Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Vicomte13
...Bush just squarely and specifically declared that he, personally, is a Neocon, that he himself, personally, believes in nation building.

During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush clearly said that he did not believe in nation building, "...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.". So what is this change of heart about? Did Bush decide, in the wake of 911, that Gore was right? Was Gore a Neocon all along and Bush only a recent convert? If this were Kerry, we would call it a flip-flop. But its Bush, so we read into it what we want.

262 posted on 01/21/2005 4:27:42 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: lucysmom

"During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush clearly said that he did not believe in nation building, "...I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.". So what is this change of heart about? Did Bush decide, in the wake of 911, that Gore was right? Was Gore a Neocon all along and Bush only a recent convert? If this were Kerry, we would call it a flip-flop. But its Bush, so we read into it what we want."

FDR also said that he would keep the US out of World War II, but Pearl Harbor changed everything, obviously.

Bush was absolutely sincere when he said he opposed "nation building" back then. But between then and now was September 11th, a disaster of even more enormous proportions than Pearl Harbor. More people died on 9/11, and most of them were civilians in the heart of America's premier city.

Since 9/11, we have been at war, and Bush has been tested. He has seen who the enemy is, where they are, and what they are willing to do. And based on all of that, he has changed his mind. It's as simple as that. Gore was willing to run off and get the US entangled in all sorts of foreign operations, to nation build for the sake of nation building. Bush was a much more reluctant warrior, and a traditional conservative back then, not wanting to become entangled in overseas affairs that were not central to US interests.

What has happened is that Bush has come to realize that nation-building in the Middle East IS essential for US national security. That peace IN AMERICA requires establishing governments dedicated to peace and civil liberties over there.

Gore was no Neocon. Where did he want to nation-build?
Africa. Pure adventurism. Expend American lives and treasure for what? Not American security. Would Gore have had the guts to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and try to nation build THERE, in the very heart of the Middle East, against that much European opposition? No way.
Bush didn't want to nation build at all, but has discovered that to have peace and security from Islamist terror attacks, he HAS to put America on a nation-building mission in the heart of the Middle East. This is not a flip-flop. It's a change of position based on brutal realities. But even if it IS a Bush flip-flop, it is a wise and intelligent one, in the nation's best interest.
Imagine if FDR had continued to try to keep the country out of war AFTER Pearl Harbor!?

Kerry, on the other hand, used to be a nation-builder. Now, when it is necessary, he shrinks from the task.
He is a flip-flopper, in the unwise direction.


271 posted on 01/21/2005 5:45:18 PM PST by Vicomte13 (La nuit s'acheve!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson