The Bush Doctrine is not chiefly about WMD and never was. Like FDR's vision, it balances democracy, security and morality. Still, the media and anti-Bush partisans have been bizarrely unmoved by the revelations of Hussein's killing fields, his torture chambers for tots and democracy's tangible progress in the Middle East.
If Bush succeeds — still a big if — the painful irony for Bush's critics is that he will go down in history as a great president, even if he lied, while they will take their paranoia to their graves. [Emphasis Added](link)
You know I'm not that big of a fan of Bush. I didn't agree with the war in Iraq 'cuz I thought it was none of our business. There was no moral clarity to the war whatsoever from what I could see. I guess if I were living in the US I'd be a Ron Paul Republican. Though don't hold me to that. And to be honest, I understand why Americans voted for him. The other guy leaved much to be desired.
Though putting that to the side for the moment. I usually, akwardly, find myself defending Bush on one point all the time: that he lied. I never believed for a moment that Bush deceived the American people, because that would make him evil. I think he's misguided, and was probably duped, but calling someone a liar requires a little something called evidence. Like - oh I don't know - maybe a politician blatenly breaking a promise, and admitting to the fact that he is breaking the promise like we have all too much experience up here in the Great White North? Trust me, the Dominion has more problems than the Republic, despite what some radical Anti-Americans think.
I find it hard to believe that I could be wrong about the War when I read stories like these from the other side. How can a politician deceiving people be a good thing? How can anyone possibly claim that a lie, that an untruth, is a good thing? Then tell me your name so I'll never vote for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment