January 28, 2007

I Don't Want This To Be a Political Blog, But...

This was too good to pass up

A Historical Curiosity

For your consideration and debate:

US Civil War: first time there is a Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Spanish/American War: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

World War One: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

World War Two: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

Korean War: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

Vietnam War: As soon as a Republican took over the botched war from the Democrats - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Last Ten Years of the Cold War: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Gulf War: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Kosovo War: Democratic President - no anti-war movement.

War on Terrorism: Republican President - very large, Democratic anti-war movement.

Discuss: What are we to make of this clear pattern of Democrats opposing any war they are not in charge of?

Hat Tip: Blogs for Bush



Update: My comment

Rather than try to establish some hard and fast "rule", it is easier say that there is a trend.

Whenever the United States is involved in a military conflict for any length of time, the American people will hand the war to the Republicans to manage.

When they grow tired of that war, or the Democrats sense that more than the "usual gang of idiots" oppose the war, you can pretty much count on the Democrats to advocate for its end, regardless of the consequences for the affected locals, the participating soldiers, or future American foreign policy.

Is that better?

No comments: