18/12: Hard Cold Facts
Category: Bush Hagiography
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week, in a post I eventually deleted ("Project Big Rock Candy Mountain"), I weighed in on how ridiculous and cruel the world of partisan politics can be to a sitting president. I chose irony as my primary method of expression. On many levels, the piece failed.
ANOTHER TRY: hard, cold and incontrovertible facts as to why much of the criticism leveled at President Bush is the product of political myopia, partisanship and flat-out disingenuousness.
1. George Bush is not dumb. He is one of the best-educated men to hold the office of President of the United States. Every objective measure indicates that he is a man of well-above-average intelligence. Moreover, he is surrounded by the best and the brightest advisors our nation has to offer.
An aside: it should go without saying, of course, that brilliant men often conjure up plans that are not fool proof. And no one will deny that brilliant men are capable of making dumb mistakes. When this happens we should hold our leaders and decision makers accountable.
However, there is a notion that slinks around in these discussions that smart people (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore for example) could easily solve the dilemmas that the President faces. This is a ridiculous and insidious political conceit. Those who contribute to or condone this destructive calumny should be ashamed.
2. George Bush did not invent big government. George Bush is not responsible for big government. The President sits atop a structural deficit and bureaucratic leviathan seven decades in the making.
The President did put forward three very large big-government programs in education, healthcare and homeland security. The President does promote a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, which really seems to mean a larger more involved central government. A voluminous critique from conservatives exists on why these are unworkable and dangerous ideas.
However, most political opponents who criticize the President on this issue in particular are not credible. For example, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy claims that the President was not honest with Congress in estimating the cost of the drug program. Does the Senator from Massachusetts expect us to believe that he is actually upset about the cost of the project? Senator Kennedy has advocated for decades a national healthcare system that would dwarf the prescription drug regime. Ironically, Senator Kennedy (a cosponsor of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation) now faults the President for holding back funding on the education program.
Our current economic dilemma is the product of long-term systemic problems. Do we raise taxes to pay off deficits? Do we cancel entitlements? We are coasting along in a state of well-being, albeit nervous that our prosperity is built on a temporary foundation. But who is going to stand up and sound the alarm and ask for the draconian cutbacks and sacrifices needed to right our ship of state (when we are not in the midst of crisis)?
And if a president ever asks for those needed sacrifices, we know that the same cast of partisan-driven characters will criticize him vehemently for his heartlessness.
3. President Bush did not create the palpable enmity for America in the Middle East or the exasperation with the United States in Europe.
Europe is a jealous and mostly unsteady ally. We live in a dangerous world in which people want to do us harm, and we are foolish to expect any other nation to help us. Palestinians danced in the streets of Jerusalem on 9/11/2001. Polling figures indicated at the time of 9/11 that 70-plus percent of the Arab world viewed the United States unfavorably. Granted, the numbers are even worse today, but they had been trending down for decades. Part of the problem that George Bush faced (and attempted to address) was hatred for America, so white-hot that it produced terrorists willing to lose their lives to punish the Great Satan.
Negotiating with our enemies is fine, as long as we understand that nations do what is in their own self interest. Just as we must do what is in our vital national interest. Attacking Iraq did not give terrorists like Osama bin Laden et al more reasons to hate us. How can al Qaeda hate us more than they did on 9/11? Morevoer, according terrorists like Osama bin Laden rights of due process will not sway the people who hate us in massive numbers.
A Refutable Addendum (that is; a little lagniappe on which reasonable people will disagree):
Negotiating away the Israeli state will not make the Arab world love us (although I admit that abandoning Israel and withdrawing completely from the Middle East would remove the primary reasons terrorists even consider the United States). But that cannot be accomplished piece meal. Our abdication must be complete. We cannot accommodate our enemies and hope that they will appreciate us for our reasonableness; they will only see our attempts at conciliation as weakness and demand more. We must be willing to give them everything they want--if we begin down that road.
ANOTHER TRY: hard, cold and incontrovertible facts as to why much of the criticism leveled at President Bush is the product of political myopia, partisanship and flat-out disingenuousness.
