The Insultingly Irrelevant George W. Bush and One More Word on Ron Paul
President Bush has completed what was probably the final trip to Europe of his two terms in office. It was hardly a victory lap.
The president was given cordial welcome in Italy and France, but the leaders in those countries are unpopular too. In Germany, the usual protesters did not even turn out because they consider him irrelevant.
In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was warned not to be too chummy with our leader.
It has come to this: The most unpopular president in recent history goes abroad with little fanfare and limited news coverage. It is almost humiliating.
But the president forges on with his stands on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to link them with the war on terrorism. Some Bush partisans think that history will vindicate him. The odds are against it.
Finally, the president and first lady suggested that we may not have seen the last Bush in the White House. They talked up Jeb Bush, the younger brother and two-term governor of Florida.
Maybe he would have been more successful in the first place. However, the nation seems to be afflicted with Bush fatigue and Clinton fatigue and the next president will be named McCain or Obama.
——
My recent blog on Ron Paul touched off an enormous flow of angry reaction. I thank you for writing.
The more reasonable critics disagreed with my calling Paul an isolationist. They prefer noninterventionist.
That's fair enough, but we will continue our disagreement on the definition of the Libertarian's views during his many years in Congress.
For those who were insulting or even profane, I can say only that they are fortunate to have the First Amendment in this country, as am I. I think Dr. Paul would agree, since many of his views run contrary to mainstream politics these days.
Tags: Europe | Ron Paul | George W. Bush
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (42) | Print
Reader Comments
Ron Paul
Its funny that you mention the First Amendment and the fact that Ron Pauls views are contrary to mainstream politics in the same paragraph. You should be thanking Ron Paul and the few other believers of the constitution that you still have a First Amendment. If we left it up to mainstream politics, i believe the First Amendment would be ignored like the Forth & Fifth Amendments are today (Patriot Act).
"But the president forges on with his stands on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to link them with the war on terrorism. Some Bush partisans think that history will vindicate him. The odds are against it."
If the leftist historians have anything to do with it, then yes, history will not vindicate Bush. But, I digress.
By the by, you betray your views about the war on terrorism by stating that Bush is trying to link Afghanistan to the war on terrorism. Most rational thinkers, whether left or right, agree that Afghanistan was a legitimate war, but Iraq is the open question. It seems you belong to that crowd that believes that we should not have acted agressively after 9/11. Of course, we have two records to compare and contrast that with. President Clinton tried it your way after the WTC bombing in '93, and we had many terrorist attacks that ensued. President Bush tried it another way after 9/11, and while it was not politically popular, we have not had an attack for eight years and running. Now, I wonder, who had the more effective foreign policy? Not popular, the most effective.
Steve, you're the exact reason why I believe you and other Ron Paul supporters are nuts. Your right to be free from illegal search and seizure and from self-incrimination has not been impugned. But again, I digress.
The last roundup!
Without question this president and his "posse" will go down in history as one of its worst ever. He talks of "terrorism" much like the Republicans of the late 60's talked of "the communist domino effect" posing a threat to us in Vietnam some 40 odd years ago. For the past 8 years Bush has terrorized and savaged our economy like a despot. But what worries me most is how in hell people saw fit to elect him to a second term? Perhaps the reason lies with the 73% of our population having little or no formal education. Not the kind of stat that makes for sound intelligent choice. And as far as a third Bush vying for office? We've all been Bush whacked enough! It's time for the Bush family to ride off into the sunset with both the sun and our economy sinking into the abyss with them. Happy trails!
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement
John W. Mashek covered politics in Washington for four decades with U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Boston Globe. His primary beats were Congress, the White House, and national politics. He covered every presidential election from 1960 to 1996. He was a panelist in three televised presidential debates in 1984, 1988, and 1992.