Republicans: Cheer Bush... Blame Obama....

What makes Republicans so hard for me to listen to these days is that they are often critical of Obama for doing some of the very same things that they cheerleaded President Bush on.

Let's examine an opinion piece written by Kathleen "KT" McFarland published at foxnews.com.

So that no one doubts her Republican credentials, she ran as a Republican for the Senate seat that was eventually won by Hillary Rodham Clinton. The title of her article is "Obama Can't Have It All When It Comes to Iraq and Afghanistan"

My first thought is, "Did she say that about President Bush?" After all, isn't he the reason we are in both places?

You can find a Republican on occasion who will say that they disagreed with Bush on some of his policies, but I don't recall many of them penning articles and being so vocal about their displeasure. No Republican can hold much sway with me on a piece like this until they a) acknowledge the failures of Bush and b) explain a better course of action.

Ms. McFarland brings up some military expenses that may not - emphasis on may not - be accounted for in the Obama budget.

There will be additional spending needed to pay for Obama’s ‘soft power’ plans. In that part of the world, money talks. General Petraeus has indicated we will push for a Sunni Awakening-type effort with the Afghan tribes. That it will require additional monies and outlays to the tribal leaders to pay for their militias, and regional reconstruction programs. So, in fact, Obama will have to increase defense spending, not cut it, if he plans to ramp up in Afghanistan.

The President has promised to put up a website to lists all expenditures from the stimulus package. End no bid contracts in Iraq. And actually include the cost of war in the budget instead of using an accounting trick to keep it separate, and Republicans still find ways to accuse the new administration of being dishonest and not transparent. She may be correct in that there may be some unforeseen expenses, but that is quite a bit different from excluding war expenses in the budget as Bush had done.

Let's not overlook the PS she uses to end her article:

PS: By the way, Mr. President. Your pledge to cut ‘unnecessary’ weapons systems is probably a good idea, but it will also eliminate alot of AMERICAN jobs. Oops.

She offers no counter proposal. Does she think we should continue to make these unnecessary weapons to keep these jobs? It's a good idea, but oops? What was the point of saying that?

The arguments of Republicans would carry more weight if they start off by acknowledging the policies of the new president that are indeed a marked improvement over the old and offer alternatives to the policies they disagree with. But to do that would put their petty nitpicking into proper perspective.