Friday, November 28, 2003
The stunt of the century:
We Will Prevail
"The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever."
BY GEORGE W. BUSH
Friday, November 28, 2003 12:01 a.m.
(Editor's note: President Bush delivered this speech to the troops yesterday.)
BAGHDAD, Iraq--Thank you. I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thank you for inviting me to dinner. Gen. Sanchez, thank you, sir, for your kind invitation and your strong leadership. Ambassador Bremer, thank you for your steadfast belief in freedom and peace. I want to thank the members of the Governing Council who are here, pleased you are joining us on our nation's great holiday, it's a chance to give thanks to the Almighty for the many blessings we receive.
I'm particularly proud to be with the First Armored Division, the Second ACR, the 82nd Airborne. I can't think of a finer group of folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all. We're proud of you. Today, Americans are gathering with their loved ones to give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. And this year we are especially thankful for the courage and the sacrifice of those who defend us, the men and women of the United States military.
I bring a message on behalf of America: We thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you. Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country. You're honoring that oath. The United States military is doing a fantastic job. You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country. You're defeating Saddam's henchmen, so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and freedom.
By helping the Iraqi people become free, you're helping change a troubled and violent part of the world. By helping to build a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East, you are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful.
You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will. They hope we will run. We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.
We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.
Every day you see firsthand the commitment to sacrifice that the Iraqi people are making to secure their own freedom. I have a message for the Iraqi people: You have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever.
The United States and our coalition will help you, help you build a peaceful country so that your children can have a bright future. We'll help you find and bring to justice the people who terrorized you for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis. We will stay until the job is done. I'm confident we will succeed, because you, the Iraqi people, will show the world that you're not only courageous, but that you can govern yourself wisely and justly.
On this Thanksgiving, our nation remembers the men and women of our military, your friends and comrades who paid the ultimate price for our security and freedom. We ask for God's blessings on their families, their loved ones and their friends, and we pray for your safety and your strength, as you continue to defend America and to spread freedom.
Each one of you has answered a great call, participating in an historic moment in world history. You live by a code of honor, of service to your nation, with the safety and the security of your fellow citizens. Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth. I'm proud to be your commander in chief. I bring greetings from America. May God bless you all.
We Will Prevail
"The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever."
BY GEORGE W. BUSH
Friday, November 28, 2003 12:01 a.m.
(Editor's note: President Bush delivered this speech to the troops yesterday.)
BAGHDAD, Iraq--Thank you. I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thank you for inviting me to dinner. Gen. Sanchez, thank you, sir, for your kind invitation and your strong leadership. Ambassador Bremer, thank you for your steadfast belief in freedom and peace. I want to thank the members of the Governing Council who are here, pleased you are joining us on our nation's great holiday, it's a chance to give thanks to the Almighty for the many blessings we receive.
I'm particularly proud to be with the First Armored Division, the Second ACR, the 82nd Airborne. I can't think of a finer group of folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all. We're proud of you. Today, Americans are gathering with their loved ones to give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. And this year we are especially thankful for the courage and the sacrifice of those who defend us, the men and women of the United States military.
I bring a message on behalf of America: We thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you. Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country. You're honoring that oath. The United States military is doing a fantastic job. You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country. You're defeating Saddam's henchmen, so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and freedom.
By helping the Iraqi people become free, you're helping change a troubled and violent part of the world. By helping to build a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East, you are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful.
You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will. They hope we will run. We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.
We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.
Every day you see firsthand the commitment to sacrifice that the Iraqi people are making to secure their own freedom. I have a message for the Iraqi people: You have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever.
The United States and our coalition will help you, help you build a peaceful country so that your children can have a bright future. We'll help you find and bring to justice the people who terrorized you for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis. We will stay until the job is done. I'm confident we will succeed, because you, the Iraqi people, will show the world that you're not only courageous, but that you can govern yourself wisely and justly.
On this Thanksgiving, our nation remembers the men and women of our military, your friends and comrades who paid the ultimate price for our security and freedom. We ask for God's blessings on their families, their loved ones and their friends, and we pray for your safety and your strength, as you continue to defend America and to spread freedom.
