So I was wrong. Bush is not fighting Daddy’s war.
If daddy told the son this war is wrong, then that is it.
Wow… I have to admit, I’m surprised.
WHY would you be surprised?
George Bush the Elder believes in one thing above all else: Stability. That’s the main reason he didn’t oust Saddam Hussein after defeating him in the first Gulf War. George Bush the Elder would ALWAYS prefer to have one government (even if that government is controlled by someone distasteful) controlling a large territory than to see that territory subdivided into numerous smaller units.
Bush I wanted desperately to keep Yugoslavia together, and he urged the former republics of theSoviet Union to stay in the Soviet Union. That’s because, from his point of view, it’s easier to deal with Mikhail Gorbachev than to deal with 20 different heads of state.
Similarly, Bush I thought it was much better to have ONE Iraq, run by one man than to see Iraq fragment into several different states (maybe a Kurdistan, a fundamentalist Shiite state, and a mini-Iraq run by one of Saddam’s cronies).
Obviously, Bush I was not a peacenik, and would have no respect for the clowns chanting “No blood for oil” (they chanted the same thing first time around). But he IS concerned (with some justice) that the current administration hasn’t thought through all the ramifications of a war. Even when a war is 100% successful, it can have unforeseen or even disastrous consequences.
It’s possible to view Saddam as a real threat but still wonder if the result of ousting him could be worse still.
I am absolutely floored. Not that Bush Sr. holds that view, but that he publicly aired it. Now, Bush the Lesser cannot back down from war without looking like he his under the control of his father. The fate of the Mideast is sealed now.
I am also flabbergasted that Sr. publicly made these comments.
I wonder if that’s not why they were said publicly. To make a more clear separation between father and son. Since that is one basis (whether rigth or wrong) on which Junior’s been criticized, it may now seem politically expedient to put distance between their views on the war.
“Dubya: He’s not your father’s Bush.”
Sorry, I know that sounds weird, but I couldn’t resist.
Poppy isn’t against the war itself, he’s just against antagonizing allies unnecessarily, the way I read it.
But I’m stunned, too - not only did I think Poppy was Junior’s head coach, and even string-puller, but that family has always been one to keep its disagreements behind closed doors.
Dubya must be feeling mighty lonely lately. This could be enough to make cause him, a recovering alcoholic, to relapse.
I always thought that Bush Sr. had a pretty good grasp of foreign policy. I even think he would have been a good Secretary of State (too bad he had no interest in domestic policy). I didn’t vote for Senior, and I was glad to see him go when he went, but I had a lot more respect for him than I do for his son. I was against the Gulf war, but I think that Senior did it right. He got the rest of the world to play ball because they respected him personally and trusted him. Junior is neither trusted nor respected, even by the countries that toady up to the US. One of the main reasons that the world had more respect for Senior (besides the fact that he had an actual brain and a legitimate resume) was that he respected them. He did not make arrogant public assertions tha the US could just do whatever the hell it wanted. Whatever else I thought about Senior, I give him credit for recognizing that the US is part of a world community. I just hope that Junior will listen to him.
Diogenes: I agree with most of what you said (I thought the first Gulf War was justified), but I’m afraid Junior and his cabal are hell-bent on war.
So, which Tufts speech is this? Is there another one?
From the OP’s link:
Is that this speech?
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/metro/At_Tufts_elder_Bush_defends_US_Iraq_policy+.shtml
Diogenes-good point. I disagree with Bush Sr.‘s VIEWS on foreign policy (like the whole Reagan admins’, actually), but I think he’s more intelligent than Junior.
Posted by:Diogenes the Cynic
Junior is neither trusted nor respected, even by the countries that toady up to the US.
This is because he is not a socalist. He does what is good for America. Saddam put out a hit on W Bush’s dad. Saddam will find out what happens when you when you try to kill an Ex- American head of state. Clinton didn’t care and wouldn’t care if a Bush Sr.had been murdered. W Bush is willing to stick up for Ex-American heads of state. I admire this man more than any president in recent history. This war is just and right.
