Pajamas Media

20 Comments

‘BUSH THE FREE-RANGER’?

eh, no. White feathered neo-con opportunistic kool-aid salesman is far more accurate.

George W. Bush is NO FREE RANGER.

He has nothing to do with any real independent style politics.

Incidentally, in what way is George W. Bush “not a Republican?”

Bush, well, what can be said for him? You fellas lionize him, but that does not make him a lion. To me, he is just another political boss with more hair tonic than brains. If he wanted to win this war he should have done so by now. The American public has the will, the Military has the might, and our President has a plan. Er, perhaps not on the plan. What a maroon, really. Only a maroon would get suckered into fighting in Iraq, when we should have gone elsewhere.

Ah, well, in the spring we can have a new offensive. I can only hope he cans some of those Generals who have not put our forces in play correctly.

On to Iran!

Bush is one of the best President in the history of the United States.

Long life to this great man !

God bless George W. Wish he could run again in 2008. Best leader in the world bar none.

Bush certainly has his faults. He is a terrible extemporaneous speaker and flounders at times expressing his thoughts. He has no grasp of the staggering threat of unchecked illegal immigration and I suspect he has that family disease of selecting the worst Judicial nominee possible.
But he has many strengths for which he seldom gets credit. He appears to be totally fair minded and extremely loyal to his family and staff. ( A huge difference from his predecessor). His greatest strength is of course his willingness to steer an exact course while disregarding the naysayers and critics. He also handles criticism quite well unlike Clinton who cannot .
I think the previous poster who said he was one of the greatest Presidents is closest to the truth and the negative commenters are liberal gripemeisters.

A comment for “oldnumberseven”…I’m continually dumbfounded by the arrogant personal attacks on our President’s intelligence by folks like yourself. To suggest that President Bush has more hair tonic than brains is miles beyond ludicrous. You certainly have a right to disagree with his policies but my bet - between the two of you - is that in reality, President Bush is way more intelligent than you are currently and likely smarter now than you ever will be…but don’t stop trying and every now and again, look for something to be joyful about…it’s really quite healthy!

“‘You’ may have been Time magazine’s choice for ‘Person of the Year,’ but like him or hate him, ‘You’ live in a George Bush world. And will for two more years. Whatever will ‘You’ do when he leaves the scene?”

“I” will celebrate. That is if “we” are still alive.

America’s President George W Bush will go down in history like President Ford is doing right now. History will show that he was elected President by coin toss when neither party had the courage to run a person of deep conviction and unique vision. Saturday Night Live spoofed it the best in 2000 when they merged the characters of Al Gore and George Bush into their “perfect moderate candidate.” On 911 he showed that he had the character to be a leader by offering hope to men on a mountain of rubble and bodies in NYC, but then he chose not to use that character of hope and comfort and instead kicked back and rode the waters of history rather than steering a course. He finished America’s long drawn-out war with Iraq that (even though we ignore it still today) was the casus belli that made Osama Bin Laden and an army of jihadis decide to go from just talking of killing Americans to actually killing Americans (Al Queda was reborn in 1992 and never started killing Americans until then). The depth of the AQ/Iraq relationship is always debatable, but what history has shown and will show with more clarity is that the side effects of that ignored war period was a splinter war, the global war on terror, America’s War With Jihadis. George Bush took the predominate intelligence of the time, the paranoia (justified or not) of the post911 period, and he set the world on a course to ending the war that had the fragmentary effect of spawning Al Queda. America’s War Against Iraq ended in May 02-MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, and since then it’s been America’s War FOR Iraq. Right or wrong, there was no other way to end the war with Saddam, and now that it’s over America can either support the efforts of our men and women dying overseas, or we can claim to somehow support them while bashing their efforts to the best of our abilities and to the side effect of aiding the insurgents in their strategy aimed at getting the American people to demand of our leaders that we retreat from the battlefield. Make no mistake about it, there is no peace with suicide bombers. They will not just wipe their brows, take off their bomb vests and live happily ever after if the Americans leave Iraq without leaving Iraq stable and secure (the stated objective of Pres Bush, the Iraq Study Group, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Speaker Pelosi, and Maj ldr Reid). Nope. The time for opposing the war as a means of opposing President Bush is over. Now it is literally do or die, and only those who prefer the bigoted, elitist, snobbery of Keith Olberman, or who get their real news from fake news and believe the fake news is real news ala The Daily Show…only those people who cannot stomach the truth of the war will continue to rave that in 2008 America would be better off with Anybody But Bush.

History cleansed Nixon of his sins. It made Ford a prophetic patriot. It’s proven Carter’s policy of procrastination only made Islamic extremism 1000x worse. It’s canonized Reagan, shown the foolishness of Bush sr’s compassion towards Iraq in his choice to abandon Iraqis who had risen up for freedom as well as the cowardice of not doing the costly and hard thing in 1991 (removing Saddam), and how it’s infinitely more expensive now. It’s shown President Clinton’s wag the dog attack after being impeached was what triggered UBL’s authorization of the 911 plot to be set in motion-to go from campfire banter to mass murder that cost 3000 lives, 2 zip codes, and $2-3 trillion. History will similarly make President Bush to be a rider of history’s river more often than a captain of the ship; a man of great potential, strong resolve, but not much political courage. What a difference a few years and a few wars will make?

