WaxWorks
|
Friday, March 18, 2005
Like Father, Not Like Son
First Iraq, now Social Security. It's already been widely reported how George H.W. Bush defended his decision not to invade Baghdad in the 1991 Gulf War in his 1998 book with Brent Scowcroft:
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S.
nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We
were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf.
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq,
would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream,
engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and
political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to
find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to
occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have
collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to
set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and
occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have
destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to
establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be
an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Now we see that Bush Sr. has also previously spoken out against the privatization of Social Security, calling it a "nutty idea":
I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run
the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may
be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.
The quote is from a 1987 Republican Presidential debate, with Bush Sr. responding to Pete DuPont's pro-privatization position. Thus, Bush Jr. likely was drunk at the time and did not hear it.
Oh, and one other thing. Whenever Senator Robert Byrd makes a good point on something, Republican talking heads always try to denounce him on the ground that he was a member of the KKK years ago. However, Byrd has apologized for his prior stance and said that he was wrong (unlike Strom Thurmond, who was unapologetic about his pro-segregation stance until he died).
So if this fact about Byrd is still fair game whenever he enters the political discourse, despite the fact that Byrd has reformed himself and apologized for his past actions, why isn't the fact that George W. Bush was a loathsome, obnoxious drunk (and drunk driver, with his sister in the car no less) a relevant fact? Either you are always responsible for your past or you're not. But Republicans can't have it both ways.
Comments:
Post a Comment
