Charles Krauthammer is the only columnist I regularly read besides the conservative version of Jeanne d’Arc, Ann Coulter. His column today is right on the money. And his last two paragraphs are particularly note worthy.
Leading Democrats are discomfited by this demonstration of Iraqi support for the Bush Doctrine. John Kerry urges that we not “overhype this election.” At the very moment when the first seed of democracy is planted, the Democratic leaders want the United States to turn its attention immediately to withdrawal. Kennedy demands a timetable. Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid demand a definitive exit strategy.
This might be terrifying to Iraqis who just risked their lives to get democracy under way, and who still remember the Baathist slaughter of tens of thousands 14 years ago when the United States urged them to rise against their oppressors and then abandoned them. But it will not be terrifying to Iraqis because they know that this is a different time and a different Bush. He won’t listen to the Saudis. He won’t listen to the Democrats. If the world knows anything about George W. Bush, it is that he does what he says. Iraq’s president called this talk about withdrawal “complete nonsense.” Which is why the Iraqis could dance.
Some might argue our current President is just being true to his foreign policy and the guidelines set up by his advisors. Others will say, like the good Mr. Krauthammer , that he is just being true to himself. I am wondering if it is not also a case of the son learning from the mistakes of the father.
Though Bush ’41 did nothing more than follow the guidelines as set forth by the existing UN resolutions at that time. One wonders (yeah, hindsight *is* 20/20) if he shouldn’t have forged ahead, while in Iraq and completed what was started. Sure the world body politic would have bitched and moaned (they have had years of practice after all), but I bet two things would have happened had he done so:
1. The Iraqis would have had their freedom a number of years sooner
2. Bush ’41 would have been a two term president
The first is obvious in its conclusion. But the second merits a bit more looking into. Had he committed our troops and US support in general, I don’t think he would have been able to utter the one phrase which many see as his downfall to a second term “No new taxes”. The monies needed to carry out freeing Iraq from the Baathist regime would have made that particular option considerably more far fetched.
Also, a “totally” free Iraq coming at the time of our elections would most certainly have been a major feather in his cap. Expanding the bounds of freedom and liberty tend to leave a positive feeling not only in the hearts and minds of those who have newly won same, but to the peoples of the country(ies) who are their enablers.
So, yes, though it may never be publicly stated as such by President Bush (43). Is some of what has transpired over the past few years, the actions of a son who learned /benefited from the mistakes of his father? Maybe, maybe not. But I would like to think so.