Originally Posted by buggyone

"George W. Bush proved time and again that he put the nation before himself"

Now, just a minute, RichieLion. If George W. had put the nation before himself, why did he get all the strings pulled to get him into the Texas Air National Guard instead of volunteering for Regular Army (or other branch) and then volunteering to go to Vietnam?

Let's not divert this question with saying what others did but stick with George W.

You have little real knowledge of the circumstances of his military service beyond partisan rumor and lies, and so I will ignore your deriding his service, and will not comment on his service in a way that suggests it needs defending. He actually does have military service unlike almost every contemporary political figure you admire.

We're discussing Presidents here, and statesmen. George W. Bush was a true statesman, and the first since Ronald Reagan. He's also the last one, so far.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You have little real knowledge of the circumstances of his military service beyond partisan rumor and lies, and so I will ignore your deriding his service, and will not comment on his service in a way that suggests it needs defending. He actually does have military service unlike almost every contemporary political figure you admire.

We're discussing Presidents here, and statesmen. George W. Bush was a true statesman, and the first since Ronald Reagan. He's also the last one, so far.

What exactly did George W. Bush do that was so statesmanlike??? Facts about GEORGE W. BUSH ***

George W. Bush is listed as one of the worst US Presidents in the rankings of US Presidents-- Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

What exactly did George W. Bush do that was so statesmanlike??? Facts about GEORGE W. BUSH ***

George W. Bush is listed as one of the worst US Presidents in the rankings of US Presidents-- Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all, those tax cuts you have enjoyed came from him !!!

But when I think of GW Bush, I recall how he brought honor and dignity to the White House and completely changed the tone there in OUR house. He introduced the mention of God into public. And most importantly I will never forget the way he handled with such courage, dignity and grace and leadership the September 11 attacks along with the aftermath of various anthrax attacks and such. He held this country together through that period !

PS....I also must add that he, and not him alone but certainly the last, had the guts to have open unrehearsed prime time press conferences and take questions in front of the American public on any and all subjects. THAT I miss.

Originally Posted by Bucco

First of all, those tax cuts you have enjoyed came from him !!!

But when I think of GW Bush, I recall how he brought honor and dignity to the White House and completely changed the tone there in OUR house. He introduced the mention of God into public. And most importantly I will never forget the way he handled with such courage, dignity and grace and leadership the September 11 attacks along with the aftermath of various anthrax attacks and such. He held this country together through that period !

PS....I also must add that he, and not him alone but certainly the last, had the guts to have open unrehearsed prime time press conferences and take questions in front of the American public on any and all subjects. THAT I miss.

Thanks you for answering, Bucco. George W. Bush always extolled the greatness of America and American ideals, apologized to nobody for our greatness, and did it all with solid American stature and humor.

I'm have no intention of reading how his enemies view him. If indeed Wiki lists him as T says for whatever questionable reasons, it drags Wiki down to the bottom of reputable reference sources, in my view.

When I think of George W., I think of his lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the invasion that cost over 4,400 American lives and left hundreds of thousands with mental and physical scars for life.

Yes, he is regarded as one of the worst presidents in history for his last term and had a 29% approval rating when he left office - lower than Jimmy "the wimp" Carter.

Originally Posted by buggyone

When I think of George W., I think of his lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the invasion that cost over 4,400 American lives and left hundreds of thousands with mental and physical scars for life.

Yes, he is regarded as one of the worst presidents in history for his last term and had a 29% approval rating when he left office - lower than Jimmy "the wimp" Carter.

In your revisionist world, only. I'll leave you to your Bush Derangement.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

In case anyone doesn't remember, today is the anniversary of the D Day invasion, June 6, 1944.. Pure guts on the part of then young Americans who changed the world and defeated Hitler on that "longest day".

But there were other examples of guts that day, which we didn't learn of until many years later.

The historical archives show that General Eisenhower wrote a letter of resignation, which he intended to submit if the invasion did not achieve its objectives.

The archives also include the three letters from King George to Winston Churchill imploring him not to go on one of the leading landing craft with British soldiers when they hit the beach. The king finally convinced Churchill that his continued leadership of England was more important than leading the army in the invasion.

Even FDR demonstrated guts in authorizing an invasion that if it didn't work would have killed thousands of soldiers, only six months before the 1944 presidential elections.

Guts? You'd better believe it. A "greater generation"? I'd argue absolutely!

I believe we still have military that would demonstrate that kind of leadership. But are there any of our current political leaders who anyone might argue would demonstrate that kind of leadership? Would any of them put their jobs at risk based on whether their political decisions worked out for the country? Name one you think might demonstrate such guts. Just one.

The answer is obvious...and shameful.

VK I happen to agree with you. We just don't make men like that anymore. These guys were not only gutsy but also stood by their word to serve, accept responsibility for their decision and led by example. Thank you for reminding us all that such people worthy existed and can in the future. We have honorable servicemen and women willing to give their lives for our freedom. They deserve worthy leaders.

Personal Best Regards

isn't "political leader" an oxymoron?

At a minimum it is a 21st century partisan, permissive pacifism impossibility.

btk

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...are there any of our current political leaders who anyone might argue would demonstrate that kind of leadership? Would any of them put their jobs at risk based on whether their political decisions worked out for the country? Name one you think might demonstrate such guts. Just one....

We're now well into the third page of responses to my original post. And we haven't even reached agreement on the only politician who's been mentioned as demonstrating the same kind of courage as those of a couple generations ago.

The responses so far seem to answer the question I posited initially, don't you think? And that's shameful.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

We're now well into the third page of responses to my original post. And we haven't even reached agreement on the only politician who's been mentioned as demonstrating the same kind of courage as those of a couple generations ago.

The responses so far seem to answer the question I posited initially, don't you think? And that's shameful.

The day of the "rugged individual" is almost gone. It's being bred out of our culture. It's not nice to win anymore. We're being conditioned to mistrust instead of admiring achievers; we strive for equal outcome.

Is it any surprise that we're in the state you find "shameful"?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

The day of the "rugged individual" is almost gone. It's being bred out of our culture. It's not nice to win anymore. We're being conditioned to mistrust instead of admiring achievers; we strive for equal outcome.

Is it any surprise that we're in the state you find "shameful"?

Continual disappointment? Yes.

Richie: You made a comment about Bush not apologizing for our greatness.

I don't expect a President to apologize for our greatness.

I expect a President to apologize for our mistakes.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

The day of the "rugged individual" is almost gone. It's being bred out of our culture. It's not nice to win anymore. We're being conditioned to mistrust instead of admiring achievers; we strive for equal outcome.

Is it any surprise that we're in the state you find "shameful"?

Richielion: We have lost far too many rugged individuals because of many years of exposure to the trophy generation and to helicopter parents. In part is is one of the bad by products of the feminist movement, Another bad by product resulted with the disappearance of true feminity and nuturing. Instead we get the likes of the House Wives of .............and reality shows of its ilk. there is a saving grace because there are reports on the horizon of guys who have come to recognize this loss and want to counter it. and along those same lines women are returning to what a man use to represent. Let's hope it becomes a movement because whether some people believe it or not men are different from women and I don't mean it in the sense that women are the weaker gender. This is a good thing because guided correctly they complement one another making for a better society.

I opine others can decide.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: You made a comment about Bush not apologizing for our greatness.

I don't expect a President to apologize for our greatness.

I expect a President to apologize for our mistakes.

I hope you're not referring to the infuriating manner our current resident of the "people's house" bows to foreign leaders in their countries, and as our elected leader apologizes for the past actions of the greatest country in the history of man.

If anyone has any problem with the way I just defined our country, you are just as bad as he in my eyes.

This president has been a major embarrassment in this regard.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

We're now well into the third page of responses to my original post. And we haven't even reached agreement on the only politician who's been mentioned as demonstrating the same kind of courage as those of a couple generations ago.

The responses so far seem to answer the question I posited initially, don't you think? And that's shameful.

I think your original post fails to take into account all of the necessary aspects of what constitutes courage.

First, I do not agree with the "Greatest Generation" theory. And the real problem with it is how it is used to denigrate other generations, especially those now occupying and responsible for the planet. Comparing the present US with the country in the 1940's is truly comparing apples to oranges. What we often forget is that the decision makers of the time, including Eisenhower and Roosevelt were, at the most critical times, doing what they had no alternative but to do. Not only were we directly attacked on land and sea, but it was clear to everyone that the Axis forces had a single goal, to dominate and subjugate the Allies. There was no choice in June of 1944. Only one year later, with the invention of the atomic bomb, Harry Truman seemingly had a choice, to invade Japan or use the bomb. But today we Americans all agree he really had no choice. And, of course, since we all agree that these important decisions were also the RIGHT decisions, the idea that they are monumentally courageous seems grow larger with each passing year.

I think an even higher level of courage comes from making the right decision when there are real choices. Like Sgt. Dakota Meyer, the Marine who chose to drive repeatedly into enemy fire in Afghanistan, saving more than 20 Afghans and a dozen US comrades from almost certain death. He did this in defiance of orders from superiors. His choices were so obviously courageous that he has been awarded the Medal of Honor.

So what politician could be considered courageous? I think the best current example is President Obama. (sorry if this gives you a stomach ache, but) Obama campaigned on an platform which many saw as liberal enough to really be a CHANGE from prior ineffective leadership. He claimed he was a centrist, but made it clear that he had an ambitious agenda which he called critically necessary for America. He did not have to pursue this agenda tirelessly, but he believed each of the elements of it was the right thing to do. Every single element: health care, economic stimulus, financial regulation, consumer protection, ending war, fighting terror effectively, the entire national tax structure, equal rights within the military, equal marriage rights, jobs programs, the rebuilding of the country's infrastructure, and the balance of energy development with environmental protection, is intensely controversial. Each element has been an enormous struggle. For the mere mention of each element Obama has been vilified high and low. Much attention has been paid to the risks Obama took in his "all in" effort to get a health care package, and ordering the assault on bin Laden's compound, but continuing to pursue each one of the above has come with the real prospect of destroying his political future.

I also think the elements of the Obama platform were and still are the right things to do. They are not all done, and they are far from perfect, but what has been done is more than many Presidents have even attempted. Therefore, I applaud Obama's courage.