A Clearcut example of Bush Brilliance

[fossten]

Many of us have played war games growing up, whether they were board games or video games. Many of us probably still engage in strategy games of some kind. Anyone who has ever played a colonization or domination game has recognized the existence of certain staple strategies and tactics which make victory easier. One of those is very recognizable:

The best defense is a good offense.

I've personally used this strategy over and over again in my own personal games, and it works without fail. So many times I have been attacked by the enemy, and instead of focusing my attention ONLY on defense, I have retaliated, usually at the enemy's weakest point. Without fail, the predictable AI has always been distracted by my action, and has pulled back its forces to deal with my new threat to its flank. This has always bought me time to consolidate my borders and build up protection against the next attack. I'm sure most of you are nodding your heads in recognition of this tactic. It's very effective.

Now I'm going to switch gears. I'm going to ask all of you to view my next comparison with an open mind and not get caught up in the minutiae of WMDs or old arguments about lying. The focus of this thread is on strategy in war. I'm using this analogy on admittedly a large scale, looking at broad actions in a chronological order. You must accept, however, the premise that WE ARE AT WAR.

We were attacked without provocation on September 11, 2001. At that point, President Bush had a major responsibility: To secure our country so this would never happen again. He very wisely and cleverly accomplished this through three major actions:

1. He ratcheted up intelligence and political pressure to capture and hamstring the attacking agency (Al Qaeda) and put organizations and procedures in place which have, to this point, prevented another attack on our land.

2. He went on the offensive, chasing Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, forcing them into hiding in the caves of Pakistan and other barren places.

3. The most brilliant and effective operation yet:

He conquered two countries right in the midst of the enemy's territory (Iraq and Afghanistan), securing a major foothold in that dangerous region. This action accomplished several things:

- Freed millions of citizens of that region, establishing a fledgling democratic government right in the middle of Arab dictatorships
- Gave us a base of operations with which to perform more convenient military operations as needed in that region
- Introduced our way of life to surrounding countries, which will gain us great PR in the future as people in that region discover the truth that American culture is not as evil as their imams preach
- Most importantly - distracted the enemy so greatly that the enemy is now bogged down in Iraq, attacking our troops on foreign land. They are so busy dealing with our foothold over there, they have not been able to focus on attacking us on our land. This is a very important military principle:

Always fight the war on the enemy's ground, not your own.

Let's face it: Iraq is a big concern for the terrorists. If we succeed in establishing a democracy that can defend itself over there, the terrorists will lose credibility on a large scale, and other surrounding nations may scramble to emulate the success of Iraq in a political way. This will make terrorist organizations persona non grata in that region, and they will lose more power as they find fewer and fewer refuges. This makes it clear why the terrorists are so fanatical about driving us out of Iraq. We've already taken some of their territory, and they weren't prepared for that. Now they have to expend their resources on DEFENSE, while we can expend ours on OFFENSE, which leaves our homeland better protected. This brings up another time-tested, brilliant, proven military strategy:

When you've got the enemy on the run, don't pull back. Instead, go for the jugular.

By the way, WHICH GROUP OF PEOPLE are more interested in us pulling back at this point? Guess we know who's got the brains in this country.

In summary, Bush used a very solid, brilliant, and time-tested strategy, and it's working. The fact that he was able to do this in the face of traitorous opposition from democrats at home, and opposition from bribe-takers abroad, only adds to his brilliance.

 

[MonsterMark]

Bravo!

G.W.Bush...Greatest President Ever!

 

[RB3]

An excellent analysis David, to which I'd like to add another measure of the President's intelligence:

Twenty-five years ago, Ronald Reagan was elected in a very different world. Reagan had a vision for that world. The Soviet Union would be vanquished, the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall would come down, and Eastern Europe would be free. For that vision, Reagan was vilified. He was dismissed as stupid, he was dismissed as naive, it was said he lacked nuance, and he was called a warmonger.

Reagan ignored the taunts, ignored the polls, and ignored the condescending insults of the Left. He was determined to leave the world a better, safer place than he found it, and set out to make it so.

