Diary

Questioning Bush on a Conservative Site

So there is no confusion and false labeling. I am a conservative. But I am not a blind, partisan, Bush and Reagan are gods among men conservative. But I do hold both men in high regard and respect what they have or attempted to accomplished. I do have a Philosophy, History and Political Science interest and I am working on getting a degree in all of them. So I do look at things with a broader eye, and I am not interested in partisan politics.

Now on to the question:

The question I raised in my previous blog post, I asked the question is the Bush Doctrine responsible for the what we are seeing in the Middle East? Interestingly enough, most said no, and blamed Obama, as if some how Bush did nothing at all. But isn’t Obama doing nothing? So what is the difference? Or is this just partisan rancor against a perceived threat against Bush? Bush did something in the Middle East, he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan; two major incidents in modern history within the Muslim World. Not since the days the British controlled the Middle East had such an incursion taken place.

So based on this: Do you all expect beds of roses from the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is it more likely, that because Bush invaded and than America elected  a president that does not want to get involved as Bush did, could the actions by both presidents be responsible? Bush and the Republican Party should have thought further ahead and made sure that someone was in place to take over for Bush that would have continued his policy. Since they did not, Bush and the Republican Party are responsible for the election of Obama. I mean come on, they put up John McCain, they were not that serious to replace Bush with someone of his commitment to the Middle East, so we elected someone who could care-less about what happens over there.

If we cannot question with legitimacy over what previous Republicans did in office, how do we expect to change and correct mistakes? It is easy to blame Carter or Obama, but in-between them were Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. If there are problems in areas they intervened, good or bad, after they have left office and they are replaced by someone who does not share their commitment, they are partly responsible for what happens. That is due to them and their party not presenting a person of equal worth to replace him. Hence the question I asked: Are we seeing the consequence of the Bush Doctrine?

I see this as a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed.

Yeah or nay?