Each one of you has answered a great call, participating in an historic moment in world history. You live by a code of honor, of service to your nation, with the safety and the security of your fellow citizens. Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth. I'm proud to be your commander in chief. I bring greetings from America. May God bless you all.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Neocon central came up with this today:
An Administration Of One
Nov. 24, 2003
This commentary from The Weekly Standard was written by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When George W. Bush first entered the White House, the conventional wisdom was that his inexperience and lack of vision in foreign policy would be compensated for by his wise and experienced cabinet. This may or may not have been a reasonable view at the time. Right now, however, it is clear that the most visionary and, yes, the wisest and most capable foreign policy-maker in the Bush administration is the president himself. Let's hope the team around him proves willing and capable of fulfilling his clear and historic grand strategy.
This past week has been an extraordinary one for the president. His visit to Great Britain, portrayed by the press beforehand as an impending disaster, was instead a resounding success. The spectacle of anti-Bush and anti-American protesters had a predictable effect on a sensible British public. Polls in Britain show rising support for the war in Iraq and a growing appreciation for the role played by the United States in the world. Bush's speech in London won well-deserved praise even from European critics -- more so, actually, than from many of his American critics, who have long since abandoned the pretense of objectivity.
Bush struck exactly the right balance in reaching his hand across the Atlantic and seeking cooperation in the war on terrorism, but without pulling back from his own determination to wage that war forcefully. He began to dispel the label of unilateralism that has been unfairly pinned on him, while still asking Europeans to wake up to the realities of a dangerous world they have been trying so hard to ignore. Bush might be well advised to give more such speeches in Europe. (We have stopped expecting his secretary of state actually to go to European capitals to make the case for the president's policies.)
In his London speech, the president continued to advance what has come to be the centerpiece of his global grand strategy -- the promotion of liberal democracy abroad, and especially in the Middle East, where freedom has been most wanting and where the West's record has been most dismal. This was the third speech in less than nine months in which the president made the promotion of democracy his central theme (the first being his speech at the American Enterprise Institute back in February before the Iraq war began, the second his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy earlier this fall). There can no longer be any doubt that whatever Republican "realist" inclinations the president may have inherited from his father and his father's advisers when he took office, he has now abandoned that failed and narrow view and raised the torch previously held high by Ronald Reagan -- and before that by John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman.
In this respect, Bush has broken from the mainstream of his party and become a neo-conservative in the true meaning of the term. For if there is a single principle that today divides neo-conservatism from traditional American conservatism, it is the conviction that the promotion of liberal democracy abroad is both a moral imperative and a profound national interest. This is a view of America's role in the world that has found little favor in the Republican party since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Reagan was a modern exception -- the product, no doubt, of his own roots as a Truman Democrat -- but this aspect of Reaganism was largely abandoned by Republicans after 1989. And so we are not surprised to see traditional Republican conservatives, of whom there is no more esteemed intellectual spokesman than George Will, now denouncing the supposed folly of such ambitious ventures. Nor are we surprised that in Bush's own cabinet, neither his secretary of state nor his secretary of defense shares the president's commitment to liberal democracy, either in Iraq or in the Middle East more generally. Indeed, the only thing that surprises us, a little, is the failure of American liberals -- and European liberals -- to embrace a cause that ought to be close to their hearts.
Liberals and conservatives alike these days seem willing to consign the Arab peoples to more decades of tyranny. "The West," argues Fareed Zakaria, "must recognize that it does not seek democracy in the Middle East -- at least not yet." President Bush rejects this counsel. "In the West," Bush noted in London, "there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. . . . It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty. It is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."
What has also become clear this past week is that Bush is determined to promote democracy in Iraq -- and right now. This is a significant step forward. Up until recently, senior Bush officials have tended to avoid using the word "democracy" to describe the goals of American policy. In the Pentagon and elsewhere it has been thought that this sets the bar too high and implies a lengthy American commitment to Iraq, a commitment of money, energy, and troops. The most urgent task, as Donald Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid have been inclined to see it, has been to bring the levels of U.S. forces in Iraq down and turn over the task of security to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Others in the administration have adopted the familiar argument that the Iraqi people are not yet ready for democracy and have tried to push any real elections as far into the future as possible.
