Dissecting a "Silly" Argument

"There is a rather silly article here which compares GWB to Teddy Roosevelt on the grounds that both Presidents have sent U.S. armed forces to intervene in foreign countries. Although TR was a Republican President, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were clearly Leftist or Rightist in TR's days and TR was a notable supporter of the"Progressive" (Leftist) wing of the GOP. He even left the GOP at one stage and set up his own"Progressive" party. And his actions abroad were thoroughly imperialistic -- under a very thin cloak of righteousness. They were certainly not driven by defence needs. GWB, by contrast, is simply responding as best he can to the war on America declared by the Islamic extremists. And the difference between a defensive war and a war of expansion is surely of considerable importance. As is shown here American wars abroad are normally the work of the American Left. It is only the needs of defence that have got GWB into such wars."

Defense, indeed! People who have lost touch with reality tend to project their own motives on to others, but then, I hardly need tell a psychologist that. Certainly, powerful leaders have done so throughout history.

TR's blather about the threat of Spain, certainly was a rationale to take what was left of her Empire. I hardly think attacking Iraq had anything to do with defending against Terror; oil & Israel, most likely.

As to Left/Right; the Neocons now masquerading as Conservatives, are part of the old Trotskyite to Democratic Left. I think you might also consider much of your own comment in the"silly" category.