The Real Deal - President George W. Bush - Commander-in-Chief
“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
With that bold statement on September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush dropped the hammer, drew a line in the sand, and proclaimed to the world that the United States of America would not be cast into the shadows of fear, would not be threatened, and would stand behind the heroic men and women of our armed forces as they carried out their mission to bring terrorist, and their supporters, to their knees. Bush told the world that he was committed to stomp out terrorism, would not sway to public perception and as a decisive Commander in Chief, would not act contrite for defending the United States of America against those who posed a threat against her.
At a time when the outcome of the war in Iraq began to look bleak, President Bush did not sway to public outcry and respond to dropping poll numbers. This American President stood on firm ground. When strong public opinion and media opposition called for a withdrawal from the Iraq war and to wave the white flag of surrender, Bush stuck to his promise and pushed for a surge in the war effort, as advised by top military officials. Failure was not an option.
Barack Obama opposed the surge that ultimately worked.
One of President Bush’s strongest critics gave Bush the opportunity to say “I told you so”, in and ABC interview with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON: You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I’ll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say, I told you so?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: [LAUGHS] No, I don’t, because the decision, while it was a tough decision was really studied, and uh, and it was based upon the recommendations of wise military commanders.
Bush’s response depicts an unspoken characteristics of a true leader, one that entails humility and lacks arrogance. For the interview shows a President more concerned about the wellness of a nation, rather than individual perception and Presidential legacy. Unlike his successor who revels in blame with constant statements faulting the previous administration for current troubles, and touting a playground attitude with remarks like “I won…I trump you”, Bush deferred the credit to the brave men and women who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of liberty, freedom and honor. No apologies, no excuses.
Enter Barack Hussein Obama.
During the 2008 Presidential Election, then Senator Obama promised the United States, and the world, that a new era in American history would be written, should he be elected President. On November 4th, 2008, Obama won the election on the promise of Hope and Change. The world waited to see if he could deliver.
After passing the record breaking $787 billion stimulus bill, the pork filled, $410 billion “imperfect” omnibus bill, strong arming the passage of the House’s version of the Cap-n-Trade bill, trying to ram thru a strongly opposed nationalized health care bill, the President has lived up to his promise of Change. But the hope he spoke of has dissipated as quickly as his approval ratings. The change we have received more resembles the change described in George Orwell’s 1984.
While the economy, unemployment and health care has been the spotlight thus far, President Obama’s true waterloo may be lurking around the corner.
This President seems more concerned with popular opinion than the safety of U.S. Troops and national security. As reported by Yahoo News:
The prospect that U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal may ask for as many as 45,000 additional American troops in Afghanistan is fueling growing tension within President Barack Obama’s administration over the U.S. commitment to the war there.
The article goes on to describe the waning of Vice President Biden:
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to the media, said Biden has argued that without sustained support from the American people, the U.S. can’t make the long-term commitment that would be needed to stabilize Afghanistan and dismantle al Qaida. Biden’s office declined to comment.
With many of Obama’s staunchest supporters now criticizing his stance on the war effort in Afghanistan, and his delay in a commitment to send more troops, one has to wonder where the Presidents convictions truly rest. Is the President more concerned about popularity, poll numbers, political correctness and paying off his supporters, or is he willing to take the necessary actions to get the job done, no matter how unpopular the DECISION is? There is no doubt that Obama will spin his indecisiveness as “wanting to know all the facts”, but he has passed that lip service off before. For the job of the United States Commander-in-Chief is to not only make decisions that affect our nation, but make the hard and quick choices that nobody else can make.
President Bush stood tall in the face of adversity, the true mark of a solider. But unlike Bush, President Obama has continually proven he is slow to the table with tough decision, is politically driven and caters to public perception regardless of what the issue is. These are characteristics of a populist, not an effective Commander-in-Chief.
It’s been 10 months since President Obama won the election, yet America has had all his type of change she can stomach. Instead of ridicule, Obama could learn a valuable lesson from of his predecessor. Perhaps not in belief or policy, but certainly in courage and merit. Eitherway, take a stand Mr. President, but let the world know what that stance is. If not for anyone else, our military deserves it!
[UPDATE September 30, 2009]: Top officials and Obama advisers study Afghan war
Very correct analysis. I always said G W. Bush will be recorded as the best US president in American history.
All I can say is “HELL YA!” It’s about time someone said it!
