GWB And Woodrow, Two Peas In A Pod

[OCA]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kimball200501210801.asp

Yep I can post opinion pieces too, only mine are more rooted in reality.

 

[Annie]

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kimball200501210801.asp

Yep I can post opinion pieces too, only mine are more rooted in reality.

I've been seeing a lot of comparisons with Wilson and GW, I don't get it. Not in light of Afghanistan and Iraq, seems to me they are comparing GW after resolve shown, I don't think he is the 'idealist' that Wilson was, to the detriment not only of the US, but the World.

 

[OCA]

What do you mean not an idealist? I think his ideals are highly admirable. They kill us, we kill them. I would just like him to be more honest about this and to prosecute the WOT more ferociously, stop worrying about what others think(in relation to civilian deaths) and all this other jazz. In other words turn the dogs loose.

 

[Annie]

What do you mean not an idealist? I think his ideals are highly admirable. They kill us, we kill them. I would just like him to be more honest about this and to prosecute the WOT more ferociously, stop worrying about what others think(in relation to civilian deaths) and all this other jazz. In other words turn the dogs loose.

My point was that GW is a pragmatist, that is the reason he so often irritates the right, as well as the left. He has ideals, he wants them to come to fruition, you cannot get there without reality based behavior. I think that is why the left fears him so.

Wilson on the other hand, he was the quintessential idealist, ignoring all rules of how to succeed in the US policy forum. He enters WWI with the idea of 'the war to end all wars.' Hmmphfff

Then he comes up with the grand idea of the League of Nations, but forgets that Congress had a role of advise and consent of treaties, he really thought they would fall in line. He was wrong. US ends up being the only nation of the allies not to ratify. Wilson was the ultimate 'progressive': all pc, no work.