98% of historians in a survey say that Bush is a failure (LINK). It’s hard to get 98% of any group to agree on anything. Does that tell us more about Bush or “historians”. Could it be that historians are all locked away in liberal academia enclaves. I think Osama Bin Laden has access to more diversity of thought then people stuck in college caves.
Among the reasons given for his low ratings: ….alienating many nations around the world
Let’s review this one “reason”…France moved right with closer ties to the US. Germany moved right with closer ties to the US. Italy was a supporter in Iraq until Berlusconi was defeated…and now he is back. Australia has been a close ally. Great Britian had a left wing government that work closely with the Bush administration, until a more conservative government took over. Columbia is an ally (next to volatile Venzuela).
Who did the Bush administration alienate? Oh yeah, ruthless dictators and the left wing press in foreign countries. My bad.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Share on Facebook
And history sure has shown us that alienating countries and people we don’t agree with– as opposed to approaching them on a foundation of mutual interest and cooperation, in order to work out said differences peacefully– has always worked out for the best.
Why, no one in the world hates and attacks us for our national self-centeredness and lack of self-awareness.
Countries don’t attack us because we would destroy them. It would not be in their self interest. They are not holding back for moral reasons.
Would “a foundation of mutual interest and cooperation” have stopped Stalin? Hitler? Napoleon? Bin Laden? The idea that we could reason with them is stunningly naive and dangerous.