“Tony Smith argues that the Bush administration and the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war were the natural heirs of the Wilsonian tradition. Wilson and post-1945 liberal internationalists blazed a trail that Bush followed. In this view, it is America's commitment to promote democracy worldwide - a sort of liberal imperial ambition - that is at the core of Wilsonianism, and it was the animating vision behind the Bush doctrine.”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/19/woodrow_wilson_george_w_bush_and_the_future_of_lib/
I recall Bush senior being considered an internationalist also.
Oh no, this could be the end of the “Bush for 2012 campaign”.... oh my.
It’s sure a shame that we didn’t have a president Gore or Kerry.
YOu know, I took this a different way.
IF the writer was “explaining” that he meant “the conservative movement”, that suggests that in the speech, the writer had just said “movement”.
If you think of it that way, Bush asking “what is this ‘movement’” makes sense.
So maybe it’s the WRITERS fault that the word “conservative” wasn’t in the speech. Maybe the WRITER didn’t want to put the word “conservative” in, so instead just wrote “movement”, and Bush didn’t like calling it a “movement”.
The posters on this thread sure are enjoying alot of BDS orgasms...really constructive.
What selective garbage.
I’m so glad that carpet-bagging asshole is out of the White House. Too bad his replacement is worse, though.
Conloserman does not a conservative party make.
Yessiree
Oooops!