Part deux, in which Republicans continue to long for the advances of a strong, manly leader, so much so that they fall head over heels for an ex-KGB man. Here I thought that they were supposed to be anti-Communist. I should have known that they would always choose the Commie over the black guy in the White House.
I just wanted to take a moment to remind the conservatives who are waxing nostalgic over George W. Bush’s unwavering foreign policy (At least Bush went to the United Nations! Wait…I thought conservatives hated the United Nations?) and who are expressing disdain over Obama’s perceived weakness–I would like to remind them that most of the world, including many Americans, is still recovering from the hangover caused by W’s “I’m the decider” leadership. This is one of the things making the Syria situation so complicated. When the British parliament voted against supporting American military involvement in the region, the fiery speeches given mostly came down to one question: “Remember Iraq and Afghanistan?” If anything, Obama was criticized for wanting to rush into action, not for uncertainty. A survey of British voters shows that 59% of them are feeling cautious because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And of course, surveys also show that the American public is very opposed to getting involved in Syria, deeply war-weary because of our two long military entanglements. Not that it’s a bad thing if Americans have become a bit more skeptical about war.
The point is, it will take time for all of us to heal from W’s decisions…and in the meantime, the Republicans would like to see even more of the leadership style which got us in trouble in the first place. I’m glad they’re not in charge of this situation, otherwise we might be fighting the entire world by now. After all, anything less than that just wouldn’t be manly enough.