Reagan's view of alternative fuels vs *'s view of Iraq's democracy

[zbdent]

Okay, this just occurred to me.

In 1981 or so, David Stockman, Reagan's hand-picked man, eliminated the research into alternative fuels, considering it as a massive boondoggle (read "The Triumph of Politics") and "waste of money". If research actually continued in light of the troubles in the Middle East instead of the "feel-good" about the release of the hostages, then we might actually have made progress on reducing our dependency on oil. Critics of the alternative fuel research were saying it would take too long to achieve too little.

In the first few years after 2000, George W. Bush tries to control Iraq and "bring about democracy in the Middle East" - via war. If, in 2 or 3 centuries time, after repeated failures, there actually arises a democracy of some form, the residents of Dittoheadia will point to "that great prognosticator W" as the architect, despite the fact that he f-cked it up royally.

So, something that actually would do some good for the world is cut because of shortsightedness, and Bush's plan is hailed "despite the naysayers who think it should happen overnight" (when in fact, W and company led the US people to believe that everything would be rose petals and chocolates).

Anybody else see the bloody irony?