Article

2007-03-29 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2007-03-29 17:22|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'll be reading that book, for one. I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary, despite his current dismissal by lefty critics.

Posted by Abu Chuck al Ameriki">Abu Chuck al Ameriki 2007-03-29 17:51|| 2007-03-29 17:51|| Front Page Top

#2 I firmly believe that future generations will regard GWB as a visionary

Those were my words almost exactly when my son asked me how I felt about W after the sh*tstorm and BDS really started over Iraq.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-03-29 18:06|| 2007-03-29 18:06|| Front Page Top

#3 We won't even have to wait for future generations to regard Pelosi and Reid as traitors to this nation.

Posted by Mac 2007-03-29 18:22|| 2007-03-29 18:22|| Front Page Top

#4 I believe on the world strategic stage, he will be regarded as a visionary and a grand strategist. On the domestic side, less than average.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-03-29 18:31|| 2007-03-29 18:31|| Front Page Top

#5 At the very start of his administration, Saturday Night Live made fun of Bush by suggesting that he had a "strategery", instead of a strategy.

Ironically, the word "strategery" may eventually be defined as a multi-dimensional form of strategy promulgated by Bush that is so superior to either linear or two-dimensional strategy that it is in a class by itself. That literally, when a plan is made based on "strategery", it will *always* defeat even the most brilliant ordinary strategists elsewhere in the world.

It is as if the rest of the world plans in 'Flatland', and George W. Bush and his planners know of and use the 3rd dimension. He always wins, but his opponents never know how he wins.

Ironically, he seems to apply this "strategery" almost exclusively to international affairs.

His domestic policy, at least for the first 3/4ths of his two terms, looked like an odd reflection of that advocated on and off by US Presidents from Grant to McKinley: that it is the duty of the Congress to run the country, and that of the President to execute their wishes--not lead.

In retrospect, it was in error, as the republican Congress horribly abused its power, and was accordingly punished for it at the polls.

An important element of this was first that until stem cells, he vetoed nothing that Congress passed. However, he frequently added a "Presidential signing statement" to each bill, indicating how he interpreted it, and intended to carry it out.

I suspect that he was trying to force Congress to assert itself more in running the government. For too long, powerful and egotistical Presidents and the bureaucracy have gained too much power at the expense of Congress.

He figured to force them to take responsibility, instead of just being a Presidential exchequer and pork factory.

Perhaps in the long run, it was part of his domestic "strategery", but one that will take many years to come to fruition. Congress does need to take more authority away from the President and the bureaucracy; we have become spoiled by having too king-like a series of Presidents.

Karl Rove seemed to be a master of "strategery" until the recent elections; but even that might be deceptive. Enigmatically, several republicans who had lost close votes were encouraged to *not* contest those votes and to gracefully concede. If I was a democrat strategist, this would make me very, very concerned.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-03-29 19:38|| 2007-03-29 19:38|| Front Page Top

#6 Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East

Posted by gromgoru 2007-03-29 19:39|| 2007-03-29 19:39|| Front Page Top

#7 At this point, I'm far to jaded to think that it is possible for ANYTHING in the Boston Globe to be positive towards Bush without approval at the highest ranks in the Democratic party.

Dean Esmay(?) had a similar article today.
Perhaps it means that the Democrats have realized that hate-America, cuddle to despotic thugs is not a winning strategy so they are now going to hold their nose and wave the flag; at least until they win in 2008. If you start to see all of the other usual suspects and lemmings spouting this same rhetoric, then you can be sure this is a calculated strategy decision that allows them to move to the center in order to win.

Posted by Fester Jomons8988 2007-03-29 20:01|| 2007-03-29 20:01|| Front Page Top

#8 "put-up job by an obscure right-wing author"

Does the inherent prejudice in this statement - so institutionalized it just slips from the tongue - not bother anyone but me?

Posted by no mo uro 2007-03-29 20:34|| 2007-03-29 20:34|| Front Page Top

#9 Tony Blankley is on the Right himself; I took the remark as sarcastic-- as in, "the liberal fossils at the Globe couldn't pretend to ignore this one" or some such.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-03-29 20:41|| 2007-03-29 20:41|| Front Page Top

#10 What ineptitude! FDR never developed a "grand strategy." Although he was ahead of the American people in the need to confront fascism, the fact that it took Pearl Harbor to seal it, is a testament to his lack of a sellable strategy. The Yalta - executed while US soldiers were dying - sellout speaks volumes. However, the Truman Doctrine (confrontation by means of either containment or liberation, in recognition of Churchill's apt description of the "Iron Curtain"), WAS a Grand Strategy. I argue that Teddy Roosevelt's "Strong Man" alliance system, which supported authoritanian regimes as long as they held back US enemies, was also a Grand Strategy. Further, Jimmy Carter's repudiation of both the containment and alliance with strong allies, in place of US moral disarmament and agitation for "human rights" abroad, was also a Grand Strategy, which produced the infamous Soviet winning streak of the mid to late 'seventies.

While it is true that President Bush declared a distinct doctrine, favoring US "pre-emption" of enemy armament and aggression, he saddled it with a Carter-like export of "democracy" to states where that system is believed to challenge the sovereignty of "god" and his successors ("caliphs"). But, Bush has appeared to veer to the Teddy Roosevelt Doctrine. Lately, he pushed monthly meetings between the government of Israel and Fatah elements, thus, excluding Hamas and Hizbollah. If I am right, a Fatah "Strong Man" will crush those 2 mortal enemies of the American people. I also predict that, in stark contrast to the separate agreements that Bush made with Taliban-lite and Shiite clerics in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's Ayatollahs will hit directly when the US attacks Iran. Iran' missile capabilities will lead to a drastic escalation, and the US nuclear trigger will be pulled for the first time since World War II. An alliance will be made with professional military elements, and a Strong Man will emerge. It is my hope: there will be a bloodbath, and Ayatollah and Basij animals will be liquidated.

My "freedom" doesn't include Islamofascists. I don't want them to vote: I want them to die.

Posted by Sneaze 2007-03-29 22:06|| 2007-03-29 22:06|| Front Page Top

02:24 saveababykillademocrat
02:05 saveababykillademocrat
01:27 saveababykillademocrat
01:25 saveababykillademocrat
01:19 saveababykillademocrat
00:04 Saveababykillademocrat
00:03 Saveababykillademocrat
00:01 Saveababykillademocrat
23:57 Cromert
23:54 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:45 RD
23:45 smn
23:38 smn
23:37 SteveS
23:35 RD
23:24 Phineter Thraviger
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:11 Jackal
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:04 RD
23:02 RD
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola