Even on my worst days I'm brilliant, "homeboy."
Posted on 08/24/2005 1:15:06 AM PDT by Dr. Marten
Conservative lawblogger Stephen Bainbridge is getting a lot of what they call in Washington “strange new respect” for his strongly-worded criticism of the President’s international and domestic policies. While liberals like Kevin Drum’s commenters are quick to gloat about Bainbridge’s lament, and more tellingly, some Bush backers have accused Bainbridge of recycling leftist cant, Bainbridge has rather solidly made a conservative — not leftist, not paleocon — case against President Bush:
It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
He continues with a critique of the shifting rationales for the Iraq War and asks,
…if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
Though Bainbridge is spot-on in his analysis of the terrible miscalculations made by Bush and Rumsfeld during the war in Iraq, I take issue with his characterization of the war as the reason Bush and the Republican Party have abandoned domestic conservatism. In fact, a strong case can be made that Bush, Rove, and Congressional Republicans had no intention to advance a domestic conservative agenda in the first place.
Even on my worst days I'm brilliant, "homeboy."
As Abraham Lincoln said, "One war at a time". Why Iraq first? Well, if you accept the premise that the area of operations in the war against terrorism is the Middle East, then it becomes obvious. Just look at a map - Iraq is easily the most strategic place from with to direct military operations against the middle east and the most strategic place to establish democracy in the hopes that it will expand outward.
It's called being a chicken (note.......ad hominem attack ;)
It's so easy for libs to hide among the ultracons around here.........because they agree with each other.
This war started back in the 70's with the fall of the Shah in Tehran. It continued all the way through the 80's and President Reagan did not respond appropriately, when he pulled our Marines out of Lebanon, just as Clinton pulled out of Somalia. Both these actions were considered signs of weakness by the Islamo-terrorists.
Having said that, if President Bush doesn't stop being PC about Islamic extremism, then he won't come close to Reagan's confronting the "evil empire".
Do You Now Feel Safer? by Daniel Pipes
Here's a tribute to Ronald Reagan by Amir Taheri, that you might enjoy:
SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE (tribute to Ronald Reagan; by Amir Taheri)
Interesting. I haven't heard much about what's in their new proposed constitution.
IIRC, Reagan knew the use of "VETO".
Another view of the proposed Iraqi Constitution.
READ IT AND DON’T WEEP [Rich Lowry ] A cooler head following the process closely sends along these points about the Iraqi constitution, at least as of Sunday evening (it’s obviously a moving target):
-- The Afghanistan Constitution contains strong Islam-based provisions, including a blanket provision saying: ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ But the Afghan constitution also contains strong human rights protections and is facilitating the emergence of a peaceful and vibrant democracy.
--The Iraq draft appears to be similar. In addition to the broad bill of rights, our translation of the Islam provision states that ‘no law shall be enacted that contradicts [Islam’s] established provisions, the principles of democracy, [or] the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution.’ This is actually a better formulation than Afghanistan’s model.
-- The same provision also protects ‘all the religious rights of all individuals in the freedom of belief and religious practice’ – a provision consistent with international standards and identical to the widely praised Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the interim constitution signed by the Iraq Interim Governing Council in 2004. -- In addition, Islam is declared to be ‘a’ – not ‘the’– source of legislation, a victory to secularists and roughly in line with the TAL formulation.
--Finally, we are confident that the final interpreters of the Iraqi constitution will be non-religious based courts and the elected legislature – not unelected clerics
Southack, can you post your incredibly long list of the President's conservative accomplishments in 4+ years in office?
This is clearly a case of saying there is no forest, while analyzing the bark of the trees......
"like to use the phrase 'ad hominem attacks' when they come up against arguments they can't refute."
What's to refute when nobody offers arguments...only name calling.
Duh.
Sheesh, this guy is as nutty as Pat Robertson. I think they should both shut up.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. For the most part, this article is the ravings of a lunatic.
I'm sure you know that not everyone cooperated with, was friends with and trusted Reagan. The left hated him with a passion, and still does.
ping
What ? Is DU off line today ?
Crawl back under your hole Dane....
I agree.
I think one reason conservatives are not all sunshine and flowers over Bush is because so many of us see the very deep, chasm-like problems that need strong changes to turn around. And they are not even talked about.
So much of what goes on and is said in DC is just re-arranging the deck chairs.
And I do believe it isn't so much out of fear of voters (I think the loud cheer if they cut the above programs you mentioned would reach DC from out here) but to please fellow professional politicians. They care more about each others' opinions (I'll scratch my back if you scratch mine; gotta play the game once you're elected) than the people who voted them into office.
This is not an 'ad hominem' attack, nor is it 'name calling.' It is YOU who offered no argument.
Duh.
"...But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go....."~ Thoms Jefferson
(Excerpt from letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, "Sectionalism and the Missouri Compromise," 22 April 1820)
Thanks for the info and the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.