Home › Blogs › Cahnman's blog ›

41, 43, and Who Cleans Up Who's Messes

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 04:04
in

If there's one thing that annoys me about the Bush family, it's the myth that George H. Dubya cleaned up George Dubya's messes.  The reality is the exact opposite.  George Dubya cleaned up several of his father's (and America's) messes and he doesn't (at least yet) get credit for it.

Consider the following realities:

1. Afghanistan and 9/11 -- In 1991, when George H. Dubya was president, Ronald Reagan belatedly won the Cold War.  Where Reagan courageously supported the Afghan mujahideen when it was unpopular in this country, George H. Dubya was in charge when the decision was made that the United States no longer had any "interest" in Afghanistan.  George H. Dubya. was the President that allowed Afghanistan to collapse to the degree that the Taliban who hosted Usama came to power.

(And yes, lefty's, I'm placing the primary blame on Usama's rise on a REPUBLICAN President)

While George H. Dubya's Afghanistan decision was understandable given the realities of the time, it doesn't change the fact that the 1991 descent of Afghanistan into chaos was George H. Dubya's fault.

That said, in 2001, George H. Dubya's son George Dubya was confronted with a major decision.  Following the worst attack in our nation's history, George Dubya had to clean up his father's screw up in Afghanistan.  Thank God George Dubya learned from the biggest mistake of his father's presidency.

2. Saddam Hussein -- Removing Saddam from power was, easily, the greatest accomplishment of 43's Presidency.  The fact that we even question 43 over his courageous decision to remove Saddam from power proves how divorced from reality this nation has become.

In 1991, George H. Dubya had the opportunity to remove Saddam Huessein from power.  Instead of accepting the short term pain suggested by his Secretary of Defense, Geoge H. Dubya chose the long term pain advocated by his Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Cheifs.  History will note that George H. Dubya had the opportunity to save his son from the toughest decision of the Son's Presidency.

3. Eastern Europe -- In 1991 George H. Dubya made the worst speech of his Presidency.  While Reagan's policies continued to work, George H Dubya seemed content to "manage the situation" rather than driving the final stake through the heart of the evil empire.

Against that Background, it's amazing anyone anyone in Europe trusted the second President Bush after the First.  Considering the opportunities his father missed, the cooperation George Dubya got from Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Slovakia, and Hungary were diplomatic triumphs from our alleged "diplomacy challenged" 43rd President.

The Presidency isn't a popularity contest, it's a courage contest.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

 The reason why Bush 41

Submitted by In between on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 06:40.

 The reason why Bush 41 stopped short of taking out Saddam Hussein is first he knew it would be a quagmire, and quagmire it was. This war cost us more in money (estimated to be as low as 50 billion dollars) and lives. There was a standing policy for several presidents to keep Iraq and Iran as equals. Today Iran is the new leader in the Middle East. It also took our eyes off of our objective in fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. 

It was none of our business to meddle into Afghanistan politics before and considering the defeats of the British and the Russians, it is understandable in not getting involved. We did not have enough intelligence in the area for years, a lapse in our intelligence community. True, the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda, but we can blame Saudi Arabia and other countries for teaching this extreme version of the Koran. We did however go to Afghanistan, but in the process the neocons decided ( and this was earlier planned and their goal from the beginning) to go to Iraq. This took a lot of our recourses away from Afghanistan and we had a quagmire in Iraq. It was the policy of Bush 41, Brent Scrowcroft, Bob Gates, and James Baker not to invade Iraq. And they were proved to be right. You had the Iraq Study Group and others trying to figure out on how to deal with the quagmire. It became a surge. The surge has worked, however, we do not know how long this will hold out. In any case, we have Afghanistan to deal with along with Pakistan. Al Qaeda is our objective and we let them and the Taliban renew themselves.

We had two hot heads in power and that is Putin and Bush 43. It is a wonder that we have any relations at all. 

Overall, the Bush rattling of the swords and his ignorance in saying "we are winning the war for three years" has cost us more in diplomacy, in lives, in money, a military stretched thin, the Taliban coming back into power, Al Qaeda coming back with training camps in Pakistan, and Iran the new leader in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein may be gone, but it was a heck of a price to pay.

the myth about Reagan

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 10:53.

That was he competent.

He was going senile during the last two years of his presidency. We had Reagan in charge from 81-86, and Bush Sr in charge from 87-92. To give "credit" to Reagan for the Afghan victory overlooks several important things:

1) it was Bush, not Reagan, who had close ties with the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia

2) Reagan couldn't remember anything about the Iran-Contra deal, because he was  a) not the one pulling the strings, or b) going senile

3) Reagan was a figurehead who gave great speeches about "tearing down walls", but Bush was the former CIA head who knew how to work the channels of diplomacy (i.e. the Gulf War coalition)

4) Bush did not take down Saddam for two very important reasons: 1) the UN resolution authorized only the liberation of Kuwait and 2) he knew that taking Baghdad would be a quagmire.

So how did he solve the Iraq problem? He basically disarmed Saddam and ended his WMD program. It took Cheney and his puppet president to screw up all of that just so they could say they "got Saddam".

 

You may want to throw HW under the bus to protect Saint Ronnie, but history will tell a different story. HW was the only competent Republican president we've had in the past 30 years.

 

 

Bush was religous, not moral

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 11:31.

George Dubya (as opposed to George H. Dubya) realized the moral necessity of removing Saddam from power.   For that and that alone 43's moral superiorty to his father will always stand tall.

You are confused - W was religious, not moral. If he were moral, he would not have based his case for invading Iraq on a tissue of lies and and deceptions.