Bush gave us two wars and economic crisis, how is that a good thing?
Andrea ~ Bush did not give us two wars. They were not manufactured by our President or our country, but started by people who threatened our national security. Bush decided to be proactive, rather than reactive. However, the point of the article is that he took a solid stance and did what he thought was right, based on the intel he received (although that intel now seems to have been faulty…hindsight is 20/20) and he didn’t waver on public opinion, which puts troops at risk and lowers American deterrence. Obama is neglecting the advice of those military leaders in the know, sending in 1/3 of the amount of troops that has been determined by our military leaders to be needed. He also has changed his stance in that he critizied Bush by going on record saying you don’t tell families that the soldier will have a 12 month tour then extend it to 15 months. Yet, he just did the same thing to the troops in Afghanistan. Among other things, that is hypocrisy right in front of you and it is not the characteristics of a leader, and it is dangerous for our troops.
As far as the economic crisis is concerned, “the president who deregulated the financial markets was Bill Clinton with the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in November 1999 and with the equal housing act in 1996.” (quoted by Louis on another site)
Thanks for your comments though, and I welcome further debates.
admin:
What do you make of the Downing Street Minutes? It seems like the government of Great Britain was convinced that the Bush administration was intent on manufacturing a war with Iraq, to suit the long stated global policy ambitions of the PNAC members who controlled the DOD and the policy “arm” of the Bush Administration. These meetings took place of course in the run up to war. During the time that it was apparent to England, and France and Germany that no WMDs existed, and that the Bush Admin was “tailoring” the available intel to suit the narrative they wanted to feed the American public. Were those officials wrong? Did they just take their notes poorly? Is it possible that we were taken to war for reasons “other” than those publicly provided?
Well, I certainly admit that anything is possible. I believe a lot of mistakes were made. What war or conflict doesn’t have that, as hind sight is 20/20. But let’s remember this, decisions are made on the best evidence and knowledge available. The evidence that I saw, definitely supported the war effort. If you don’t remember, Colin Powell (a supporter of Obama) took a strong position in that Iraq had WND’s. Nobody is on a witch hunt after him. Remember his famous address to the U.N.? Are you saying that he is apart of that conspiracy too? He lead the effort, and George Bush listened.
Anyone can argue either way, with valid points on both sides. However, the article was not about right or wrong, it was about taking a firm stance and leading. The world is watching, and flip flopping makes us look weak and puts our troops in danger. Obama said the other day that he did not want to send in more troops to get killed. That rubbed me the wrong way, because if that is his true feelings, then what does that say about the ones he is leaving there, and the under sized amount he just sent over. Are they to be the sacrificial lambs to prove his point, to hang them out to dry? It is like he is saying…Oh, I am not sending more over to get killed, I will just leave you over there for that. What the heck!
Either bring them all home to safety, or send enough there to get the job done, as top military officials have advised. You can argue that they have advised wrongly before, but what type of experience does Obama have to justify his decisions. Like Mr. Miogi said in the Karate Kid…”walk left side of road…safe, walk right side of road..safe. Walk in the middle, pretty soon you get the squish, just like a grape.”
Again, make a stance, one way or another the other, commit and act. We have American lives as stake!
“best US president in American history…” I can only presume Mr. M. Shahjahan Bhatti is an active Al Qaeda supporter… or an 8 year old.
J Stewart.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/condoleezza-rice-if-you-w_n_294755.html
Chet:
The Downing Street Memo’s are not about “mistakes” that may have been made. They are proof that the Bush administration knowingly lied about the so called “intelligence” they used to make their case to the American people supporting war. Colin Powell resigned his position in the Bush administration over these lies. It is not a situation of 20/20 hindsight – just outright dishonesty. Yes it is certainly true that they were taking a position and holding firmly to it. It is also true that the position was not consistent with reality, and they knew it, and they didn’t care. The political goal of toppling Saddam Hussein was well articulated by PNAC long before Bush began his campaign for president. The goal was primary – the rational, that was just a detail to be spun to gain public support.
I couldn’t agree more. We need a leader, not a populist. I want my son to come home, but not in defeat!
The downing street minuets is nothing more than propaganda that was “released” during the end of the UK elections. If there was ANY merit, the democrats would have pursed it when they took control of the House and Senate, just like they are going after Bush and the waterboarding issues.
Even the main stream media now realizes this.