We are all the beneficiaries of that vision. The ability to look past what is, and to see what can be, is a sign of great intelligence. As today's rhetoric shows us, there are few visionaries left in the world.

In 2001, George W. Bush became president, and shortly thereafter, September 11 happened. And on the morning of September 12, Bush woke up and realized, as you wrote: "At that point, President Bush had a major responsibility: To secure our country so this would never happen again."

That recognition and clarity of purpose, even more than his strategy, demonstrates his intelligence. He has the vision to grasp that the greatest threat to Western Civilization in the twenty-first century is radical Islam. He has the vision to grasp that such a threat won't be quelled with an ineffective response, because September 11 was an act of war. With the exception of Lieberman, the Democrats still don't understand the danger radical Islam poses. And Bush has the vision to see what must be done, however unpopular it might be with those who will not see.

 

[MonsterMark]

Here is a great little quote from James Taranto in the OpinionJournal.

"One thing that is sure to prove irrelevant to Mr. Bush's legacy is the intensity of today's Angry Left. FDR faced an Angry Right in his day, but Republicans in the survey rank him the 5th-best president. Even Ronald Reagan, out of office less than two decades, ranks a respectable 14th among Democrats. Mr. Bush is a polarizing figure today, but if his policies prove successful over time, even his detractors will grudgingly come around."

It almost seems like he was talking directly to Barry.

 

[RRocket]

So by your own admission, then what Japan did in attacking Pearl Harbour was a brilliant military operation, and as such it legitimizes what they did?




Alright, for fun I guess I'll bite...Imagine I'm a US Ally who's unsure whether Iraq is in fact an enemy of the US. Ok LvC Diplomats, please answer my questions.

1) At the time, Iraq had not real navy to speak of. They certainly weren't going to sail anywhere to attack the US.

2) They had no air force to speak of. Which means they couldn't have mounted an aerial attack, nor could they have deployed troops this way either.

3) Their ballisitc missile capability was not intact either. According to the US, the furthest ballistic missile they had on-hand had an ultimate reach of 112 miles. Difficult to attack the US that way too.

4) GWB has admitted that they had no WMD. Even if they had, they could only reach 112 miles with them..again....not able to reach the US.

5) No Al-Qaeda link. Osama actually hated Saddam and Saddam's version of Muslim doctrine. Severeal times calling Saddam an "atheist" which apparwently is as big an insult as can be said about a Muslim. A couple of years before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama was one of the few people in the world who warned Saddam would do so. "This dog cannot be trusted" he said. Osama also wanted to be the one to ovethrow Saddam from Kuwait. Saudi documents show he approached Saudi Arabia with a plan to use 60,000 of his fighters to oust Saddam. (I would suggest to anyone wanting more info about Osama to read any of Peter L. Bergen books on the subject. He has been researching Osama since the mid-90's, well before 9/11.) **Disclamer for Fossten: You seem to read into stuff alot, so here's a disclaimer for you. I don't like Osama. He's a terrorist. He's killed many in the US and abroad. Just because I said he doesn't like Saddam, it doesn't mean I support him. And after reading Bergen's books, I have a very clear notion about what this guy is about, and it's not pleasant. I hope you're clear on that.)**

6) Let's be clear. Saddam was a bad man. Very bad. Murdering your own country men doesn't exactly make you "nice". But what threat specifically did he pose to the US? Perhaps to some US allies, but after both Gulf Wars, Saddam hadn't made any overtures about attacking, invading or over-running any countries, especially the US. Unless him calling you "dogs" is an act of war.

Ok...Flame On. I guess if no one else will be the devil's advocate, it might as well be me today. (I'm kinda bored anyways.)

 

[barry2952]

if his policies prove successful over time

Big, big "IF".

 

[Vitas]

Big, big "IF".

Duh.

It is not a question of "if" it is a question of when.

You enjoy freedom and democracy, don't you?

 

[barry2952]

You are entitled to your opinion Vitas. Am I not entitled to mine?

 

[Vitas]

You are entitled to your opinion Vitas. Am I not entitled to mine?

Sure. State your opinion.

 

[barry2952]

Sure. State your opinion.

I just did. You said my opinion was wrong. How can my opinion be wrong? I believe that George Bush will go down in history as the worst president this country had ever had. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. Quit telling me I'm wrong.

 

[Vitas]

I just did. You said my opinion was wrong. How can my opinion be wrong? I believe that George Bush will go down in history as the worst president this country had ever had. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. Quit telling me I'm wrong.

Barry, you keep saying that, but you provide no factual basis to support your opinion. What is it for, that Bush will go down in history as the worst president this country had ever had?

Give us facts please.

 

[barry2952]

It's just my opinion. Get it?

 

[Vitas]

It's just my opinion. Get it?

Based on what?

 

[barry2952]

Nothing that I would expect you to understand so I'll let you get the last word, again, so you can sleep comfortably tonight with the knowlege that you felt you invalidated my opinion.

 

[Vitas]

Nothing that I would expect you to understand so I'll let you get the last word, again, so you can sleep comfortably tonight with the knowlege that you felt you invalidated my opinion.

You are telling us that you have a baseless opininion. Thank you for making that clear.

 

[RRocket]

"Opinion" :A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

His doesn't have to prove any "facts" for an opinion. That's why it's "opinion" and not "fact". I could state that "In my opinion, I feel you're anal". I have nothing to defend, since it's my gut feeling. Which is entirely different than saying "You ARE anal". In that case, I'd have to factually prove that statement, since I am passing it off as true. It's different. And I have no evidence, so I'll stick to my opinion. See?

 

[Vitas]

See?

No, I don't. If you have an opinion, it needs to be based on, if not actual facts, on something of a factual basis. Otherwise you are just scratching your ass.

You in the last day, or two, presented your opinions, with an explanation as to what your opinion is based on.

See?

 

[Vitas]

Alright, for fun I guess I'll bite...Imagine I'm a US Ally who's unsure whether Iraq is in fact an enemy of the US. Ok LvC Diplomats, please answer my questions.

All Saddam had to do is cooperate in good faith in complying with the UN resolutions. He didn't. Blix stated that "it cannot be said that Iraq is cooperating in good faith." (from my memory)

If Saddam had nothing to hide, all he had to do is cooperate.

You tell me. If you know that the enemy is stonewalling you, at best, do you just say, oh, he's just having a bad day, or do you TAKE NOTICE?

 

[RB3]

So by your own admission, then what Japan did in attacking Pearl Harbour was a brilliant military operation, and as such it legitimizes what they did?




Alright, for fun I guess I'll bite...Imagine I'm a US Ally who's unsure whether Iraq is in fact an enemy of the US. Ok LvC Diplomats, please answer my questions.

1) At the time, Iraq had not real navy to speak of. They certainly weren't going to sail anywhere to attack the US.

2) They had no air force to speak of. Which means they couldn't have mounted an aerial attack, nor could they have deployed troops this way either.

3) Their ballisitc missile capability was not intact either. According to the US, the furthest ballistic missile they had on-hand had an ultimate reach of 112 miles. Difficult to attack the US that way too.

4) GWB has admitted that they had no WMD. Even if they had, they could only reach 112 miles with them..again....not able to reach the US.

5) No Al-Qaeda link. Osama actually hated Saddam and Saddam's version of Muslim doctrine. Severeal times calling Saddam an "atheist" which apparwently is as big an insult as can be said about a Muslim. A couple of years before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama was one of the few people in the world who warned Saddam would do so. "This dog cannot be trusted" he said. Osama also wanted to be the one to ovethrow Saddam from Kuwait. Saudi documents show he approached Saudi Arabia with a plan to use 60,000 of his fighters to oust Saddam. (I would suggest to anyone wanting more info about Osama to read any of Peter L. Bergen books on the subject. He has been researching Osama since the mid-90's, well before 9/11.) **Disclamer for Fossten: You seem to read into stuff alot, so here's a disclaimer for you. I don't like Osama. He's a terrorist. He's killed many in the US and abroad. Just because I said he doesn't like Saddam, it doesn't mean I support him. And after reading Bergen's books, I have a very clear notion about what this guy is about, and it's not pleasant. I hope you're clear on that.)**

6) Let's be clear. Saddam was a bad man. Very bad. Murdering your own country men doesn't exactly make you "nice". But what threat specifically did he pose to the US? Perhaps to some US allies, but after both Gulf Wars, Saddam hadn't made any overtures about attacking, invading or over-running any countries, especially the US. Unless him calling you "dogs" is an act of war.

Ok...Flame On. I guess if no one else will be the devil's advocate, it might as well be me today. (I'm kinda bored anyways.)

Well, I was waiting to give Fossten the first shot at this, but that ship has sailed. To address your points, speaking of ships....

1. So what? Iran doesn't either, but you seem to accept the need to do something there.

2. See no. 1.

3. So your argument is to sit by, do nothing, and wait for Saddam to perfect his ability to attack us?

4. GWB said no such thing. He said they weren't found in great quantity. Since Saddam is KNOWN to have used them in the past, the question is where are they, not the false claim they never existed.

5. Wrong again. There was no link of Iraq to September 11. To Al-Qaeda, yes, there is evidence of cooperation. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, a financier of terrorism, and a trainer of terrorists. That bin Laden hated Saddam is not evidence they didn't cooperate; a shared enemy makes strange bedfellows.

6. Here's a summary of the US Senate resolution on Iraq, which I posted in another thread:

"Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.

If the Bush administration erred in privileging the dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war — genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. It was the U.S. Senate — a majority of Democrats included — not Paul Wolfowitz, that legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East: "...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".

So read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide; real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."

It details numerous acts, including acts of war, that Iraq committed against the United States.

 

[RB3]

"Opinion" :A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

His doesn't have to prove any "facts" for an opinion. That's why it's "opinion" and not "fact". I could state that "In my opinion, I feel you're anal". I have nothing to defend, since it's my gut feeling. Which is entirely different than saying "You ARE anal". In that case, I'd have to factually prove that statement, since I am passing it off as true. It's different. And I have no evidence, so I'll stick to my opinion. See?

The definition you've offered of "opinion" is pretty narrow. Opinion is also defined as "an assessment, judgement, or evaluation" of something. In this instance, that definition seems to be the one that applies, in that here we see a judgement or evaluation of the President. That then makes it legitimate to ask what the opinion is based on, and if there is no answer, to form an opinion as to the validity of the original opinion.

Everyone is certainly entitled to his opinion, but everyone is equally entitled to an opinion as to the worth of the original opinion that is neither defended nor explained.

 

[barry2952]

I have plenty of information to back up my opinion. I just chose not to get into another circular arguement with Vitas. It's a waste of time.

 

[MonsterMark]

Big, big "IF".

Seeing as how you responded to MY quote and comment, I wouldn't mind hearing your 'opinion'.

1) How have you come to the opinion that Bush is the "Worst President Ever" and what drives that opinion?

2) Why you feel it is a big "IF" that Bush's policies will prove successful over time?

Thanks in advance for your response.

 

[barry2952]

Seeing as how you responded to MY quote and comment, I wouldn't mind hearing your 'opinion'.

1) How have you come to the opinion that Bush is the "Worst President Ever" and what drives that opinion?

2) Why you feel it is a big "IF" that Bush's policies will prove successful over time?

Thanks in advance for your response.

(1) What drives my opinion is that I feel that Bush did not tell the truth about his intentions about Iraq and his intentions to load the Supreme Court and the other courts of the land with his minion. I watched him say that while religion played a part in his life it would not play a part in politics.

(2) The "if" will not come in my lifetime, it will come in that of your children. Your boys will foot the bill for Bush's buddies getting rich now. You always flame me an call me a Liberal when you know differently. I'm certainly much more middle of the road than you but I'm not a Liberal. I believe in a lot of the Liberal causes but I am definetely a fiscal conservative and it burns me to have to foot the bill for what I, and over 50% of others in this country, see as an unjust war and an unjust tax cut.

IN MY OPINION, history will judge GWB very poorly for his positions and that he has sold us down the river fiscally by seating his buddies in critical positions of power. He may wear the title of President but he acts like a king.

Trashing entiltments is in order but trashing funds for the truly needy while keeping the tax cut for those in my position is unconscionable, in my opinion. Before you criticize, know that I contribute my tax cut to a variety of animal and cancer causes. Do you?

You know how I feel on the subject of WMD. I'm sorry if you don't agree but WMD was given as the driving force for entering Iraq and even the President has admitted to reacting to false information. I give him credit for admitting his mistake but we still have no resolution in sight. I agree that Saddam had to go but I don't believe GWB's reasons were sound.

I am not a religious person but I literally prayed that WMD would be found early in the war. Imagine that. Me praying for GWB! I really meant it. I sat in front of my TV for almost a week straight watching events unfold and I must say that I am greatly diappointed in the President and in the CIA, FBI and other covert agencies we, as tax payers, employ. What do you do with bad employees? Do you keep them on the payroll while they spend their time looking for another job? I don't think so.

Whether you agree with my opinion or not it is based in my observations of the sucesses and failures of this administration.

 

[ToddG]

Guys, Barry is entitled to his opinion. You or I may not agree with his opinion, or how he arrived at it, but he is entitled to it nonetheless.

In my view, his opinion, like many other more liberal people, is based on feelings instead of plain, unbiased, objective facts, and it is our job to debate those opinions and persuade him to see ours. And Barry, I say the above with the utmost respect -- really, no kidding.

On the question of Iraq, I am in total agreement with RB3's statements put forth above, and will add the following, based on the scene after 9/11.

1. Saddam did not have STOCKPILES of WMD. He DID have WMD because he used them against the Iranians and his own people. Those WMD could not be accounted for during inspections. Where did they go? Were they hidden? After 9/11, did we really want to take the chance? The President did not, and most people agreed with him.

2. Saddam was warned in countless UN resolutions to disarm or face the consequences. He did not. In fact, he acted like someone who had something to hide.

3. There are clear connections to Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Even though one might argue they disagreed on many things, one thing they agreed on was that the US was the Great Satan. Therefore, it is not inconceivable, after 9/11, for Saddam to give WMD to terrorist organizations for use against the US. President Bush did not want to take this chance, and may people agreed with him.

I'll agree with Barry on this: The intelligence was completely wrong. I firmly believe the President did not lie to anyone about anything, he was simply stating what the intelligence said. The problem now, as I see it, is to find out why the intelligence was so wrong, and to fix the problem so it does not happen again. Now, that said, I still think Saddam had to go, WMD stockpiles or not. The invasion was justified in my opinion for a whole bunch of other reasons. In fact, after the 1991 war, I was asking myself, why is Saddam still in power? We should have taken him out then, to be sure, but the UN and the Saudis didn't have the stomach for it.

 

[ToddG]

(1) What drives my opinion is that I feel that Bush did not tell the truth about his intentions about Iraq and his intentions to load the Supreme Court and the other courts of the land with his minion. I watched him say that while religion played a part in his life it would not play a part in politics.

Gotta disagree with you on the Supreme Court issue, Barry. Bush stated very clearly during his 2000 and 2004 campaign that if elected, he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the bench (i.e., strict constructionists aka judicial conservatives). He campaigned vigorously on this issue. Bush won the election. And now that he is elected, he is fulfilling that campaign promise. To say that he did not reveal his intentions on this issue is simply wrong.

FYI, one of my colleages was appointed by President Bush to the District Court in my state, and I can say unequivocally, that he is an outstanding individual with the utmost respect for the law and precedent. He was confirmed by the Senate, and is a fine sitting judge today.