While their country is being overrun by the Pakistani and “North African” Jihad, a left-wing British journalist took time to conjure up a list of 20 redundant items and present them as “President Bush’s biggest mistakes” in the Daily Telegraph.
Like ALL presidents, Bush has made mistakes: betraying fiscal conservatism (particularly in the areas of massive education spending, aid to “Palestinian” terrorists and auto bailouts) would be one, and not denouncing his juvenile enemies in the liberal media, and politically correct statements about this “Religion of Peace” would be another; but not surprisingly, that did not make this list of clichés. Since so many of these lies overlap, I’ll expose just nine of the worst.
I’d also add that the presidents who made the most “mistakes” (Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, T. Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Reagan, et al.) are often considered our finest. In his final hours, Bush’s legacy is already secure in its most important area: NO terror attacks in over seven years. The absurd list is here
1) No WMDs
Mr. Bush built his entire case for war on the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, he chose to ignore conflicting evidence and forever undermined not only his presidency, but the reputation of US intelligence agencies and his country in much of the world.
I’m shocked he started there. Just kidding. This gripe is exactly where the left first lost their marbles and embarrassed themselves nearly six years ago.
Democrats believe that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq and thus sent a volunteer army to war for various selfish reasons. Whether or not Hussein had said weapons, British, French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course our CIA, rightly believed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy a WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he would not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Coalition forces found mass graves, torture chambers, and evidence of other heinous atrocities in Iraq. Bush was thus, overall, correct to go into Iraq. There was no peace treaty ending the 1991 Gulf War, but only a cease fire; therefore, the president did not need a legal reason for military action against Iraq. Clinton did not in December 1998, remember.
But that was not enough for Bush’s critics; they needed WMDs. And you wonder why nearly every Democrat running for president in my lifetime has been a lawyer?
2) Permitting Torture
By stating that the Geneva Convention did not apply to “enemy combatants,“ Mr. Bush paved the way for waterboarding, attack dogs, and other draconian interrogation tactics that will forever be associated with his presidency.
This saved thousands of American lives, period. And this is exactly why there has not been another attack since 9-11. Crucial information has been obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of “torturous” waterboarding.
Whether this tactic is in fact torture is debatable. Democrats and John McCain believe it is, though only the latter has the credibility here. Bush, Cheney and most Americans like myself, believe it isn’t. In any case, it was incredibly necessary. Like Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt and others during wartime—who did far “worse”—Bush was trying to keep you and I safe. And that he did.
3) Ignoring Pre-9/11 Terror Memo
Just weeks before 9/11, while spending a holiday at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr. Bush received a memo from the CIA entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US”. While the President cannot respond to every single threat presented to the country, the timing and nature of this particular warning will forever blight his legacy.
Oh goodness, are you serious? I’m not even getting into this 4th grade logic other than to say Bill Clinton spent eight years stripping and defunding the military, while ignoring the 1993 WTC attacks as well as Islamic attacks in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and onwards. Pres. Clinton had no interest in capturing Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him to the US in 1996. In essence, Clinton could have prevented 9-11, but he was busy romancing a girl young enough to be his daughter.
4) Entering Iraq without a UN mandate.
After months of deliberation, the UN Security Council could not come to an agreement over the proposed invasion of Iraq. Mr. Bush impatiently led a “coalition of the willing” into the country and his decision is still considered by the UN to be illegal.
The UN? The US needs permission from an anti-Israel, anti-American organization? What’s next, giving Al Gore, a Nobel Peace prize? Oh. The UN, via Kofi Anan’s Oil for Food scandal is “in bed with Iraq.“ So are the French. No more on this erroneous yet typical claim.
5) Failing to capture Osama bin Laden
After 9/11, Mr. Bush’s primary goal was to capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. More than seven years have passed and the only evidence of Bin Laden is a series of grainy video tapes taunting Mr. Bush and the United States.
As if every anti war critic would suddenly support their country if we found Bin Laden tomorrow. We’ve captured most of the heads of terrorist organizations and when these miracles occurred, the left, along with their media, worried about proper funerals for folks that killed Americans and our allies. In any event, time to switch gears, as according to Barack Obama, Bin Laden’s no big deal:
“I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function,“ he said last week. “If we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.“
Bin Laden is either dead or ineffective, so there’s another issue that’s done, yet they obsess over.
6) Abandoning the Kyoto Protocol
In 2001, Mr. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that requires participating countries to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. He cited its effect on the economy, but the auto industry is already on the brink and global climate change is a real problem. Even merely as a sign of intent, his signature would have been helpful.
This is such poor research. This was one of Bush’s BEST decisions. Thankfully, the President is uninterested in the whacked out enviro-lobby, or the opinions of misguided elites and European hypocrites.
