I really don’t know why the Philippine Daily Inquirer as of lately has come up with a series of silly, to put it mildly, editorials. Consider today’s “Epitaph” While it is silly, it can be dangerous.
I am no fan of US President George W Bush. I believe it was a series of bad political decisions and a war whose moral basis is in question (Bush insisted that there were still WMDs in Iraq) that spelled why Bush is according to the PDI “despised”. I believe it is too strong a word. Bush is a major flop as a wartime president. Abe Lincoln made sure the rebellious South was crushed, FDR lived long enough to see Hitler trapped in the bunker, Hirohito’s imperial palace surrounded by a flaming Tokyo and the Duce on the run. In short, these presidents made sure the Union would crush the enemy. Bush made a farewell in a war he believed he was winning. In war the proof of enemy surrender is the proof of winning. General Macarthur would settle for no less than Surrender on Tokyo Bay. As for Osama Bin Laden, conventional wisdom says he is alive and kicking in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border netherworld.
But that is my opinion of Bush. It is the opinion of the Inquirer that counts here. It even dregs up from the bayou the Hurricane Katrina issue against Bush. But it isn’t really Bush’s fault. It is the weakness of America’s federal system that was at fault in the issue of responding to disasters like Katrina. Bush was ready to federalize the Louisiana National Guard but deferred to then Louisiana Governor Katheleen Babineaux Blanco’s prerogative. Blanco rejected the offer and decided that her state can handle the disaster by itself. However Bush subalterns in the FEMA can be held liable. But it is quite unfair to blame Bush for all of the Katrina response disaster. Bush apologized for shortcomings at the FEDERAL LEVEL. But he also suggested that problems at the STATE LEVEL must be solved in order to avoid a repeat of the fiasco. This is really a criticism of Blanco. In my opinion Katheleen Blanco bears much of the blame. Louisiennes realized that that she didn’t even consider running for a second term.
The Inquire is unsophisticated enough not to consider the nuances and practices of American federalism. Obviously the Inquirer editors had not the effort to read up on Louisiana politics. Being once a Louisiana resident, I can say that that state’s political culture is so Pinoy! That’s why I can call Louisiana home!
But what is so idiotic is for the Inquirer to assume all Pinoys love Bush. The only thing sure is Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a fan of Bush (at least at the start). Filipinos are I believe split on the issue of the Iraq War. Thus it was politically expedient for Arroyo to pull out our military contingent after one “cabalen” Pinoy driver was taken hostage. Arroyo was deathly afraid of public backlash if the Pinoy got his head lopped off.
And this is where the editorial leads us to a distasteful,idiotic and intolerant conclusion. It equates Poles and Pinoys in their so called love for Bush. The Inquirer in stretching the anti Bush message stretches our credulity. Poles are threatened by Russia still. Russia threatened (invaded) Poland in the past and under the Medvedev-Putin duocracy,the threat level has increased. When Bush offered to put anti ballistic missile defences in Poland,naturally the Poles loved it. It has nothing much to do with a Roman Catholic crusade against the schismatic Russian Orthodox. The Inquirer has it so wrong. Now it uses the word “crusade” so irresponsibly.
Anyone who has relatives or friends who are Mindanao people know that in the past Muslims and Christians have lived peacefully. The Mindanao problem is not really a much a problem of religion but more of land and social justice. In its anti Bush message, the Inquirer is creating religious war phantoms where it never existed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
What the heck anyway it is for Bush or the American people on how how PDI perceives them? American politics is too complex for PDI editors to comprehend.
Just because Obama wins, it does not mean Americans have total contempt for Bush. Bush wars fueled “bonus” money to soldiers who enlisted into the war and these money were funneled to the families of soldiers back home (U.S.) War materials needed to prosecute the wars make money for war industries and most of them are US companies. Even the ubiquitous REM (Ready to Eat Meals) packages were packed and manufactured in the U.S.
Unmarried soldiers are assured of their “college funds” when they are done with their tour of duties. Funds that they have to borrow from the Federal Education Program and pay when they graduate had they not enlisted as soldiers in the military.
The concept that you bomb our two towers and we will bomb two countries is an american way of saying that we cannot tolerate your insolence, and you deal with it, and it brings back home some proud relics of the American culture in the psyche of the world.
