TERRORIST VICTORY LAPS JUSTIFIED?
The . . . whatever it is in Iraq . . . is no longer a war, it’s a “problem,” House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi says. Abandonment enthusiast John Murtha, in the running for majority leader, is less ambiguous about it. George Bush “is not going to go on with this war in Iraq.” Murtha wants a Vietnam in Iraq. Chaos and mass murder in Iraq. A victory for terrorism in Iraq. An end of America’s relevance in the world, compliments of Iraq.
So much for the party of FDR, Truman and JFK. This is the party of Jimmy Carter.
Bush, meanwhile, is moving toward appeasement. With the cautious choice of Robert Gates for the Pentagon, Bush wants to work with the Democrats for success in Iraq. He’s waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which has signaled it wants talks with Iraq’s terrorist-backing neighbors in Iran and Syria.
What does this mean?
In India they not only need to beef up airport security but also the security of Sonia Gandhi's grandchildren as well as the security of the families of other leaders!
The good news - Bush talks the bi-partisanship talk but, as of now, refuses to accept the Baker line and kow tow to Syria and Iran. Let's hope he sticks to his guns. History will belong to him.
comments powered by Disqus
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook