printPresident Bush has a lot of problems. That’s obvious. One of them is his father. It’s not that Bush 41 was so wonderful, but he was better than the man who’s distinguished himself as “the worst president in U.S. history”?
Bush junior has become quite prickly in the past, when quizzed about whether he sought his dad’s advice. As Christopher Buckley has written:
“Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted ‘a higher father.’ That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, ‘Go for it!’ There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)
George Bush is all about one-upmanship, which is a good thing if you can do it honestly and self-reliantly. He can’t.
So what do you make of the runt appointing Robert Michael Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Gates is daddy’s man through-and-through. He served under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence and is a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III (another of the former president’s men) to study the Iraq campaign.
I think Baker and Gates, Daddy’s Big Guns, will direct Bush, the shrub, out of Iraq.
The critical point in addition to the restoring of Bush I is the re-establishment of Habeas Corpus.
Add to your very good post the article in Thursday’s New York Times by M. Dowd and you have a very clear picture of what has already happened as a result of the “American Revolt”
Ref http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09dowd.html
Dubya’s taking it on the chin and, I suppose, it’s richly deserved. But, to call him the worst President in history when we have been doubly blessed with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton is a real reach. After spending a little time with the next President Clinton or President Pelosi or whichever stiff with a big Pepsodent smile the left trots out for the American voters I predict that you’re going to miss George. Either one of them.
[I actually miss the good old days of debating minimum wage with the fools–far better than counting the dead in Iraq. ‘Cmon. Get perspective.]
Big Guns…Hmmmm….
Choose your poison. National Socialism or Worldwide Socialism. Either way Americans lose.
Also, in order to receive direction from the “higher Father”, you have to believe in Him first. I seriously doubt the Dubya believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. His actions speak far louder than his words.
It (faith) is a convience for politicans. I’m more concerned that very few politicians, “protect and defend” the Constitution of the United States
Six years ago, I thought Cheney was one of Bush 41’s guys, a wise man who knew not to invade Iraq in 1991. And I thought Rumsfeld came from the same realist wing of the GOP. I recall that Bush was lauded for bringing experienced professionals into his Administration.
I’ll never understand how Cheney and Rumsfeld could ever think that invading Iraq was a good idea.
Nothing wrong with my perspective. We’re not going to spend much time at the library in polite debates on public policy. We, will be fighting for the life of the country against a radical group of opportunists who will stop at nothing to keep the power they have gained. Waco and Ruby Ridge showed us what these people are prepared to do to anyone who doesn’t fall into line. Nancy Pelosi was already laying the ground work for chaos by harping on the fear of rigged polling sites and getting the leftist faithful ready to take to the streets in protest of any close races lost to the Democrats. Since they won, nothing else said. The Democrats would gladly sell the security and rule of law in this country down the river if it meant giving them an advantage. Get ready for an all out assault on what few freedoms we have left.
We have this mess because the Republicans are losers. As you know I don’t have much faith in third parties. Maybe that time has come.
[You make Republicans sound so affable. They aren’t “losers”; they’re corrupt statists. Everything you said about the Dems applies to the Republicans in spades–and to the power of 1000, at least.]
You got me on that one. Is there a viable third party in the picture? let’s start a revolution, or something. The Country is declining at an increasing rate. I’m tired of supporting the lesser of two evils.
The front runners of both parties in the presidential race are usually members of the Council on Foriegn Relations (CFR). Carter was, Reagan wasn’t but filled his cabinet with them and increased the number of CFR members in the state department. Bush senior was a board member.Clinton ,Gore, Bradley,Lieberman, McCain along with Baker,Scrowcroft, Kissinger,Tricky Dick Nixon and Dick Cheney are all members of this influentual group begun after the failed attempt to get senate ratification for the League of Nations treaty. If Americans really want positive change they should vote for the principaled candidates dedicated to the Unanimous Declaration and the Constitution such as Alan Keyes who was on the ballot with Bush and McCain or Rep.Ron Paul who was the Libertarian presidential candidate [are you sure? I thought the late Harry Browne was ] or Howard Phillips and Herb Titus of the Constitution party [which is still pro one of the greatest infractions on liberty: the Drugs War]. Never heard of them? You have now.
If both Republicans and Democrats are willing to toss whatever principles they supposedly hold to the wind in order to beat the other party, then perhaps we can indulge in a forlorn hope for a deadlocked government, unable to do any further damage. It’s when they get “bipartisan” that they come together to destroy our long term interests at home and abroad.