Can American Leadership be Restored?

Great post, Uncle Timmy. The point about the Maginot Line is really thought-provoking and insightful.

Thanks for posting. Good Info.

Here's an Interesting piece from Peggy Noonan, former SpeechWriter.

"The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.





One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time."

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

The MI Complex has searching for a boogyman since the Berlin Wall fell. We must all clean out our fallout shelters, and fear that leaving Iraq will end the world.

Here's an Interesting piece from Peggy Noonan, former SpeechWriter.

"The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.





One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time."

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

Ross Perot and a mild recession gave us Clinton. To compare the father and son in the same article is to do senior a great injustice.

The MI Complex has searching for a boogyman since the Berlin Wall fell. We must all clean out our fallout shelters, and fear that leaving Iraq will end the world.

Bob,

I used to be one that cringed at the mention of the Military-Industrial Complex (having a natural aversion to conspiracy theories) however, the past 6 years has greatly changed my opinion on that topic.

Someone has/is making a lot of money from the so called War on Terror.

The War, as defined by Bush, is way out of proportion to the threat.

I supported our actions in Afghanistan. Iraq was going too far. It was just too illogical, -someone knew there was some bigtime money to be had.

I believe it played a role in our decision to invade Iraq.

Bob,

Someone has/is making a lot of money from the so called War on Terror.

I supported our actions in Afghanistan. Iraq was going too far. It was just too illogical, -someone knew there was some bigtime money to be had.

I believe it played a role in our decision to invade Iraq.

Couldn't be anyone w/ ties to Halliburton could it? I know the missing billions, not to mention a good portion of the billions actually accounted for, couldn't be lining any cronies pockets...........

Bob, perhaps --but considering Noonan was the Special Assistant to Reagan and chief Speechwriter to Bush 41, I found it an interesting take on the present situation.

Can American Leadership be Restored?

Excerpts from a lecture by Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS. Ret.)



To regain both credibility and international respect, we Americans must, of course, restore the vigor of our constitutional democracy and its respect for civil liberties. But that in itself will be far from enough. The willingness of others to follow us in the past did not derive from our ability to intimidate or coerce them. Instead, we inspired the world with our vision and our example. Now, we know what we're against. But what are we for? Whatever happened to American optimism and idealism? To be able to lead the world again we must once again exemplify aspirations for a higher standard of freedom and justice at home and abroad. We cannot compel - but must persuade - others to work with us. And to lead a team, we must rediscover how to be a team player.

I agree with the beginning of the excerpt of his speech, but I wonder if given the opportunity to debate what Freeman says in the last paragraph above, if he would be the one sounding idealistic.
Other countries didn't come to us for counsel just because we were an example of liberty and democracy, and we certainly didn't get inolved in affairs just because we were we Daddy USA.
We always have done what we have felt is to our benefit in the long term.

Thought provoking yes, but the last half of his speech sounds like he was read the Bill of Rights and Constitution in utero.
Sounds pretty though.

I agree with the beginning of the excerpt of his speech, but I wonder if given the opportunity to debate what Freeman says in the last paragraph above, if he would be the one sounding idealistic. .

I can agree that that last part is a bit too idealistic and lacking the perspective of real-politque.

But I believe that the US gained a lot of its infuence in the world during the past 50 years because we were always percieved to be a benevolent power (for the most part).

Historically, whenever one country gains too much power and influence, other nations move to counterbalance or check that power. With the exception of the Soviet block, the US hasn't faced this situation. We have lost the veneer of benevolence in the past few years and now we see the world moving agressively to check our influence.

So there are parts to what he is saying that i can agree with.

I agree with the beginning of the excerpt of his speech, but I wonder if given the opportunity to debate what Freeman says in the last paragraph above, if he would be the one sounding idealistic. .

Ok, one more thought on your point, lol.-

If you're like me you have had it up to here with ideologically driven politics, and even left leaning ideology is making me queasy these days.

I'm all about facts and reason, spare me the sugar coated ideology!

Uncle Timmy, have you read Al Gore's book yet?

Uncle Timmy, have you read Al Gore's book yet?

Just started it.

Bob,

I used to be one that cringed at the mention of the Military-Industrial Complex (having a natural aversion to conspiracy theories) however, the past 6 years has greatly changed my opinion on that topic.

Someone has/is making a lot of money from the so called War on Terror.

The War, as defined by Bush, is way out of proportion to the threat.

I supported our actions in Afghanistan. Iraq was going too far. It was just too illogical, -someone knew there was some bigtime money to be had.

I believe it played a role in our decision to invade Iraq.

Outgoing President Eisenhower issued the public a warning about the MI Complex in his last speech, because he knew the dangers of the beast more than anyone. What we have now is the MI complex and the oil industry calling the shots in D.C. I hope things may change.

Outgoing President Eisenhower issued the public a warning about the MI Complex in his last speech, because he knew the dangers of the beast more than anyone. What we have now is the MI complex and the oil industry calling the shots in D.C. I hope things may change.

Vote the bums out!

I don't think a return to our country's basic principles is sentimental or overly idealogical. The current level of bureacracy and government corruption is one of the many things our founding fathers feared........along w/ heavy taxation, political dynasties, loss of indivuidual rights as the government's powers increased, and a powerful military whose funding bankrupted the country and emptied the treasury.

