Posted on 08/29/2004 9:57:36 AM PDT by servant675
If we truly examine the evidence, past Presidents of the USA were not so strongly condemned as George W. Bush:
Roosevelt was never condemned for the attack on Pearl Harbor and the resulting loss of American lives, although there was clear evidence of an intelligence breakdown.
Truman was never strongly condemned by the American public for approving the use of atomic bombs against Japan that killed nearly two hundred thousand people, and resulted in radiation poisoning, and deadly cancers for many thousands more. In addition, he never admitted he did anything wrong.
Johnson was only condemned because of the LENGTH of the war, and because more and more American lives were being lost in the Vietnam War. Had the war been shorter by even a year or two, and a clear victory (as in Iraq) been won by our armed forces, there is no evidence he would have been condemned at all, not even for the Gulf of Tonkin lie.
Kennedy was not condemned for the Bay of Pigs disaster in anywhere near the strong terms that Bush is being condemned. It was quickly dismissed as a "tragic mistake."
Clinton was not strongly condemned by many Americans for his immorality regarding his approval of homosexuality, and his encouragement of the "right to kill" millions through abortion. His adultery he never truly admitted, he only called it a "mistake," and even in his book he laid most of the blame on Monica, and never called it a sin. Therefore Clinton has caused far greater scandals, than Bush ever did.
Without our invasion of Iraq, a dictator would still rule who has killed thousands of his own people. A dangerous man would still rule who would continue to present a terrible influence to nearby nations, thereby causing all kinds of dangers to world peace, but many fail to see these type "Hitlers" as a danger to mankind as many did before World War II. Iraq was invaded based on an intelligence breakdown, and no past Presidents were held accountable for those human errors to the degree Bush has.
Rumors, assumptions, and theories about what Bush intended to do about Iraq even at the start of his Presidency are just that, and are not reliable evidence, and should not be brought into discussions on this matter. History will prove our country did the right thing in Iraq. Even now, the new government in Iraq does not want our troops to leave, due to the mob rule that would follow their departure.
And for those who choose to "use" the Pope to justify their attacks on our President, here is the Catholic Church's view on whether It's members must agree with the Pope's opinions on the war in Iraq:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - Memo to U.S. Bishops, June, 2004).
Many who protest the actions of the USA on the Iraq war fail to see that there can never truly be peace when millions of innocent human beings are being slaughtered through abortion. And why do they consider slander to be part of their "moral credentials"? How can it be said they are truly working for "peace," when they are far worse in making sound moral judgments than those they criticize?
Vincent Bemowski Menasha, Wisconsin USA http://www.CatholicMessagesUSA.CatholicWeb.com/
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.