Message 2313 of 4938

George W.'s War


No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

[Looks like somethings never change. -bhubbell]
bhubbell1's profile
Replies 11 - 20 of 21
Comment deleted by an Administrator
Most of the world thinks of George Bush the same way they do Adolf Hitler. Jimmy Carter au contraire is much loved.
LifeLoveLaughter's profile

about 1 year ago
That's your opinion and your entitled to it. However, there is a great many people who think that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in the history of this country and that he is still an embarrassment to the USA.

view link

While some leaders of Arab countries and those that harbor terrorists view Carter as and idiot and a wimp.

view link

As to comparing President Bush to Hitler, that is so stupid and pathetic that only a died-in-the-wool socialist would even think that.
bhubbell1's profile

about 1 year ago
well i think bush is a lot closer to hitler than he'll ever be to washington .. i wouldn't go so far as to compare him to hitler .. unless of course there was new evidence that he knew 100% that there were no wmd's and no links to bin ladin and alquida . and that he cooked all the evidence to steer us towards war .. and then tried to cover everything up .. oh wait a minute isn't that kinda stuff commin out every day now ?? frenchy..
thefrenchinhaler's profile

about 1 year ago
ok,you might be right there bobblhd
we have our times and prez's screwed up .

"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way." --George W. Bush, Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

"My attitude is, if they're still writing about (number) one, 43 doesn't need to worry about it." --George W. Bush, on his legacy, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

"There are some similarities, of course (between Iraq and Vietnam). Death is terrible." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007
yep,your hero is smarter than Carter!

will444doylee's profile

about 1 year ago
as the orginal poster said.. Only time will tell, of course history is always written by the victors not the defeated.
George W.. is The President in crucial times in our world regardless of who was the President the past 8 years the job would have been met with strong opposition.. which or whoever held the title President of the USA.

I very much enjoyed the orginal post... good job. !! Thanks for posting it.
c2clistener's profile

about 1 year ago
Come on sb a president is supposed to be a leader (as an adjective as well as a noun it is not a position) now are all dictators leaders?
yichel
yichel's profile

about 1 year ago
Nobody mentioned George Bush

Oh, I get it. The title is George W.'s War - because it is common in 2008 to refer to our President as George W., and the Iraq War is called George W.'s War more often than it is called "The Iraq War", but as you read it you find out that a parallel is being drawn (rather awkwardly perhaps) with George WASHINGTON which is the whole dang point - see, George W. Bush is a lot like George Washington. See? Get it?

Only as soon as someone from the other side mentions Bush, there is this rather disingenuous comment - Nobody mentioned George Bush. Is there now a fear in claiming the parallel that this piece is supposed to make?

And was I sleeping in History class? Did George Washington send the country's young men and women to the Middle East to risk their lives while ignoring the terrorism of poverty, lack of health care, homelessness, and discrimination that existed at home? Did Mr. Washington talk of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was there a Downing Street Memo? Was Mr. Washington going after the people who toppled two towers, except that they weren't the same people who toppled the two towers because those people had connections to his friends and family so he had to find a different scapegoat? Damn, I should have paid closer attention in High School so I'd get the point of this essay.

about 1 year ago
yichel,

The sovereignty of America resides in the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The Presidency is an office, and the person holding that office only has the powers of the office. The legislative branch makes laws, approves treaties, levies taxes, appropriates funds, declares war and can remove the President from office. All the executive branch can do is what the legislative tells it to.

Dictatorships are merely one form of a strong executive form of government. Any form of government that invests the sovereignty of the nation in the executive can claim the executive as leader of the nation, first and foremost. How can the President be the leader of the nation when power is vested in Congress?

Remember, the President has a bully pulpit to hector the nation, not command of the nation.
SchoolBoy's profile

about 1 year ago
SB might that be a definition of being a leader someone who influences. Plus our legislative section of government has not demonstrated any "leadership regarding the war or anything else.
yichel

I heard david victor hanson talk about the war he said something interesting that Americans had about 20% of the population with strong feelings that this was the right action to take, 20% with strong negative feelings and the greater middle who wait to see how things were going. I thought about this whether it ws a constant. it seems corect for our war of independemce. not correct for the two world wars. but probably correct for vietnam until we started to believe that we were losing and that the war was wrong. which comes first do yuo wonder with people?
yichel, finally thank the lord signing/nodding off

yichel's profile

about 1 year ago
Replies 11 - 20 of 21