The post below reminds me a little of a portion of Bush’s State of the Union address where he lists some Democrat ideas on fixing Social Security. Of course, now, almost every Democrat is vehemently opposed to fixing Social Security. The difference between the two issues is that the Democrats' change in tone cannot be rationally defended because it is driven primarily by Bush hatred and partisanship and not by any change in the condition of Social Security. This is why Democrats cheered Bill Clinton when he mentioned investment of Social Security funds in 1999 but booed Bush over the same idea last Wednesday. On the other hand, the circumstances around the liberation of Iraq have changed drastically after 9/11.
Regarding the quotes below: I firmly believe that the present Bush is a much greater leader and far more consequential president than Bush, Sr. And hindsight proves that Bush Sr. was wrong to put the coalition of the 1st Gulf War above the liberation of the Iraqi people. Back then, before 9/11, the priorities were different. I can understand that. Why can’t Bush haters? Cheney’s quote is a little more problematic, but essentially true: if we toppled Hussein, we would be in Iraq for quite a spell. And Baker’s quote is likewise true.
Finally, what was Eisenhower talking about in his quote? War with Russia, I believe. His assessment was as dead on in regards to the Cold War as the Bush Doctrine currently is towards the War on Terror.
The difference between Bush Sr. and the Democrat leadership in Congress is this: Bush Sr. learned the lessons of his mistake and now supports the war in Iraq (as do Cheney and Baker), Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi et al have learned nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment