He Can’t Win
President Bush will win this year’s election, I am confident. It won’t be by much, it won’t be easily received by those against him, but I believe he will win.
Today, as 9/11 is being remembered by our nation, I believe a renewed understanding that George W. Bush is not entirely responsible for the economic recession we have experienced. Fox News has numerous people explaining that the economic recession was because of at least two reasons: (1) the online business decline, and (2) the attack on 9/11.
But liberals are intent on blaming Bush, or at least attributing to him many faults that have happened in the past four years. Let me address a few.
“He didn’t listen to his advisors when going to Iraq.” Many are blaming him for not listening to his advisors (which is probably a legit accusation) by not sending the number of troops necessary to win the peace in Iraq. But let’s say Bush sent the 200-300 thousand troops necessary. I can hear them chanting and ranting: “He’s sending too many!” Because the more you send, the quicker the casualties climb, and the more of “our family members and friends” may die. He’d lose that argument.
“No net job gain under this administration.” Let’s say Al Gore was elected president. 9/11 comes, Gore does his best to rally the country together, and let’s say he even commanded the troops to go to Iraq and did everything that was told by Bush’s advisors. Would our economy be any better? If John Kerry had been President the last four years, would our economy have been any better?
“The President concocted a war for political gain.” Yeah, right! If anything, it hurt him more than helped his ratings. President Bush clearly pays little to no attention to the polls. He does what a leader should do: what he believes is right for the country.
“Iraq was a distraction from the real war on terrorism.” Perhaps. And we probably should have captured Bin Laden by now. But imagine the scenario if we hadn’t gone to Iraq and brought down Saddam.
| Avoided Iraq | Current Scenario |
| Dictator who had ability to produce, distribute, and fund weapons of mass destruction would still have those abilities. Even though we never found them in Iraq, we know he had the “weight” among the terrorists in the Middle East. | Saddam is gone, the number of terrorists have been reduced, the abilities mentioned to the left don’t exist now. |
| Libya (sp?) may not have given up their WMDs. | Libya did give up their WMDs. |
| Terrorists would be planning, and possibly implementing attacks on the United States and other nations. | Terrorists have been pre-occupied with on the defensive rather than being on the offensive. |
Honestly, I believe we are safer. I believe President Bush has made our world safer. But I would also admit that Al Gore, if elected, would have also endeavored to make our county safer and less prone to attacks. Definitely in a different way, but still in an intensive way.
I will offer one thought about Bush’s policies. While his idea was to give us tax breaks, I think perhaps they came a little too early. When we have a war to pay for, perhaps tax breaks could have waited. But then again, would our economy be recovering like it is now without more money in the pockets of Americans? I don’t know, it’s not that easy.
People are not dying so Bush can get re-elected. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. You need to educate yourself with facts, not Michael Moore propaganda (and yes, I saw his movie).
By the way, did you mention much credit I have given to Al Gore had he been elected? No. you take a small minutia and make it a sole point of “refutation.”
Blech!
Other thoughts:
1. The only “perhaps” I used in the actual post had to do with liberals being correct–aka I’m allowing for the liberals being correct!
2. Yes, this war sucks. Every war sucks. The Revolutionary War sucked. The Civil War sucked. WWI, WWII, and Vietnam sucked. What war doesn’t?
3. You’re missing the entire point of the post: I’m CONJECTURING what could have happened. Liberals act as though if “W” wouldn’t have been President, our economy would be better. They don’t SAY it, but of course they assume it.
Let me ask this question (for anyone to respond to): What is the potential threat to the United States if terrorists, brutal dictators, and anti-American extremists with destructive abailities were ignored in the name of “no war is better than war”? For now, attacking the terrorists is the best option we have.
When we went to war, I was at college and paid extremely little attention to national news and politics, so I cannot claim to know the “whole story,” just what I hear on the talk radio stations that bring it up. I don’t believe this President has made every correct decision. I don’t believe he is right on every position. I don’t believe the brunt of the war should be going on still, and it could be prevented. Overall, I think he’s done a decent job (not great, not excellent, but decent). Any one person (or administration) that has to deal with and react to an attack like 9/11 cannot and will not make every right decision. In twenty years, if the “‘War’ on Terror” is over, we’re all gonna look back and say, “Duh! President Bush should have done…” But hopefully, we’ll be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t have the perspective we did. Simply put, we may regret having to go to war, but in the long run, we’ll be safer because of it. And I don’t believe anybody will start to realize/admit that for another decade or two (if all goes well, of course).
Why do you not think we’ll be safer because of this war?
If the war weren’t accomplishing a long-term good for the world, I would agree that it doesn’t advance the kingdom of God. Ends justifies means? Maybe. But I’m willing to live with that.