CONSERVATIVE FREAK

“People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest.”

                                                         -Hermann Hesse

George W. Bush has, in his grasp, the opportunity to become among one of the great Presidents that the United States has seen.

This could be perceived by some as an absurd and shocking statement considering the fact that Bush has been vilified during most of his presidency. Besides, over time our country has seen Presidents with better military records. Bush is not a Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower. Our country has seen better statesmen hold the office. After all, Bush is not a Jefferson or Madison. And we all know that the United States has seen Presidents that were better communicators. Bush is not a Ronald Reagan or even a John Kennedy.

There have been few times in history where a single event has defined a Presidency. The events of September 11, 2001 and the strength and resolve exhibited by President Bush during those trying times, were the epitome of an event or events defining a Presidency.

Very simply, George W. Bush was the right person at the right place at the right time.

I do believe that there is a purpose for all things that happen and I believe that the circus that was the 2000 Presidential election is the epitome of that. I cannot tell you how many times I heard Republicans and Democrats alike say “It’s a good thing Al Gore isn’t the President,” in the days after the attacks. Like our parents and grandparents who can remember where they were when they first heard of the attack on Pearle Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or the moon landing, I will never forget the instant I realized that our country was attacked on September 11, 2001.

It took me several days to come to terms with the fact that my children would grow up in a more dangerous world than I had. As a child I remember the worry that the Soviet Union would attack us and that WWIII would be a nuclear holocaust. The dangers were in the back of my mind, but they never ultimately seemed real. The Soviets had never dropped a nuclear bomb on New York City. For my children, their fears would be real. They had watched psychopathic killers slam jets into the World Trade Center a thousand times over and over on the T.V. I also knew right away that my children would grow up during wartime. I just prayed that the war didn’t come to them.

I remember waiting by the television for the President to deliver his first address to the nation following the attacks. While watching the President it became immediately apparent that he was not biting his lip in a Clintonesque fashion telling me how he felt my pain. Bush was feeling my pain. He was experiencing the same emotions that I, and most of America, was feeling. I imagine though, that his emotions were magnified ten fold considering that he was in it. He was part of history in the making while I was only watching it happen. I could imagine the fear that he had for his family’s safety. While I feared for the safety of my family, it was not my house that had been a potential target to bloodthirsty terrorists.

Bush must have had the same feeling of hate for those who would dare attack us. The feeling of sickness and despair for those that had been victims and sorrow for their families. The anger of thinking and knowing that there were still those out there that considered the attack a success, but still just one battle in their sick holy war. The feeling of patriotism, knowing that we were attacked because of all that our country has and all that we have fought for. He must have also had a feeling of responsibility. Not because the attacks were his fault, but because the attacks happened under his watch. I think it is natural for any leader to feel a sense of responsibility whether he is a commander on the battlefield, a mayor of a city, or a leader of the most powerful country in the world.

I watched a President weep with our nation - weep with me. I watched a President grieve with our nation - grieve with me. I watched a President stand up with a nation - stand with me. These were the days that defined the George W. Bush presidency. His actions since that time have only reinforced my feelings and strengthened my own resolve in what I believe.

Bush clearly understands what many others do not. The war on terror is a new kind of war. It is a war of intelligence, of luck, of preemption. It is a war where we must be right 100% of the time to be successful and where our enemy must be right only 1% of the time to be successful. Bush also understands that like other past wars, we want to fight the enemy where they live so we don’t have to fight them where we live.

Unfortunately, many of the people in our country that rallied behind the President in the days following 9/11 have short term memories. They again feel safe. They have again adopted the “politics as usual” mentality. These are the cowardly liberals who felt scared and needed the protection of someone stronger than they were. The media even rallied behind Bush, because they too were scared. But once they perceived that the threat had diminished, they once again became the anti-American, anti-military media that we had all grown to love.

We have taken the war to the enemy. Many people still grapple with this notion as it interferes with their utopian peace, love, and harmony version of how life should be. Unlike these people I live in the real world. I work in a prison. I have the opportunity to see that not all people are good and that bad people sometimes do bad things to good people. For me, it’s any easy concept to grasp.

Because there are bad people in the world looking to do bad things to the good people of our country, I say let’s hit them before they move. Let’s smash them before they flinch. Let’s destroy them before they know what hit them.

