Bush began this term by claiming the FDR created social security program needed changing. Now Bush has the gall to criticize FDR's foreign policy after WWII. Where the hell does he get off? At a speech given in Riga today, Bush said the following in reference to US contributions to the Soviet take-over of Eastern Europe.
"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."
Obviously, turning over East Europe to the Soviets wasn't an ideal situation. But the US had just completed one leg of a major world war. We simply didn't have the conventional forces to secure all of Europe. We were still providing most of the soldiers in the Pacific at the time. For obvious reasons the Soviets had to invade from the east and the US from the west. By the time the war ended in Japan, the Soviets had already solidified control of Eastern Europe. Taking a hard line against Stalin just would have aggravated the Soviets and probably led to another war on a continent just torn apart by the largest military conflict in human history. You might say, hey we had nuclear weapons and the Soviets didn't. But would dropping atomic bombs in Eastern Europe really have justified securing liberty at the expense of stability? It's sad that Easter Europe had to undergo Communist oppression until the end of the Cold War, but there wasn't really anything the US could have done to prevent it.
Memo to Bush: Shut the fuck up and read your history textbooks before you start politically grandstanding about events you obviously know nothing about to justify wars that are completely unrelated.