its unlearning now. Someone down the road will make it four for four.

The long run of economic growth that ended with the subprime crisis was the product of low marginal tax rates. The bubbles that burst did not destroy that truth any more than their explosions undermined the wisdom of free trade, for which Bush was a tireless campaigner. The appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will play out over decades and cannot possibly be evaluated now.

The other part of Bush’s central legacy will be the example of the correct temperament of a commander in chief in wartime. Though relentlessly attacked by a domestic left wing deranged by fear or hate, Bush refused the temptation to return in kind the abuse he received. The campaign of 2004 was tough, but there was nothing in it or in Bush’s administration remotely approaching the scale of dirty tricks that marked many episodes in the years from Kennedy through Bill Clinton regarding the treatment of political enemies. Bush’s reserve when it came to political hardball is a standard of crucial significance for the long war ahead.

The Plame affair was a burlesque from start to finish, signifying nothing except the crazed nature of the president’s opponents. Like the charges of “Bush lied, people died” and of Bush-led massive assaults on civil liberties, historians will mock such absurd indictments.

Throughout this political hysteria, Bush stayed calm and governed with an eye toward protecting the whole country, which he did. Whether competent state and local authorities might have prevented the Hurricane Katrina chaos we will never know, but it won’t be more than a relatively small chapter in the histories written about Bush. His refusal to snarl back will be part of that chapter and part of a much larger theme about dignity and grace in the exercise of power.

Estimable temperament has marked Bush’s management of the war, as well — mistakes and all. Like Lincoln, he picked commanders and followed their recommendations until overwhelming evidence of failure could no longer allow him to do so, and then he changed commanders. As with Lincoln, this approach to command led to some defeats on the battlefield. But unlike Lyndon B. Johnson’s meddling, it did not lead to a strategic defeat. Bush’s deep love for the troops he has commanded is obvious; his sorrow for those who have lost a spouse, a child or a parent is profound; and his concern for the wounded has set a standard that should be matched by all future presidents. Bush is deeply loved by the military. In wartime, that is among the most important measures.

Bush’s greatest failing was a surprising one given his skill as a politician. Combined with his two wins as governor and his transformation of Texas politics, Bush won five of six great political battles, including the off-year contests of 2002 — a rare accomplishment. But he could not provide a path for a successor. The success of the surge and the defense of the U.S. homeland against another terrorist attack turned the battle to succeed Bush into one of the strangest campaigns ever, one in which the most important issue — the war — was rarely discussed. Bush’s immediate move to smooth the president-elect’s path to power is a part of his admirable record as an American president with uniquely American traditions to uphold.

No doubt the Internet dervishes will pepper this and other assessments of Bush with their standard displays of anonymous ferocity. There are a lot of 14-year-olds with Internet connections. But when the Jon Meacham of 150 years from now goes about his task with Bush, that historian will have as much material and more, as did the author of “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.” And the verdict will be nearly the same: Here was an extraordinary and controversial man who accomplished a great deal, lost many battles, stood by his friends sometimes too long and could be stubborn beyond political calculation but who accomplished his most urgent task of protecting the union against its many enemies. The successful completion of that task is what all great presidents have in common.

Bush’s great legacy is the peaceful transition of power in an age of terror, a legacy made possible by his courage and his resolve to take the battle to our enemies, confront and defeat them wherever they could be found, contain them when they could not be attacked, and demand of the world a seriousness about the threat that remains real and deadly in its intentions. He has modeled how to act as president in this new media age of virulent venom at home and of fanatical violence and hatred abroad — with detachment toward the former and courage toward the latter.

Count me among the 30 percent, which will soon be 40 percent — and then more than 50 percent much sooner than most of the chattering class can conceive. Bush is deeply loved and respected in places as diverse as remote villages in Africa and booming tech centers in India and, despite the noise from a left still trying to diminish his character, among tens of millions of Americans grateful for the care he has taken to protect them and their families.

But his greatest admirers will be Americans, and perhaps Afghans, Iraqis, Israelis, Indians and Africans a century or more from now who read about his record and resolve in so many efforts will marvel at his restraint and credit his faith and his family for a remarkable service to freedom.

Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and executive editor of Townhall.com. His most recent book is “The War Against the West.” His new book, “GOP 5.0: Republican Renewal Under Obama,” will be released this month.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

India warns Obama over Kashmir- Feb 3, 2009

SEO Optimization Austin

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a545f3b0-f1f9-11dd-9678-0000779fd2ac.html

How McCain could have won hands down.

McCain has proven to be the worst kind of politician ever. What is it that has made him so unable to close the deal when he is running against a "empty suit" who has no experience, who has the worst type of associations , Ayers, Acorn, Rezko, Jeremiah Wright. And has never stood for anything and the only reason he is even the democratic nominee is because of the color of his skin.
Look back at the primaries - he won most of the caucuses because people were afraid not to support him openly incase of being called "racist". when the primary was a secret ballot he usually lost to Hillary. McCain is running against the most inexperienced and most radical person in the history of the US of A and yet he cannot close the deal. Why ?

Here is my analysis as to why.....

What is the republican party's main strength "National Security" and "Low taxes" . McCain has believed the press and the "talking heads " and concluded that he needs to distance himself from President Bush who in my opinion the best President this nation has had since Abraham Lincoln. All he needed to say was " I have broken with the Pesident on his signing the huge spending bills his own party sent him but on keeping this country safe and keeping taxes low I will strive to do even better. HE has kept us safe after 9/11 and I do not not want to go back to the Clinton years where every two years americans were killed

• 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed 6 and injured 1,000
• 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 5 US military personnel
• 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel
• 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000
• 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 US sailors

and the Clinton Admin was impotent did nothing and that lead to 3000 deaths. I will be like President Bush tough on terrorists, I will go after them with everything I have. I will furthur the work of the Intelligence dept. I will keep you safe and keep taxes low. Remember the job of the President is to keep you safe above all and I will do so. Elect me do not elect a person who wants to negotiate with crazy regimes we will have another Jimmy Carter if you do"

There -- had he given this speech, honored President Bush and kept true to the facts rather than the polls he would have been leading by 4- 5 points now. But honor and gratitude are not McCain's strengths , it may have been 25 years ago but now he is just a politician who wants to win. and Alas that may be his undoing unless americans wake up and realize how dangerous Obama is.
I have little hope that Obama can be stopped but who can tell......

Open Letter from my husband and myself to the McCain campaign.

We saw your representative Rick Davis on Fox News Sunday. His criticism of the President is disgusting to me and my wife. He refers to him as "George Bush"- without even the iota of respect. The only reason we would even support him is because the only other choice will be disastrous to this country. However, compared to President Bush, whom we consider one of the all-time great Presidents- right up there with Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt- Sen. McCain is a Liliputian, a pygmy. ( As are all the rest of the republicans) - the only reason to vote for this set of tiny men with tiny tiny characters is because the other side are on a negative scale and bordering on enemies of the US of A. Just look for a terrorist of any kind and you will find a democrat supporting the terrorist. So we poor folks a left with no option but to vote for the republicans who are not fit to clean the shoes of President Bush.

The reasons why we would vote for Sen. McCain are primarily because of his stance on life his support of the troops, and his military service. He has absolutely no executive experience, and he may think he was "right about the surge", but "a surge" is not a strategy. What was presented to the President was a strategy that **needed** the surge- viz., the clear and hold strategy.

So, for him to go around preening himself on "opposing the administration", etc., is simply idiotic. I tell you, there are a silent majority of people like us who truly admire this great president. Sen. McCain and his reps can go around dissing the President at his own risk.

We contributed quite a bit of money to President Bush's re-election campaign, but we aren't going to send money to Sen. McCain's campaign, though we will vote for him. As I said the other choice is disastrous for the country.

Regards,
Isaac and Pamela

Democrats - Shocked that there is media bias!!

I have not had as much fun as I have in the in the last few months. It is a scream to watch the headless democrats running around being shocked, SHOCKED that there is media bias in the main stream media.
As a Bush-supporter and admirer I have watched the last 7 years, with complete disgust, the treatment of the press towards this great President. Every issue has been twisted and reported with such dishonesty it has repeatedly taken my breath away.

Yes, the bias screamers are mostly on Hill-Billy side of the aisle but it is better than nothing. the obama-empty heads are getting the benefit of the bias so they are lying low right now.

I nearly fell of my chair laughing when Terence Richard "Terry" McAuliffe came on Foxnews and declared "this is the only network that has been fair and balanced " he is of course a hill-billy kool aid drinker so the bias is hitting him where it hurts! Well, too bad he never brought it up when the republicans where being slammed unfairly by the left leaning media. Maybe, just maybe he may have had some credibility now, but now he is being dismissed as "bad loser" .

See how funny all this is turning out to be.

Right Wing Elites - ingrates

Carefully contructed to deconstruct Eliitist Peggy Noonan' s article in the WSJ.....by my husband


Ms Noonan writes:

George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Last I checked, this is a free country and Ms. Noonan is entitled to her opinion and to voice her "declarations", however misguided, ill-informed, pandering to the conservative elite, and removed from reality it is.

Let me see if I can try and analyze her profound declarations for which we wait with bated breath every week.

---

He sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other.

He was the last one who could get the votes in 2004 of the social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives (except those heartless brutes whose god is mammon), and the national security conservatives. Compare him with the present crop. No one remotely comes close to coalescing the constituent pieces. In 2004, according to the exit polls- see http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hughes/041105- the following statistics emerge:

• Liberal: Bush 13%
  
• Moderate: Bush 45%
  
• Conservative: Bush 84%
  

Does Ms. Noonan think that Mitt Romney would get 84% of the conservative vote? The one who got as many convenient epiphanies as may be necessary in the course of a given election. From abortion to gay marriage to cutting taxes to state-mandated insurance. And Mitt Romney is the one that Ms. Noonan and her ilk support, as he is the most Reagan-esque perhaps. Maybe he will also get badgered into a tax increase, give actual amnesty, run away from Beirut, let the government coast with a "Morning in America" type of agenda, let his wife run the government, etc., as President Reagan did in his second term.

