Mr. Delgiudice, A Businessman From Morris County, Defends the Bush Record


Well, maybe W will be judged harshly as some say, however, no president ever had to make the gut-wrenching decisions pertaining to homeland security as he,(although Truman had some tough ones too). He acted in the best interests of America, and all the while his character was being besmirched, and he was vilified for “infringing on our rights”. A catch 22 if there ever was one. Imagine if such steps were not taken, imagine our taking the position of ignoring wire taps, America was again attacked and we failed to use our technological capacity and sensible discretion because of someone’s rights being taken away,what then? If the worst did happen and those same people whose rights were “violated” had the the magical power to not be attacked but yet have their “rights” infringed upon, what does one think their answer would be? I think we all know. Besides, how would our intelligence agencies know of possible plans of intentional destruction to our country, if we did not wiretap?

I respect him for doing what he did in the face of left-wing critics, and feel he was justified in his actions. Sensible people realize these are different times and such measures are warranted considering the circumstances.

Yes, Katrina was a horrible disaster, and President Bush was assailed for lack of immediate action. When I think of the number of terrible hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. that happen outside the state of Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, I wonder why there is no issue with the press about the Feds stepping up when disaster strikes in other states? Is it because that New Orleans is mostly black, is it because most governors are firstly responsible for emergency action, is it because New Orleans has
been told time and time again about the levees, and done nothing to ameliorate the situation, or is it because President Bush has been the whipping boy of the liberal media, and they found it better to attach him rather than an inept Mayor and governor. I find it amazing that nothing is said, or barely reported on the national news when a tragedy of such great magnitude struck in the mid-west whereby flooding caused insurmountable damage and hardship to thousands of people, that nothing was on the news! Is it because emergency plans were in place by the states affected, and the governors and mayors took immediate action, and people helped one another instead of taking advantage of another. There was no call or response needed from the federal government. They addressed the situation themselves. There was no looting, killing or robbery going on as in New Orleans. Why is that, and why didn’t the “objective press” tell that story to the country?

I’m sick and tired of this president being ridiculed and maligned. I admire
him and wish him well.


6 Responses

  1. I had to stop reading after your second sentence because what follows is based on a skewed if not altogether false statement. As you put it, “He acted in the best interests of America…” He may think he did but in fact he did not act in the best interests of America because he took us to war unnecessarily and thus created a situation where the U.S. has lost credibility around the world. These actions are not in our best interests.

    • As is said, ” we all have wisdom in hindsight”. As any acting President, Bush in fact took appropriate steps to protect us. Such action was not decided behind closed doors in a vaccum. Bi-partisan agreement from republicans and democrats alike, and our own intelligence as well as intelligence sources from our allies, agreed that a threat was imminent.

      Those who hold your position are those who have taken that view AFTER the facts presented at the time of the conflict, not during the time of decision making.
      So, I guess any president should do nothing and ignor intelligence information presented to him and congress. I personally don’t think so

      • You make far too many assumptions.

        Paragraph #1: wrong. Intelligence sources did not all agree that a threat was imminent. (There are numerous books and journal articles by insiders who shed light on this subject. Suggestion: Google the subject and read one or two.)

        Paragraph #2: wrong. I held my position throughout the debacle, only having it confirmed by hindsight. And I am not alone, by far. I go back as far as the U.N. asking for another 60days (prior to Bush starting the war) for arms inspectors to complete their mission and for allies to “get on board”. Bush jumped the gun here, so to speak. I knew then that there was another motive because he refused to wait the 60 days–days that could have eliminated the need to rush to war

        Paragraph #3: No president should ignore intelligence information. That was precisely Bush’s problem. He accepted what he already agreed with and ignored the other credible intelligence because it didn’t fit his pre-existing model. W has a slew of former high-level administration officials who have confirmed this.

        We must not ignore facts when writing history or we will be condemned to repeat the mistakes one day with another Bush-like president.

  2. I never stated that all intelligence sources were made available to Bush or that all sources were in agreement. I gather these are assumptions on your part. As a matter of fact, it was our own George Tenant’s ( CIA Director)strong opinion, based on our own intelligence information, and that of our allies, and his assurance that WMD were there, and that Hussein supported terrorists , or as in the lingo of the current administration, “Extremists” (God forbid we place labels on them) that played a significant role in the decision to go into Iraq. Tony Blair sided with Bush based on his belief that our information was correct and that of his own intelligence sources.

    Yes, one may search out “insider” reports on the subject and find that there conflicting opinions, not based on hard facts, but hearsay and political positioning on both sides of the aisle. And who is to say that the opinion of such critics is fact based. I believe that decisions are made with the best “facts” available at the time, and the President acted in a manner he and his staff thought correct. Anyone may second guess a made decision subsequent to that and postulate the opposite, as if they knew what the correct course of action should have been.

    To say that Bush jumped the gun in going into Iraq is a bit fallacious. A diplomatic solution is always preferably to all out war. However, to criticize and imply it was unjust is misguided. Iraq refused to comply with UN security council resolutions to disarm itself of any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ( 49 Nato members supported U.S. action in Iraq to debilitate Hussain, ( Suggestion: search it out and read and article or two) , all diplomatic tools, sanctions, UN resolutions, and pressure, failed. We were attacked in 2001 and went into Iraq in 2003. Doesn’t sound like a rush job to me.

    To attack Iraq before it became a real and present danger was a tough decision, no doubt.
    I believe it exemplified U.S. backbone and courage in utmost adversity. Bush critics will always question him and his administration and say intelligence had was ambiguous, uncertain, vague and insufficient to move in the direction he took. Obviously there are those who think otherwise. Hussein was a tyrant—the world is better off without him.

    To ignore the “facts” as you put it, and hope we do not experience another Bush-like administration, is just another put down by a Bush critic.

    • 1. George Tenet was wrong and even he admits that. Others believed he was wrong at that time and, in hindsight, they were correct though no one listened or gave heed.

      2. Labels sometimes characterize correctly, as in this case.

      3. You said, “We were attacked in 2001 and went into Iraq in 2003. Doesn’t sound like a rush job to me. ” As was the case when it happened, the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq were only related because Bush/Cheney related them. One thing we can see clearly in hindsight is that there was an agenda by the last administration that was destined to be carried out, and it was…to our ostensible detriment.

      Most all that we know, we know because of the media (from mainstream broadcasts to social networking tools), whether it is a direct communication or a tangential connection to it. Unlike 30+ years ago when media were not devoted to a bottom line, we are now required to do the footwork of journalists because opinion, which is currently a fundamental practice of media from Fox News on one end to MSNBC on the other, has replaced facts. The onus is on us to seek facts/truth because we’re not going to get it from “the news”. As Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said, (paraphrasing) “If we tell somebody something often enough, eventually they will believe it”. That was the practice of Rove, Cheney and W. It worked then in terms of carefully selected intelligence reports and it will work again because the electorate are generally lazy. Thank you for not being among the lazy.

  3. If nothing else, we agree to disagree. To state again, George Tenet was a crucial party to our decision to move into Iraq. You mention others believed he was wrong. Is it not apparent that others believed he to be right? I’m sorry, but if the President cannot place confidence in our own intelligence director, and discounts that input, I’m not sure from whom he should seek such information.

    I find it a pity that some, such as yourself, find it difficult to characterize those who intentionally kill innocent people, what they truly are, “terrorists”. To say the label extremeist correctly identifys murderers , for that what they are,is beyond comphehension. It is a pacifist eupherism that only intends to avoid truthfull reality, and show tolerance where the opposite is needed.

    You said,” One thing we can see clearly in hindsight is that there was an agenda by the last administration that was destined to be carried out, and it was…to our ostensible detriment”. This is a perspective I totally disagree with, and believe is wrong. It may be what you and those of that ilk percieve and belive to be true. The obvious implication that the President purposely conspired to carry out a preconieved agenda to enter into war has not been verified.

    Although I don’t believe we’ll be able to influence each others opinion, I believe we’ll still need to place some level of trust in the press, and from time to time question the veracity of its news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: