Posted on 02/11/2011 6:05:24 AM PST by hcmama
Creators Syndicate – George W. Bush must have been the despair of the history department of every school his daddy managed to get him into.
Consider his latest excursion into the history of the republic, at Southern Methodist, where the Great Man's papers are to be housed.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Hrm...well...Bush was right...pat is playing word games..
When America joined the Great War in 1917, it tilted the balance against the Central Powers (Germany and her allies), because of her large population and industrial might. When the war ended, President Wilson was in a strong position to influence the peace treaties -the peace settlement was based in fact upon his “Fourteen Points”, e.g. a new international body called the League of Nations was to be set up to keep the peace between nations.
Sadly the Americans turned their backs on Wilson (he lost the 1920 election) and on Europe. Many Americans believed that the sacrifices they had made in the Great War had been a waste of money and men. They were opposed to anything that might drag America into another European war. So the USA did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles (officially accept it), nor did she join the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice. Many Americans simply wanted to enjoy the prosperity that had developed in the previous decade and felt that foreign entanglements would threaten it.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s, America was in isolation, i.e. she kept I herself to herself and took little part in international relations I (conferences and treaties between the nations) .In addition America, isolated herself in terms of trade. Tariffs (import duties) were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. (Because they could not sell their goods to America, European countries could not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. This was one of the causes of the Depression.)
America turned its back on Europe in another way. It cut down the number of immigrants allowed into the USA. America was a nation of immigrants. (The native peoples being the dwindling number of Indians, who were largely restricted to remote reservations.) Up until the Great War millions of people, mainly from Europe, had gone to America to seek their fortune and/or escape poverty and persecution. British people, especially the Irish, Germans and Jews, particularly
Oh and Pat is a Nazi.
“Bush is a disaster and disgrace and I defended him for eight years.”
Besides his lack of communicating with us, could you get a little more specific?
Larry wrote:
>> [Bush] displayed more “Historical Literacy” than Buchanan ever had in his life <<
You’re probably the single genuine expert on this thread, and I’ll gladly accept your judgment.
(Seriously! I mean it. None of the usual FR sarcasm and cynicism!)
But I gotta hand it to Buchanan:
Ol’ Pat is truly a masterful wordsmith. All his hours on “Mourning with Joe” appear not to have diminished that talent one whit. PJB still has a superb ability to weave together facts, factoids and outright falsehoods — creating the kind of superficially plausible narrative that Dr. Paul J. Goebbels himself surely would have envied.
No doubt Pat would have been more satisfied with Gore/Lieberman or the Viet Nam hero, jon carry and Edwards.
What an appalling twisting of facts.
And as for this: Result: two wars that have bled his country and reaped a harvest of hate, the deindustrialization of America and a republic on its way to becoming the new world order's Tower of Babel.
I would argue the wars are a result of irrational hatred on the part of our enemies. And if he thinks the Bush administration caused the "deindustrialization" of America, I would think it is Pat who needs to apologize to his professors for letting him escape the academy without an ounce of horse sense.
I'm not saying this to defend Bush, but to point out Pat's fatuous arguments.
Pat who?
What has he ever accomplished?
Bush’s “daddy?”
Patty, Patty, what is wrong with you? Bush is more of a man than that. He actually let his transcripts be found. Imagine that.
He actually ran the state of Texas before becoming President. He actually won two elections legally.
Pretty close.
but Bush is unquestionably historically illiterate
LOL Seems like a lot of nitpicking going on by a Bush hater.
and insufferably condescending.
Not nearly as condescending as Buchanan is. Actually, I found Bush's personality to be quite pleasant. I'd much rather have dinner with him than with Pat.
You’re right. Bush’s compulsive overspending, grossly expansionist growth of government, weakness against democrat attacks, and globalist fruitcake tendencies paved the way for Barry.
You’re right. Bush’s compulsive overspending, grossly expansionist growth of government, weakness against democrat attacks, and globalist fruitcake tendencies paved the way for Barry.
I’d say Bush was sloppy but Pat’s pedantic. Yeah, Bush got the dates wrong for the America First Isolationism but there was isolationism in the ‘20s, alongside with Wilsonian interventionism and everything inbetween. Yeah, it’s correct that Nativism arose in the 1840s but that doesn’t mean that anti-Jewish sentiments were not around in the 1920s.
Yeah, Bush was sloppy. Pat’s got a bone to pick with Bush’s Wilsonianism. But this particular piece was as much a tissue of cheap shots as Bush’s speech appears to have been sloppy.
The two deserve each other.
Pat warned us all during NAFTA...
The Bush’s are progressives...PERIOD...new world order, etc...
amen
Silly me, I forgot to include open borders lunacy.
I think Pat was in favor of NAFTA when Reagan proposed it, and only came to his "epiphany" later.
(Just illustrating how a weak causal argument can be made even weaker).
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.