Tuesday, December 28, 2004


A piece by Tom Frank in The New Republic criticizes the recent articles suggesting that George H.W. Bush was a much better president than his son, and that Dubya should be paying more attention to his father (because of how well it worked out the first time around). This trend has been driving me mad, and I glad someone has finally responded to it.

For what is worse: telling the world that you are sure about WMD when you are only pretty sure--or telling a group of people that you support their efforts to rebel and then standing by as they get killed? Killing thousands in an attempt bring democracy to a brutal dictatorship--or allowing many thousands more to be killed in the name of holding together a coalition and maintaining regional stability by preserving a brutal dictatorship?

Exactly, thank you!

The fact of the matter is that the 1990s were an awful time for American foreign policy as the world was falling apart America stood there with its fingers in it's ears screaming "we can't hear you". Bush I started it, but Clinton kept it going (Did you hear he's sorry about Rwanda? That's almost like responding properly in the first place. Right?).

Dubya came to office fully content to continue on in their footsteps. September 11th made that impossible. Say what you will for the mistakes that have been made since then, but at least in his response George W. Bush has acknowledged that the threat to the world is greater than Osama bin Laden. And he saw that the mess left by his father in Iraq needed to be cleaned up.

No comments: