Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Unfair Critics?

The New Republic has a great article on the lack of credit given to Bush by his partisan critics:

"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?" 

11 Comments:

  • At 10:25 PM, Anonymous Mike M. said…

    Where have my favorite college republicans been this past week? Nice to see you all back!

    And I think it's about time I added you guys to my blogroll.

    Hope you don't mind, I'm a liberal, but I try to offend everyone!

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Don'y worry, I offend everyone I can on a regular basis.

    As we all work hard during school, we vacation equally as hard. Spring Break was a needed rest for us.

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Frank "the tank" Molfetta said…

    If President Bush cured cancer, I would give him his due. And I will conditionally give him his due on DEMOCRATIZING Iraq, but I say conditionally because its still a mess over there, and the elections were only a small step on a long and winding road.

    That being said, Bush may end up democratizing a country, but at the expense of thousands of American lives, and Billions of dollars that our government did not, and still does not have. So it boils down to a simple question of cost vs. benefit. And in this instance the costs (billions of dollars and thousands of lives), certainly don't out weigh the benefits(a new democratic regime on the complete opposite side of the world that had done nothing to directly effect us in over 10 years).

     
  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Hmm. The sacrifice of 1000 for the freedom of millions, and helping the safety of hundreds of millions? Sure it is a price, and a price that is not to be diminished, but I'm not sure about the cost outweighing the benefits here.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger St. Joan of Arc said…

    Where were the critics when Clinton bombed Iraq on the eve of impeachment?

     
  • At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Mike M. said…

    Clinton should have been impeached and kicked out for that. Clearly a Wag the Dog situation.

    I could've cared less about his inter-office BJ. His bombing of Iraq to take attention away from said BJ is what pissed me off.

    As a die-hard liberal, I hated him. Too centrist for me.

     
  • At 10:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Where were the critics when Clinton bombed _______ on the eve of scandal?

    somolia, iraq, bosnia

    dontcha just love bosnia, clintons unilateral war without un aproval.(no coalition either)

     
  • At 12:26 AM, Blogger St. Joan of Arc said…

    Quite interesting.

    Where was the screeching when we bombed the Christians?

    Dems?

     
  • At 2:00 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Clinton bombed Iraq to enforce (one of the many) UN Security Council Resolutions calling for free inspections. Saddam had been cooperating, but he stopped, so Clinton fired some “warning shots” of sorts. In retrospect, it might not have been enough or the best policy, but he came under harsh criticisms from Republicans who later used the same premise to invade and occupy the country. They essentially brought up this “wag the dog” theory that a previous poster mentioned. The fact that the timing coincided was unfortunate, but had he NOT acted, he would still have been criticized by Republicans. This whole post seems ironic, since the Republicans were just as critical of EVERYTHING Clinton did during his administration (and it appears they still are). Maybe this is jealously over the fact that his approval rating is STILL 10-20 points higher than that of President Bush.

    As far as the “bombing of Christians” is concerned, if you are referring to the situation in the Balkans, there is nothing in my Christianity that condones the systematic slaughter of a people. Clinton was acting to stop a genocide. Since Democrats always have been more concerned with human rights (in the last 60 years or so at least) than Republicans, it is not surprising we did not attack Clinton for doing this. “Anonymous” is just plain wrong that we did not have a coalition in that conflict. Both the bombing and the peacekeeping was a NATO project, led by the United States.

    Yes, there was a time when America LED Europe instead of shunning or bullying it, and acted for human rights instead of purely for self-interests. It’s a pity how far we’ve come.

     
  • At 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mike M,

    Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a BJ in the oval office, he was impeached for Perjury. He lied, under oath in a deposition for a sexual harrasment suit (he was the defendant)

    McKain, the Balkan coalition had fewer members than the Iraq coalition that you'all on the left have been so dismissive of. (and no UN aproval)

    Grump

     
  • At 9:32 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Sorry, but I haven't been reading much about the contribution Eritrea and Mongolia (for example) have been making (no discredit to Poland...oh wait, they're leaving like a lot of other countries); NATO represents our key allies, strategically and historically. The Balkans conflict had NATO support...the Iraq conflict did not.

    Either way, I was merely challenging the fact that "anonymous", who I assume was you (and forgive me if I am mistaken), referred to "bosnia, clintons unilateral war without un approval.(no coalition either)" That statement was and is completely inaccurate, as there was in fact a NATO-backed coalition.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home