I agree. Take a look at Charles Freeman's CV --I think he knows what he's talking about...he's been there! IMO

Read Lee Iacocca's new book " Where Have All the Leaders Gone" Easy read and all common sense.

Ok, one more thought on your point, lol.-

If you're like me you have had it up to here with ideologically driven politics, and even left leaning ideology is making me queasy these days.

I'm all about facts and reason, spare me the sugar coated ideology!

That's why he's an Ambassador! 😀

So, we're in a war whose origins it is taboo to examine, as the only presidential candidate of either party to attempt to do so was reminded in a debate with his fellow Republicans just last week. And this is a war whose proponents assert that it must - and will - continue without end. If we accept their premises, they are right. How can a war with no defined ends beyond the avoidance of retreat ever reach a convenient stopping point? How can we win a war with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology of "Islamofascism" for it? How can we mobilize our people to conduct a long-term struggle with a violent movement once they realize that its objective is not to conquer us but to persuade us to stay home, leaving its part of the world to decide on its own what religious doctrine should govern its societies? And how can a war with no clear objectives ever accomplish its mission and end?

I don?t believe that the war?s origins are taboo to examine. I believe it is wrong to be so completely intellectually dishonest when discussing it, and I believe that skewing the facts for political gain is wrong. I don?t believe there is a ton of benefit in playing Monday morning quarterback, but I do believe we need to examine what went wrong and remember it in the future, but when hindsight is your sole argument, you never really had an argument to begin with.

The author has buried his head in the sand when it comes to militant Islam, saying that it doesn?t exist and that they just want us to leave them alone. The World Trade Center, Ft. Dix and now JFK argue the counter. If I ever have a child that feels like he?s being bullied, I won?t tell him to go kick said bully?s dog when he?s looking out the window.

As for Noonan?s article, it?s hard to argue with her even when you don?t agree with her, but I do agree with much of what she wrote in this case.

Here's a good article in response to the Ambassador.

Targeting Kennedy

By The (National Review) Editors

This time it was John F. Kennedy International Airport. Nothing new about big-city airports ? seven years ago, Los Angeles International Airport was targeted. Nothing new about New York City, either. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, and finally destroyed in the 9/11 attacks. The United Nations complex, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the FBI?s Lower Manhattan headquarters, the Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Terminal ? they?ve all been on the hit list. Big Western cities, in fact, are the hit list. New York, L.A., Chicago, Washington, London, Paris, Madrid . . . on it goes.

And, of course, there is nothing new about the culprit. The story is always the same: radical Islamic terror. The storyline is the same, too. But an element of Western opinion always wants to obscure it, turning a blind eye to the ideology of hate that motivates these would-be murderers. The root-causes crowd has little interest in that root cause. No, it must be poverty (even when the terrorists turn out to be comfortable, well-educated, and fully employed); or the Palestinian issue (even though organizations like al Qaeda have barely mentioned the Israeli?Palestinian dispute, and some terror targets, like Bali, had no rational connection to it); or, it goes without saying, George W. Bush and ?his? war in Iraq (no matter how many attacks occurred before his presidency).

A growing chorus, weary of the war at home and abroad, some of its voices resistant even to the reality that we are at war, is quick to reject the use of both military force and heightened domestic surveillance. The War on Terror is, they maintain, a war only of ideas.

The enemy?s ideas are frightful: for example, its notion that mass murder is a legitimate means of pressing a socio-political agenda. This is not an aberrational belief espoused by a fringe of jihadist operatives. It is mainstream in Islamic countries and disturbingly common among growing Muslim populations in the United States and Europe.

This time, the hateful ideology infected a cell composed mostly of Guyanese militants, including Russell Defreitas (also known as ?Mohammed?), a naturalized American secretly at war with his adopted country, and Abdul Kadir, a former member of Guyana?s parliament who was reportedly en route to a religious conference in Iran at the time of his arrest. It also included another Guyana native said to have ties to the murderous Jamaat al Muslimeen (the Muslim Group), a Sunni terror organization based in Trinidad and Tobago, and a Trinidadian allegedly tied to still other terrorists overseas.

Their inspiration was al Qaeda. Their aspiration was an atrocity more gruesome than 9/11 ? a strike aimed not just at airplanes and passenger terminals, but at fuel pipelines that run through dense residential neighborhoods and feed JFK?s thousand planes a day transporting 45 million travelers a year. Their goal was not simply to knock out an airport, but to decimate much of Queens, and with it the U.S. economy.

Overly ambitious? Probably. Defreitas knew the terrain, having retired after years of working cargo at JFK. But his knowledge, and the painstaking surveillance of the target he allegedly did, were unlikely to overcome the technological obstacles to his plan. Further, the cell seems to have lacked financing (although they were actively pursuing it), and they had not yet acquired explosives when the investigation was cut short ? apparently by Guyanese authorities understandably concerned that Kadir would evade their coverage if not arrested.

But even if the grand design was beyond the cell?s competence, an attempt could well have killed hundreds of people. As with the recent thwarting of a jihadist plot on Fort Dix, this intended atrocity appears to have been prevented by the cooperation of federal and local law enforcement, who managed to infiltrate the conspiracy with an informant ? proving, yet again, that if we are to stop terror attacks rather than react to them, there is no substitute for human intelligence.

The deepest lesson here, though, is that we are at war with an enemy that hates us, that will stop at nothing ? even death ? to harm us, and that we must understand in order to defeat. That is the first step in the real battle of ideas.