President Bush this week slammed the door on this kind of thinking. First, he set the bar for success high: democracy. The new plan for a handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis calls for regional caucuses to elect a transitional legislature by next May, with general elections planned for the end of 2005. We would prefer to see the elections moved up, but even under the current schedule Iraqis will have a chance to begin participating in democratic politics almost immediately. That is a giant step toward the goal and the commitment that Bush articulated this past week: The United States "will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."
So much for exit strategies. Bush has made it clear that the only exit strategy from Iraq is a victory strategy, with victory defined as "democracy." "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East." That commitment may turn out to be the most important of Bush's presidency, perhaps the most important of the post-Cold War era.
The second significant point Bush made in London was about troop levels in Iraq. In response to a question about beginning to bring home troops from Iraq next year, the president could not have been clearer. The United States will provide the troops necessary in Iraq. "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq, whatever is necessary to secure Iraq." Unfortunately, Bush's senior advisers treated his remark as if it were a gaffe and immediately began backgrounding reporters that there was no chance of a troop increase next year. That was an appalling error, signifying just how little the president's own advisers understand what's at stake in Iraq.
The president, we are happy to say, does understand. "The failure of democracy in Iraq," he said this week, "would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us." Failure in Iraq is unacceptable. Al Qaeda and international terrorists "view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken." Progress toward democracy is imperative. If that means more American troops are needed, then the administration should not -- and we are now confident will not -- flinch from putting in more troops, even in an election year.
The president made great progress this week explaining his vision and strategy to the world. He has placed himself at the level of Reagan and Truman, both of whom were also treated with derision by their opponents. Bush's great task now will be to explain his strategy to his own cabinet and commanders and insist that they begin implementing it.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol
An Administration Of One
Nov. 24, 2003
This commentary from The Weekly Standard was written by Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When George W. Bush first entered the White House, the conventional wisdom was that his inexperience and lack of vision in foreign policy would be compensated for by his wise and experienced cabinet. This may or may not have been a reasonable view at the time. Right now, however, it is clear that the most visionary and, yes, the wisest and most capable foreign policy-maker in the Bush administration is the president himself. Let's hope the team around him proves willing and capable of fulfilling his clear and historic grand strategy.
This past week has been an extraordinary one for the president. His visit to Great Britain, portrayed by the press beforehand as an impending disaster, was instead a resounding success. The spectacle of anti-Bush and anti-American protesters had a predictable effect on a sensible British public. Polls in Britain show rising support for the war in Iraq and a growing appreciation for the role played by the United States in the world. Bush's speech in London won well-deserved praise even from European critics -- more so, actually, than from many of his American critics, who have long since abandoned the pretense of objectivity.
Bush struck exactly the right balance in reaching his hand across the Atlantic and seeking cooperation in the war on terrorism, but without pulling back from his own determination to wage that war forcefully. He began to dispel the label of unilateralism that has been unfairly pinned on him, while still asking Europeans to wake up to the realities of a dangerous world they have been trying so hard to ignore. Bush might be well advised to give more such speeches in Europe. (We have stopped expecting his secretary of state actually to go to European capitals to make the case for the president's policies.)
In his London speech, the president continued to advance what has come to be the centerpiece of his global grand strategy -- the promotion of liberal democracy abroad, and especially in the Middle East, where freedom has been most wanting and where the West's record has been most dismal. This was the third speech in less than nine months in which the president made the promotion of democracy his central theme (the first being his speech at the American Enterprise Institute back in February before the Iraq war began, the second his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy earlier this fall). There can no longer be any doubt that whatever Republican "realist" inclinations the president may have inherited from his father and his father's advisers when he took office, he has now abandoned that failed and narrow view and raised the torch previously held high by Ronald Reagan -- and before that by John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman.
