"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.