I believe this has been Bush’s motive in attacking terrorists in Afghanistan and removing the Saddam Hussein regime. Contrary to what the sweaty, filthy, grease-hog Michael Moore would have you believe, this is what I believe.

In Afghanistan, we hit terrorists where they breed, live, and train. In Iraq, we finally amended our policy of warning Saddam Hussein with empty threats and slaps to the hand. We finally pulled off our belts and spanked his bottom black and blue. He called Bush’s bluff and he lost. The United Nations may have been prepared to wait another 10 years to find out if Iraq was continuing to develop WMD programs, but the U.S. wasn’t. The U.N. was finally exposed for what it really is. An assembly of leaders from mostly third world countries who need the United States more than the United States needs them.

Bush and the United States sent a message to the world that if you do not want your ass handed to you, you will refrain from harboring, financing, or in any way assisting terrorists. Not only that, but the U.S. sent a message to other nations that it is in their best interest to cooperate with us in our fight against combating terrorism.

Libya got the message. Loud and clear. Saudi Arabia sure seems to be getting it. And hopefully, Iran will figure it out soon as well.

Still, we did not find WMD’s in Iraq. But, rather than sticking out their tongues and taunting “Nah, nah, nah, where are the weapons?” Democrats and Republicans alike should be asking “Oh shit! Where are the weapons?” The answer may be one that none of us wants to hear. Consider this, we know that Hussein had chemical weapons. That is a given. He used them. It’s that simple. We also know that Hussein had nuclear ambitions. So again we ask “Where are the WMD’s?” I hope that the answer is not that they were moved to Syria or Iran. But this could very well be. The weapons we sought after could be anywhere. Like the mass graves that continue to turn up in the deserts of Iraq, maybe one day we will stumble upon a buried arsenal. We can only hope we do not get our answer in the form of a chemical or biological weapon delivered via some deranged Islamic fanatic from somewhere in Syria.

We have seen the results of inaction in the war on terror. People often forget that prior to September 11, 2001 our country and it’s interests were already under attack as we stood idly by and did nothing. 

We did nothing.

We did nothing. 

 The U.S. Government held Osama Bin Laden responsible. 

We did nothing

And again, we did nothing.

Overall, I say let’s keep fighting. If it is true that terrorists are migrating into Iraq to attack and fight American forces I say “Bring it on.” I feel and I’m sure most of our fighting men would agree that they would rather be fighting the enemy on their ground than having the enemy attack innocent Americans on our ground. And what do you think these terrorists would be doing if they weren’t attacking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? I’ll tell you. They would be plotting attacks on American soil. Iraq has become the frontline in the war on terror. The war on terror is an unconventional war that without Iraq, would have no frontline or, depending on how you look at it, many frontlines.

Indeed, George W. Bush has taken some of the harshest criticism I have ever seen any person subjected to. The worst of it came in the weeks and months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election. Whether it was his handling of the war on terror or the fact that he was willing to tell people what they didn’t want to hear, the world was against George Bush. He had a movie (I think it was a comedy) come out against him. He saw rock concerts and benefits held for no other purpose other than to help defeat him. Every time that you turned around there was another celebrity coming out against him.

Notice that there was a common theme, “Anti-Bush.” These liberal lunatics could not tell you three reasons why someone should vote for John F. Kerry. Because there weren’t any. Bush was even a common theme in Kerry’s speeches. Kerry did not tell people why he would be a good choice for President of the United States. He did not give us reasons why he was the best man for the job. John Kerry told us everything that Bush had done and said that he could have done it better. His speeches developed such a theme that I couldn’t help but sometimes break into song.

“Anything you can do I can do better. I can do anything better than you.”

Kerry’s entire campaign was run on the premise that he could have done it better. Someone should have told that horse-head looking liberal that he could not armchair quarterback his way to the White House. Kerry would have been better off saying that Bush had been dealt a tough hand in his first term. He should have given Bush credit for making tough decisions in the best interests of America. Kerry should have thanked Bush for all that he had done. Then Kerry could have outlined his plans to refine the policies and strategies that Bush had put in place. Kerry could have then pointed out the specific differences in ideologies and directions between Bush and himself without constantly bashing every decision that the President had made.

Kerry could not do this. Kerry is a liberal. His philosophies are liberal and are not conducive to a strong and secure America. Not only that, but Kerry was afraid to admit who he was. Because he was afraid to admit that he was a liberal, he was constantly trying to reinvent himself. Caught between playing the role of a hardnosed leader and being the most liberal person in the Senate forced him to constantly change his stance on several issues. This didn’t exactly exude the confidence needed in a leader during wartime.

I would venture to guess, had the media not rallied behind John F. Kerry and turned the evening news into Kerry/Edwards campaign commercials, that Bush would have won the election in a 10 to 15 point landslide. Too many people had gained respect for Bush following 9/11 for him to lose. Very simply, while Kerry and other Demo-commies talked about how they could have and would have handled things better; only one man had been there. One man had the responsibility of leading and protecting a nation that had had it’s security compromised. One man had the duty to do what he felt was in the best interests of the country, regardless of public opinion. One man had the complex task of restoring confidence to a nation that, for the first time in generations, felt vulnerable.

While I admire many of the characteristics that President Bush represents, he is still human and not without faults. I do like the fact that he has a self deprecating humor and obviously a thick skin. Like me, Bush sticks to what he believes in regardless of what others think. What some call stubborn, obtuse, and cocky, I call confidence and character.

I am able to realistically examine policy decisions made by the administration and evaluate the President’s job performance as a whole. This is what separates people like me from the German people who elevated Hitler to a godlike status, or the Iraqi people who were muzzled by fear and allowed Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror for decades. This is what separates me from the people who still look at Bill Clinton as some sort of deity. These are all people who were blinded by power, fear, or stupidity. When a citizen agrees with 100% of what a leader says and does, there is a problem. By losing all objectivity and sensibility they allow themselves to be led down what can be a path to evil. How could the citizens of 1930’s and 1940’s Germany allow themselves to get whipped into an anti-Semitic murderous frenzy? How could red-blooded Americans continue to support a President that got into bed with the Chinese government as well as everyone else? Blindness, pure and simple.

President Bush has made some very smart and difficult decisions given the situations and circumstances that this country has encountered during his presidency. Many of his programs and proposals have been very creative and courageous. From “No Child Left Behind” (which has been inaccurately portrayed in the media) to private social security accounts; Bush has thought out of the box to improve education, allow citizens to generate wealth, and to secure America.

Remember, when you give long enough, to stop giving creates a perception in people that you are taking something away from them. Some people will initially hate being dependent. They soon get used to being dependent, and finally end up depending on dependence and the pride it brings.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 President Bush made some crucial military decisions. Some have worked out better than others. It is critical though, to make the distinction between making a mistake and reevaluating a decision in hindsight and realizing things could have been done differently. Even when a tactical plan goes just as planned with the expected result, it is inevitable that upon debriefing that certain items will be identified that could have been done differently. For the most part, given the information that Bush has had and the flawed procedures that were in place prior to his taking office, Bush’s war on terror has been executed flawlessly.

It’s true that we can look back at policies and missions that have failed and use them as a benchmark for measuring the administrations successes and failures in the war on terror. This would not be an accurate or fair representation for measuring Bush’s performance on the war on terror. It has been said that hindsight is always 20/20. This could easily be said when debating the decision to engage and enter Iraq. Our nation could only go by the information that we had at the time.

In his book On Combat, Lt. Col. David Grossman quotes C.M von Clausewitz as saying:

In other words, being a coward is easy and when you do nothing you do not make mistakes. The person who makes a mistake born out of a willingness to act when others won’t or can’t is not a fool or a failure. He or she is to be hailed for their ability and willingness to act.

One area where the Bush administration has fallen short in the war on terror is on the immigration issue. Bush has proposed an immigrant worker card that would allow immigrant workers to work in the United States without recourse. It’s my understanding that the worker could apply to renew the card and continue to work in the U.S. for a specific amount of time. This would allow immigrants to benefit financially by obtaining and retaining work, and would allow employers to retain the workers that many have come to depend on. Supposedly, this would serve a national security purpose as well. By allowing current illegal immigrants to apply for the worker’s card with amnesty, the U.S. would be establishing a paper trail and documentation on these previously undocumented individuals.

I say, “Bull!”

There are processes currently in place that allow citizens of other countries to apply for entry into the United States. Although Mexican citizens were not responsible for the terror attacks on our country, the Mexican border is a funnel for illegal immigration that could easily be used as a means of siphoning terrorists and weapons into our country.