The south will rise again. Talking bass not included.
If Bush Sr. knew dick-all about foreign policy, we wouldn’t be having this little problem with Iraq right now. It would have been neatly solved in Desert Storm.
GW must be doing something right, if the lefties are coming out in defense of GH…
[sigh] Where do I start? The case that Hussein was involved in the 1993 asssasination attempt on GHWB was not exactly rock solid, but Clinton retaliated, nonetheless, by launching 23 cruise missiles on an Iraqi intelligence headquarters. The attack killed six civilians. Bush Sr. has never stated that he was unsatisfied with Clinton’s response, and Clinton would never have gotten Republican support for any more than that. What do you think Clinton should have done? Should he have invaded Iraq in 1994? The right was not exactly screaming for war back then, so why do they suddenly care now? Regardless of what you think BC should have done, to say he didn’t care about an ex-POTUS being targeted for assasination is just straight up nonsense.
"Clinton didn’t care and wouldn’t care if a Bush Sr.had been murdered. "
Is your hatred of President Clinton so acute that you actually
believe this crap, or are you just trying to be “provacative”? :wally
The text of Bush Sr.'s speech can be found here. I would characterize it as being supportive and uncritical of his son’s policies.
The more interesting bits that are quoted in the article linked by the OP appear here, in a Q and A (presumably following the speech). As that article indicates, Bush Sr does indicate that the case against Saddam is fuzzier now than it was in 91, but he goes on to say that “another ingredient” in play is 9/11, though he qualifies that by admitting that he doesn’t think Iraq was involved in 9/11, and then concludes from the case being fuzzy plus 9/11 that something must be done to rid Saddam of WMD. So I, personally, am left a little confused. I think the article in the OP has unquestionably spun Bush Sr.'s comments in a way that the former president did not intend them. At no point does he appear to be critical of his son. However, his answer to the first question is certainly not a ringing endorsement of Dubya’s position, either, and the whole 9/11 thing is such a ridiculous red herring with regards to the case against Iraq that I can’t imagine why Bush Sr even brought it up. He certainly didn’t provide any cogent argument arising out of it.
quote:
The case that Hussein was involved in the 1993 asssasination attempt on GHWB was not exactly rock solid, but Clinton retaliated, nonetheless, by launching 23 cruise missiles on an Iraqi intelligence headquarters. The attack killed six civilians. Bush Sr. has never stated that he was unsatisfied with Clinton’s response
Saddam was behind it I know it. You know it. The world knows it. I think Clinton should have declared Saddam a war criminal like MYLOWSONOFABITCH and bomded Iraq untill he gave up. He did it in kosovo and serbia. I guess its ok for clinton to bomb and kill people because he’s a democrat. When other countries make attempts on ex presidents That should be reason alone for an all out war.
No i don’t hate clinton. He was a moderate democrate most of the time. He did some things I like: speed limit, wellfare reform, don’t ask don’t tell, nafta, and the money shot on a dress. Clinton did not do enough to punish Saddam. Which in my opinion makes him look like he did not care. Bush sr. didn’t complain about Clintons actions he thought it was rude.
Clinton did everything the Republican congress allowed him to do. He would not have had public, congressional or international support for an all out war.
How do you “know” that Saddam was behind the attempted hit on Bush Sr. Cite?
It wasn’t ok with me when Clinton bombed Iraq, I thought it was a largely symbolic and pointless act and it killed civilians. I supported the intervention in Kosovo because it was warranted. An invasion of Iraq is not. Sometimes bombing is good, sometimes it isn’t. The situation in Iraq is simply not comparable. If I agree that it was good to stop Hitler, does that mean I must agree with every other US military action for the rest of eternity?
Can you name a single Republican in congress who called for a full scale war on Iraq as retribution for trying to whack out Poppy?
Bush Sr. gave a speech at a meeting I attended around 1999. During the Q and A, several attendees tried to get him to comment on the Lewinsky scandal. Bush steadfastly refused to do so.
ISTM that Bush Sr. had adopted a specific policy of not commenting on the performance of President Clinton.