Posted on 10/07/2001 8:49:45 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
We're in deep trouble if we have to depend on George Bush's leadership to the extent we depended on President Lincoln.
Lincoln was clearly the dominant voice in his government. Although only one of his cabinet members supported the resupply of Fort Sumter, Lincoln did it anyway. When it came time to consider the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln consulted no one. He did defer to Chase on the timing of the publishing of the EP. Lincoln was clearly making the decisions when it came to military matters also. He said of his one time general in chief, Halleck: "Nerve and pluck all gone; not much more use than a first class clerk."
Bush, on the other hand, is a creature of his staff. If we prevail against the terror threat, such a triumph will rest on the shoulders of Cheney, Powell and Rumsfield, and their successors. And Lord help us if George Bush Sr. and his good buddy James Baker get their hooks into things--and they may well have already. We don't hear too much about the elder George these days. Is he still skydiving? I sure hope so. Don't forget that it was George Bush Sr. who stumbled into a major war in the Gulf. Don't forget that James Baker was his Secretary of State. Don't forget it was the elder Bush who committed U.S> troops to Somalia.
I don't really blame Bush for not ousting Hussein when he had 500+ plus tanks on the Iraqi border. That was a thorny issue.
Our thorny issue now is to get those 500 tanks -back- on the Iraqi border. And the record doesn't indicate that George bush is going to take the lead in making that happen.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.