1. George Bush is not dumb. He is one of the best-educated men to hold the office of President of the United States. Every objective measure indicates that he is a man of well-above-average intelligence. Moreover, he is surrounded by the best and the brightest advisors our nation has to offer.
An aside: it should go without saying, of course, that brilliant men often conjure up plans that are not fool proof. And no one will deny that brilliant men are capable of making dumb mistakes. When this happens we should hold our leaders and decision makers accountable.
However, there is a notion that slinks around in these discussions that smart people (Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore for example) could easily solve the dilemmas that the President faces. This is a ridiculous and insidious political conceit. Those who contribute to or condone this destructive calumny should be ashamed.
2. George Bush did not invent big government. George Bush is not responsible for big government. The President sits atop a structural deficit and bureaucratic leviathan seven decades in the making.
The President did put forward three very large big-government programs in education, healthcare and homeland security. The President does promote a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, which really seems to mean a larger more involved central government. A voluminous critique from conservatives exists on why these are unworkable and dangerous ideas.
However, most political opponents who criticize the President on this issue in particular are not credible. For example, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy claims that the President was not honest with Congress in estimating the cost of the drug program. Does the Senator from Massachusetts expect us to believe that he is actually upset about the cost of the project? Senator Kennedy has advocated for decades a national healthcare system that would dwarf the prescription drug regime. Ironically, Senator Kennedy (a cosponsor of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation) now faults the President for holding back funding on the education program.
Our current economic dilemma is the product of long-term systemic problems. Do we raise taxes to pay off deficits? Do we cancel entitlements? We are coasting along in a state of well-being, albeit nervous that our prosperity is built on a temporary foundation. But who is going to stand up and sound the alarm and ask for the draconian cutbacks and sacrifices needed to right our ship of state (when we are not in the midst of crisis)?
And if a president ever asks for those needed sacrifices, we know that the same cast of partisan-driven characters will criticize him vehemently for his heartlessness.
3. President Bush did not create the palpable enmity for America in the Middle East or the exasperation with the United States in Europe.
Europe is a jealous and mostly unsteady ally. We live in a dangerous world in which people want to do us harm, and we are foolish to expect any other nation to help us. Palestinians danced in the streets of Jerusalem on 9/11/2001. Polling figures indicated at the time of 9/11 that 70-plus percent of the Arab world viewed the United States unfavorably. Granted, the numbers are even worse today, but they had been trending down for decades. Part of the problem that George Bush faced (and attempted to address) was hatred for America, so white-hot that it produced terrorists willing to lose their lives to punish the Great Satan.
Negotiating with our enemies is fine, as long as we understand that nations do what is in their own self interest. Just as we must do what is in our vital national interest. Attacking Iraq did not give terrorists like Osama bin Laden et al more reasons to hate us. How can al Qaeda hate us more than they did on 9/11? Morevoer, according terrorists like Osama bin Laden rights of due process will not sway the people who hate us in massive numbers.
A Refutable Addendum (that is; a little lagniappe on which reasonable people will disagree):
Negotiating away the Israeli state will not make the Arab world love us (although I admit that abandoning Israel and withdrawing completely from the Middle East would remove the primary reasons terrorists even consider the United States). But that cannot be accomplished piece meal. Our abdication must be complete. We cannot accommodate our enemies and hope that they will appreciate us for our reasonableness; they will only see our attempts at conciliation as weakness and demand more. We must be willing to give them everything they want--if we begin down that road.
Tocqueville wrote:
Records released to the Boston Globe (after the election) proved that Kerry's grades at Yale University averaged 76, while Bush, who also graduated Yale, averaged 77. Under the grade system at the time, both marks equate to a C. Kerry's score seems to have been dragged down during his first year, when he got four Ds. That's right, four Ds in the first year. At Yale.
See the story here:
http://www.boston.com/news/...
One important point can be extrapolated from this. Remember Kerry's on-the-spot excuse for his outrageous comment, “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.” In my view, given his grades (and those of Bush), Kerry could not possibly have meant what he claims he meant (that his statement was referring to Bush).