Obama’s win does not mean that America is tired of the “Hawks”, it simply means, let us clothe our “Hawks” with dove’s feathers, slick and cute, neh? :)
jcc
Well said! :-)
Prof,
How is Flerida? Used to be my oblig and con prof. :)
Jcc
Still alive, kicking and hyperactive. She will be returning to Chemistry after her stint as Environmental science director is done.
good to hear that. does not know me personally because i was not one of the big guns in class. :)
obama’s victory was not exactly a “repudiation” of bush by all the americans. of course, it is a choice for obama by the liberal and left-leaning democrats and by the blacks (regardless of party) almost to a man.
bush presided over a relatively prosperous u.s. economy up until the mid part of 2008. under his watch, he prevented terror attacks inside the u.s. since 9/11/2001. he poured hundred of millions of dollars in aid to africa and other impoverished and disaster-stricken nations in the world, unmatched by any other. he appointed more blacks, notably colin powell and condoleeza rice, in one of the, if not the most, prestigious and power-laden cabinet positions.
like bill clinton, bush is a middle-of-the-road politician, hated by the ultra wings of their respective parties. the extemists’ hatred of bush is, to say the least, unreasonable. i believe he will be vindicated by history just as lincoln and truman were.
btw, who cares what that “copy cat” paper says. apparently, it has adopted the position of its leftist counterparts in the u.s and europe. you know, gaya-gaya.
btw, from the looks of things, iraq is on the road towards a democratic way of life with free elections, rule of law, and individual rights. proof: the shoe-thrower “journalist” who is now in jail awaiting prosecution under due process. under sadam hussein, he would have been killed on the spot, or tortured and killed, without having a day in court.
@Blackshama
Re: Poles
i think the editorial starts at the public opinion surveys that say pinoys in the philippines still have a high regard to Pres Bush. And they mention the poles, who also like him. Thanks for explaining why the poles like him. But the pole’s motivations arent the inquirer’s point. They only wanted to point out why pinoys like him much. its not colonial mentality? it’s certainly not missle defense :)
Re: Katrina
yeah, lots of blame to go around, state and federal. But u don’t think Bush is to blame for blunders at the federal level, based on the principle of chain-of-command ? i think the outrage here is that he led the federal re-organization, he appointed the FEMA director, and refused to change course even as the bungling became clear.
I concur that when pundits start delving into issues that are domiciled more than 7,000 miles away, they should at the very least tear into sources other than what one finds in the Internet and in the International sections of newspapers sourced by news outlets like AP or Reuters. Most especially when the sources researched are selected filtered through the pundits’ own biases.
Because if not then many outsiders will be hard-pressed to consider their punditry misinformed or uninformed.
When words such as popular or despised for examples are used, I sure wish people would at the very least include some incontrovertible bases for making such claims.
In his second term way after the euphoria over the initial successes of the current Iraq war, Bush got 62+ million of the popular vote, and for his part the very “popular and charismatic” Obama got 69+ million. All from a total vote of over 120 million. And remember Bush was up against a very “popular” John Kerry while Obama was up against John McCain who was not even fully accepted by his own party and in an election projected to be won by any generic Democrat. And if I may interject the still up in the air issue of the very liberal community organizer group, ACORN, (not only funded in part by Obama campaign funds but counted Obama as one of their own as patron and teacher) and under indictment in at least a dozen states, which publicly boasted it had registered as many as 3 million voters during the last 2/3 years. The question of how many are legitimate voters remains unanswered. And in an election were race or ethnicity played such a crucial part, albeit pronouncements to the contrary – where African-Americans voted 95% in favor of Obama, and Hispanics followed suit giving him 2/3rds of their vote.
Fema: The blame was the result of the forgotten levy issue to upgrade during Clinton terms. The state level never pushed legislator to correct the instability of that levy because, for some people, they will only act when the damage has been done.
Maybe Louisiana is probably like Philippines in terms of decision making but Philippines never have a system on how to decide on things.
FEMA is mother nature and an additional expense to tax payers money. The people of Louisiana couldn’t move on by complaining and pointing fingers to event that has already occured.
Louisiana is not like Philippines in many different ways. The broken levy has been fixed and will continue to get fix. Its people are optimistic for its come back, evidence of that was their latest Mardigra event where the city of New Orleans where marketed around the world.
In the Philippines, once it’s broken , it is forever broken.
my friend leytenian is showing her finance whiz side when she inadvertently talked about levy to raise money money instead of leeve, the dikes to prevent the floods. :)
Bencard,
Barack Obama’s victory was not a “black” or “leftist” victory because these two categories of citizens would not have been enough to elect him. No. Barack Obama’s victory was a “white” victory–a victory over a mental illness that has been pandemic in the entire population, but could never be vanquished until the racists majority could overcome it in themselves.
Now they have! But Sour grapers like Bencard sound just like Filipino election losers, with all the same funny explications why their candidate(s) lost. The innuendo is that they somehow cheated–thru a biased press, a deceptive ideology, illicitly gained money, etc, etc.
The fact is, the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the party of small government, individual responsibility and conservative thinking, the party I’ve supported for years, had completely lost its way under GWB, and had become its exact opposite. The Soul of Conservatism is no longer with the GOP under Bush-McCain.
It’ll take a generation to repair the damage, and no steadfast bencardian refusal to face the facts is gonna help do that.
Barack Obama will have a powerful influence on ALL democratic nations, because he represents a new and powerful meme or viral idea — a conception of what modern 21st century democratic leaders ought to be like.
This trope of a new leader in a globalized world will most powerfully affect countries like Poland and the Philippines, whose citizens, I know, deep in my heart because it is there too, are searching for their Obama.
No cynicism can squelch their hope, and no dusty, finger-wagging tsk-tsking can erase the new, firm belief that indeed, they can!
People, read the last sentence. Filipinos, daw, have a crusader mentality.
The editorial is supposed to be the collective opinion of the paper and yet it’s bereft of any intellectual backing. You don’t see even the most iffy science like Freudian psychology used in the generalizations given.
The Moro threat is a real one. The opinion writer remains of those pro-gay activist who exaggerate the anti-gay environment of the Philippines. In fact, we are among the most gay tolerant countries in the world just as we are among the most Muslim-tolerant of Christian countries. Our laws allow rights specific only to the Muslim religion, for crying out loud. And how many people here believe Christians to be cowards and Muslims brave? Crusaders we definitely are not.
jcc,
hahaha. thanks for the correction. you are correct leevy. yes levy for taxes. :)
As for Barack Obama. REVERSE RACISM. An experienced senator running for president and winning? Never if you’re white.
djb, let’s wait with bated breath what level of corruption the blogojevich scandal and the “pay to play” illinois political culture, from which obama sprouted from (in a political sense), will unfold. “blago” appears confident and arrogant as if saying “you can’t touch me, i know too much”. i understand rezko (obama’s friend) is starting to sing or has already been singing.
until then, reserve your verbose pomposity about the man.
Bush will be judge by history and not by the current tempers of the times. He is a regular guy with regular mind but 911 has defined his Presidenty and Bencard could be right that he could be likened to Truman or Lincoln.
America wanted a swift response after 911 and Bush gave that to the Americans. Any other President could have faltered and any indecision can fuel further the propaganda line of the terrorists that America is a paper tiger in the likes of the Somalia debacle Black Hawk Down.
They saw the real America in Bush after the dilly-dallying of Clinton on taking the initiative against America’s known enemies.
The seeming unpopularity of Bush was compunded by the economic meltdown, which is not of his own doing but by years of greed by both the Democrats and the Republicans. Like Pinoys, the Americans would blame anyone in power if the goings get tough.
But the wars either in Afghanistan or Iraq, despite media hype and liberal hollywood oppositions do not write off Bush’s legacy as a true leader who can act decisively and resolutely in times of crisis. Bush was able to project to the world that quintessential culture of the west that it has a big stick and is not afraid to use it.
Even the doves in America, cheered at the background when Bush ordered all-out war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Obama’s election is not a repudiation of the Bush legacy. American politics is too complex that always befuddles any observer new to her history.
It is a great nation with proud and united people. Observers often mistake the apparent divisiveness among Americans, the calumnies and pillories hurled against their leaders by the licentious press, and the political squabbles among or between parties as a sign of a decadent west.
A true American see all these as a sign of the strength of her institutions and the belief that errors in goverance are self-correcting because of a well functioning political system.
Amadeo,
The shoe throwing incident is the demarcation line between two Presidents. This is no longer about George W. Bush. He is History and may fall in with the likes of Herbert Hoover, or Richard Nixon in the gallery of PotUS. But I’m afraid he won’t be among the Great Ones. Forget Bush. He screwed the pooch, royally. Royally. He’s lucky they don’t throw tire-irons on behalf of widows and orphans. And there is no tarnish on the Office, since he is no longer the symbol of that office in the minds of most people all over the world. For GWB it’s “Exeunt, stage right…” he’s had his fateful hour on the Stage.
The real masterminds of 911 have not been brought to justice and what democracy exists in Iraq, Iraqis themselves are building from the ruin and rubble. Bush borrowed three trillion dollars, mainly from the Chinese, to fight two wars. That and the greed in real estate financing is what sunk the economy.
So America will be in Iraq for hundred years, (as some also ran threatened), in one form or another, just as they are in the Philippines. Out commingled destinies are intertwined inextricably. Bush showed one possible range of responses that America was capable of. But I know we are capable of much better.
Even you, Bencard, even you!
DJB,
You sound like a pundit of the liberal U.S. Media. Downplay the heat and scorn and look at U.S. politics as an academician. What is this Deanship all about if all you can hardly look at events with the cold demeanor of a true educator and historian. :)
Cheers. :)
JCC,
UP Law ka di ba?
di kilala mo si Jorge Bocobo; Dean is the son.
jcc,
the cold demeanor of a true educator and historian, you say?
Well, what do you think the chances are that future educators and histori ans will come to regard GWB in the same league as JFK or Ron.ald Reagan? Or even, (I choke myself to say this), Bill Clinton?
I disagree with almost everything else in the editorial, but I do agree that GWB is a stupendous failure at the things that he has been forced to do by History and Circumstance. In that sense he was not the worst of our Presidents, but he is far away from being among the best too.
On more specific political terms he was a traitor to the Conservative cause in America and has badly damaged the GOP.
If you knew me better, or ever read Philippine Commentary you would not be boring me with that “liberal US pundit” crock.
Royally. He’s lucky they don’t throw tire-irons on behalf of widows and orphans
Bush borrowed three trillion dollars, mainly from the Chinese, to fight two wars. That and the greed in real estate financing is what sunk the economy.
Oh, Dean, taking the above quotes, please do not veer any further to the political fringes.
Maybe you should ask the US military widows and orphans, and yes, also the ordinary Iraqis who are enjoying freedom, what they feel about this war and their own sacrifices.
And now, Bush single-handedly, (aided by greed in real estate financing?) destroyed the US economy?
Amadeo,
The $3 trillion dollar estimate for the cost of the Iraq War and where Bush got it is the subject of a major study by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate. I’m happy to be part of that “fringe” to which he belongs. No he didn’t do it all singlehandedly and I know where you are coming from. But on a scale of comparative greatness from 1 to 10 for PoTUS where would you put GWB?
Bush and Blanco
The states have their sovereignty. Pres Bush just can’t send the federal troops (in practice) into Louisiana without Blanco’s consent. Bush has the legal authority to do so but no US president since Lyndon B Johnson has done so. As this was the South, such move would be a political hot potato. Also the legal niceties here according the the Katrina post mortems include the Federalized troops can’t enforce Louisiana law (only Federal law) unless Blanco gives consent.
This should be food for thought for Pinoys wanting a federal system. What if we have a typhoon that hit say for example, the State of Cebu (and causes massive damage) and we have a governor who thinks Cebu can manage on its own since the thought of giving the Federal President some authority can affect the governor’s political pogi points.
That to a certain extent was Louisiana politics on the day Katrina hit. It is very Pinoy like and that is one reason why I can call Louisiana home.
It is somewhat good that a Republican “Bumbay” Bobby Jindal succeeded Blanco as governor. Jindal oversaw a reform of how the state responds to disasters.
True, Bush has blame but as President he can act only at the federal level. The FEMA snafu can be blamed on him but disaster management on the state level was horrible. And we have Ray Nagin as a character.
But on a scale of comparative greatness from 1 to 10 for PoTUS where would you put GWB?
Sorry, Dean, will not engage in any such scoring session, since I neither have the credentials nor the temerity to be making such value judgments.
But I do have my reasons for holding in great deference certain individuals. For Bush, I do look up to him for keeping the homeland, me and my family included, safe since 9/11. I also like his subdued but quite substantial (by most standards) assistance to African causes like AIDs. And I do admire him for the way that he had publicly handled his harshest critics, both abroad and domestically. But I definitely make him accountable for allowing his administration and especially his own party people in Congress to ride wild with fiscal irresponsibility. Very unGOP-like.
And since you appear to hold JFK in very high deference as many people do, please educate me about the whys and wherefores for this adulation. Was it because of his personal charisma and superb public speaking abilities, his commanding physical presence, his being Catholic, the Bay of Pigs, or the Cuban Missile crisis, his shortened stay in office, or God forbid, because of his inadvertent assassination? I do like him for his having cut taxes and thus spurred the economy during his tenure, quite uncharacteristic for a Democrat. And I continue to applaud the Peace Corps, which to this day continues its noble work.
Oh, Dean,
I forgot one newest item for JFK.
– or because he is the father of now Senator Caroline Kennedy [lose the Schlossberg, as Drudge reported]of New York?
Amadeo,
In the end, it is not US Presidents but the American people that must do the heavy lifting in every era in which they are called to some great endeavour. So I think the job of Presidents is to inspire them to rise to the challenge of their times. So yes indeed “charisma” counts for plenty in my book, because what can one man do, really? Bush never “grew”, never evolved beyond the Texas cowboy who responded to 911. He never transcended the terror he so fiercely fought. While we honor his service, we cannot but feel chagrin at the utter mess he has made of things, whilst trying to bring order to it.
Karl Garcia,
Thanks. So DBJ is the lesser of the J Bocobo of the College of Law Fame?
DJB,
Sorry I have not been at your Philippine Commentary site. But your discourse here are indentical to the commentaries of the liberal U.S. media press pundits. Get over the issue the Obama victory means as a repudiation of Bush. Americans love to experiment too and Bush has his legacy to the nation, that is: you cannot continue killing Americans without Americans doing something about it. It is simple as that.
katrina was a political watershed for bush, domestically.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/BushMeter/
JCC,
You must be newly naturalized, or something. Green Card maybe? Listen, welcome to the greatest country in the world, such as it is. But yeah, hip hip hooray for Uncle Sam.
Re Bush polling data, Bush never had a chance from the get-go. A very biased and hostile media was ganging up on him for every bit of disaster that came his way. It is a wonder he wasn’t blame for 9/11. But oh, some avid people also blame him for it, conspiracy they say. Some even said he responded too slowly. Was it all of 17-18 minutes before any decision came from him?
Anyway, take the war on Iraq and let us revisit some of the facts then obtaining prior to its start. During the run-up to the war, the public was polling 68-70% in favor of the war. Thus when the administration presented the war resolution to Congress, approval was an easy task, with most Democrats of note latching on (no arm-twisting necessary). These included John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and even John Edwards. In the current Democratic hierarchy, Obama stands solitarily as the anti-war Democrat and that is because he was not even in the Senate being asked to decide on the resolution. But would he have voted for it if he had been in the Senate?
Given the above, what are the odds that if instead of Bush, we had a Democrat as president, that the country would still have gone to war against Iraq?
Very likely.
But would we have been as solicitous and diligent in juxtaposing presidential approval ratings with those of a war that was slowly losing popular support?
blackshama is right: “It has nothing much to do with a Roman Catholic crusade against the schismatic Russian Orthodox.” But does the existence of the Russian threat negate what the paper’s editorial terms as the “crusader mentality” lurking in the Polish “national heart”?
Is Bush’s offer of an anti-ballistic defense plan a sufficient explanation for what blackshama calls as the Poles’ “so-called love for Bush”? Where does one place the emergence of a predominantly Roman Catholic theocratic hegemony in Poland?
How does blackshama’s explanation of Polish “Bush-loving” account for the calls of a total ban on abortion, for the prohibition of the theory of evolution from primary and secondary education, for the anti-Communist hysteria, for the illegalization of the Communist Youth League, for the anti-EU sentiment, and those demands for the abolition of the Polish presidency and the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Poland’s eternal King?
What is the Polish experience’s deeper connection with a Philippine situation where the Church campaigns against the reproductive health bill, where the middle class apathy towards political killings and disappearances (they’re leftist communist terrorists anyway), and where the prevailing anti-Moro prejudices of the Christian majority (abetted by government and the mass media)?
The question of a “crusader mentality” and so on goes beyond the question of respecting our Muslim brothers, etc. That the Philippines is one of the most Muslim-tolerant countries in the world does not so much matter. It is precisely this veneer of superficial goody-goody tolerance that hides the real problems of socio-economic injustices and inequality that historically accompanied the relationships of the Filipino and Moro peoples.
And whoever said that the scion of an American political dynasty, the son of a former US President, a two-term governor of a US state, was an ordinary guy? And the US has not suffered any major terrorist attack since 9-11… So what? The thing is, the US has suffered worse under Bush. It would be best to leave with the words of a renowned Indian writer:
“If the idea behind the 9/11 terror attacks was to goad America into showing its true colors, what greater success could the terrorists have asked for? The US army is bogged down in two unwinnable wars, which have made the United States the most hated country in the world… Hundreds of thousands people including thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The frequency of terrorist strikes on US allies/agents and US interests in the rest of the world has increased dramatically since 9/11. George Bush, the man who led the US response to 9/11 is a despised figure not just internationally, but also by his own people. Who can possibly claim that the United States is winning the war on terror?”
Indeed, the shoe-throwing incident is a fitting epitaph for a man who was probably better off as an ordinary guy than US president.
____________________________________________________________
“Indeed, the shoe-throwing incident is a fitting epitaph for a man who was probably better off as an ordinary guy than US president.” … Shigalyov
____________________________________________________________
Personal judgment. Will history judge GWB the same?
History News Network Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html)
“If the idea behind the 9/11 terror attack was to goad America into showing its true colors, what greater success could the terrorist have asked for?” Arundathi Roy (“renowned” indian writer writing for a european paper ).
that’s exactly right. present-day america’s true color is not that of a push-over. like a gentle giant, it’s seldom the source of barbaric aggression but make the mistake of threatening or attacking it and it will respond accordingly, often through massive retaliation. yeah, the 9/11 terrorists awakened the “giant” but surprise, surprise. they didn’t get exactly what “they asked for”. despite their boosters around the world (europe in particular) those terrorists are on the run and are being hounded relentlessly. anybody who expects the real americans (other than their homegrown enemies on the left) to “give the other cheek” ought to have his/her head examined.
Amadeo,
“But would we have been as solicitous and diligent in juxtaposing presidential approval ratings with those of a war that was slowly losing popular support?”
In the 20th Century America’s major wars and conflicts have been fought by Democratic Presidents:
WW1 – Woodrow Wilson
WW2 – FDR
Korean War – Truman
Vietnam – Kennedy, Johnson, with Nixon ending it.
It is naive to think that these presidents did not get their share of political and journalistic flack throughout their conduct of these wars and conflicts and that GWB failed because the Mass Media did not like him.
For whatever it is worth, the simple fact is that GWB failed to get bin Laden, failed to stabilize Iraq after brilliantly removing Saddam, and has been a major factor in the collapse of the economy by turning his back on Conservative principles.
You can’t blame the Mass Media for that. He had ample support from the non-Liberal media too, like FOX and NRO and PJ.
The tough historical view may be this. Bush was a tough talking cowboy, but he was mainly a dud and a fuckup. Al Qaeda should have been wiped out by now, but he underestimated what it would take. Until we do take them out, claims that America was kept by Bush are just whistling by the 911 graveyard. Both military and non military means will be required. Intelligent means. Terrorism, especially nuclear and biological terror are still a real threat. It has been high time they be taken out for real.
Barack Obama must do that. It seems again to fall to a Democratic President to do the Dirty Job that was started, but not accomplished by Bush, who seems to only have made things worse.
Filipinos must help America fight and win this war. Early on, we contributed greatly for it was Filipinos that created the first big break in the investigation of 9/11–with the intel that led to the capture of Iraqi intel agents Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Youssef, whose girlfriends are now aging whores in Malate…
DJB,
Getting Bin Laden is the favorite refrain of U.S Liberal Media Pundit and that’s the reason why I mistook DJB for one.
The Afghan war initiated by the US had deposed the Taliban Rulers and it was replaced by Kharzai, who apparently is pro-West. You could say that the country has been neutralized, and so was Bin Ladin who is now hiding in the borders of Pakistan and Afhganistan, or in the region of Peshawar. UBL may be alive but his movement as well that of his lieutenants are limited. The UBL-Taliban team up ruled Afghanistan before 911 but now their rule is limited to peripheral tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are continously on the run and mostly during nightime because if their daylight movement is pick up by satellite they can be blown to kingdom come.
Liberal critics would always harp that UBL is still on the loose and would deny the realities in Afghan that is free nation.
The same liberal critics would not be thrilled by Sadam, a kleptocrat and the most savage ruler in Iraq been taken out by the U.S. They would conveniently peddle their most vicious lie that the war has not improved the condition on the ground and would close their eyes to the fact that for the first time the country have had a free election and women, who were considered pieces of shit by the Mulahs and by Sadam are now being empowered and given the right to vote and to work as professionals like the men. The country has a judicial system and the judges are relatively freer than under Sadam.
Nothing is said about these democractic gains either in Iraq or Afghan because these liberals, despite their mauch-vaunted libertarian sounding rhetorics, are quite comfortable with the idea that the Afghans and the Iraquis do not deserve the freedoms being enjoyed by other countries because they are much better off enslaved by their ruthless leaders.
Shigalyov,
The 61 per cent historians who judge Bush as one of the worst Presidents can be parsed as 61 of the liberals considered the President as the worst. Look at your link, this is a liberal website and the article writer is an author of a book, the End of Conservatism in America.
So, Dean you appear to accept the premise that even a Democratic president would have waged war against Iraq given the factual circumstances stated earlier. After all, as you listed Democratic presidents have presided over many of the world’s wars.
Therefore as is typical in your astute and incisive analyses, please educate us how the current Iraq war as a critical component of the vaguely definable (by conventional standards) war on terror compares favorably and similarly with the wars you listed. Or if not, then that too. And secondly, how a Democratic president would have handled the current war, with most everybody granting that certain aspects of this protracted war were mishandled in its earlier stages. Though many would submit that the start of the endgame with the surge presaging it has brought many desirable and approving results.
And sorry to disagree with a couple of your talking points which appear unconvincing and a bit shallow when confronted with some facts.
MSM vs the likes of NRO and PJM. The big guns of MSM against NRO and upstart PJM? No contest, though they are gaining. And yes, another upstart, FOX News, is clobbering the other cable networks. But it is just one among many, not even counting the monolithic broadcast networks. But give it time. You forgot one sector that would have moved your argument a bit to your favor – talk radio where conservatism currently upends liberalism. But watch intently because the sequestered Fairness Doctrine has started to rear its ugly head.
It is naive to think that these presidents did not get their share of political and journalistic flack throughout their conduct of these wars and conflicts and that GWB failed because the Mass Media did not like him
The failure of Bush is that he lost in the approval ratings war, goaded by a media bent on destroying him. Remember this is the same president who got 62 million votes even after the “ugliness” of the Iraq war had become front and center during his re-election.
And failure is not in the Iraq War which currently is now on track toward more stability and order. Remember the Iraq War surprisingly became a non-issue during the height of the last election? And irony or ironies, many now in the same media are hinting of a Bush 3rd term on the conduct of the war – based on personnel selection and again, new nuances in shifting positions.
And re the flak that Bush received from the hostile media. One would have been living in a cave (or maybe domiciled more than 7,000 miles away?) not to acknowledge the depth and ferocious intensity of very harsh and undue criticism (and maybe even sabotage, like the many leaks that got printed out?) that Bush got from his detractors and media, and which to this day, the waning weeks of his administration, has not abated. Personally, I have not witnessed in my almost 30 years of stay such rigor and inordinate passion in the deluge of criticisms that has been unleashed against him – in practically everything he has ever done. His inarticulateness and apparent nonchalance in vigorously defending himself and/or explaining his positions to the public has not helped him.