And why did he continue in the cover-up of Clinton's disastrous failure to deal with the terrorists?
Someone like Reagan had a sound conceptual basis, with solid and long standing convictions that Communism was evil and needed to be defeated, and that a thriving Capitalism, less encumbered by socialist taxation, was the engine that could defeat them. This conviction motivated his seeking the office of President in the first place, and gave him a sound basis for action, less encumbered by the feelings of those around him.
Bush is a more trusting person, more sociable, less driven by ideology. He took the office of President as a good manager, with proven skills on gaining cooperation across party isles. He got one mission, after he arrived, when 19 Jihadists flew planes into buildings. But otherwise, he is more attuned to working with what seem to be competent managers than to the more lonely missions of a great leader.
He's a bit too nice a guy, and too decent a manager.
He still doesn't get just how evil is the destructive influence of the left.
COMMENT:
Lots of things just do not add up with what this administration has done over the last few years, especially with respects to Billy Clinton.
That’s easy. He was involved in the crime up to his eyebrows and, as another FReeper pointed out, he would have kept his mouth shut if Sandy Burgler hadn’t disposed of the proof.
Michael Frazier
That’s easy. He was involved in the crime up to his eyebrows and, as another FReeper pointed out, he would have kept his mouth shut if Sandy Burgler hadn’t disposed of the proof.
Michael Frazier
I suspect there were many national security concerns about making too much public.