President Bush’s Leap

“…it is useless to pretend that any neoconservative foreign policy would have found its way into the Republican’s orbit had it not been for the personal conviction and advocacy of President Bush who in 2001 rebelled against his own earlier foreign policy stands and embraced the neoconservative vision.  This was not an inevitable stance for him to take, especially as his own instincts during the Nineties had often been to keep America out of troubles such as those in the Balkans.  And there were after all other options open to President Bush after 9/11.  He might for instance have followed his predecessor’s tactic of kicking the ball down the field.  He could have saved members of his administration countless personal attacks, and sustained his own high approval ratings for a time by arresting a couple of suspects, talking tough, and perhaps launching some cruise missles against a few targets.  Many people for all sides now wish that perhaps he had done just that, allowing America to stand back from the world, and not have–as it currently does–an almost uniquely high stake in the wellbeing of at least two foreign contries.  But Bush did take a leap, and America took it with him, electing him to a second term even as the situation in Iraq looked as bad as it every had. 

What Bush has led his country to is–neoconservatives believe–a return to policies of which America should be proud, the instinctive policies of America and America’s founders.  President Bush reminded people that America’s concerns are the world’s concerns, and the world’s concerns are the natural concerns of America.  He has led the way in showing that America’s interests are best served not by selfish isolationism or abnegation of responsibility, but by being a world leader wth a humanitarian urge.” – Douglas Murray, Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, p.161

The Media are Combatants II

“The media’s default position is that ‘the public has a right to know.’  But do the media honor their own claim?  Should it be acceptable for many of our media outlets to portray only the side of a story that shows our country in an unfavorable light?  When our government behaves in a selective fashion, the media howl for blood.  But the media close ranks against external criticism.  Jornalists are the self-appointed saints of our society, but it’s the public that goes to the stake.” — Ralph Peters, New Glory, p. 55. 

The Media are Combatants

“The media can no longer sustain their pretenses of being aloof, objective observers dispassionately recording events.  The media are combatants.  Their cameras may not slay directly, but their reporting now can change the outcome of battles and alter the course of campaigns.  In the Middle East and elsewhere the media are often no more than propaganda outlets explicitly hostile to the United States, the West, and any attempts to foster democracy or liberty.  Our own media’s capacity to damage our struggle for freedom and security lies in their appetite for sensation, their lack of context, and their partisanship.” — Ralph Peters, New Glory, p. 49.