In this respect, Bush has broken from the mainstream of his party and become a neo-conservative in the true meaning of the term. For if there is a single principle that today divides neo-conservatism from traditional American conservatism, it is the conviction that the promotion of liberal democracy abroad is both a moral imperative and a profound national interest. This is a view of America's role in the world that has found little favor in the Republican party since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Reagan was a modern exception -- the product, no doubt, of his own roots as a Truman Democrat -- but this aspect of Reaganism was largely abandoned by Republicans after 1989. And so we are not surprised to see traditional Republican conservatives, of whom there is no more esteemed intellectual spokesman than George Will, now denouncing the supposed folly of such ambitious ventures. Nor are we surprised that in Bush's own cabinet, neither his secretary of state nor his secretary of defense shares the president's commitment to liberal democracy, either in Iraq or in the Middle East more generally. Indeed, the only thing that surprises us, a little, is the failure of American liberals -- and European liberals -- to embrace a cause that ought to be close to their hearts.
Liberals and conservatives alike these days seem willing to consign the Arab peoples to more decades of tyranny. "The West," argues Fareed Zakaria, "must recognize that it does not seek democracy in the Middle East -- at least not yet." President Bush rejects this counsel. "In the West," Bush noted in London, "there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. . . . It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty. It is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."
What has also become clear this past week is that Bush is determined to promote democracy in Iraq -- and right now. This is a significant step forward. Up until recently, senior Bush officials have tended to avoid using the word "democracy" to describe the goals of American policy. In the Pentagon and elsewhere it has been thought that this sets the bar too high and implies a lengthy American commitment to Iraq, a commitment of money, energy, and troops. The most urgent task, as Donald Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid have been inclined to see it, has been to bring the levels of U.S. forces in Iraq down and turn over the task of security to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Others in the administration have adopted the familiar argument that the Iraqi people are not yet ready for democracy and have tried to push any real elections as far into the future as possible.
President Bush this week slammed the door on this kind of thinking. First, he set the bar for success high: democracy. The new plan for a handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis calls for regional caucuses to elect a transitional legislature by next May, with general elections planned for the end of 2005. We would prefer to see the elections moved up, but even under the current schedule Iraqis will have a chance to begin participating in democratic politics almost immediately. That is a giant step toward the goal and the commitment that Bush articulated this past week: The United States "will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."
So much for exit strategies. Bush has made it clear that the only exit strategy from Iraq is a victory strategy, with victory defined as "democracy." "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East." That commitment may turn out to be the most important of Bush's presidency, perhaps the most important of the post-Cold War era.
The second significant point Bush made in London was about troop levels in Iraq. In response to a question about beginning to bring home troops from Iraq next year, the president could not have been clearer. The United States will provide the troops necessary in Iraq. "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq, whatever is necessary to secure Iraq." Unfortunately, Bush's senior advisers treated his remark as if it were a gaffe and immediately began backgrounding reporters that there was no chance of a troop increase next year. That was an appalling error, signifying just how little the president's own advisers understand what's at stake in Iraq.
The president, we are happy to say, does understand. "The failure of democracy in Iraq," he said this week, "would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us." Failure in Iraq is unacceptable. Al Qaeda and international terrorists "view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken." Progress toward democracy is imperative. If that means more American troops are needed, then the administration should not -- and we are now confident will not -- flinch from putting in more troops, even in an election year.
The president made great progress this week explaining his vision and strategy to the world. He has placed himself at the level of Reagan and Truman, both of whom were also treated with derision by their opponents. Bush's great task now will be to explain his strategy to his own cabinet and commanders and insist that they begin implementing it.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol
From Iraq The Model once again:
Just a bad case of de ja vu..
-What was I supposed to feel when I see a statue representing Mr. Bush being pulled to the ground in London?
I hesitated whether to write about it or not, but I found myself compelled to do so as I couldn't tolerate to keep all the frustration inside.
-I was shocked I didn't find the slightest similarity the protestors wanted to exhibit and it never occurred to me that I would see such a naïve and absurd action, and where? In London!.
-We here are waiting for all possible help from these people to offer us what broadens our horizon and helps us reach the bright side of life as they helped us in freeing our country from the tyranny, and scenes like these make me doubt the value of such help, I mean what were they trying to prove?
-The real, living and historical event that took place in Baghdad
on the 9th of April that announced not only the downfall of the ugliest dictatorship in modern history but also the beginning of a new era of freedom was a totally a genuine and spontaneous reaction that came right out of the hearts and souls of crowds that have been brutally restrained for decades, and trying to simulate this through a previously organized and timed action was something the least I could say about is pathetic and disgusting .
-I can understand the fear of the middle east dictators from the ongoing changes in Iraq, as for them the new born democracy and freedom in Iraq is like a terrifying monster or a highly contagious disease that should be contained, but what I do not understand is the rejection of some of the people of the advanced world.
-I really do respect everyone's right to express their feelings but I also think that people should be more thoughtful and careful on practicing this right otherwise they might hurt others' feelings.
-In a previous post when I compared the tragedy of Iraq with the holocaust some of the readers were upset, and I can now understand their feelings.
-Now, the demonstrators should have thought a little about the feelings of other people before performing their play. To compare SH with president Bush is an insult not only to him but also to the American people (who elected him).
-I mean when you say that the American president is as evil as Saddam, how does this make the people who elected him look like, I also see an insult to the Iraqi people in this action because it is as telling the Iraqis that your approval of (such an evil man) makes you either cowards or as evil as he is.
-I can not but wonder, Who's behind all that? Please wake up, our land has turned into a source of terrorists and all because of gently dealing with the dictators, not to mention cooperating with them.
-I really don't understand why people find it hard to comprehend what happened, why are they against it? Why are they speaking on behalf of us? Can’t they see that they're opposing the only power that has the means and the will to fight terrorism on it's own ground.
USA, UK, and their allies did not only topple tyrannies in Iraq and Afghanistan but also trying hard to rebuild these countries, each new hospital or school in Iraq or Afghanistan will definitely reduce the number of terrorists on long terms. A free and prosperous Iraq and Afghanistan would be allies to the freedom instead of being a source of threat as they used to be.
-Can I remind them of the role of the USA in WW2(without being accused that I'm a CIA agent)?
-Is it so hard to them to understand that we highly appreciate the sacrifices that the people of USA, UK, Spain, Italy and the rest of the coalition countries in order to rebuild our country and make it ensure it's prosperity and progress?
-For the first time I feel hopeful as I see an American administration decided so firmly to solve crisis rather than managing them. And I wished the powerful nations could decide the same for the benefit of all humankind.
-Maybe it's the destiny of these countries (the coalition) to be only ones who fight for the freedom of others, and I think they should be proud of it. It will not be forgotten and let them be sure that at least here in Iraq there are people who would like to help them even if with just a few words for the moment, but maybe with a much more stronger alliance in the future as I hope.
-However, my hero is not president Bush, but it’s the free and brave people of the USA, regardless whether the Americans will re-elect Mr. Bush or not.
Just a bad case of de ja vu..
-What was I supposed to feel when I see a statue representing Mr. Bush being pulled to the ground in London?
I hesitated whether to write about it or not, but I found myself compelled to do so as I couldn't tolerate to keep all the frustration inside.
-I was shocked I didn't find the slightest similarity the protestors wanted to exhibit and it never occurred to me that I would see such a naïve and absurd action, and where? In London!.
-We here are waiting for all possible help from these people to offer us what broadens our horizon and helps us reach the bright side of life as they helped us in freeing our country from the tyranny, and scenes like these make me doubt the value of such help, I mean what were they trying to prove?
-The real, living and historical event that took place in Baghdad
on the 9th of April that announced not only the downfall of the ugliest dictatorship in modern history but also the beginning of a new era of freedom was a totally a genuine and spontaneous reaction that came right out of the hearts and souls of crowds that have been brutally restrained for decades, and trying to simulate this through a previously organized and timed action was something the least I could say about is pathetic and disgusting .
-I can understand the fear of the middle east dictators from the ongoing changes in Iraq, as for them the new born democracy and freedom in Iraq is like a terrifying monster or a highly contagious disease that should be contained, but what I do not understand is the rejection of some of the people of the advanced world.
-I really do respect everyone's right to express their feelings but I also think that people should be more thoughtful and careful on practicing this right otherwise they might hurt others' feelings.
-In a previous post when I compared the tragedy of Iraq with the holocaust some of the readers were upset, and I can now understand their feelings.
-Now, the demonstrators should have thought a little about the feelings of other people before performing their play. To compare SH with president Bush is an insult not only to him but also to the American people (who elected him).
