Anyone else see this in the Financial Times?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
"There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with
major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th
century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct
diplomacy today."


And that's a *very* good thing. Bush 41 relied too heavily on diplomacy
with the corrupt UN and the corrupt members on its security council. The UN
oil for food scandal, and the illegal arming of Saddam despite the
sanctions, should tell any reasonable person that it is foolhardy to use
diplomacy with nations that are secretly subverting US efforts in the region
at every turn.

Bush has forced UN security council countries like France and Russia back
into the fold not through diplomacy, but through show of strength. The same
countries which have arming terrorist-sponsoring Syria for the past decade
are now about to enact extremely harsh sanctions or an embargo against them.

Bush 41 would never have achieved such a thing.

Anyone else see this in the Financial Times?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
"There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with
major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th
century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we
conduct diplomacy today."


And that's a *very* good thing. Bush 41 relied too heavily on diplomacy
with the corrupt UN and the corrupt members on its security council. The
UN oil for food scandal, and the illegal arming of Saddam despite the
sanctions, should tell any reasonable person that it is foolhardy to use
diplomacy with nations that are secretly subverting US efforts in the
region at every turn.

Bush has forced UN security council countries like France and Russia back
into the fold not through diplomacy, but through show of strength. The
same countries which have arming terrorist-sponsoring Syria for the past
decade are now about to enact extremely harsh sanctions or an embargo
against them.

Bush 41 would never have achieved such a thing.



All Bush 43 has done is make the world a far more dangerous place...for
everyone.

HARRY, think about it, all that has been done is to draw attention to the
little guys around the world and thus a gathering intolerance for the
dictators of the world be they political or religious. You are for the
little guy right??

We could have played politics as usual with the killing not making the US
press because of censorship by those same dictators. We would feel safe but
as 9/11 showed us it's a false security. Based on false values.

We are playing such a game in Saudi Arabia, you've professed a distaste for
that, but I suspect only because Bush supports that policy in regards to
Saudi Arabia.