Bush the Nice Guy: When It's a Good Thing, and When It's Not

Warmth


or

Fire

The Bush Scorecard

I feel like a lot of conservatives these days when I see my beloved right wing of the Republican Party in the descendency. I also continue to get whipsawed when I measure my approval rating of President Bush. Since I am like most Americans, on the side of the underdog, I can't help rooting for George W. Still, this blog is about truth, so here we go. I'll get to the nice guy issue in a minute.

Bush is great so far on:
• The decision to invade Irag and depose Saddam
• His attempt to install democracy in Iraq
• Keeping taxes low and our economy humming
• A cluster of traits including persistence, conviction, loyalty, and integrity
• Personal charm, including but not only when he is one-on-one

Bush, in my opinion, falls short on:
• Winning the war in Iraq
• His immigration policy
• Leadership in showing Americans and the world his vision of peace
• His communication skills in public

Bush the Nice Guy

I've said before that one of Bush's character traits is to want to be a nice guy.He desires to be loved by everybody. As a result, his approval rating is one of the lowest for any president in history.

When is it a good thing for Bush to be a nice guy?

Today was one example. President Putin is visiting the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport, Maine. Putin is a bad guy. He is the one leader in our world that could bring back the Gulags if he chose to do that. He has already nationalized private industries and curbed freedom of the press, and may be responsible for outright murder. We could be hard and say we need to put Putin in his place. Yet, I don't see that we'd get much for this. I think Bush is right to coddle up to Putin and pour on the charm.

Why? There is a time to be Reaganesque and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and there is a time to be Bush-like, and say, "We congratulate President Putin on being the only one today to catch a fish."

Russia is not a democracy like ours. It has returned to a sort of democratic autocracy because they didn't know how to run a democracy. The mob took over and there was chaos. Now the Russians have a strongman again, and 70% of them are happy with him. The people wanted it this way. Bush being harsh to Putin would only alienate a whole nation. Sometimes, diplomacy is the right thing.

When is being a nice guy not right?

When waging a war. If you want to be popular as president when you are waging a war, you must win, period. There is no room to be showing the world and your people, in that war, that you are the fairest guy in the battle. You must win.

Nice Guys Finish Last?

So, is it true that nice guys finish last? No, not all the time. They finish first when diplomacy is needed. They finish last in war. Lincoln was a nice guy much of the time. He was vicious, though, in war. Then, when he won, he was the sweetest guy in the world to the losers. That's how it's done.

Give Putin all the lobster he can eat. Give Al-Queda cocktails, Molotov that is, with a dash of bitters.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Abraham Lincoln, war

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

American Democracy at War

War



Srategies

Iraq War Strategies under Hitler, Roosevelt or Truman, versus Bush

I want to compare how a dictator would wage the War in Iraq, versus how our democracy must wage it.





Furthermore, I want to compare how Roosevelt or Truman would wage the war versus how Bush is waging it. There are advantages for a dictator in waging war, but also disadvantages. The same is true for a democracy, and especially for our democracy post Vietnam and post Watergate.

Moreover, there is a difference in leadership style between our leaders in WWII and our leaders now.

Hitler

How would Hitler wage the War in Iraq? He would use his own judgment and wield absolute control to effect it. Knowing Hitler, he would use overwhelming force quickly. He would also be aware that Iran and Syria are funding, training, and even sending troops into Iraq, so he would open up fronts against both these countries simultaneously, aiming to crush them and perhaps even take them over. In Iraq, he would confiscate the oil fields and use the revenue to pay for the war effort. He would annihilate neighborhoods that harbored terrorists or insurgents. He would not hesitate to ethnically cleanse either Sunnis or Shias if they continued to be troublemakers.

Results

What would the results be? Hitler sults be? Hitler would probably win the War in Iraq. He would have conquered Iraq by now, and maybe Syria too, and at least reduced Iran's influence in the region, including stopping them from developing nuclear weapons and decimating their army and warlike capabilities.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The disadvantages?

