The Difference Between Bush and His Detractors

            The one thing about Bush that catches my attention when I see him is that he seems so much a natural man. He does not seem contrived. He does not have to go back and reenact moments for the sake of capturing them on film and making them good press. If someone catches the President in action, they catch him. And, if no one happens to be present in a moment that would make good public relations. Well, that is how it goes. Word has never gotten out that this President questioned whether there was someone to capture the moment before he went back to check on an injured policeman that had been part of his escort before he acted. That alone is a big difference between him and the man who would replace him as the leader of the Nation.

            Those who criticize Bush promote their man for the largeness of his frame, but President Bush has been recognized for the largeness of his passion, passion for the United States and his view of her role in history. Those who want to replace him think we should run pleading to other countries and institutions outside of ourselves and he thinks we should lead other countries and guide the way for institutions of the world that have no moral compass. He is not large in frame, but neither is the wild horses of the West from which the American Quarter Horse came. That horse can outthink cattle and turn on a dime to get them where they need to be. The President, who identifies himself with the same country of the wild horse seems to be able to do that with the unruly longhorns of the world. He is ahead of them one move and like the smaller horse of the West, he has heart.

            The people who want their man to become Commander in Chief chomp at the bit that George Bush is the Chief. And he is not the C in C simply because it says so in the Constitution. He is that man because the men who have to lay their lives on the line at his command have recognized him as such. They have chosen to trust him with their lives and their sacred honor because they see the quality of leadership in him that a soldier wants to see in the man that puts them in harm’s way. We have seen it gall those who would replace him because they could not get the trust and approval for their man. They could not even get it from those who had been part of the war he had gone to.

            When the Commander in Chief Bush has spoken about this present danger, he has spoken about the moral purpose of our forays into Afghanistan and Iraq. He calls global terrorism evil, an evil that must be stomped out, not a job for policemen, but a work for soldiers. There is indeed a place for lawmen, even as there is a place for intelligence agents (spies if you will) but the enemies of America need to be rooted out and stomped on as one would a snake. You do not make bargains with poisonous vipers, you crush them. Evil is evil, not a misunderstanding.

            Those who would criticize Bush have been exposed repeatedly as unprincipled. George Bush on the other hand has been defining principles that do indeed desperately need defining, with a clarity that those who would stand against him have found most uncomfortable. They have sought to question his character but in doing so their own character has been exposed as more bankrupt and lacking in substance than anything that might be cast at his feet. Bush has based his entire presidency on moral propositions in opposition to political expediency. As a result his detractors find themselves becoming moral schizophrenics as they try to convince the Nation they are not as socialist, immoral, or amoral as they seem, while at the same time cozying up with the fringe elements of the far left which are all of those things.

            There is something refreshing in a man of principle that has determination to stay the course in a war that very well may be the end of him politically simply because it is the right thing to do. And there is something scary about the man who would want to replace him. Had he had his way over the years America would have been virtually helpless militarily in the presence of the current foe. That is assuming, had he gotten his way, we would have survived this long. When our President speaks his unbending certainty is very reassuring in an uncertain world. There is no reassurance in the detractors claims that they have a plan that cannot be disclosed when we see Bush’s plan in action. It is actually working far faster than I would have ever believed possible.

            The detractors cannot abide this man who is now in the White House. I think the real point of their problem, apart from the desire for power at any cost, is that every day he demonstrates the great gulf between his will and their willingness. They have become so accustomed to promoting ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that his call for decisive action is to them an insult to the compromise of their lives. Thus they have convinced themselves and hope to convince others that overturning George W. Bush is the most compelling moral issue of the day, when any person of sound mind can see that the real issues of the day have to do with Americas course socially and morally, as well as what it does with those who would promote anarchy and terrorize those who wish only for peaceful lives.

            Unfortunately many think that Bush cannot be defeated in November, because the arguments of his detractors that he is bad are so without foundation they appear nonsensical. Were this true I would rest easier upon my pillow and go on about my business during the days. You would think everyone could realize that the terrorists are the bad guys; the mass murderers like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are the bad guys; the people who act without moral compass are the bad guys, but I have no such certainty in the self centered people who also live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The gulf that exits between the two kinds
of citizens, the clearheaded and the self-absorbed, lends uncertainty to the outcome. Those that are classified as liberals have settled for the idea that Bush is the problem as a substitute for conviction about things that matter because self-delusion is easier than conviction, which requires commitment to more than just selfish interests.

In the past Ronald Reagan spoke of America as a “City on a Hill” borrowing from a 1630 speech by John Winthrop. John Winthrop took the inspiration for his speech from the Bible. But if George Bush speaks great swelling words of wisdom and encouragement today he is accused of pandering to his evangelical constituents. As I have pointed out in other writings those of the liberal bent, the detractors of President Bush, feel they should be the only ones with vision. Yet they are revealed to be clouds without water, to keep it in Biblical terminology, who can only be for something before they are against it or vice versa. With them it is always “Me too!” or “You, you!” They do not want Bush invoking divine authority for his actions or positions but they are not above trying to do so on their own part. The only problem is with their utterances comes the exposure of their ignorance of what the Divine God has said.

We are in a crisis that is currently facing our country, but not only our country, the entire world. Terrorism is a threat of global proportions. It announced itself with force the morning of September 11, 2001 because previous announcements had gone unheeded and unresponded to. The detractors of George W. have not yet recognized that, except when it has been convenient for posturing. That was a day that compared to the infamous event some sixty years earlier when Pearl Harbor was attacked on 7 December 1941. My uncle was a live witness to the day FDR said would live in infamy, but the whole world was witness to day we call 911. That day, which gave America a genuine moral cause, Bush’s detractors would have you to believe was only a mere excuse for his adventurism. They say that the liberation of Iraq was revenge for George’s father, who by the way won his war and erred by listening too much to those who wanted to preserve the Beast of Baghdad. In all this I have been left wondering if the detractors have been watching what has been going on in the world or have they like Rip Van Winkle been taking a long nap while the events of the days have rolled by?

Nobody that opposes Bush wants you to think that they think terrorism is a good thing. They want you to think that he is doing the wrong things to fight it. They have a better idea they say but they must keep it secret until you blindly trust them with the power to put you know not what into action. The only thing we know for sure about the detractors is that the man whom they have chosen to lead them on this secret mission figured out how to get himself our of his last war early while he left it to others to fight. Then having safely returned from where the danger lay he called those who remained war criminals. The detractors claim Bush allowed himself to be blinded by ideology and blindsided by ideologues, and that his arrogance led him to offend the very allies whose participation would have enabled us to win not just the war but the peace. But if I were a potential ally this would be replacement for Bush planned to appeal to I would remember that he left the field of battle early in Vietnam and defamed those that remained behind. Those who stand with Bush know that he stands steadier than they, but those who might stand with the alternative would have to wonder if he would stand at all.

Faced with the record of George Bush’s accomplishments over nearly four years, the detractors sit squirming at the end of their arguments against him because the clear light of facts stands to convict them. Faced with the string of positive actions they can merely reply “Yes, but…” But what? Clinton artificially propped up the economy trying to hold the recession from hitting before his presidency expired. That way it could be called “the Bush recession.” In spite of the additional problems this action caused Bush turned the economy in record time, and all the detractors can come up with is to say it is a false recovery. The statistics are only valid when they are using them to their advantage you see. Yes, but. It is a good thing the Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan. Yes, but. It is a good thing Saddam Hussein has been overthrown. Yes, but. It is a good thing that the oil for food scandal, which the U.N. leader’s son is involved in has been exposed. Yes, but. It is a good thing that the world knows about the involvement of France, Germany, and Russia in getting weapons to Saddam Hussein in defiance of U.N. sanctions. Yes, but. It is a good thing Osama bin Laden is on the run and many of his terrorist buddies have been killed or captured. Yes, but. But what? If the detractors had been making the decisions, we can prognosticate that based on their past performance, none of these things would have happened.