I would like to address the comment of Bill Bradley above - that Bush is not a Freeranger. Freeranger appears to be a neologism invented by readers of this site, so it is hard to say what it means. But I take it to mean someone who draws his views from various parts of the political spectrum. In that sense, Bush is indeed a Freeranger, as is, ironically, Clinton. Both men are, more or less, centrists with views that roughly correspond. (Clinton was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq when it was expedient.) Ironic that they are both hated by the opposite sides when they are both so similar.

More than a day after the event, I see that I am still the only PJ Media person who has reported that the “Colossus of Crawford” actually RELEASED the Iranian “diplomats” captured last week in Baghdad.

Recognizing that fact, and understanding what it means, is key to grasping the situation there.

I see that my earlier comment about Bush releasing the Iranians captured last week in Baghdad has not yet shown up here, but this other comment has.

Bush is not a centrist. Period.

C’mon guys, accept it: George W. Bush has always been, is, and always will be a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN.

Not to mention the worst President in U.S. history.

WHY do libs insist on calling W a “CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN?” Because 1) They want to believe he is in order to prove to themselves that they are in the majority and that the approval rating of the President reflects this. 2) They want to build off of his unpopularity to attack Republicans in general. The fact is that their insistance ignores the key fact that HALF of the people disapproving of Bush disapprove for reasons entirely opposite of what the Left criticizes him for. Poll after poll after poll proves this. The reason the Dems took Congress this year was because many of their new candidates ran RIGHT of the Democratic center. The country is not as far Left as you think, liberals.

Important to note that NIXON won more popular votes than Kennedy-Johnson in 1960, in an election marred by fraud in West Texas and Cook County Illinois.

When it comes to stolen elections, and political sainthood, “Nixon’s the One”.

GW Bush says himself that he is a conservative Republican.

Take him at his own word, whydoncha?

This comes from a non-liberal, by all non-right wing definitions.

Chill.

Allow me to chuck in a couple you missed -

May - Right-wing blogosphere wins European Champions’ League.

June - National volleyball league discontinues in admiration of achievements of right-wing bloggers.

June - Right-wing bloggers win soccer World Cup, Italians horrified at last-minute victory.

August - Right-wing bloggers prove Israel isn’t bombing Lebanon. Lebanese renounce anti-sematism, recognise Israel, fellate Rumsfeld.

November - Americans elect non-Republicans to office, announce allegiance to terrorists. Comical wankers commence distraction campaign.

December - Saddam executed. World celebrates new year, doesn’t notice - right-wing bloggers melt-down in onanistic circle-jerking mutual masturbatory wank-fest.

January - More of the same, with more masturbation.

Happy New Year from Scotland!

If the words “Conservative” or “Liberal” are to have any meaning at all, there are criteria by which you must judge a person’s political disposition.

“Liberal” has undergone a huge transformation over the last century as various interest groups have twisted it to their advantage. However, support for greater government control of the economy and a more expansive view of the government’s capacity for social engineering are the primary hallmarks of Liberalism since 1968.

Conservatism has been marked by pretty consistent standards since Edmund Burke: rejection of utopianism, respect for organically-evolved political solutions. By these measures, I am pretty Conservative despite the fact that I don’t buy in to stem-cell bans or prayer in the schools or a bunch of other issues of the day.

So, for example, I find myself in agreement more with Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan than John Maynard Keynes and Jimmy Carter. I do not find myself in agreement with George Bush on many issues.

What is happening here is that Bill is trying to treat “Conservative” with the same plastic disregard for its meaning as “Liberal” has been treated. And, surprise, surprise, he is doing it for political gain (another modern liberal trait).

If you would like to see a true Conservative - one of the fathers of modern Conservatism - take Bush to the woodshed - then I would encourage you to start here:

http://www.supremefiction.com/theidea/2006/12/how_the_right_w.html

As I say, it is a start. The fact is that Bush has violated both of the central tenents of Conservatism in his execution of the war in Iraq: he has acted in broadly utopian terms pursuing change in the Middle East and he has shown little respect for organically-evolved political solutions. Combine this with an almost impenetrable wall of yes-men that make it almost impossible for him to see the real political needs on the ground in this war and you have a prescription for a failed war and a failed presidency (it pains me to say that as I originally supported the war). For more on that topic see here (a more balanced article than I expected given the source):

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061218fa_fact2

The fact is that Bush has been a disappointment to anyone who can reasonably be called a “Conservative” by relevant philosophical definitions.

*That* is why I won’t “take him at his word” and call him a “Conservative” as Bill suggests.

Nonsense. Just don’t try to sell Bush as a centrist.

>What is happening here is that Bill is trying to treat “Conservative” with the same plastic disregard for its meaning as “Liberal” has been treated. And, surprise, surprise, he is doing it for political gain (another modern liberal trait).