The rest of the world would be building armies and weaponry to oppose him and defeat him eventually. A quiet insurgency would begin building within Iraq, Syria and Iran to one day take their lands back. Knowing Hitler, he would eventually open up too many fronts, and eventually be defeated.

Roosevelt or Truman

How would Roosevelt or Truman wage the War in Iraq? Actually, they would fight much the same way as Hitler, except without the ethnic cleansing, and without the permanent takeover of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Plus, after the war, they would return the oil fields to the Iraqis, and develop a Marshall Plan for that country.

Results

The results? There would be peace in Iraq, and Roosevelt or Truman would then use this as a springboard to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel.

The disadvantages?

You need strong leaders like Roosevelt or Truman to sustain a war effort that could effect such results. Such leaders are rare.

George Bush

How is our democracy waging the War in Iraq under George Bush?

America's Perpetual War Against the Peace Advocates

America always seems to have a large peace contingent. We had anti-war folks before all of our wars. So to enter any war, millions of peaceniks or neutral folks must convert to favoring war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany long before Pearl Harbor, but it took that disaster to mobilize enough Americans to favor the war. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to get us into the war, and then used Allied victories, carefully orchestrated propaganda, and the power of the bully pulpit to sustain American fervor for the war, all the way to victory.

Bush Handicaps

George Bush is operating under a number of handicaps compared with Roosevelt and Truman:

First, we are post Vietnam and post Watergate. Many Americans are instinctually anti-war because of the mess of Vietnam. Those same Americans, plus others, are distrustful of their government and leaders because of Watergate.

Second, the perpetual war between congress and the president over who has more power is in a stage where congress is emboldened to tip the scale in their favor. Democrats sense a weakened president, and so are pressing their case for more congressional power and less presidential power.

Third, George Bush has been less than effective in explaining the war to the people. He has not been able, as of late, to overcome the Democratic and some Republican opposition to the war by virtue of the bully pulpit. Part of the reason is that he has had a slow learning curve in giving effective speeches and communications; and part of it is that, until recently, he has not leveled with the American people about the truths of the war.

Fourth, Bush and Cheney et al made crucial strategic and tactical mistakes in Iraq, such as too few troops, not guarding weapons caches, and leaving the Iraqi army unemployed, which set up the inevitability of the insurgency and the failures in the Iraq War.

Fifth, Bush has chosen to fight a politically correct war. For example, he let Muqtada al-Sadr go when he had him cornered, so as not to anger the Shias; he would not attack the enemy in mosques; he was "careful" when going into insurgent strongholds not to harm the neighborhoods nor the "innocent" people harboring the terrorists; and he allowed Maliki to prevent the U.S. from going after Shia insurgents. Literally, George Bush has had the United States walking on eggshells, fighting a "careful," politically correct war.

Sixth, as a result, the War in Iraq has not gone well. Though the U.S. wins every outright battle decisively, we get slaughtered in the covert war, and public opinion continues to increase against the war.

Seventh, the U.S., along with Bush's ineffective championing of the war, is not engaging in any active propaganda war. Admittedly, in the age of the Internet, YouTube, and MySpace, this would be hard to do anyway, but there seems to be no massive educational campaign about why we are fighting and how high the stakes are. We just have one, lone Texas Ranger, who can't communicate well, telling us to trust him on this one.

Results?

We are winning the War in Iraq, in reality. There is no way the insurgents can defeat us. We win every battle, inflict more casualties than they do, and control the territory and the financial assets. We do suffer causalities, unfortunately. 3,000 dead is significant. Yet, compared to all our other wars, this casualty rate is low. What we are losing, as happened in Vietnam, is the PR war. The propaganda war. The war for hearts and minds.

click to hide most of this post

Conclusions

Hitler

Hitler would have won the War in Iraq by now, hands down. On the other hand, he would have continued his expansionism until he angered so much of the world that they would eventually mass and defeat him, as happened in WWII.

Roosevelt and Truman

Roosevelt and Truman would have won the War in Iraq by now, but they didn't have the handicaps that Bush has. We'd be well on our way to world peace, including in Palestine and Israel, under Roosevelt or Truman.

Bush

In my opinion, Bush was wise to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. This was a good thing for world peace and the War on Terror. It's too bad the American people don't see this and aren't patient enough to witness the resulting good things that will come from its successful conclusion.

Bush is winning the actual war in Iraq, undoubtedly, but has not won the PR nor the propaganda war, and so has lost the hearts and minds of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. Though Bush is winning the battlefield war for control of the territory and assets of Iraq, he is not winning the peace, the battle for law and order in Iraq. Due to military blunders, strategic and tactical, and through fighting a politically correct war, Bush has not been able to quash the nascent civil war and bring peace and security to Iraq. So, as in Vietnam, America is in danger of being driven from Iraq, not by the force of a standing enemy army, but by a deadly insurgency that instills fear, and by the force of public opinion.

The Solution

Bush has one more chance, the troop surge.

He needs to take the gloves off and stop fighting a politically correct war. He must fight to win, now. Plus, he must develop immediately into an effective communicator on the war, and authorize some kind of massive education campaign to teach the American people what the stakes are in this war.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: WAR, WAR STRATEGIES, HITLER, ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN, GEORGE BUSH, IRAQ WAR, VIETNAM, PEARL HARBOR, POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR, WATERGATE, MALIKI, SUNNI, SHIA, MARSHALL PLAN, YOUTUBE, MYSPACE, TROOP SURGE

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

My Fellow Americans

State

of the

Union

Advice for the Commander in Chief

President George W. Bush will be giving his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. I want to give him advice on what to say about the War in Iraq and how to say it.

I understand that Bush may essentially ignore this topic in his speech. It is rumored that he wants to concentrate more on subjects on which he can agree with the Democratically controlled Congress. This would be a major mistake. It would be a tragically missed opportunity for Bush to communicate with the American people.

Let's assume that the rumors are wrong, and that Bush will speak meaningfully about the War in Iraq.

If this were so, then I'm sure Mr. Bush has heard all kinds of ideas on what to say about Iraq and how to say it, and is deeply concerned with getting it right; but that he believes he doesn't need any extra advice from the blogosphere on it.

I think he's wrong. He's needed sound advice on communicating the War in Iraq for years. In fact, much of the good that he has done in the world gets no credit precisely because of the way he has explained himself to the American people, on a host of issues





—and the way he has explained himself is the product of his judgment and his taking into consideration the advice of his advisers and handlers. They have done a miserable job of communicating all these years. Yes, there have been some good moments when Bush rose to be a good communicator, as in right after 9/11. We were all with him then. However, he has lost us many times since then.

So, Mr. President, here is some advice from a blogger, one representative of the wisdom of your people.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Iraq

Forthcoming and Tight-Lipped

With Iraq, the President needs to be forthcoming, and tight-lipped. He needs to give the nation the feeling that he knows the realities of Iraq. He cannot say too much, as he doesn't want to tip off our enemies about strategies and tactics. He does want to say enough, though, so that Americans know he has planned for all contingencies.

A Plan for All Contingencies

This has been missing until now. Bush has always said that Iraq would be tough, but he has seemed surprised by the insurgency and its extent. He should not be surprised by anything. He and his war planners ought to have worked out in advance contingencies for every worst-case scenario that can be imagined. Then, he needs to communicate to the American people that he has a plan for each scenario. Again, he cannot be specific, but he can prepare the American people for the worst, and ask them to be mentally prepared for it.

Strategies and Tactics

I must say that Bush often gives the impression that he is always going with one plan, and one plan only. He chooses this plan out of many proffered to him by his generals and experts. He does not seem to be aware of the unintended consequences of war. He seems single-minded in his pursuit of victory.

