George W.’s War

Spread the love

Loading

From Investor’s Business Daily, sent to me by a friend:

George W.’s War

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

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

An excellent editorial and every word applies to today’s war just as well.

I’m still waiting for all the defeatists and those who would have had us surrender to be held accountable for their words and actions.

I cannot believe that with an election coming up people will elect Obama President after he lobbied for defeat and still refuses to admit that was a mistake.

Likewise, those members of the House and Senate who said this war was “lost” or that they didn’t believe we could succeed should be held to the same high standard they daily demanded of President Bush and our military.

It’s scary to think what might have happened if John Kerry had been elected in 2004. We might now have a complete and total mess in Iraq and throughout the Middle East with Iran running even more rampant than they currently are.

The same could happen this year too. People who beg for “change” should think long and hard. It very well could be change for the worse and like the 4 years America suffered under Jimmy Carter we would only find out too late and the consequences (Iran again) could last for decades.

Leadership is about doing what is right. Not what is easy or sounds good at the time. People who think Obama is the answer should give some careful thought to that if they are capable of thinking at all.

IBD is a hot source, Michael Ramirez especially…

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-details/Barack+Obama%27s+broken+promise+to+African+village/article.do

The link is to:
Good article that shows what it means to trust someone who can’t be trusted, even by his ‘Islamic’ family. Hussein O’s only interest is himself and his inflated ego. He hold the record for ‘here’ votes in the U.S. which is only to avoid making a decision He swore to serve the people of Il for 6 years and has served only 143 days in the Senate since he was elected. Once a liar and failure always a liar and failure. Now you want a known liar who won’t follow his sworn word to be POTUS. What a bunch of nuts BDS has produced in the democrat party.

Received this in an email yesterday…
Only too true…
Thanks to the MSM… and the idiots that follow them…

Nobama is a moron who hasn’t a clue what is best for our country….
He only does what his handlers tell him to do….

As many times as I have disagreed wtih GW… I can agree he wants what is best for our country except for immigration.
Regardless of public opinion…. I can respect that he has the strength of his convictions..

“But in the end, only one European nation helped us.”

My American friends:
Please, don’t forget that Aznar, the Spanish president at that time, also supported Bush, facing a strong opposition from the Spanish left. He was a strong president; he knew what he had to do.

Then, after the Madrid bombings, three days before the election, Zapatero won unexpectedly, and he cowardly surrendered and retired the troops from Irak: Spain cowardly surrendered (shame on us).

It is really sad to think that in the future Irak will be able to thank USA and UK for what they did, and Spain will not be there… when it was at the beginning.

We already have our Obama, unfortunately.

Scriptament, the post was referring to the American civil war, not the war in Iraq. It was simply drawing parallels to illustrate a point.

atadoff: Actually it was the Revolutionary War but does it matter?

The point is that in every great and difficult challenge this nation has ever faced there has been a group of people who insist we cannot succeed and shouldn’t even try.

We call them Democrats!

Yes, atadOFF, I know, but the post is so good because of the similarities.

I was proud of my country when Aznar decided to support Bush in such great and difficult challenge, as Mike’s says.

Can anyone imagine the shame and humiliation that many Spaniards felt when Zapatero, our Obama, decided to retire the troops, betraying our allies? He even asked the rest of the countries helping Irak to do the same thing and retire their troops.

The Spanish soldiers in Irak came back home crying in humiliation and anger.

Here’s another piece (by Michael Medved) in the same spirit as the one posted:

The handsome young Democratic nominee is the most spellbinding orator of his generation, promising dramatic change to correct economic injustice and bring an end to a bloody, unpopular war. Republicans deride him as a showboating demagogue with scant governmental experience and place their faith in a gruff, battle-tested veteran who asks for public patience to fight the war till victory. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, anti-American insurgents have recently lost thousands of fighters to desertion and improved U.S. tactics, but they believe they can exploit their enemy’s war weariness. The guerrilla fighters, therefore, intensify their gruesome attacks as part of a conscious effort to influence the November election on behalf of the Democratic “peace” candidate.

Though contemporary Americans will assume the above description applies to Iraq and the 2008 campaign, it’s also an accurate summary of the situation leading up to the fateful election of 1900 and the darkest days of our four-year war against insurrectionists in the Philippines. This nearly forgotten conflict deserves renewed attention today since the parallels with our present predicament count as both eerie and illuminating.

Read the rest

Excellent analysis by Micheal Medved.

Just kidding.

A lefty when ‘revolution’ was sexy. A conservative when the tide turned. But always an opportunist with a shrewd sense of what is best for his career.

As for his ‘analysis’:

A filthy colonial war in the early 20th century.

Another in the 21st.

I guess we never learn.

That said, there are very few, if any, people I know who are ‘infatuated’ with Fidel or Che or Ho Chi Minh.

But I do know a great many people who believed none of those guys or their pokey little countries posed any threat to the US. And most people have come around to the idea that Saddam Hussein didn’t either.