-I mean when you say that the American president is as evil as Saddam, how does this make the people who elected him look like, I also see an insult to the Iraqi people in this action because it is as telling the Iraqis that your approval of (such an evil man) makes you either cowards or as evil as he is.
-I can not but wonder, Who's behind all that? Please wake up, our land has turned into a source of terrorists and all because of gently dealing with the dictators, not to mention cooperating with them.
-I really don't understand why people find it hard to comprehend what happened, why are they against it? Why are they speaking on behalf of us? Can’t they see that they're opposing the only power that has the means and the will to fight terrorism on it's own ground.
USA, UK, and their allies did not only topple tyrannies in Iraq and Afghanistan but also trying hard to rebuild these countries, each new hospital or school in Iraq or Afghanistan will definitely reduce the number of terrorists on long terms. A free and prosperous Iraq and Afghanistan would be allies to the freedom instead of being a source of threat as they used to be.
-Can I remind them of the role of the USA in WW2(without being accused that I'm a CIA agent)?
-Is it so hard to them to understand that we highly appreciate the sacrifices that the people of USA, UK, Spain, Italy and the rest of the coalition countries in order to rebuild our country and make it ensure it's prosperity and progress?
-For the first time I feel hopeful as I see an American administration decided so firmly to solve crisis rather than managing them. And I wished the powerful nations could decide the same for the benefit of all humankind.
-Maybe it's the destiny of these countries (the coalition) to be only ones who fight for the freedom of others, and I think they should be proud of it. It will not be forgotten and let them be sure that at least here in Iraq there are people who would like to help them even if with just a few words for the moment, but maybe with a much more stronger alliance in the future as I hope.
-However, my hero is not president Bush, but it’s the free and brave people of the USA, regardless whether the Americans will re-elect Mr. Bush or not.
THANKSGIVING:
Refuting the Cynics
By DAVID BROOKS
he Economist magazine recently observed that in the 40 years following World War II, "America and Europe seemed to be growing more like one another in almost every way that matters." Demographically, economically and politically, the United States and Europe seemed to be converging.
Then, around the middle of the 1980's, the U.S. and Europe started to diverge. The American work ethic shifted, so that the average American now works 350 hours a year — 9 or 10 weeks — longer than the average European.
American fertility rates bottomed out around 1985, and began rising. Native-born American women now have almost two children on average, while the European rate is 1.4 children per woman and falling.
Economically, the comparisons are trickier, but here too there is divergence. The gap between American and European G.D.P. per capita has widened over the past two decades, and at the moment American productivity rates are surging roughly 5 percent a year.
The biggest difference is that over the past two decades the United States has absorbed roughly 20 million immigrants. This influx of people has led, in the short term, to widening inequality and higher welfare costs as the immigrants are absorbed, but it also means that the U.S. will be, through our lifetimes, young, ambitious and energetic.
Working off U.N. and U.S. census data, Bill Frey, the indispensable University of Michigan demographer, projects that in the year 2050 the median age in the United States will be 35. The median age in Europe will be 52. The implications of that are enormous.
As we settle down to the Thanksgiving table in a few days, we might remind ourselves that whatever other problems grip our country, lack of vitality is not one of them. In fact, we may look back on the period beginning in the middle of the 1980's as the Great Rejuvenation. American life has improved in almost every measurable way, and far from regressing toward the mean, the U.S. has become a more exceptional nation.
The drop in crime rates over the past decade is nothing short of a miracle. Teenage pregnancy and abortion rates rose in the early 1970's and 1980's, then leveled off and now are dropping. Child poverty rates have declined since the welfare reform of the mid-1990's. The black poverty rate dropped "to the lowest rate ever recorded," according to a 2002 study by the National Urban League. The barren South Bronx neighborhood that Ronald Reagan visited in 1980 to illustrate urban blight is now a thriving area, with, inevitably, a Starbucks.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed two long booms in the past two decades, interrupted by two shallow recessions, and perhaps now we're at the start of a third boom. More nations have become democratic in the past two decades than at any other time in history.
In his forthcoming book, "The Progress Paradox," Gregg Easterbrook piles on the happy tidings. The air is cleaner. The water is cleaner and we are using less of it. Our homes have doubled in size in a generation and home ownership rates are at an all-time high. There are now fewer highway deaths in the U.S. than in 1970, even though the number of miles driven has shot up by 75 percent.
Obviously, huge problems remain. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that despite all the ugliness of our politics, this is a well-governed nation. The trends of the past two decades stand as howling refutation of those antipolitical cynics who have become more scathing about government even as the results of our policies have been impressive. The evidence also rebukes those gloomy liberals who for two decades have been predicting that the center-right governance of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush would lead to disaster.
Most of all, the evidence rebuts the cultural critics of the right and left, who have bemoaned the rise of narcissism, cultural relativism, greed, and on and on. And while many of these critics have made valid points, if you relied on their work you would have a horribly distorted view of the state of this nation.
In his book, Easterbrook seeks to explain why we feel gloomy even as things go well. I would only add that the beginning of political wisdom in times like these is realistic optimism, and the proper emotion at this season is, as always, gratitude.
Refuting the Cynics
By DAVID BROOKS
he Economist magazine recently observed that in the 40 years following World War II, "America and Europe seemed to be growing more like one another in almost every way that matters." Demographically, economically and politically, the United States and Europe seemed to be converging.
Then, around the middle of the 1980's, the U.S. and Europe started to diverge. The American work ethic shifted, so that the average American now works 350 hours a year — 9 or 10 weeks — longer than the average European.
American fertility rates bottomed out around 1985, and began rising. Native-born American women now have almost two children on average, while the European rate is 1.4 children per woman and falling.
Economically, the comparisons are trickier, but here too there is divergence. The gap between American and European G.D.P. per capita has widened over the past two decades, and at the moment American productivity rates are surging roughly 5 percent a year.
The biggest difference is that over the past two decades the United States has absorbed roughly 20 million immigrants. This influx of people has led, in the short term, to widening inequality and higher welfare costs as the immigrants are absorbed, but it also means that the U.S. will be, through our lifetimes, young, ambitious and energetic.
Working off U.N. and U.S. census data, Bill Frey, the indispensable University of Michigan demographer, projects that in the year 2050 the median age in the United States will be 35. The median age in Europe will be 52. The implications of that are enormous.
As we settle down to the Thanksgiving table in a few days, we might remind ourselves that whatever other problems grip our country, lack of vitality is not one of them. In fact, we may look back on the period beginning in the middle of the 1980's as the Great Rejuvenation. American life has improved in almost every measurable way, and far from regressing toward the mean, the U.S. has become a more exceptional nation.
The drop in crime rates over the past decade is nothing short of a miracle. Teenage pregnancy and abortion rates rose in the early 1970's and 1980's, then leveled off and now are dropping. Child poverty rates have declined since the welfare reform of the mid-1990's. The black poverty rate dropped "to the lowest rate ever recorded," according to a 2002 study by the National Urban League. The barren South Bronx neighborhood that Ronald Reagan visited in 1980 to illustrate urban blight is now a thriving area, with, inevitably, a Starbucks.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed two long booms in the past two decades, interrupted by two shallow recessions, and perhaps now we're at the start of a third boom. More nations have become democratic in the past two decades than at any other time in history.
In his forthcoming book, "The Progress Paradox," Gregg Easterbrook piles on the happy tidings. The air is cleaner. The water is cleaner and we are using less of it. Our homes have doubled in size in a generation and home ownership rates are at an all-time high. There are now fewer highway deaths in the U.S. than in 1970, even though the number of miles driven has shot up by 75 percent.
Obviously, huge problems remain. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that despite all the ugliness of our politics, this is a well-governed nation. The trends of the past two decades stand as howling refutation of those antipolitical cynics who have become more scathing about government even as the results of our policies have been impressive. The evidence also rebukes those gloomy liberals who for two decades have been predicting that the center-right governance of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush would lead to disaster.
Most of all, the evidence rebuts the cultural critics of the right and left, who have bemoaned the rise of narcissism, cultural relativism, greed, and on and on. And while many of these critics have made valid points, if you relied on their work you would have a horribly distorted view of the state of this nation.
In his book, Easterbrook seeks to explain why we feel gloomy even as things go well. I would only add that the beginning of political wisdom in times like these is realistic optimism, and the proper emotion at this season is, as always, gratitude.
