Article

2004-02-15 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Daniel King 2004-02-15 5:05:01 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I certainly don't have Gaddis' scholarly background and ability to weave what Bush & Co (I think the entire team must be credited) have done into a grand historical picture, but simple intuition has led me to the same conclusion (blind dumb luck? mebbe...heh) about Bush.

What I have personally learned about Islam, Arabs, terrorism, and the whole lot of variables involved led me to eat crow regards Bush. Before his dramatic course change to engage terrorism, I was not a supporter. But when faced with the dire threat evidenced by the evil deeds from African embassies to the USS Cole to the WTC, Bush suddenly grew to fill the shoes and respond forcefully and in ways that made me incredibly proud to be an American, again.

Beyond the initial responses were the amazing policy changes which address the real root causes, sans the "Why do they hate us?" simplicity and idiocy. To say I have been impressed with Bush's Foreign Policy is a complete understatement.

Having people such as Gaddis publicly confirm with reams of research and decades of knowledge what regular folks such as myself understood through mere intuition is quite a boon. I am extremely grateful he (and others) have publicly stated their views - and rebuked the otherwise LLL world of academia. Bravo, Dr - long life to you! And thanx, big time!

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 5:46:00 PM|| 2004-2-15 5:46:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 My transformation from lifelong Democrat to "broken-glass Republican" took place during the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, so I was not inclined to be terribly skeptical of Bush before 9/11; yet he has managed to exceed my expectations, too.

Certainly, the attacks on 9/11 ought to have forced a complete, hard-nosed reassessment of our entire foreign policy: of what our place and posture in the world should be; of our willingness to entrust our safety to corrupt, ineffective international institutions like the UN; and of what the term "ally" has meant in the past and what it must mean in the future.

It also ought to have forced an equally drastic reassessment of our approach to dealing with the threat of Islam's more radical, totalitarian strains; with the threat of nuclear proliferation among repressive third-world regimes, warlords and terrorist groups; and with the Arab/Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

The Bush administration seems to have undertaken that reassessment, and taken it seriously.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has not, and it seems unwilling to part with its shopworn, cherished notions of feel-good, warm 'n fuzzy internationalism.

The only Democrat I possibly could have voted for was Lieberman (not that I would have, with Bush as the incumbent); God help us if Kerry is elected.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-2-15 6:23:13 PM|| 2004-2-15 6:23:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I do not think much of GW from an intelectual POV. I get as much charge as any body else from the stories about the GWB Library losing half its volumes to a fire when they lost the Archie and Jughead comic book. But that said GWB does seem to know what is right and what the f**k is wrong. For being a "unilateralist" and a "non-respector of international law" just why did he go to the UN twice in late winter 2003. Why has he continually tried( and succeeded mostly) to engage other countries in the WOT. Because he recongnizes as most of us here do that the WOT is the defense of civilization itself.

Posted by Cheddarhead 2004-2-15 7:25:55 PM|| 2004-2-15 7:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 What worries me is that although .com and Dave D. have decided the democrat party do not have good answers to the WOT, how many people out there do not research, read, and disgest the information available on the internet like Rantburg, Powerline, and all the other good blogs. Few, I am afraid. I hear too many of my students and colleagues who talk as if they know everything and think GW is doing a bad job on the WOT and when questioned can not give me specifics.

The other thing is this thing about GW not being intellectual. Often intellegence is mistaken for being able to speak in flowing terms and with a big vocabulary. I like to tell my students about how when I graduated from college I didn't have a lick of common sense. Lots of book knowledge but no knowledge of how the world really runs. It took the college of hard knocks to instill some of that in me. I think GW has a lot more going in the intellegence area than many assume.

Posted by AF Lady 2004-2-15 7:59:18 PM|| 2004-2-15 7:59:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 AF Lady - excellent points. I, too, am very worried about November. I know that the real danger for us is to assume anything. If the Donks want to be fools and assume that, "Hey, it's obvious that 'Bush Lied!' - I see it, so everyone else sees it too!" - that's great. I don't want to be so blind or such a sucker!