It's not wrong to be single-minded in pursuit of victory. He does, though, need to know that the formula for that victory might be complicated. A good general, or war leader, will attack, retreat, adjust, surround, invade, thrust, divide the enemy—a whole host of strategies and tactics, depending on the progress of the battle and the war. Bush seems to be rigid in implementing one plan at a time, instead of being light on his feet, willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Communicating

In order to gain flexibility in fighting this war, such as in adding 20,000 troops to the field, Bush needs to level with the American people enough to gain their trust. He cannot just say, "Trust me," because the America people do not trust him anymore on the war in Iraq. They need a rationale. They need to understand the stakes. They need to be partners in the decision-making and the sacrifices.

Asking for Sacrifice

This leads me to my final point. Bush has ignored a fundamental principle of waging a successful war. He has not involved the American people in any meaningful sacrifice for the war effort. His idea has been to "make it easy" on us while we fight this difficult war. He wants to keep us safe, reassure us, and let the American military do their thing to bring victory to the people.

He is wrong. He needs to engage the American people directly in the war.

Whether this means National Service, or drives to make extra armor for the troops, or volunteers to fulfill nonessential duties for servicemen to free them for essential duties, whatever.

I've heard interviewers directly ask Bush about this issue, and he has a deaf ear for it. There are some issues where he is oblivious, and this is one of them.

click to hide most of this post

Conclusion

President Bush:

• Do talk about Iraq at length.


• Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.


• Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.

If you do these things, your poll numbers will rise; the confidence of the American people in you will strengthen; and you will get more of what you ask from Congress and from the American people. This means we will have a better chance of winning the war.

If you accept my advice, I expect a large check in compensation. Thanks.

Good luck, Mr. President.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: George W. Bush, State of the Union, Iraq, Iraq War, sacrifice for the war

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Truth to Power

Sunni's demonstrate against the disrespect shown their leader.

Taunting Saddam

Iraq to Review Abusive Acts at Hussein's Execution: New York Times, By JOHN F. BURNS and JAMES GLANZ: January 3, 2007, BAGHDAD.

Iraq's Shiite-led government said Tuesday that it had ordered an investigation into the abusive behavior at the execution of Saddam Hussein, who was subjected to a battery of taunts by official Shiite witnesses and guards as he awaited his hanging.

Officials said a three-man Interior Ministry committee would look into the scenes that have caused outrage and public demonstrations among Mr. Hussein's Sunni Arab loyalists in Iraq, and widespread dismay elsewhere, especially in the Middle East. In an unofficial cell phone video recording that was broadcast around the world and posted on countless Web sites, Mr. Hussein is shown standing on the gallows platform with the noose around his neck at dawn on Saturday, facing a barrage of mockery and derision from unseen tormentors below the gallows.

As the shock of those scenes reached a new crescendo in Iraq, American officials said that they had worked until the last hours of Mr. Hussein's life to persuade Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to delay the execution. The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be identified, said they appealed to Mr. Maliki not to execute Mr. Hussein at dawn on Saturday because of the onset of a major Islamic festival, and because of constitutional and legal questions that the Americans believed threw the legitimacy of the execution into doubt.

A Politically Correct War

This is another indication to me that the United States, and in particular, George Bush and his advisors, are waging and will always wage a politically correct war in Iraq.




This, to me, is a major reason why we are losing.

We are afraid to offend the people that continue to support Saddam Hussein.

American Concerns

For Bush and his advisors, there are two points of concern about the Saddam execution. First, that legal matters were not followed completely in the haste to execute Saddam. Second, that Saddam was subjected to disrespect as he went to his death.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the first point, I am not an expert on the law, so I'll demure to legal experts on this matter. Yes, I do want law to rule in Iraq. Yes, it was important to get the execution of Saddam right legally. I believe, though, there were other considerations, which I'll get to.

On the second point, I believe it's possible to show theoretical respect for the office of the presidency of Iraq, and for the Sunni followers of Saddam, while at the same time making it clear that Saddam Hussein himself was a deservedly disgraced man.

Obviously, we don't want blatant disrespect being shown to our leaders, soldiers, prisoners and dead. So, following the Golden Rule, we want to treat even the condemned with dignity.

All this I agree with.

Speaking Truth to Power

On the other hand, we have moral obligations in addition to legal and humanitarian obligations. We have a moral obligation to say loud and clear, to Sunnis and Shias alike, and to the world, that Saddam Hussein was a scumbag, and that he deserved to die a thousand deaths.

This is what members of the "righteous" left call "speaking truth to power." I love the concept. The liberals of course think this applies only when an employee is a whistleblower at an oil company, or when a leftist speaks up about Republican corruption, or when a citizen "bravely" calls President Bush a warmonger. The concept of speaking truth to power, though, should be a universal one—a goal worth trying for in many situations.

In this case, the United States needs to speak truth to power by saying to the Sunnis that Saddam was an evil man and deserved to die. This is the truth, and it ought to be said, loud and clear, regardless of consequences. The Sunnis may riot. They may kill innocent human beings because of it. Then, their rioting and killing behavior is their responsibility, and not ours, and needs to be correctly labeled too, as murder and acts of cowardice.

Our Upside Down World

We live in a crazy world sometimes these days. Terrorists are allowed to disrespect us, torture us, murder us, and follow none of the Geneva Conventions, without getting criticized at all by the world—while we must respect the terrorists, avoid torture, not murder them, follow all the Geneva Conventions, yet still get called war criminals by the world and the left.

Our Moral Superiority

If we had been in charge of Saddam's trial, we would have conducted it over a period of about five years. Then, the appeals process would start. Saddam would still be in jail and would be sitting there for 20 years before and if he were ever executed. He would not have been hanged. He might not even have been executed by lethal injection since that, according to the newest leftist thinking, is cruel and unusual punishment.

Plus, if he ever were put to death under us, he would have not been taunted.

Fine, call us morally superior. I don't see it this way. I say we have lost our common sense. We have become so politically correct that we have lost our minds.

Why It's Good Saddam is Dead

One major reason for executing Saddam so quickly was to eliminate the very real threat of a coup attempt on Maliki, or a kidnapping and freeing of Saddam, where Saddam could again lead the Sunnis on a murderous path. The Maliki government needed Saddam dead, and it did the right thing by killing him quickly. Killing Saddam swiftly did mean that the death came right before a major Muslim festival—but notice it was done before the holy days, not during them.

They Should Have Been Nice to Saddam

As far as the taunting goes, yes, if we were in charge it would not have happened. Maybe it shouldn't have happened. After all, it might have interfered with Saddam's self-delusion of the 72 virgins awaiting him. Seriously, though, maybe it shouldn't have happened, but aren't you glad it did? Didn't he deserve it? Can't we understand the executioners' transgressions? The man had butchered their relatives. Maybe they were wrong for being impolite to Saddam, but wasn't it understandable?

click to hide most of this post

Moral Cowardice and a Polite War

It's okay for us to object to the legality of Saddam's execution and to the taunting, but not for the reasons we did it. We did it because we are afraid of a Sunni backlash. This is the same reason why we don't attack terrorists who hide in mosques, or insurgents who blend in with civilian populations. This is the same reason why we don't attack the enemy on Muslim holy days.

We are such good guys. We are the touchy feely warriors, sensitive to the feelings of the people we are trying to kill. Good for us.

Compare that with Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We won that war, remember? We weren't very nice. We called Japanese Japs and Germans krauts and did what we had to do to prevail. The results? We conquered our enemies. We saved the world, and we were lauded, universally. Even those we vanquished became our allies. Compare that to now. We are such "nice guys," following all the rules, being so polite. The results? We are losing. We are called warmongers.

America, speak truth to power always; and if you're going to fight a war, win.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Saddam execution, Sunni, Shia, Saddam taunting

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

The Munchkins Rejoice While the 72 Virgins Do Their Thing

Ding Dong.

(Munchkin 2)
You've killed her so completely
That we thank you very sweetly

(Glinda)
Let the joyous news be spread

The wicked, old witch at last is dead

(Munchkins)
Ding-dong the witch is dead
Which old witch? The wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She's gone where the goblins go
Below - below - below
Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead