History to Remember President George W. Bush as “Great”

I’m not very good at flagging my own posts for easy cross-reference and I’m not going to invest the time to find the post for proof here, but I know I’ve written it before that I think the two most important responsibilities of the President of the United States are to provide for the Country’s national security and to appoint Federal judges.

I read the hate-filled rhetoric of the liberal extremists and for the life of me I do not understand their empty-phrased criticisms of President Bush.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What, signing statements? Please. There are remedies for Congress to curtail signing statements if they had the will. Specifically, Congress can address any latitude the President reserves for the Office of the Presidency (which means if Sen. Clinton is elected she’ll benefit from President Bush’s efforts to strengthen the Office . . . which is quite different than trying to line your own pockets while in the White House) in legislation. No, that would be too logical for the cowards in Congress; better to demagogue. Oh, President Bush didn’t invent signing statements, he’s just used them more often than his predecessors. No word from the critics at which number you cross the “assault” line.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What the terrorists being detained at Gitmo? They are not citizens of the United States, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them. And, Congress has legislated the military tribunals that cover these 310 terrorists so I’m not sure how the “assault” demagoguery only attaches to the President.

“Assault on the Constitution.” What the electronic surveillance of terrorists? Again, Congress was informed of everything the President did and has now legislated everything the President and the Executive Branch of government can do to keep us safe. Not sure how the “assault” demagoguery only attaches to the President.

Earlier this week, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was partially declassified and the NIE stated “with high confidence” that Iraq had stopped pursuing its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The liberal extremists have portrayed this extraordinary development as some kind of black-eye on the Bush Administration. Huh? Iran stopped pursuing weapons of mass destruction and President Bush is being criticized?! From where I sit a combination of sticks and carrots (mostly sticks) must have concerned Iran enough that they chose to cease. The hate-Bush crowd is spinning the NIE news as, “see, we don’t need a military strike against Iran.” Yeah, the credible threat of force may have induced Iran to stop its program; that’s how it works . . . at least that’s what Sen. Hillary Clinton keeps using as her explanation for her 2002 vote for war in Iraq.

Just below, on November 1, 2007, I also addressed nuclear weapons proliferation; please re-read that post. I closed that post by writing that with Libya disarmed and North Korea on the path to dismantling its program, there was “one to go”. Well, President Bush appears to have gotten the “one”. Of course, we do not know if Iran has resumed its weapons program since 2003; I’m sure the Bush Administration will stay on top of this possibility; they seem to be focused like a laser beam on the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Below is the link to a Boston Globe editorial on the news Iran ceased pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003; please read it at your leisure and/or trust that my reference to it in my letter below is accurate.

This was my letter to the editor in response:

Editor,

Boy, the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe sure is tough to impress (The new intelligence on Iran, editorial, December 5).

In December 1998, President Clinton warned of Saddam Hussein, "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

During the 2004 Presidential debates, Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) said that nuclear weapons proliferation was the single biggest national security threat to the United States.

Yesterday, we learned that the United States intelligence community believes there is a very high probability that Iran ceased pursuing its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.

So, on President Bush's watch, all four rogue nations with nuclear weapons programs at various stages of development, Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, have either been completely disarmed (Libya and Iraq), have halted their program (Iran) or have agreed to halt their program with a framework in place to dismantle (North Korea).

And the Editorial Board can only criticize President Bush? This is indeed curious.

If Sen. Kerry was correct in his debate claim, the Boston Globe should be suggesting President Bush replace a president on Mt. Rushmore instead of criticizing the President for diplomacy tactics that apparently worked in the Iran instance.

Recall, it is Sen. Clinton (D, NY) who is running around the Country explaining that her 2002 vote for war in Iraq was only intended to strengthen the President's negotiating hand by letting Iraq know the President had a credible threat of force. (End of letter.)

Please know my interpretation of the Iran development is not shared by the smart people at the Wall Street Journal. I’m not going to go out of my way to produce their interpretation, but if anyone wants to read another somewhat critical piece of President Bush, they’ve got one, too (December 8).


The link to the Boston Globe editorial (the first paragraph is all you really need to read):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/12/05/the_new_intelligence_on_iran/

Finally, when I voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, I did so for two primary reasons: I trusted him the most on national security (boy has he delivered!) and I trusted him the most on appointing Federal judges (he was the only candidate who vocally campaigned on this hot-button issue of mine). Well, in addition to all the appellate court appointments, President Bush put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush could not have done better than these two appointments in my eyes (well, I was a big fan of Miguel Estrada and Emilio Garza but Senate Democrats were not; as I’ve also written before, it appears Senate Democrats have a peculiar discomfort with Hispanic-sounding names; recall the abuse Ms. Linda Chavez suffered in her failed attempt to become President Bush’s Labor Secretary).

Because of President Bush’s success in protecting America and Americans and the impact his two U.S. Supreme Court justices will have on constitutional law (and the positive impact this will have, and already has had, on the lives of Americans – born and unborn), President Bush will be remembered as a great President.