We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, March 2. 2007
Is Bush too Christian to be an effective president?
I know this is a slightly provocative question. I have never met the man, but I do respect his seriousness about his job and I do believe that he is greatly misunderestimated.
But I'd like raise the issue. In at least two critical areas - illegal immigration and defence against Jihad, Bush has been unwilling to be tough and ruthless in the American interest - in the interest of the folks who pay his salary. FDR would have flattened Sadr City years ago, and Truman would have too. And certainly FDR would have closed our borders tight. He did.
Is Bush "too compassionate" and too Christian to be a strong President?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I dunno. I think there's a lot we civvies don't know, but the White House does know, re stuff set to go off around the world when and if the big BIG push starts.
Politics trumps religion.
Religious wars trump political wars.
There is certainly a frustrating softness about him. I really hated the "Compassionate Conservative" B.S. he ran on in 2000 and voted against him in the primary becuase of it.
I have problems with both McCain and Guliani but neither of them strike me as soft. If either of them win the presidency, it will be very dark day for the Hajjis.
Hmmmm. I always imagine that there is a lot going on that we don't know....but that leads me into an uncomfortably paranoid place.
The immigration and Islam issues you refer to have less to do with his possible Christian influence and more to do with his East Coast/prep/ivy legue/liberal background. He's done an amazing job to transcend that powerful character forming influence. His Christian faith is probably what has moved him to be as conservative as he is. The immigration issue is a frustrating blind spot of his policies.
Agree with Buddy (but then when have I not?) that he's been very careful on the Islam subject as part of a strategy not to inflame the entire Islam world and keep the fight as serial as possible while al Queda and Iran are trying to get the war as parallel as possible in order to overwhelm us. It seems to me on balance, they've done a pretty darn good job.
Too early to tell. I think his terms will eventually be regarded as very good. But the man has certainly had his share of problems and challenges. 9/11, two wars, the destruction of New Orleans, our own DUmmies, and uncooperative and unwilling Allies. I do not think he wants to leave the Iran nuclear problem on the books for the next President either. I think Pres. Bush has been reasonably effective and efficient. But then, I also do not consider Iraq as lost or as a quagmire. I am very glad Saddam and his sons are dead.
On the otherhand hand, IMO, the RINO Senators and Congress Critters have been very baaaaaad.
In part the question raises the psychology of those who have made a life changing move. Often times they go a bit too far in their zeal to rectify past mistakes.
Weightloss...a person losses a good deal of weight, begins to eat right and then with friends and strangers becomes ardentlt zealous in "spreadding the word and attracting converts.
Rehabed druggies ...same thing
Born again Hari Khrishnas ..whats to be said..they use to haunt you at airports.
I believe the question is perfectly valid and I personally believe it has impacted his judgement on some major policies...he looked into Putin's eyes and saw not the Lubyanka but his whatever. Putin is now gearing the Lubyanka back up to full speed.
Bush has finally discovered that he still must deal with the evil regimes, Syria and Iran in an effort to make incremental forward motion in Iraq.
Yes, a valid question and for my money one that needs to be examined. One more example is that he has vetoed only one or two bills in his Presidency. That's too pliable for belief. He is too reborn to handle the assault on the USA.
The liberals shout "No war for oil" and they are right. We are not agreesivly prosecuting the war because of oil, or more accuratly the entire Western's economic depencence on Mid Eastern oil. From a military perspective, we should have flattened Sadr City, Syria, Iran, and the Hezbolla held parts of Lebenon. We would win the war against the jihadist at the cost of $400+++ per barrel oil. Economic and political suicide.
I think the border issue is simply a vote grabbing scheme. The 2000 and 2004 elections prove that our nation is divide to the point that one a single state (FL, OH) controled the outcome. Securing the Hispanic vote would insure victory for either party.
The C's question is phrased provocatively, but I don't accept the premise that there is anything about Christianity that would make one frail in one's duties.
His term is coming to a close. How can it be too early to tell?
Habu, I mean that the Bush Doctrine is a fundamental change in policy and its effects in the ME will reach beyond his years in office.
I am just an armchair general but.....I recall Pres. Bush saying he would consider the war in Iraq won when the Iraqi Baathist Party was disarmed and dismantled. I think the job of dismantling the Baathist Party is almost done. But disarming them is not. When Baghdad fell, the Iraqi Army threw off their uniforms and disappeared into the general population. I suppose, in retrospect, allowing that was a bad move. But if they had been utterly destroyed the USA could have lost support elsewhere. A tough call at the time. I would not want to make it.
I'm just one of those armchair generals too but I'm glad we stay abreast of these things..it helps our freedom.
I don't think the Bush Doctrine will last past his last day in office. Hoever I hear from too many who have been on the ground in the ME and elsewhere, including the open testimony of Gates and others that the Islams aren't stopping. They're coming after us as hard as they can once regrouped and ready.
Then and only then will our own population awaken to threat. They'll do real damage here and we in turn will have learned by then to obliterate their operational areas without regard to border. If we don't we can look forward to Christmas shopping at malls that are blown up, national monument detroyed, and dirty bombs making entire areas of major commerce centers uninhabitable for years.
Agree with BD. There were some pretty ferocious Crusaders. I don't think he's soft, I agree with others here that we don't know the half of what he bases his policies on...
I think his stance on immigration is a function of him and his buddies wanting lots of cheap labor to keep their costs down. No compassion about it. Just the almighty dollar. And he doesn't care what happens to ordinary American working people, or what it does to our way of life.
I agree on the labor/border protection deal, especially when you start to realize that the US, Canada, and Mexico are moving rapidly toward the North American Union.
Another observation of President Bush. He is the CIC and as such should listen to his generals but ultimately make the final decisions.
Since the beginning of the Iraq conflict he had a two track approach that I have been against and history has proved a failure. He failed to conquer his foes. He conquered one or two but did not achieve unconditional superiority over the country and cities, which he could have done. The result has been a much more protracted engagement because factions were allowed to roam free with weapons and control certain areas that should have been taken.
I believe this two track approach appealed to the President because he is a good man. Good men do not always make effective CIC's and I believe history will mark him as such.
He retrained the rules of engagement on his troops which resulted in greater casualties and deaths.
At the end of the war with Japan there was nothing left of that nation. The rebuilding came after we had totally destroyed the country and today they are the second or third largest economy in the world..we should have done the same in Iraq, and that falls squarely on his shoulders.
We do not need and did not need the finesse of speed of light intelligence to destroy Iraq. We lacked the leadership.