BY BILL JUNEAU
President Bush (43), where are you?
President Bush (43), where are you?
There are unwritten rules that proscribe a former
president from criticizing the performance of another chief
executive. But given the comments made by presidents in the
past, the rules are by no means absolute. Millions of Americans trusted former
President Bush in his dealings with Middle Eastern fanatics, and I would
certainly like to hear his opinion of the Iranian deal which has been promoted
by his successor, President Obama, and which is now the subject of immense
controversy.
Mr. Bush has said that he considers it inappropriate for an
ex-president to look over the shoulder of his successor and second guess his
decisions. Well, since Bush has consistently been in the Obama crosshairs and
after seven years of his accusing Bush of bum policies and decisions, I think it
is George Bush's time to let Americans know what he thinks of Obama and his
Middle Eastern appeasement policies and, in particular, the Iranian deal now on
the table. So If Mr. Bush thinks he should remain quiet, I respectfully
disagree.
The stakes have never been higher. Obama is nearing the end
of his second term, and the Iranian deal is considered of monumental
importance. Not to mention that Obama has been nipping at the heels of Mr.
Bush since his election in 2008. So perhaps an exception to the unwritten rule
is more than appropriate here.
We know that President Obama was less that truthful when he
begged for citizen support of his healthcare (Obamacare) program and said: "If
you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; and if you like your healthcare
plan, you can keep your plan." Is this the opening which former President Bush
might take to express his analysis of the Obama years?
Sometimes misstatements of a president prompt immediate
response. Harry Truman certainly was motivated when he asserted that "Richard
Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at
the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to
keep his hand in." Appropriate?
Not quite as bombastic as Truman, Jimmy Carter in 2007 denounced the
administration of President Bush (43) as the "worst in history." After leaving
office, President Eisenhower was noisy and critical of JFK's domestic policies
and Bush (41) pounded on President Clinton, his successor, for his sorry
treatment of Haiti. There is plenty of precedent which would lay
the groundwork for Bush's analysis of his successor's Iranian deal which would
supposedly prevent Iran from manufacturing atomic bombs.
President Bush has been in the Obama crosshairs since
Obama became President seven years ago. He has been consistent in blaming Bush
for his administrative blunders and for creating a "mess" for him to clean up.
He blames our current Middle Eastern problems on the Iraq war, which he has
characterized as a "dumb" war. I can't figure out how Mr. Bush can sit back and
allow truth to get buried under Obama's misstatements and socialistic
philosophy.
After suffering through Obama's poor performance as President, his
appeasement policies and the questionable Iranian deal, as well as his continual
criticism of his predecessor, Americans, and I am one, are eager to hear Mr.
Bush's opinions. What does he think of the efficacy of the Iranian deal? Does he
believe it will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power? Or does he see it is
an historic mistake which will actually guarantee that Iran obtains a nuclear
bomb, as Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel believes, along with a majority of
members of both houses of the United States Congress.
Congress is expected to vote to reject the measure. President Obama
has said that he will veto the rejection leaving Congress without sufficient
votes to override the veto. At that time the agreement will be in effect and
$150 billion in funds frozen through sanctions will be be given to the Theocracy
of Iran. So, should President Bush weigh in on the deal? The answer is Yes,
absolutely. After silently watching Obama from the sidelines these past seven
years, it is time for Mr. Bush to offer his analysis on the proposed accord, and
his successor's performance in general. I think that it will do some
good.
I would like to know what George W. Bush thinks about a lot of things. I've heard him say that history will show the truth about him. I always liked him, still do. I suspect the train he doesn't speak out against Obama is that he is too much of a gentleman to do so. I'm sure he has plenty to say about our troop withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan and the spread of ISIS.
ReplyDeleteYES, HE MUST HAVE PLENTY TO SAY ABOUT THE GREAT APPEASER WHO REFUSES TO READ OUT THE ISLAMIC SAVAGES FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY
ReplyDeleteYES, HE MUST HAVE PLENTY TO SAY ABOUT THE GREAT APPEASER WHO REFUSES TO READ OUT THE ISLAMIC SAVAGES FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY
ReplyDeleteI concur with everything you say about Obama's catastrophic foreign policy, which is nothing more than appeasement of Iran and Russia. Most recently Obama's "executive agreement" (not a Senate-approved treaty according to the Constitution) with Iran guarantees it's nuclear bomb and sanctions relief -- everything it wanted -- in return for vague, contradictory promises to delay bomb production under an inspection program controlled by Iran itself. Appalling! Shades of Chamberlain and "peace in our time."
ReplyDeleteNow Russia has moved troops, planes, ships and tanks into Syria, formed a coalition of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Assad's Syria to "fight ISIS" by mainly supporting Assad, and demands that Obama's "60-nation coalition" get its planes out of Russia's way as they bomb rebel positions. Obama has no response except to say "we need to talk."
But all of this has been brewing for some time. In May 2012 Obama thought he was off-microphone when he told Russian temporary President Dmitri Medvedev to "tell Vlad that I'll be more flexible after the elections." So Obama was reelected and showed his flexibility by allowing Putin to take the Crimea, invade and capture Eastern Ukraine, and now form an anti-US coalition in the Middle East. Meanwhile he immeasurably strengthened that coalition's clout by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.
Mr. Bush would have lots of ammunition to attack or criticize Obama, but by injecting himself into the crisis at this moment he could only hurt his brother's chances of gaining the Republican nomination. Even some Republicans say that Jeb's biggest problem is his name. Obama and his acolytes would howl again that the Middle Eastern mess is "all Bush's fault" to divert attention from Obama's "flexible" off-mic policy. I'm not a particular fan of Jeb Bush, but he has my vote if he wins the nomination. At this point, George Bush would only interfere in the Republican nomination campaign.