Re: Bush intelligence
I once responded (long ago, now) to liberalhawk that I had seen people like Bush in action in the private sector. Unusually charismatic CEO's who didn't know squat about the details of the business, but were wizards on the big picture and the implications and seeing years down the road. They were very smart: they hired great detail people to surround them and then delegated full authority and responsibility (unusual to get the auth to go with the deliverables expected, heh) and left it to these lieutenants to make shit happen. These companies were all, at least in my experience, incredibly successful. I think it was due to zero micromanagement / second guessing and having a pro in each area of expertise in charge with full power to make success happen.

So, as I came to realize, Bush was on-target, had organized the right people into a team, and had given them the big picture result he expected - then turned them loose to do it. I've eaten a lot of personal crow about him - and quite happily, too. I've even gotten used to the "nyukyuler" thing, though my inner English-major still cringes a bit. ;-)

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 8:21:56 PM|| 2004-2-15 8:21:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 There are lots of old guys at Harvard who have seen their "day in the sun" years ago. They were once great, made it to Harvard, fully tenured, professored, etc. THEN, they publish un-scientific high-brow trash, as I suspect this book is. (Remember the Bell Curve?? Pure trash.) Unfortunately, it takes scientists and historians years to undo the damage.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-15 8:27:41 PM|| 2004-2-15 8:27:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 There are lots of old guys at Harvard who have seen their "day in the sun" years ago. They were once great, made it to Harvard, fully tenured, professored, etc. THEN, they publish un-scientific high-brow trash, as I suspect this book is. (Remember the Bell Curve?? Pure trash.) Unfortunately, it takes scientists and historians years to undo the damage.

Gaddis is too old, eh? Isn't ageist prejudice against liberal principles? As usual, the liberal left criticizes the color of the wallpaper instead of looking at the argument on its merits. No real surprises here - if you had to look at liberal arguments on their merits, they would be tossed out with the trash. The Bell Curve is pure trash? If all liberals have left is bilious putdowns, they should get out of political analysis and get into showbusiness.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-2-15 9:40:33 PM|| 2004-2-15 9:40:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 George Bush was bushwhacked on 9/11. Fortunately for the world, his first response was to find out what happened, who did what, and where things originated, rather than lashing out. He then used the exceptional talent he'd surrounded himself with to craft a response, not only to the attacks but to the fundamentals behind them. There's still a major battle to fight - he's got to take control of the State Department, and have it work for HIM, rather than the United Nations. That may require some very unethical housecleaning before it's all over. I had hoped Powell would be up to the task - he wasn't. It's time to give State to someone with the bare-knuckle power to take on the diplomatic doomsayers and kick them back into the Potomac swamp they crawled out of.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-2-15 10:03:23 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-2-15 10:03:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 There are lots of old guys at Harvard who have seen their "day in the sun" years ago. They were once great, made it to Harvard, fully tenured, professored, etc. THEN, they publish un-scientific high-brow trash, as I suspect this book is. (Remember the Bell Curve?? Pure trash.) Unfortunately, it takes scientists and historians years to undo the damage.

I've seen this alot in my years in academia. If someone previously liberal comes out against something they believe in that person is instantly made to be old, out-of-touch, or (my favorite) never really a liberal to begin with. Whatever happened to age bringing wisdom?

Old Patriot I agree with your assessment on State. Part of the problem is the career holdovers. They definitely need to be cleaned out.

Posted by AF Lady 2004-2-15 10:35:51 PM|| 2004-2-15 10:35:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 The Bell Curve is pure trash? Give examples, please.

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-2-15 11:22:18 PM|| 2004-2-15 11:22:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Get a breath of that country air, breath the bueaty of it evrywhere."

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-15 11:47:41 PM|| 2004-2-15 11:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

08:35 1234L
08:09 B
00:09 Lucky
23:47 Lucky
23:43 Tibor
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:39 Lucky
23:22 Les Nessman
23:20 Zhang Fei
23:18 .com
23:18 Zhang Fei
23:11 phil_b
23:10 Seafarious
22:41 GK
22:35 AF Lady
22:32 JAB
22:21 rkb
22:20 PBMcL
22:13 Dan
22:03 Old Patriot
21:45 djohn66
21:44 Pappy
21:40 Zhang Fei
20:39 Robert Crawford