Glick: Bush far worse than Clinton

Over the years I have said in a variety of ways and in a variety of contexts (e.g., this and this) that Bush (for whom, by the way, I have never voted) is worse than Clinton. But now, as a result of Bush’s multi-sided collapse on foreign policy in recent months, even his erstwhile mainstream conservative supporters are saying what I used to say. Here is the conclusion of a devastating column by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post:

When Bush entered office in 2001, he was faced with a raging Palestinian terror war against Israel. That war was the direct consequence of his immediate predecessor’s decision in his waning days in power to throw caution to the wind in a vain attempt to leave a diplomatic legacy of peace treaties that would perhaps earn him a Nobel peace prize.

In fairness to Bill Clinton though, his intellectual collapse, which occurred on only one front, was nowhere near as radical or as strategically dangerous as Bush’s abandonment of prudence on all fronts. Moreover, unlike Bush’s behavior, which contravenes any possible political logic, Clinton’s actions were more or less aligned with the interests of his party. In contrast, Bush is personally legitimizing all of Obama’s radical foreign policies and doing so to the direct detriment of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s campaign.

Bolton wrote that Bush’s policies have brought about “the early start of the Obama administration.” Just imagine where we will be in the second, third and fourth year of the Obama era.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 25, 2008 01:53 PM | Send