(just an fyi for you flighty Righties)

"If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history."


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082912-8099r.htm

Everyone has always said that pre-emptive war and the establsihment of an American Empire runs counter to everything American has stood for historically. Just because it's a huge shift in strategy doesn't mean it's a good shift in strategy.

i love it when somebody is so right that its sure to piss off the libbys. just prepare for a flaming like youve never seen. and that sound you'll be hearing is a "libby squeal".

when you find a fresh can of paint thinner to huff?

Ah-ah-ah: If we're going to mistrust the media, we have to mistrust ALL the media, not just the media we don't agree with. Gaddis is by no means an "elite liberal prof." He's a somewhat-above-average MILITARY HISTORIAN, which tells you something about his perspective already. Nor is the Globe a particularly liberal newspaper, and "owned by the New York Times" isn't a condemnation in the real world. And Tony Blankley, who wrote the column, is a consistently conservative voice (I was going to say "a tool," but I thought it might be inflammatory) at a notoriously (some say irresponsibly) conservative newspaper.
Never forget the old maxim: Consider the source.

Really. Please explain how he is a liberal.

He looks rather conservative to me, at least based on his writings and quotes from a quick web search. Being at Yale does not suddenly convert someone to a liberal you know.

Oh, and the claim is not that Bush is a great president, but rather that he has a "grand strategy". A different claim completely.

Hitler also had a "grand strategy".

That said that our President was a Yellow sack of Crap. Does this mean the he is the "Best" sack of Crap that we have ever had for a President?

He's responsible for some of our "greatest" failures.

it means it may not be a totally biased rag. blankley may have put his opinions in teh story too and i'll agree hes conservative. but the wash times is a counterbalance to the post which is biased. if some say the times is irresponsible i can also quote some who call the post the compost.

btw, its taking far too long for you guys to insert your hitler comparisons. must be pre-occupied with thinking up a cover for kerrys pen dipping.

My point was more to the guys quoting Drudge etc that at least read some half way believable conservative (Moonie) sources.

Blakey and the W.Times are not my pov, but I at least read what I can find in attempt-to-be-credible right wing sources. Most of it is anti-liberal, not pro-conservative imo.

I thought the article was hillarious, almost a farce: the Right claiming credibility in the argument b/c it is written by an elite ivy league institution guy (whom the Rt regularly scewer); the presidents he used to compare Bush to, that they managed to carve Clinton out- a 2 term dem who presided over relatively prosperous times, that this is a strategy where it looks more like reactionism.

If I were arguing on the Right I would have run with the argument in the direction that we do need a presence in the ME, that there is a need for a return to colonialism, that the US has an obligation to 'those people' etc...

What the article says is this:

"In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment. "

I think saying that Yale is the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment is hard to refute. However, the book is not coming from Yale, it is coming from a specific person. That person is not very liberal.

It's like citing some pro-gay marriage article published in the south, then saying "In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure left wing academic. This comes from the pinnacle of the conservative southern Alabama establishment. "

There are conservatives in academia, and there are gay people in the south. How SHOCKING! We better pay attention!

I'm glad you saw it for what it was. Hand waving rhetoric.

HOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. ......chuckle....snicker......HOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOO OHHOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOH HOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHO OOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHOOO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHOOOHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHOOOHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHOOOOHHOOOHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh, you kill me!!!!!
A guy who can't even say the word "nuclear" correctly??PULLEASE!! In a few years, he'll be ranked someplace between Warren Harding and Ulysses S. Grant as the worst presidents of all time. He'll even be ranked lower than Carter-that's pretty bad!

I wonder if this "liberal" professor retired voluntarily or was escorted off the grounds of his workplace at gun point.

PS - LAST!!!

I wonder if this "liberal" professor retired voluntarily or was escorted off the grounds of his workplace at gun point.

PS - LAST!!!

Antonio B is Thread Dredge Magico of the week.

Moreons.... you just haven't given the grand strategy time to unfold yet!







joe

Have we ever had a great president? OR are the one's at the top just the best of the____.

I think Obama will set the standard after he cleans up after the Failure.