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.
Yes, what *are* you talking about? I just read WhiteGuy's post you were replying to, and I don't see one mention of anything having to do with 9/11?
I guess ignorance is bliss, but blatantly unfair.
But then, that's life.
If the President chooses to do the right thing and not articulate his views more forcefully, he pays the price.
The media has no qualms about outright lies.
You may well be right. I sure hope you aren't...but Islamic nations have a 0% success ratio in the democracy dept. ( Turkey is somewhat democratic/ Islamic)
Article below buttresses your POV
"AMIR TAHERI'S REMARKS AT DEBATE "ISLAM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY"
http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=4462
.
>...."we've tied our *own* hands* behind our back now that we're there....<
- I agree with your point about poltical correctness tying the hands of our soldiers. I'm hearing more and more about that. In fact, a guy who was very articulate discussed this problem on the Rush Limbaugh show the other day... he sounded very well informed. If that's the case, then our efforts in Iraq are in serious touble. Regards
Well, the Iraqi Constitution forbids any law that contradicts the teachings of Islam. If that clause stays, you can forget about democratic representation, women's rights, monogamy, free economics, almost any trait of the free world and replace it with terrorism, extremism, totalitarianism, abuse of human rights, and probably another secret weapons program in the hands of a power-hungry dictator with the "word of God" on his side to rally the ignorant Muslim masses.
Turkey is a unique case, but it's really only considered democratic by the European/U.N. definition of democratic, which is any nation that pays out enough to cover their crimes and persuade the U.N. to look the other way.
Yes, mother...
This being an imaginary line, it can go on forever, but regardless, there is a middle point.
From this middle, the further you go to the left, the more extreme the occupants appear (same as going to the far right).
Question - Where do you put yourself on this line?
Answer - most everyone believes they are near the middle, for the Democrats they may think they are a little to the left, but but still near the center, same for Republicans.
So, if we each feel we are in (or near) the center, and that is how we view the world. Unless someone thinks excactly like we do, they are on one extreme or the other.
Is this administration conservative, well it depends on where you are standing on the line. To our friends on the far right, no. To our friends on the far left yes.
When someone on this forum complains that President Bush is not a conservative, it tells me more about them, then it does about President Bush.
The President of the United States is not a dictator. I think I need to repeat this, because there are some who from their complaint give the impression a President can do get anything they want by just saying that is what he wants done. The Presidents is not a dictator. He has to convince people to do what he wants. He has the power of the bully pulpit, and this can be effective, but not always.
Everyone in Washington, from the members of Congress, to their staff, to the lobbiest to the unkown workers in the various departments in our goverments all have an agenda.
Anyone that has ever dealt with office polictics can understand how someone who does not want something done can muck up the works.
So President is not conservative, what the writer should say is the President is not as conserative as me.
There is a shift in the polictical landscape. The exteme left wing element of the Democrat party has gained control of the party. This does not sit well with those Democrats who hold view we would call moderate, or in the middle. They are finding they have more in common with Republicans then Democrats, and they are changing parties.
They have changed their party but not their views. These new Republicans are moving the center towards the left.
So, if I concede that President Bush is not as conservative as I am, and he is not doing everything I would like him to do, what do I do?
Vote for a Democrat? Not likely.
Don't vote, this will have the same effect as voting for a Democrat.
There is not much I can do but vote for the candidate that best represents my views knowing they will not match 100%.
If and when the Democrat party finally goes the way of the Whigs, and a new conservative party is formed, I will gladly join, but not until the stake has been driven through the heart of the Democrat party.
You're welcome, child.
Thank you for the ping. Couldn't have stated it better myself.
Borders are like a sieve. Govt. spending is way up. Bush calls the minutemen "vigilantes". We have a democrat in the WH! Yet the Bushbots just nod yes and repeat over and over Bush good....bush good....FOOLS!!!!!!
Oh good lord.
I guess the UN propping up a brutal dicatator through the bribed filled oil for food scam is just okey dokey for you.
Actually the NEA hates it because Bush's name is on it. Dont be fooled the NEA really loves this socialist plan!!
Exhibit A: Click.
Talking about what was not mentioned in the 9/11 report, you suggested that people Google the name "William Rodgriguez." A subsequent search of his name brings you every damn kook conspiracy site you can name, explaining that the explosions heard in the WTC where he worked sounded like they came from beneath him, even though he was already in the friggin basement.
So, you think 9/11 was an inside job? You like to point others towards those who think it was.
"Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000"
Oh, another of those 9/10 guys.
If they got that, they'd explain that the Senators need bigger staffs to even get any government-cutting bills into the preliminary stages of somebody thinking about eventually scribbling notes for drafting one.
More BIG GOVERNMENT. The fact that the Pubbies had the political ability to pass it proves that they COULD cut government... if they had the slightest intention of doing so.
I see, you're changing the subject.
No problem.
You may believe or disbelieve anything you read at "every damn kook conspiracy site" at your pleasure.
I don't believe I ever represented that the events of 911 were an "inside job".
Many people do believe that the 911 commission failed to get to the bottom of the matter.
You may doubt the credibility of Mr. Rodriguez if you so desire.
Sure thing, "homey."
Brilliant response
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.