The treaty was a disaster, as India, China, Mexico and the rest of the world’s greatest polluters were exempted! Economic decline, worse than which we’re already in, would have been the certain result. Bush acted accordingly, against popular opinion, as usual, thankfully.
He stood strong versus global warming hysteria and alarmism, slowing movement toward any policy blunders of “global” impact, giving time for facts to debunk dubious claims of alarmists and those, like Al Gore, looking to profit financially. Thanks to this, the consensus on global warming has collapsed, while skeptics like tens of thousands of experts and the founder of the Weather Channel—- who point to global COOLING (check last week’s record cold, al-Gore) this past decade—- can now be heard, and a rational approach can now be utilized.
7) Refusing to let Katrina ruin his holiday
Hurricane Katrina hit towards the end of a long summer holiday for Mr. Bush. His immediate response was not to view the damage personally, but at five miles high through the window of Air Force One on his way back to Washington.
Like the horrible accusations by Kanye West, this is such balderdash. Bush should never have apologized for something 100% the fault of lazy residents who wanted freebies, rapists and looters who benefited from the chaos, and a local government who did not listen to federal warnings so they could, as good Democrats, get free handouts and pass the blame to someone else, avoiding personal responsibility. Most Katrina victims now enjoy a better life.
I am a harsh critic of the agenda-driven Katrina exploiters. The residents who shot at rescue helicopters are the culprits. The left exploited this, as they’re known to do, racially and politically. New Orleans, where I’ve visited pre and post Katrina, is anything but a great American city. It’s nice for carousing, drinking, seeing architecture and attending a sporting event, but that’s it. A historian such as myself often wonders if Maj. Gen. Andrew Jackson really needed to save this fringe city during the War of 1812, especially since the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was signed a month prior to the Battle of New Orleans, where nearly 2,000 Americans were killed or wounded.
Ben Stein put it best here: http://spectator.org/archives/2005/09/02/get-off-his-back-updated
Most notably:
“George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans. Those are drawn up by New Orleans and Louisiana. In any event, the plans were perfectly good: mandatory evacuation. It is in no way at all George Bush’s fault that about 20 percent of New Orleans neglected to follow the plan. It is not his fault that many persons in New Orleans were too confused to realize how dangerous the hurricane would be. They were certainly warned. It’s not George Bush’s fault that there were sick people and old people and people without cars in New Orleans. His job description does not include making sure every adult in America has a car, is in good health, has good sense, and is mobile.“
8) Underestimating the cost of the war/Lack of body armour for US troops
Like a contractor’s ever-inflating estimates of a home renovation, Mr. Bush’s original $50-$60 billion price tag on the Iraq war sounds like a steal now. The current cost is closer to $600 billion. Due to the budget constraints of an expensive war, many US troops lacked proper armour for the challenges in Iraq. There have been reports of families turning to eBay to purchase protective gear for their sons and daughters stationed in the Middle East.
ALL presidents underestimate the cost of war, but if you’re still alive and thriving like the elite on the left, why is this bad? NONE of THEIR children are fighting. The Civil War was expected to be done in three months, but took four years and 625,000 lives. In 1862, like in the 21st century, our heroes re-enlisted. The left does not support the troops and must admit this.
As someone with friends and family fighting, the lack of armor is a plain lie. We have about 200,000 troops in the middle east, with plenty of supplies.
The left always mocks “keeping America safe” yet they’re the biggest alarmists and cowards who rely on our proud military and law enforcement, to save their lives, as we saw on 9-11, when necessary.
9) Losing focus on Afghanistan
The early campaign in Afghanistan was relatively successful. Rather than continuing the effort there however, Mr. Bush quickly switched focus to Iraq. Many, including President-Elect Barack Obama, believe that a greater presence in Afghanistan would be more effective in the war on terror.
Relatively? If this guy knew anything, he’d know that OEF was one the most successful military engagements in our proud military history.
Did we also “take our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan, as Obama and every liberal says? This needs no explanation. We have plenty troops there, and thanks to the successes in Iraq that Bush suggested and Democrats opposed, more troops are on the way from Iraq.
Afghanistan is mountainous; Iraq is not. After we won the initial battles in Afghanistan, we couldn’t just come home; we needed a place to station and combat the Jihad, and Iraq, for so many reasons, was the place. We have bases there, know the terrain, and Iraq is the geographic and strategic center for Islamic terrorism. Read a book.
The “Surge” was courageous, and it worked. Iraq is now a functioning democracy. The left should be applauding, but they’re duplicitous as always. I would not expect Obama’s supporters—BY FAR THE MOST ignorant electorate in US history as proven in every poll—to comprehend that. Leave it to adults.
Ari Kaufman
more...
more... 
YourImageDoctors
