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.
Always blame someone else to divert attention from your own failings. The sign of an ideology gone astray.
That's a funny statement in light of the article you posted.
Thanks FBD,
I'm glad to see that some people are able to argue their points instead of just slinging personal attacks.
I have mixed thoughts on the war in Iraq myself. I supported the invasion, but not for the reasons the Bush Administration gave the American public. I just didn't see a strong enough case made for it.
Second, The war was poorly planned. Once again our soldiers were sent to fight a war that has been managed by politically correct politicians instead of Generals.
Where's the exit strategy?
I wouldn't be so quick to call it a Democracy, either. The Administration itself has admitted to having lesser expectations on that one and they've yet to agree on a constitution yet.
Personally, I would have waged a war on illegal immigration before I sent our soldiers into Iraq. Saddam wasn't an immediate threat to the US, yet we have Mexican soldiers firing on our border patrol officers, let alone the fact that the Mexican government supports illegal border crossing by providing how-to-do booklets to its citizens. Are these not acts of war?
That being said, I do believe that Saddam had to be dealt with. Unfortunately the entire world somehow thinks the responsibility of bringing peace to the Middle-East should fall on the shoulders of the United States and in order for that to happen Saddam had to be removed. He was a major source of the instability in the region by providing rewards to the families of homicide bombers in Israel and as long as that continued there would never be peace. Now that he is gone the homicide bombings have stopped, cease-fires have taken the place of tit-for-tat attacks, the West Bank is being handed over to the Palestinians and headway is being made for peace.
I don't believe any of that would have been possible if Saddam were still in power.
"That's a funny statement in light of the article you posted."
Care to explain how?
Sounds like McClellan before Richmond. BTW, this Dane sounds like an IBM punch-card. Cindy Sheehan this, Michael Moore that yadda yadda yadda...
Can you point out the origional thought here?
Some day so called conservatives will stop eating their young. No one is conservative enough. I think many are really libertarians who will never be satisfied, no matter what, since they can see little through the smoke.
Reagan, who we all worship, grew gov faster and larger than Bush. He did it on purpose, to get what he wanted done since he did not have congress. Bush had the same problem all through his first term.
Look at the difference between Bush's ability to shift congress to pubs and Reagan's. Look at the social legislation passed. Look at the shift in the judiciary. Bush has staying power in the war on terror. Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon. Bush has reduced the size of the debt during his term in spite of the war and gas prices. When history gives its true verdict, he will be honored as a decent, steadfast, President in the same hall as Reagan, Lincoln and the rest of the great ones.
Occasionally people here on FR sound like they should be at du: continually in bitch mode because the sand in the box is not arranged just the way they want it, so they won't play. Be happy you have a box to play in. Think Clinton when the dems made it a kitty litter box and we could only watch while they fouled it.
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?
The answer to all 4 is "no"
It polite to include a FReeper in the "To:" box when referring to them.
How is the securing of our southern border coming along? Why is Bush promising the Palistinians hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, rewarding their murder of Israeli women and children over the years in establishing their non-existent "homeland" after every Arab country kicked out this scum? Inquiring minds want to know.
A good analysis of the slimy Republican that currently occupies the Oval Office.
Well, what's YOUR explanation for the shifting reasons for going to war in Iraq. Wouldn't you like to get the real reason, whatever it is?
I do support our efforts over there, by the way, because giving in to these terrorists is unacceptable to me. However, it would be nice if W would level with Americans, once and for all, on why we're over there.
The guy sounds like cindy sheehan.
I find your inability to distinguish between conservative critiques of Bush's Iraq policy and the choo-choo-chugging-round-the-bend rantings of Cindy Sheehan disturbing. Nowhere in this article have I found a statement that the terrorists are freedom fighters, as Cindy Sheehan has opined.
Guess he feels we'd have been so much better off with Monsieur Kerreeeee.
And let's not forget Reagan raising taxes on corporations, which effectively sunk the first Bush presidency with that slowdown in the economy.
We've lost the willpower to get things done in this war.
Iraq will become an Islamist state with a false democracy because we just want a consitution done with so we can save political face.
We won't bomb terrorist camps in Syria because the U.N. might send us more nasty letters.
We continue to capitulate to Saudi Arabia.
Illegitimates ("Palestinians", as they are so called) are being rewarded for murder of Jews with land, and we're somehow proud of it.
Not to mention the domestic abuses:
Continuing interference by the federal government to expand and expand public education.
Not a single breath on border control but plenty of words on guest workers.
A federal budget that continues to be out of control.
The Department of Homeland Security adds another level of bureaucratic nonsense to defending our country.
Airport security federalization has still not been overturned.
The Supreme Court emminent domain case has gone vocally unopposed except for a very few exceptions.
I could go on forever. Where's Bush's thoughts on these issues in between touting guest worker programs and sugarcoating Iraq?
(BTW, you can hold off on the "terrorist supporter!" shrieks, because I was a whole-hearted supporter of the Iraq situation until a few days ago when this Islamist law crap started coming up, and Bush and Republicans are still acting like everything's all rosy. Congrats boys, let's just throw away the accomplishments of our fallen.)
Relying on the "The other guy would've been worse" argument is what allows the GOP to continue to beat us like abused wifes. If they feel they can nominate ANYONE just because we won't vote Democrat, what effort will they expend to make sure the candidate is an actual conservative? They don't want that.
And do not forget that Reagan did not avenge our Marines!!!!!!!!
I thought that's what Granada was for? /s
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.