George W. Bush: A Man Of His Word
In the defense of our nation, a president must be a clear-eyed realist. There are limits to the smiles and scowls of diplomacy. Armies and missiles are not stopped by stiff notes of condemnation. They are held in check by strength and purpose and the promise of swift punishment.
American foreign policy must be more than the management of crisis. It must have a great and guiding goal: to turn this time of American influence into generations of democratic peace.
-- George W. Bush, speech, November 19, 1999
Photo: September 20, 2001
Great men say what they mean, and do what they say. They do not quibble or obfuscate. They do not play with the meaning of words. Great men are honest and forthright. They stand for great ideals like freedom and justice. They acknowledge the Lord God. They do not seek power for gratification or personal enrichment. They serve God and country in humility, for the sake of service itself.
posted by Hawkeye® -- Thursday, January 26, 2006
19 Comments
19 Comments:
Maggie,
GREAT! You are now the proud owner of a blogger profile! Welcome to the club!
And that great speech by George W. Bush and your observations afterward, Hawkeye, reinforce why our President is a fine man and an exceptional leader. We are so fortunate to have him as our CiC at the right time.
Hawkeye, Ronald Reagan was thought of by his opponents as a bumbling old man who wasn't that smart, but he went down in history as one of the greatest American Presidents of all time. I have no doubt that Pres. Bush will do the same. He totally "gets it" and is willing to save the butts of even those who don't want them saved, but that's his job. I've not seen a President take so much personal crapola in my lifetime, which I confess isn't that comprehensive (born in '67 so I remember politics starting with Nixon).
Bush rocks. That's all there is too it.
OLA,
Not only fortunate, but I believe "blessed". I believe that God chose GWB for this moment in history...
"For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." --Romans 13:1
Amy,
Well, I'm a little older so I've been following politics a bit longer (since my mom shook hands with John F. Kennedy before the election of 1960). But you're right, I don't think I've seen this much lack of respect for a President either. Oh sure, Nixon was pressured to resign, but hey... there was cover-up of a crime. Can't exactly call that "crapola" now can we.
Regards...
"They don't play with the meaning of words"
???
How about:
"We don't torture"
"We do not render to countries that torture, that has been our policy and that policy will remain the same."
Though, of course, as with any well run WH, the daily lies usually come from the mouths of officials other than the President himself.
Cranky,
So you have evidence that Americans tortured people? Let's not confuse "humiliation" or "hazing" or "discomfort" with torture. If you think that Americans tortured somebody, I would be interested to see your evidence (other than from a liberal-biased newspaper article). If you want to talk about torture.... ask John McCain or the other Vietnam POWs what they went through and see if it compares with the so-called American "torture".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
All the evidence you need is the treatment of the McCain torture amendment.
Bush fights the amendment tooth and nail, loses, then signs the bill while issuing one of his Alito approved Presidential Signing Statements stating that he can do as he damn well pleases, in spite of the law.
Yeah, those are the actions of a government that doesn't torture. Please.
As for the "proof" of rendition, I don't know how you get "proof" with a WH controlled Congress that refuses to investigate, oversee or hold hearings on anything other than steroid abuse in MLB.
For what it's worth:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
I am proud of George Bush, a former party animal who saw the need to follow God and answered the call to public service. He could be sitting on his butt avoiding all the hysteria attendant with being President but thank God he came along at this time in our history. John Kerry would be a disaster in dealing with Iraq, Al Quaeda and the general battle with terrorism and evil around the globe.
I am now putting your blog on my blogroll and will stop in from time to time. Cheers!
Radar,
Thanks for visiting. Good comments. I stopped by your blog too. Will come back some time.
By the way, what is your take on my comments above on McCain amendment and GWB's treatment thereof? I'm genuinely interested.
Cranky,
Well, I've been thinking a lot about your comment, and my next article will actually be a response to your post. It will not directly address the McCain thing, but if you read between the lines I think you'll understand what I'm saying about that.
BTW, your link is too long. It gets cut off by the right column. Can you cut it up into handy bite-size pieces?
Thanks for provoking some thoughts.
The chopped link:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
?050214fa_fact6
Cranky,
I got about half way through the article you linked to and found it very hard to swallow.
First of all, this Arar guy gets taken to Syria? But why? We have no love for Syria, and haven't had any love for them in a long time. Jordan I could see maybe, but Syria? C'mon!
Then, if you read the article closely, it says that he is taken into custody because he supposedly has ties to some terrorist...
"American officials questioned him about possible links to another suspected terrorist. Arar said that he barely knew the suspect, although he had worked with the man’s brother."
Yeah, right! Sounds like a great alibi to me. That's like saying, "I barely knew Osama bin Laden... but I did work with his brother". Sure, I trust him.
What follows is hearsay and inuendo, supported by statements like... “I’ve asked people at the C.I.A. for numbers,” he said. “They refuse to answer. All they will say is that they’re in compliance with the law.”
This is proof? C'mon. Ex-CIA people talking about what happened when they weren't there? C'mon. Sounds like the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson debacle to me.
I wasn't relying on the article. I'm relying on the objective facts stated in my comment.
Cranky,
First of all, I can see why Bush fought "tooth and nail" (as you say) against the McCain amendment. For starters, it extends the constitutional protections of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to non-Americans.
Secondly, the McCain amendment treats terrorists like military POWs, which they are not.
Then you accuse Bush of doing "as he damn well pleases, in spite of the law." Please be reminded that NO law which Congress passes may infringe in any way on powers granted to the President by the Constitution. Such law is simply "unconstitutional"... period. And it would be ruled as such by the U.S. Supreme Court. In his Signing Statement, Bush merely reinforces that fact...
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President..."
The opposite is equally true. The President can issue NO executive order which would in any way infringe upon the powers granted to the Legislative or Judicial branches. It would simply be unconstitutional. That's what "separate and co-equal" mean. Sorry if that doesn't please you.
"The executive branch shall construe "...Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President..."
Translated in this context, this can only mean that he will torture and render for torture if he so wishes. Just like I said earlier.
Why else do the signing statement unless you want that option?
Cranky,
I disagree. I believe what Bush is implying is that the detainees need not be treated as military POWs (which they are not), and that the detainees are not to be granted rights under the U.S. Constitution (to which they are not entitled).
On December 5, 2005 Condi Rice made the following statements, which you can find Here, and which I believe to be true...
"In conducting such renditions, it is the policy of the United States, and I presume of any other democracies who use this procedure, to comply with its laws and comply with its treaty obligations, including those under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration:
-- The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries.
-- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.
-- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.
-- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home