White phosphorous, depleted uranium, cluster bombs.....intentionally targeting of UN facilities, schools, hospitals.....all on an illegally blockaded, unarmed, and starving population. Israel, and it's enabling fifth columnists here, are nauseating.
I view Eisenhower's presidential leadership more from the view of what he did not do.
He could have unilaterally escalated the Korean war well beyond what he inherited from Truman in 1953. Instead, he ended it.
He could have intervened in Vietnam in 1954 before, during and after Dien Bien Phu. Many in the Congress, State Department, and the Pentagon were eager for us to do so. Eisenhower bravely, and wisely, said no.
There was considerable pressure on Eisenhower to massively intervene in the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and thus , to "roll back" Soviet power. Eisenhower again declined.
When Israel, France, and Britain , invaded and tried to take possession of the Suez Canal and the Sinai, Eisenhower forcefully slapped them down.
A reasonable case can be made about Eisenhower declining or dampening further US interventions in Laos, Vietnam in 1959-1960, and Cuba.
How many presidents since Eisenhower would have eagerly acquiesced to pressure from congress and the pentagon. In my opinion, most, if not all.
Everyone seems to avoid the facts of Cantor's complete obeisance to Israel. Cantor was a chickenhawk neocon. He was always eager to militarily intervene anywhere in the world that Israel pointed him. He backed up his campaign finance truck to Sheldon Adelson, Chaim Saban, and AIPAC. He proclaimed he had Netanyahu's back against Obama, his president. Let's face it, without AIPAC, Cantor would still be chasing ambulances. People are fed up with dual passport holding, Israel Firsters, running our country and shoveling money to Israel, while our schools, roads, infrastructure, veterans, and country in general, goes begging. Let us hope this is a trend.
Maybe this time Israel can restrain itself and refrain from murdering more peace activists.
White phosphorous, depleted uranium, cluster bombs.....intentionally targeting of UN facilities, schools, hospitals.....all on an illegally blockaded, unarmed, and starving population. Israel, and it's enabling fifth columnists here, are nauseating.
I view Eisenhower's presidential leadership more from the view of what he did not do.
He could have unilaterally escalated the Korean war well beyond what he inherited from Truman in 1953. Instead, he ended it.
He could have intervened in Vietnam in 1954 before, during and after Dien Bien Phu. Many in the Congress, State Department, and the Pentagon were eager for us to do so. Eisenhower bravely, and wisely, said no.
There was considerable pressure on Eisenhower to massively intervene in the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and thus , to "roll back" Soviet power. Eisenhower again declined.
When Israel, France, and Britain , invaded and tried to take possession of the Suez Canal and the Sinai, Eisenhower forcefully slapped them down.
A reasonable case can be made about Eisenhower declining or dampening further US interventions in Laos, Vietnam in 1959-1960, and Cuba.
How many presidents since Eisenhower would have eagerly acquiesced to pressure from congress and the pentagon. In my opinion, most, if not all.
Everyone seems to avoid the facts of Cantor's complete obeisance to Israel. Cantor was a chickenhawk neocon. He was always eager to militarily intervene anywhere in the world that Israel pointed him. He backed up his campaign finance truck to Sheldon Adelson, Chaim Saban, and AIPAC. He proclaimed he had Netanyahu's back against Obama, his president. Let's face it, without AIPAC, Cantor would still be chasing ambulances. People are fed up with dual passport holding, Israel Firsters, running our country and shoveling money to Israel, while our schools, roads, infrastructure, veterans, and country in general, goes begging. Let us hope this is a trend.