Well, this is certainly interesting. (And I apologize if this is being discussed elsewhere, I didn’t see it).
Seems to me that if even his own father, the one who made war on Hussein, thinks his son’s actions are questionable, something is desperately wrong with this picture.
So, can I count on december, perhaps, to come along and tell me that it doesn’t mean a thing, the father has just become an old skeerdy-cat in his old age and his opinion is meaningless?
George Bush is out of control. Even his own damn father thinks so. If he’s willing to say this much publicly, it’s sobering to contemplate how very disturbed he must be, and he is in a far, far better position to understand these matters than any of us. Doesn’t that bother those of you who have so far been unflinching in your support of this administrations single-minded march towards war, even a little bit? Give you a moment’s pause? Cause you to stop and reconsider for a second that maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush and Co. are just flat out * wrong? *
Why would you consider the son’s opinions, the son who had virtually NO EXPERIENCE OF ANY KIND at international relations, to be a superior bet to his father’s, who spent decades engaged in these sorts of things generally, and Irzq specifically? Not to mention the majority of the international community.
Why would you think that Bush Sr’s opinion would matter to those who are truly “gung-ho” for the war? Most of them are the same people who thought that he ended the war too soon the last time. Remember this joke?
What’s 1000 miles wide, 100 miles deep, and glows in the dark?
I haven’t read the other thread, nor the text of the speech, but I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that this article is slanted, biased, and probably downright incorrect.
If Bush Sr. honored the longstanding tradition of not commenting on administrations that followed for Clinton, I am confident that he will do the same for someone in his own party, not to mention his own family.
I actually read the entire transcript of his speach and the Q&A that followed from tufts website. The same one That the author of the Op-Ed peice is quoting from. Not once did I see Bush as criticising “our President”, as he called him throughout his performance. I cannot even see where the author even got the impression that Sr. could be even maybe criticising Jr.
And what he attributed to critisism of the President from the Tufts speech are blatantly taken out of context.
as far as I could gather could only be refering to this statement;
Is Sr. saying that those who oppose war on any terms legitimate? I doubt it, considering his record in politics and the CIA.
And what he said right after should be able to set the context.
Also, when he was refering to this;
Someone asked Bush why he did not take care of Saddam back in 91 when he had the chance. His point was that it wasn’t his decision. The colaition had priortites set forth by the UN that could not be ignored. If he had ignored th UN at that time to take care of Saddam then would have run the risk of fracturing the coalition that he depended on at the time.
Not once did I read where he said the President was ignoring the UN or the Int’l community. As a matter of fact he said *“I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible.” *And also; “And the more united that pressure is, the more chance there is that this matter will be resolved in a peaceful manner. And I hope that our allies abroad, and I hope our friends around the world understand that.”
Clearly refers to this;
Where he got the quote about him telling the President to reach out to others, I have no idea. So he could be basing his opinion on other events that he decided not to reference. But in regards to the Tufts inuendo, that is so blatantly obfuscated, it is almost offensive.
Regarding the article and its source - the Times of London is a conservative, Murdoch-owned, largely pro-war paper. Doesn’t necessarily influence the individual journalist, who may indeed have been misrepresenting Pappa B, but it’s not necessarily what the editorship would usually condone.
Seems like Saen read the actual speech- and Stoid read a commentary on that speech. Thus, Bosda & others, I’d say that Saen at least is trying to interpret what Bush sr actually said- and quotes him- instead of quoting what a reporter THOUGHT Bush sr said.
Of course, Bush sr is a “statesman” which means his words are carefully chosen to allow you to read what you like into them. Obviously this has happened here. But from reading the few actual quotes from Bush sr, it deosn’t sound like he is “spanking” his son, at best he is saying that he, Bush sr did what was right at that time, and “damning his son with faint praise”.
It’s clear when he says that he could have accomplished nothing in the 1st Gulf war without the UN. He also warns against alienating the international community. He may not be explicit, but I think it’s clear enough what he meant. It is not a ringing endorsement of the illegal invasion proposed by Jr.
he never said he could have accomplished nothing without the UN. He said that by staying within the UN mandate (not extending the war by invading Iraq and taking out Saddam), he was able to accomplish more with the then current caolition.
Defending his ‘inaction’ against Saddam, he seems to be saying it was the right thing to do. But he is also indicating that things have changed.