Bush Is Running Out of Alibis

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12168 ^

[Sam Gamgee]

Bush has come to believe that the absence of democracy is the cause of terror and democracy its cure. But the cause of terror in the Middle East is the perception there that those nations are held in colonial captivity by Americans and their puppet regimes, and that the only way to expel both is to use tactics that have succeeded from Algeria in 1962 to Anbar province in 2005.

Given the franchise, Arab and Islamic peoples from Pakistan to Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and Egypt have now voted for candidates with two credentials. They seemed to be devout Muslims, and they appeared dedicated to tossing America out of the region and the Israelis into the sea.

With opposition also rising to his free-trade policy, Bush reverted to the same tactic: Caricature and castigate critics of his own failed policies. "Protectionists," said Bush, pretend "we can keep our high standards of living, while walling off our economy."

But it was protectionists from Lincoln to Coolidge who gave us the highest standard of living on earth. And the record of Bush's merry band of free-traders? The largest trade deficits in history, a $200 billion trade surplus for Beijing at our expense in 2005, and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs since Bush first took the oath.

If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis.

[Sam Gamgee]

I know there is a batch of conservatives who love Pat. I guess because Pat styles himself as a true conservative battling the evil phony neo-con. OK, we know Pat is against military intervention. And at the end of this article he says plainly that protectionist is the real way to build wealth. So Pat is no classical liberal, laisse faire, Adam Smith conservative. So what sort of conservative is Pat exactly? He seems to be little more than a God save the King mercantalist - with a little Lawrence of Arabia sentimentality for the Arabs.

[West Coast Conservative]

He's a Paleoconservative.

[pissant]

Pat has become a tired old leftist.

[Sam Gamgee]

Interesting. Does help me understand Pat better. He seems to truly believe he is defending America with his ideas. Although he seems to miss the fact that America was built largely on free trade and in fact fought for the right to free trade.

[Sam Gamgee]

He has gone so right, he is now left? :)

[TheCrusader]

""Bush has come to believe that the absence of democracy is the cause of terror and democracy its cure. But the cause of terror in the Middle East is the perception there that those nations are held in colonial captivity by Americans and their puppet regimes, and that the only way to expel both is to use tactics that have succeeded from Algeria in 1962 to Anbar province in 2005."

I've defended some of Buchanan's ideas before, but this one is beyond the pale. Buchanan is an historian, so I'm wondering why he forgets that islam has been in a perpetual state of terrorism, conquest and barbarism since its founding by mohammed?

Were there Western 'colonialists' in the Middle east when they attacked France in 732 A.D. and conquered most of Spain? Were they pi$$ed off at Western "colonialists" when they demolished the Eastern Roman Empire, and then attacked the West at Lepanto in the 16th century? Buchanan has completely lost his mind, and this comes from a guy who has defended him before. He's nuts.

[pissant]

He's really more a populist, with some conservative leanings and some leftward leanings. He frets about loss of union jobs, large corporations doing business overseas, and free trade, all put him on the left side of the spectrum. His anit-Israel rants make him sound like the euro-leftists (even the modern day US lefties like Pelosi and Hillary pretend they are pro-Israel).

He's an old school realpolitik type. He must think that since we won the cold war, we do not need to promote freedom and individual rights around the world. It was America's leadership on that issue that gave hope the Welensa's and Havel's of the former Soviet Bloc. Just as we are inspiring reformers in the ME today.

[Sam Gamgee]

I use to politely disagree with Pat the same way I would with O'Reilly (getting tired of O'Reilly's silly crusade to get oil companies to "give back" to America). I of course agree with much of Pat's social conservatism and the need to secure the Mexican border. But he is drifting more towards an anti-Israel position, and as you said, outright sympathy with Islam.

I guess, in my opinion, for a real republican based isolationism, you can only maintain the integrity of that position, by declaring indifference to the state of affairs outside the republic. This seems to be how the forefathers justified it. But Pat moves from that to arguing that we are making enemies of a good and peaceful people.

I am not so stupid and one-sided as to suggest the Crusades were a noble act. They had started that way, but in truth many joined simply to grab estates in the holy land. Sadly the Crusaders sacked the great capital of Byzantium. But the Crusades were a response to Islami expansionism. Prior to the time of the Crusades there was not sufficient political unity to even think about defending Christendom.

[Sam Gamgee]

I'd give some credit to Thatcher as well :)

Your addition to West Coast's explanation does make a lot of sense to understanding Pat.

[pissant]

Thatcher, big time. But also Kohl, Mulroney, & Pope JP II.

[Sam Gamgee]

Indeed the Pope's role was truly fundamental. Not familiar with Kohl or Mulroney's role though (me bad since I'm a Canuck).

[pissant]

If I recall, you are fairly young. Must be if you don't remember Mulroney much. LOL

[Tempest]

I consider Pat to be a ClowneoConservative....

[Sam Gamgee]

Yeah, I was in my teens when Mulroney was PM. I can only remember t-shirts with a bid middle finger - aimed at him for the GST. At some point the Tories went red - I don't know if Mulroney took the party to the left or if that came after under Charest. I wasn't all that political in my teens.

[pissant]

I don't know much about his domestic politics, but he was a staunch cold war ally. That counts for alot. Even liberal Tony Blair deserves alot of credit for carrying the mantle of the British Empire proudly.