While I appreciate the work-ethic and entrepreneurial spirit of Hispanics and other immigrants, the financial and national security burdens that a constant flow of immigration produces cannot continue. Not only that but you cannot cram 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack. Eventually something’s going to bust.

Again, I do not think the United States should reduce all immigration. That’s just not realistic. But if people are going to visit, work, live, or attend school in the U.S. there needs to be a strict screening and follow-up process put in place.

If the news reports are correct, there are an estimated 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. If an amnesty program were to be initiated for those immigrants currently in the U.S, something must be done to shut off the valve of illegal immigrants pouring into the U.S everyday. Whether it is guard troops, a fence, or both, if the flow of illegal immigrants is not shut off prior to granting amnesty, we will surely find ourselves in the same position in the very near future.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats hesitate in taking the approach to the immigration issue that is needed. Bush has proposed the worker cards and the democrats have managed to avoid the issue altogether for fear they will offend someone and even worse, lose votes.

America wants and needs swift and decisive action on this issue. I believe most Americans want the valve of illegal immigration shut off. For politicians, that may mean losing the ever growing Hispanic vote. And for those people who say that many illegal immigrants are doing jobs that other U.S. citizens refuse to do (and they’re correct), I say start shutting down government entitlement programs. Eventually, a person may choose to roof houses, work in a meat packing plant, or dig ditches rather than starve. After all, isn’t every job worthy of being done?

I still hold out hope that Bush will take an aggressive stand on the immigration issue before the end of his Presidency. Government is, by nature, reactive. Hopefully, it is not another terrorist attack assisted by weak immigration procedures that creates the change. Implementing the difficult change needed to reform immigration would take a leader with passionate conservative values and a willingness to do whatever it takes to protect America.

While the crybaby liberals complain that George W. Bush has implemented policies that are radically conservative, my biggest complaint about Bush is that he has not been conservative enough. He is actually very moderate and at times left-leaning. He has taken care not to touch the abortion issue. He has given the democrats the increase in entitlement spending that they desire and has spent money at a rate that Ted Kennedy could drink to. In fact, the only real issues that Bush has confronted with a conservative approach is the war on terror and tax cuts. Though many of us would like to see a leader that is conservative to the bone, Bush is fulfilling his promise to extend a hand and work with democrats to attempt to eliminate the divisions in the country. The left has shown that regardless of what Bush does they will always have a problem with him. To that I say “Let’s stay divided.” I would rather lose fair than to cheat and win. Right is right and left is wrong.

Why should some of us compromise our patriotism and decency for those who treat America and the American way as an enemy? More than anything else, Bush’s presidency should be judged by our safety. Few would have thought on September 12, 2001 that we would be “attack free” in the United States since that fateful day in September. We have been made and kept safe by many of the policies implemented by President George W. Bush.

Airline security was completely overhauled in an unprecedented fashion. Domestic surveillance programs have helped in averting attacks in Canada, Great Britain, and the U.S. Bush has appointed competent Supreme Court Justices that have proven to support the mission of the police and military be interpreting the U.S Constitution in the manner intended by our founding fathers.

Bush, the big oil man, allocated more government dollars to be used in the development of alternative fuels than any other President in history. He has promoted tax deductions for citizens than purchase energy efficient vehicles and provided company’s incentives for their ambition to develop fuel efficient and alternative energy vehicles. All of this has been done by promoting the free market in the development of new technologies and has kept the government role limited. Because of this we have seen an enormous growth in the marketing of electric, hybrid, and hydrogen power vehicles during the Bush presidency. Bush has been among the greatest proponents of hydrogen power which, I believe will prove to be among the most functional and realistic option of all alternative fuel technologies being promoted today.

There is no doubt that Bush’s presidency will not be fairly judged for many years. Those that have called him the worst President ever are clearly ignorant to U.S history as well as to the possibilities of what might have been. Bush is not even the worst President in recent history. Carter, Johnson, and Clinton were clearly inferior in their handling of some, if not all, issues pertaining to national security, foreign policy, welfare programs and environmental issues. Only time will tell as to Bush’s successes or failures. Those that have been among his harshest critics may one day find themselves begging for a President with the courage to do what is right even in the face of hatred.