Mr. Right?

OC Register ^ | 12/7/03 | Steven Greenhut

[NormsRevenge]

I am writing this column to one particular sort of reader. I want as many people as possible to read my column, of course, but this week's essay is geared toward those who insist that President George W. Bush - a man I supported and voted for - is advancing the cause of freedom.

[NormsRevenge]

[ILBBACH]

Are conservatives really surprised at this? This was the platform he ran on in 2000, he's just living up to his campaign promises.

I certainly don't agree with most of his domestic policies, but he can't take all the blame. The RINOs in congress share A LOT of it.

However, I think he is doing a stellar job in his most important task - as that of Commander-in-Chief. This is what he will be judged by and why he will be seen as a great President for this country.

It's kinda hard to squabble over taxes, spending, etc. when you're lying at the bottom of a smoldering pile of rubble!

[MegaSilver]

I will agree with this. And as I've said before, this is all the more reason for us South Park Republicans and arch-conservatives to remain in the GOP.

It is the party's only hope, and it is the only way that we can avoid a huge Democratic defeat. But I fear that the Republican Party may HAVE to suffer a defeat to learn a lesson from this.

WE CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. You all saw how Bill Clinton handled this country. You saw what an embarrassment his legacy was, how he stained the office of the President, and how he set us up for future disaster. DEMOCRATS ARE NOT FIT TO HOLD HIGHER OFFICES IN THIS COUNTRY.

Let's return to our conservative grassroots and not give the Democrats a chance.

[MegaSilver]

I certainly don't agree with most of his domestic policies, but he can't take all the blame. The RINOs in congress share A LOT of it.

Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him??!!

[Restorer]

defense means defense, not offense. American civil liberties must not be endangered by never-ending wars with constantly shifting endposts.

Lovely sentiments.

Now please explain exactly how you think the government should go about defending America in a world in which weapons of mass destruction are inevitably becoming cheaper and more available. What size city do you think it is appropriate we lose before striking back in "defense?"

Any war continues until one of the sides quits fighting. We can declare victory and go home, or we can continue till the other side quits. We do not, unfortunately, have the choice of declaring the war over and making it stick if the other side continues to attack us.

never-ending wars with constantly shifting endposts is an exceptionally good description of the Cold War. Should we have quit fighting it because it didn't fit our pre-determined definition of what a war "should be?"

The Cold War was a new and different type of war, which when it started nobody really knew how to fight. The same is true of the War on Terror (a particularly bad name, BTW). But those who criticize it seldom, if ever, give their alternative strategy.

[Restorer]

America's enemy has changed, but the principles are still the same. It's time for those who had supported the president to make their criticisms heard. If it puts us in league with some scary left-wing loonies, don't worry. Our arguments make sense, and theirs are crazy.

And if those left-wing crazies come to power because we ally with them out of ideological blindness, don't worry about that either. Our arguments are still better than theirs.

Too bad this is reality, not a debating society.

[Erik Latranyi]

I agree completely.

We cannot abandon the GOP, in order to teach some lesson, and allow the Dems to regain power and further condemn this nation to the sinkhole of socialism.

Our side must understand that we cannot win everything in one-shot.

Yes, we have the White House.
Yes, we have the House.
Yes, we have the Senate.

But remember, all three were won by very small margins.

We need to remain united and play for the long-term gains necessary to implement our agenda slowly.

[Steel Wolf]

That's because there is no alternative strategy. You can argue that there would be no difference between Bush or Gore, but regardless, that's the choice.

Despite his spending being out of control, there is tremendous advantage, both culturally, socially and militarily, by have Bush in office. The Democratic party is on death's door, and if it falls, it will create a vacuum in an increasingly conservative nation. By continuing to drive the nation in a favorable direction, he will set the stage for bigger victories for conservative causes down the road.

[Lazamataz]

Mr. Right?

That's me.

[Restorer]

That's because there is no alternative strategy.

I tend to agree, reluctantly. Certainly I don't see anyone promoting one. Just criticizing the effects of Bush's strategy.

I think Bush's biggest mistake is treating this war like it's a side issue that we don't really need to focus our society on. We can go right on with our tax cuts and other affairs and just let the military deal with it. No need for any sacrifice on the part of most Americans.

I have been of the opinion that we must lose a city before we'll take things seriously.

Luckily, the Islamists are incredibly incompetent. For instance, two men in the DC area caused enormous panic with their only resources a rifle and a cheap used car. Surely al Queda (sp?) could put 50 sniper teams into America. What would that do to our economy?

Someone who can shoot a rifle is a lot easier to find than someone who will fly an airplane into a building. I would assume even easier to find than someone who will detonate an explosive vest.

[dion]

Hmmmm this thread is starting to sound like a Dem "ends justify the means/win at all costs" discussion. I thought that we were supposed to be more attached to our values. At least thats what I remember hearing when Democrats were slobbering all over Clinton during his presidency. "We would never ignore or try to justify that kind of behavior." Yet here Bush is making a mockery of one of the major reasons I (and I think many people) vote Republican and I see people saying it doesn't matter. Well it matters to me and I am very upset about it.
We aren't any better than Democrats if we are willing to let Bush add more entitlements and spend this country into endless debt or simply because "he's on our side".

[Steel Wolf]

I think Bush's biggest mistake is treating this war like it's a side issue that we don't really need to focus our society on. We can go right on with our tax cuts and other affairs and just let the military deal with it. No need for any sacrifice on the part of most Americans.

This point will never recieve much public attention, but let me let you in on a point of military interest.

Bush is making a point to the world, and it is being taken in the military circles of our potential enemies. The point is this.

The United States of America can, at any time, and by herself, destroy any other country without inconveniencing ourselves. Our economy is booming, our GDP percentage of military spending is usually lower than theirs, and our population isn't even marginally effected.

That's right. No U.N. No allies. No domestic economic hardships. No social mobilization. No forced conscription. No chance of defeat.

Hell, we'll even cut taxes while we're at it.

Feats of this magnitude serve to demonstrate our power and deter potential aggressors like North Korea. We are are able to do everything at once and win. By removing victory as an option for our opponents, compromise and negotiation look far more attractive.

[Restorer]

You have a good point, there. AlthoughI suspect there is just as much chance of such a demonstration of overpowering might leading to an increase in suicidal hatred.

My concern is not whether America will intimidate our enemies by this strategy. My concern is that it lulls ordinary Americans into complacency. The lack of a followup attack since 9/11 has led to a lot of Americans drifting back into old habits.

[caltrop]

The alternative strategy is to stay out of the ethnic and religious conflicts that characterize the Middle East. By insinuating ourselves into their conflicts we're seen as (and do) take sides. Whichever side we're not on sees extending the war to the US and its interests as part of their conflict. There's nothing in the Middle East worth an American sprained ankle except oil - which, whoever's running things, they'll continue selling us as their only source of currency. Leave them alone to kill each other. After killing infidels, it's what they like to do best.

[Erik Latranyi]

Dion:

You sound like a plant. The Dems defended Clinton regardless of the laws he broke or the lies he spread.

Bush did not deceive anyone. He made it clear that he was in favor of a prescription drug benefit.

Bush is still much more in line with our way of thinking than any Dem or any other party candidate.

While Bush does not move the conservative football as far or as fast as some would like, he is moving it.

I personally think Bush is positioning the party to cut the rug out from under the Dems feet in 2004 and 2006 so the Reps are positioned to move on their agenda without threat of fillibuster, etc.

Rep credibility will come on issues like Medicare, Education, Social Security. Credibility we can use in the future to modify those programs and make them more free-market oriented.

[Erik Latranyi]

Caltrop:

You are wrong. Unless we involve ourselves into the Middle East, we will suffer more attacks, on their terms.

Now, we have the advantage, we can press it and the terrorists will be hard-pressed to attack us.

Secondly, by creating a free Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, we will offer the average Muslim hope and the ability to own property, create wealth and share in the human dream of freedom.

[caltrop]

If your forecast had any chance of becoming reality I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, I can't see our action in Iraq as anything but a fool's errand. In the end, I think we're looking at three separate states (any one of which - or all three of which - may be a mess) in the current Iraq or, if held together, one awful mess. In the process we've accelerated nuclear proliferation, emboldened our adversaries and weakened our defenses at huge cost.

I argued against our War in Iraq from the earliest discussion on the subject. So far, the war's proponents are the ones who've had it wrong. That isn't likely to change. You may, however, be assured that the administration will call it a victory even if it continues to be a costly disaster. The one positive thus far, from my perspective, is that everyone recognizes that attacking Iran and Syria are now off the table as completely unrealistic.

[dion]

Excuse me? I'm a plant because I don't wish to look the other way while a Republican president puts through entitlement programs that are exactly the type of things we would criticize the Democrats for doing? What good is it to have party principles if we don't live by them? I thought it was disgusting when NOW looked the other way at Clinton's transgressions and I don't think it looks any better when Republicans do it.

I like Bush and am very glad that he is in charge during this time, however, I am very disappointed in him on this issue. And even more disappointed to see people in the Republican party suggest giving him a pass on it.

[LibertarianInExile]

Communing with cactus roots in Arizona.

[Restorer]

The alternative strategy is to stay out of the ethnic and religious conflicts that characterize the Middle East.

This is the idea that they are attacking us because we are interfering in their business, and if we just let them alone, they will leave us alone.

Nice idea, and one I would be all for. However, it runs into the unfortunate fact that all the rhetoric of the Islamists disagrees with this conclusion. Their goal is to destroy the West and convert it to (their brand of) Islam. Any "leaving them alone" will be seen - by them - as merely our weakness, encouraging them to attack us more.

Leave them alone to kill each other. After killing infidels, it's what they like to do best.

Unfortunately, we're infidels. They'd rather kill us, given the opportunity. I'd like to see them denied that opportunity. I see no way to do that other than to take the fight to them. For people who are willing to blow themselves up for the cause, deterrence obviously doesn't work. The only thing that does work is to kill them first.