---

He did this on spending, the size of government,

Government Outlay Budget Deficit
A 20.0% 2.6%
B 21.3% 3.1%
C 21.7% 2.7%

I ask Ms. Noonan try matching rows A,B, and C in the table above, with Presidents Carter, Reagan and George W. Bush. The answer is A - Pres. Bush; B - Pres. Reagan; C - Pres. Carter. And I have deliberately put the worst figures of Pres. Bush with the last year's figures of Pres. Carter and Reagan. And neither of these Presidents dealt with crises as big as 9/11 and the stock market crash, etc. Not even close.

And the increase in the Bush presidency (from 18.5% to 20%) has been in the area of defense, homeland security and the war. Otherwise, discretionary spending has decreased every year of his presidency.

---

war, the ability to prosecute war,

And perhaps General Noonan can tell us how the war can be prosecuted. No doubt she can draw on her extensive experience and knowledge of fighting an asymmetric war against a group of suicidal maniacs intent on nothing short of subjugation and the annihilation of America. No doubt her speech-writing prowess would have made the Al-Quaida types quake in their sandals. Especially her short sentences, innumerable question marks and the ellipses: they are killers.

Seriously, even the kamikhaze pilots in WW-II were honorable in that they targeted the military not innocent civilians. No president, repeat no president, has had to fight a suicidal enemy willing to harm innocent civilians with no compunction. Not George Washington, Abe Lincoln or Roosevelt/Truman.

And this war has been fought under the glare of 24 x 7 news coverage with an abundance of arm-chair generals with 20/20 hindsight operating in the environment of blame-America-first media. Remember that during WW-II, the media and even Hollywood was patriotic. And the god of the religion of conservatism, Pres. Reagan, is partly to blame for 9/11 when he blinked and pulled out of Beirut. Isn't it true that OBL used this response to tell his followers that America is a "paper tiger"? Don't get me wrong- I love Pres. Reagan and what he did for the country. He made mistakes- after all he was human, except to the high priests of Conservatism. What bothers me- and I suspect a lot of Americans- is that the conservative elites deify Pres. Reagan and have selective and/or convenient amnesia on the same issues where they vilify Pres. Bush.

---

immigration

And who, pray, is the savior who will deliver us from the evil of (illegal) immigration? Rep. Tom Tancredo, perhaps? Or Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity? These are outstanding individuals with rich executive experience whose actions speak louder than their words. Yeah, right! While the aforementioned elite conservatives are under the stupor of selective amnesia of Pres. Reagan's total amnesty they disparage and rubbish the comprehensive immigration reform of Pres. Bush. Oh! it is a great rallying cry- "We defeated the 'Illegal immigrants' Amnesty Bill". Yes- and that's why Ms. Pelosi is the speaker of the House. (Perhaps, the high priests-Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity- want Hillary to win- how else will they build up their listener base?)

Perhaps, Ms. Noonan would institute the department of Homeland Secret Service on the lines of the KJB of the the Nazi SS. But wait! Will it not increase the size of the government? But it may be worth it! I'm sure it would make America respected around the world to see the ASS (American Secret Service) flush out illegal immigrants with bayonets and load them on buses and planes. How in keeping with American character over the centuries!

---

and other issues.

Like the Miers-contra scandal? Or his communication skills or the lack thereof owing to which Pres. Bush is unable to talk for hours without saying anything? Maybe he didn't fire Rumsfeld? Or, he didn't adopt the surge strategy soon enough? Or, he didn't appoint conservative-enough judges in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy?

---

President Bush increased the Republican party tally in both houses in 2002 and 2004. If only the cowardly Republicans had stuck with him instead of "distancing themselves" from him, we might not have Speaker Pelosi. And the scandals didn't help. Further, the high priests and the prophets of Conservatism held crusades against the apostasy of the immigration reform bill. And, instead of focusing on the economy and urging for patience and persistence with Iraq, the lily-livered poltroons of the Republican party capitulated to the media onslaught on Iraq and to the right wing crazies on immigration. Largely as a result of these factors, they lost.

Ms. Noonan and the conservative elites deserve a President Clinton. However, as my wife says, it is too much of a price for the country to pay. Hopefully it will teach them a lesson to have a President McCain, who I don't like, but is the better of the 3 front runners, now that Huckabee seems to be out of the running.

Victory for President Bush on the Iran Issue

I have never heard such nonsense as what I am hearing and reading with the reaction to the recent Intelligence Estimate on Iran's program.
1. Iran stopped part of their program because President scared the turbans of off them by taking Saddam down like he said he would.
2. One of Iran's main reason for the nuclear program was to compete with Iraq which was widely believed to have such ambitions. So once the USA got rid of Saddam Iran lost another reason to continue.
3. Once Gadaffi saw what President did to Saddam he too turned over his covert program and Iran came to the same conclusion only they continued "seeking the technology"
4. Once this President retires Iran and other crazy regimes will start back their programs there is no deterrent like President Bush and his straight talk.