There is a nonsensical argument that Bush has left other dictators in place. They make this argument at the same they criticize him for moving too quickly. Which is it to be? If we are to get them all at once in the space of four years it is not impossible. We can nuke them till they glow, which will solve the problem rather quickly or we can get them all systematically over time and hopefully preemptively. Meaning we get around to hitting them before they get around to hitting us. Another thing the detractors criticize Bush for, the preemptive strike. Even on the school ground when I was a boy I favored the preemptive strike. I found bullies fell quickly and more finally if I hit them first, hard, fast, and repeatedly. If the detractors want America to wait for the bully to hit first the next event might make 911 look like a warm up exercise.  Let the detractors apologize for the deaths of Uday, Qusay, and all the other evil men who have gone on to hell under the Bush doctrine. I personally am glad they are no longer around to rape women and murder thousands.

The opinion of the detractors is at various times one of two things. We should either sign up the UN for the oversight role in nation building in Iraq, which given their history means failure is inevitable, or else we should declare the whole thing a lost cause and get out leaving the country to the Islamic radicals. This is different than Bush’s view, who seems to see the whole business as a historic cause rather than just a hysterical cause already assumed to be lost. One thing is sure it will be a matter for the history books if the Lord Jesus Christ does not soon return. Another point to consider is whether the end of the matter will be concluded in disaster or not? What has been done in Iraq in a mere 15 months has nothing like it in history to compare it to, which includes post World War II reconstruction. The detractors play on the desire of people today for instant gratification, but they themselves have not been able to deliver on the benefits that were supposed to be secured by the social programs they have promoted for over fifty years. I fail to see where they have ever produced any success in any arena of human endeavor that should give them authority to criticize those able to dare and do.

The detractors seem to cringe when Bush begins to broach the subject of victory in war. I do not know what it is about victory that frightens them. Perhaps it is the idea of sticking to something through good or ill because the cause is right and just. I dare hope God is on our side but the detractors are afraid to mention the name of God in general conversation except when they are trying to get elected. They certainly do not want Bush mentioning God. They fear that the matter might be turned into a holy war, which is what a war between good and evil is ultimately about. I guess they missed what the Islamics have been saying all along, even in the United States. It is a holy war. The Moslems do view it as a contest between their god Allah and the God of the Christians and the Jews. The war against terrorism is about the false god that these wicked men serve and the True God, which the people who first settled this country had for their motivation for coming here and putting its institutions into play. The detractors cannot admit that because they are trying to pretend the God of the Bible does not exist except as a ploy to fool the masses that they are caring and just like them.

There is something at stake in all that is going on that the detractors would not admit but Bush has alluded to on numerous occasions. The national soul hangs in the balance in the events of the day. The moral unction that makes war necessary is certain to unleash moral friction, and moral friction becomes something the nation has to use to hone itself. We can neither win a war nor save the national soul if we seek to remain uncommitted to ideals higher than ourselves. This is one of the problems of the Bush detractors. They have no ideal of greater import than themselves. There is a question over whether the rightness of the American cause is sufficient not only to justify war but to withstand war's inevitable outrages. When the cause is right can we see it? Are we strong enough to lift up that which is right in the foggy moral battleground of war? The detractors will not admit the question because they do not believe that America is either right or moral. The reason for that is in all likelihood because within themselves they are neither right not moral. Therefore they cannot assign such attributes to others.

The fight we are in is presented by George Bush as a fight for our security when in actuality it is a fight for our survival. The detractors can give lip service to a fight for security when they are actually involved in a fight for political power and prestige that to them is more important than the Nation itself. Whatever the outcome of these events there will be a change in this country. That is inevitable. The change should be a return to the God who the founders worshipped and the principles such adoration gave birth to. Should the detractors triumph that will be an impossibility as a Nation. Should George Bush win, it will be merely unlikely. The differences between the two camps is as distinct and clear as any political campaign has ever been in the history of the United States and the outcome is by no means certain. What the end will be I cannot tell, but I have tried to draw a clear line of honest demarcation between George Bush and his detractors. There is but one last point I will leave you with, something I believe with all my heart. Should Bush win in the November election, his enemies will pick up and go on about their business as usual planning for their next assault. But should those on the other side of the program carry the day I predict they will come after those who have stood against them to insure that they continue to rule unopposed in the future. It is their nature. And, it is my fervent hope they do not get the opportunity to prove me right.