Bush is doing it

Bush is doing it

By Ted Belman

In February of ’03 I wrote The Greatness of George W Bush and argued that Bush, in response to 9/11, had set a new course in foreign policy notwithstanding the opposition of his own State Department, the EU and anyone else that mattered.

Last month the leftist UK newspaper The Independent published an article headlined If enough goes right in his next term, George Bush will have achieved greatness,

For George Bush, there can be no middle way. He is either doomed to failure, or destined for greatness. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the second half of his presidency, but on one point we can be absolutely certain. He is not about to subside into compromise or mediocrity. This president has set enormous events in motion. He has deployed bold strategies in pursuit of grandiose goals and visions. He has already changed the course of American history, ensuring that he will rank with Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan: presidents who made a profound difference.

So let’s take stock.

Clinton accomplished nothing. He made things worse with N. Korea and he lobbed a few missles at Bin Laden. And let's not forget Mogadishu.

Bush, on the other hand, invaded Afghanistan and removed a heinous regime and destroyed the major terrorist base there. Girls are now going to school and women are in parliament. Finally Hamid Karzai was democratically elected as President. The Washington Post headlines an article written by Charles Krauthammer, The Afghan Miracle which reviews the progress made to date. They are on their way.

Despite the doom and gloom in Iraq, great progress is being made according to the Opinion Journal of WSJ. Contrary to the images created by the liberal media, the vast majority of Iraqis are in favour of democracy. The ”insurgents” as they are called are nothing more then fascists who want to defeat democracy and return the criminal Baathist regime to power. They will be defeated and Bush will have racked up another victory.

Another registered party is the Iraq National Democrat Party. The party is run by Mithal al-Alusi, an Iraqi politician who created a controversy by being the first to visit Israel a few months ago. Says Alusi: "We are keeping Iraqi interests in sight. These interests includes strategic relations with the United States and also ties with Israel. . . . The style of rule of Sadaam Hussein must change in the direction of closeness with Israel. . . . The Iraqis need to deal with various Israeli companies--particularly those of the half million Iraqis in Israel--from the standpoint of supporting peace and Iraq." The report goes on quote Al-Hayat newspaper, which reported "that the Iraqi National Congress party, under the leadership of Ahmed Chalabi, will join Alusi's new party, since he has officially declared the demise of his previous party. He added that a few men of Muqtada al-Sadr, the extremist Shi'ite leader, have joined him as well”

Libya has abandoned its old ways as a result of the defeat of Sadaam Hussein, inter alia, and has abandonned the pursuit of WMD. They are now being invited into the family of nations.

Despite the lie that Bush is not interested in multi-lateralism, he managed to get a Security Council resolution passed requiring Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. Now I am pleased to read,

Both the US and France have made it clear to Damascus, via UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen that they will not tolerate in Syrian meddling by proxy in Lebanese affairs. In a recent three hour meeting with Assad, Larsen told Assad that the for both the US and France, a clean and free election in Lebanon was a sine qua non, and that any attempt by Syria to subvert the electoral process in any way, via gerrymandering or coercion would bring the wrath of Washington and Paris on his head.

He also informed Assad that the US is committed to ensuring that whatever government is elected in Beirut will be able to assert its sovereignty throughout the country. In diplomatic code this means the disarming and neutralizing of Hezbollah. He told Assad that Washington would demand full implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, meaning that if this is not done the US would refer the matter to the Security Council, which would apply sanctions.

The pressure on Syria is enormous and before the end of next year they will be out of Lebanon and will be following Libya's path.

Furthermore, Powell reports Fissures With Europe Being Closed

With the passing of Arafat, Egypt is moving in a new direction. It hopes to be part of the solution instead of the problem. It is working with the US and Israel to enable progress to be made in ending Palestinian terrorism. There are many more issues to be addressed such as Egyptian incitement to hatred toward Israel and the US and this will bear watching.

Bush has made it abundantly clear that Palestine will be a state but not a terrorist one. To this end he is insisting on democratization and the end of terror first before such a state is created.

Saudi Arabia is being pressed by al Qaeda and the US. Only the US can assure survival of the House of Saud so this one is a no brainer as to whom they will side with.. Remember the US has 150,000 troops within striking range of their oil fields. Another reason to be in Iraq.

Finally Iran remains a problem and the gravest one at that. The US is working on it and doesn’t underestimate the danger.

The reason for invading Iraq was to further the war on terror. Iraq was a stepping stone to influencing the entire ME. So far that plan is working.

Posted by Ted Belman at December 10, 2004 11:53 AM


Comments

1. Eddie said:

Nice going, Ted. You said this piece so perfectly. I am a conservative Jew from Texas who knows President Bush personally. Hooray for him. Now, if we could get someone like you, or even you yourself, to come to the US and convince all of these liberal jews over-here that one can not appease our enemies and have peace.

Posted by: Eddie on December 10, 2004 03:39 PM

2. Rafi said:

Was tough to support Bush in the moonbat-blue state of NY... had pro-Bush bumper stickers ripped off to the degree that I switched to a magnetic sticker which I would remove when parked.

Victory was so much sweeter though... Nov. 3rd was a sight to remember with ppl at work oscillating between suicidal thoughts and considering emigration to other socialist European countries :)

The battle against the liberal MSM is still on however and needs to be won!
Cheers to the new media!

Posted by: Rafi on December 11, 2004 01:21 AM

3. Al Gordon said:

Brilliant analysis, Ted. You were right with the last one, and I predict that you will be right again.

But soooooooooooooo un-Canadian!

It's on the forum!

Al

Posted by: Al Gordon on December 11, 2004 01:21 AM

4. lignaeus [TypeKey Profile Page] said:

This is something I've been arguing for the last three years with sometimes dire results! I need to re-read your post daily so that I can argue the point better. However, in this entry, http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2004/12/is_bush_plannin.php , you are calling out Bush as planning Israel's surrender. Made me quite depressed reading it! I'd like to think better of Bush than that, though I do get a bit jumpy sometimes. I just don't think that with people like Wolfowitz in the background, Israel will be sacrificed, I have difficulty in imagining that Bush and the administration don't see that in the long term, doing that wouldn't mean losing the war against the Islamo-fascists.
Bias alert, I'm an optimist!

Posted by: lignaeus [TypeKey Profile Page] on December 11, 2004 11:53 PM

5. Ted said:

I posted the negative article to present another opinion, but I stand by my opinion here.
I no longer worry about the possibility that Bush sells us out. His promotion of democracy and his war on terror say otherwise. Gadaffi's son was intervierwed and he is all for ties with Israel. He said that Egypt, Morroco and Algiers all have a huge problem with Islamic fanatics so they want them to be defeated. And that can include the Gulf states as well. I believe that Bush and Sharon have a deal such that the fence is the border. That's why the US is micro-manageing its location. Israel is getting out of the settlements East of the fence with some areas still under discussion and Bush is committed to getting the Palestinians to develop democratic institutions and fight terror. I will gladly accept this deal and am quite prepared for parts of Jerusalem to go as I don't want the Arab population there to be Israelis. Peace and security are very important to Israel, more so then the land being given away.

Posted by: Ted on December 12, 2004 05:02 AM

6. lignaeus said:

That's great Ted, now I can breathe again!

Posted by: lignaeus on December 12, 2004 05:14 PM

7. Tamar said:

"I just don't think that with people like Wolfowitz in the background, Israel will be sacrificed..."

Research.

Soon after the "Gulf War" (all those years ago) the CBC did a documentary on the conflict. What is striking about the Documentary is the interviews with Wolfowitz and the realisation that Wolfie was the biggest proponent of threatening the use of [US] military force against my country...to bring us into line. Later, during Bush2, Wolfowitz was responsible for sending up several "trial balloons", seeking support for the idea of sending US forces into my country to "imppose" the road map ("All options are on the table").

Wolfowitz is a high ranking CFR operative, he is no friend of Israel or the Jewish people.

Posted by: Tamar on December 13, 2004 10:05 AM

8. Ted said:

I received this email

Well done Ted! It's encouraging for a change to see positive commentary from varied sources. Following 9/11 I viewed George Bush as a rare and courageous leader - greatness in action. I believed liberating Iraq was right. However, I have had mixed feelings since. How did US intelligence get it so wrong about WMD? Was there already a hidden agenda for invading Iraq? Was the so-called Bush "Dream Team" lying to the world?
Furthermore, why did the Administration and the Pentagon not have alternative strategies in place for security and infrastructure once Saddam was outed ? Why didn't these experienced and trained strategists send enough troops in the beginning or even later on, or the necessary low-tech equipment to protect soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the degree possible?

I think Bush allowed himself to move from a perceived tell-it-like-it-is, determined, courageous persona with integrity and some humility, to a perceived arrogant, couldn't care less about other views, black & white thinker. Like with anyone, but especially leaders, it's productive and important to appear respected and respectful...........
My opinion isn't nearly comparable to those of your quoted resources, but I fear that things in Iraq will not go as smoothly as in Afghanistan. It would be a leap for me to think that Islamic terrorists will diminish in size, back down, or lose in the short term. A profound alteration in Arab ideology, attitude, and culture of hate would need to begin. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe with Arafat gone there is a chance now for peace with the Palestinians. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but there aren't many Sadat's or King Hussein's in the Middle East. The simple truth is there are "good Arabs" - but the majority of the oppressed, uncivilized Arab people and their leadership can't be trusted.

Posted by: Ted on December 13, 2004 03:20 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)