Posted on 01/14/2008 10:02:11 AM PST by DFG
I take second place to no one in my admiration for George W. Bush. But there are times when he comes out with something so obtuse, so ill thought out, that it simply grates on the brain. Remarks of the "I have gazed into Putin's soul" variety. (I gazed into Putin's soul too. I needed two weeks of electroshock to straighten me out afterward.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
this was the topic of several threads last week.
Methinks the President may have been retrojecting today’s near-pinpoint accuracy into an era when it did not exist.
Sorry, I missed the previous threads and did not search for it. The article I posted was dated 01/13/08.
Don't pay any attention to it.
He was saying it for the consumption of Israel and others. He knows its not real.
Exactly. What a lame comment. It’s comments like this that tell me Bush means well but just isn’t quite up to the task.
I believe the proposal that FDR rejected was to bomb the railways serving the death camps. He claimed that we needed the bombs elsewhere.
Perhaps so. A mission to deal with Auschwitz may well have been difficult for the capabilities available at the time ... though as I understand it, the reasoning was more nuanced than that: it wasn't so much a matter of capabilities, as it was a tactical considerations such as whether the necessary combat forces could be more profitably employed elsewhere; and whether ending the war more quickly would end up saving more lives.
Being a wartime president himself, I'm sure Mr. Bush has a pretty fair idea of the rationale underlying the decisions actually made. But in hindsight ... it's difficult to see why the war leaders didn't authorize a mission to destroy at least the rail lines leading to Auschwitz. As it is, the site was left unmolested even though by 1944 there was a lot of good intel about what was actually going on there.
|
Mr. Bush wasn’t “up to the task” when it was his turn in Vietnam; he couldn’t even attend a few National Guard meetings at home, much less do any bombing that might have saved a few noncommunist Vietnamese. How easy it is to say “others” should have taken action that he himself would never have considered.
Bush is who he is, a legacy Ivy Leaguer who got by on his last name and didn’t have to do much as Governor of Texas since most of the power in that state is held by the legislature and Lieutenant Governor, as President of the Texas Senate.
He said bomb the railroad tracks to Auschwitz, not the death camp itself. That could have been easily done.
GWB is right. Why are you defending a left wing stooge like FDR?
It was LBJ’s decision not to call up the National Guard.
Do we have to argue over this again?
FDR could care less about some Jews dying in Auschwitz. He gets a pass because liberal historians love his socialistic policies.
Definitely.
“He was saying it for the consumption of Israel and others. He knows it’s not real.”
Gads. Do you realize what you just wrote?
You have just called Israel and “others” a bunch of idiots.
It is Bush who continues not to disappoint with his continuous stupidity.
Who cares what happened in 1944? It is the height of hypocrisy for Bush to castigate the U.S. THEN for not saving the Jews in Auschwitz, while he NOW espouses disastrous policies such as the “right of return” which would destroy the state of Israel. I think Mr. Bush needs to focus on his own reckless Secretary of State’s efforts to screw Israel NOW instead of worrying about history.
Why do I suspect that if FDR’s family members were endangered, he would somehow find an extra bomber or two to bomb the damn railroad tracks?
Why were we bombing Dresden instead, a non military target?
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.