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 Presidents international and domestic policies. While liberals like Kevin Drums commenters are quick to gloat about Bainbridges 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:
Its 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 Iraqs alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why arent 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 Saddams cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why arent 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.
If confused people knew they were confused, they wouldn't be so confused.
If he would just answer that, then he could go on being confused, and I wouldn't care. :)
I will henceforth disregard what you say, since you have made accusations which make no sense, and then refused to clarify after repeated requests (I'm quite sure you have me confused with another poster, but aren't willing to admit your mistake).
You said I brought a subject up that I clearly did NOT, and when I asked you where or when, and you couldn't answer (because I in fact didn't bring it up), you evaded and accused.
After all this time that you've had to come up with a direct reply, you come back to insult and evade once again.
Back to the issue. The idea that President Bush is 'bankrupting' the conservative movement is utterly preposterous. This now dated article is absurd and nonsensical...........which is why, I assume, you posted it.
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.