Sunday, December 26, 2004

Bush Critics are Bankrupt

In this post ("The impoverished diplomacy of Bush's critics"), POWERLINE makes short work of Brzezinski and Scowcroft's criticisms of Bush, and of their suggestions to Bush on the Middle East (while easily dispatching with the awful Robin Wright of the decent Wash Post).

I would only add this when it comes to the oft quoted 2 "old wise men:"

Zbig and Brent were abject FAILURES: with Zbig, we abandoned a key ally in the Shah and got Khomeini - and the horrible hostage crisis. Also on his watch - the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, and the ascension of Saddam - and all 4 of these DISASTERS were met with absolutley NO effective response. With Brent we got the unfinished business from the unfinished Gulf War version 1991 - and let's not forget he allowed Saddam to put down the Shia uprising (in what amounted to genocide) - in spite of the fact that he and Bush Sr. had initially encouraged them to rise up against Saddam and overthrow him.

More than any other two national security advisors, Zbig and Brent are responsible for the mess we're in today.

Only Clinton's 8 years of repeated failures in the face of Jihadoterror (Khobar, the 1993 WTC bombing, the African embassy bombings, Somalia, the Sudan, and the USS Cole) are worse.

We should no more take foreign policy advice from Zbig or Brent than we should take a lesson in military honor & loyalty from Kerry.

ADDENDUM: Scowcroft has charged "Ariel Sharon has Bush wrapped around his little finger" and I witnessed Brzezinski concur joyfully in a joint appearance they made on TV. IMHO, this is as serious and realistic a critcism of Bush as the one we hear from the Moore-types: that "Bush is a tool of the House of Saud." These mutually exclusive charges are nothing more than LUDICROUS "tin-foil hat" ravings, and they say more about those who utter them than they do about Bush. It's just further proof that Scowcroft and Brzezinski - and Michael Moore - are inane as-h-les who have descended into irrelevance via "B.D.S." THEY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

No comments: