Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I think Bush's foray into Iraq was the same. Once he could not get world opinon on his side, and he saw how virulently the Dems hated him and would use this policy against him, politically there was not much upside in going into Iraq. But I think he really felt he had to morally. It is the left inability to understand this (just like the right with Clinton on Serbia) that has made it so hard to take him on politically on this issue. I think the left would get more politicla capital out of Iraq if they would say that Bush did this out of pure intentions but it was incredibly naive and stupid. That angle would work and make them seem more statesmenlike and not hurt the publics confidence in their ability to deal with foreign policy and take on terrorism. But to try and say that Bush did this for selfish reasons (lininig the pockets of big business, imperialistic ambitions) or that he was sinister when he did this (he lied or manipulated the information) just doesn't wash with the public
|
2.
This sums up nicely why I think Bush acts honorably, but not always in a politic manner. In those issues for which he definitely sees a moral position, he takes it, polls be damned. For things like drug benefits, immigration, and the like, where he mostly just perceives differences of opinion (as opposed to a true "right or wrong"), he's all over the boards.
