Replies

Stinson makes some reasonable statements, but his criticism of the war with Iraq is over the top.

Our hand was pretty much forced there, given the ceasefire agreement Saddam had made, and his violations of that ceasefire.
Plus, everyone thought Saddam had WMD's, and he was in fact working on getting them. In addition, Saddam was hosting a number of well known terrorists and their organizations.
If anything, Bush should have made a stronger case about Saddam's terrorism ties and the WMD's less of an issue.

However, Pres. Bush has proved he is not a fiscal conservative. He has never vetoed a spending package, not even once.

As to abortion, the President has in fact help protect the unborn, by signing the ban on partial birth abortion.

However, last year the President also signed H.R. 4818, which authorized 288 million for family planning projects, (Title X funding) which also fully funded Planned Parenthood.

I'd say Bush has done well in some areas, and poorly in others. He definitely has done well in the WOT, that can't be denied. Establishing a democracy in the heart of Islamofacsist dictatorships? ...No small feat there. Quite comparable to Ronald Reagan bringing down the Berlin wall.

His biggest failures?
Lack of any kind of coherent immigration policy and any serious IRS/ progressive income tax reform...

-Regarding the IRS, and income tax reform, both Bush and the Republicans have done virtually nothing to revamp our overly complex tax system or defang the IRS.

Meanwhile, the well thought out Fair Tax has been waiting in the wings. It would bring both foreign and domestic investment back to the U.S, and it would also eliminate some incentive for hiring illegal aliens under the table.

His Presidency like most, is a mixed bag.

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.

couldn't have said it better myself.

I received a call the other day from the National Republican Party asking for money. The poor guy got an ear-full from me. All of my years working in politics to help get Republicans in the majority, and look what they do! so "sweetie, sweetie", just "getting along" with the dems! I've had it with them rubbing elbows with the enemy. They've all got a limited amount of time to prove themselves--or they're out!!

I think your post is well-thought out and I agree with about all of it. It is difficult to veto legislation when your party controls Congress and not lose support there. I do think that we focus too much on the here and now sometimes, and forget the bigger picture. I don't think Bush has that problem. Spending is much too high, and wasteful, but that train is hard to stop. Given Bush's current popularity figures and the war on terrorism (and the asinine attacks on Bush because of it) he may not have the political capital he needs to deal with some of these issues. I don't know what his excuse is regarding immigration policy. He may be sucking the dems in on that one, as they are willing to take ANY position contrary to what they think Bush's is. If he turns and adopts the positions on immigration that dems are beginning to say they hold, the dems will be hard pressed to argue (but they will still do it).

What democracy? Iraq is on it's way to becoming a nation under rule of Islam, a sure-fire start to another dictatorship. Wow, what an improvement. A secular terrorist dictatorship to an Islamic fake democracy. How many elections until an "Allah's voice" candidate gets in office and starts dissolving the voting process because "Allah" disapproves? And then claims to be following God's wishes when he starts taking in extremists, attacking neighbors, and pursuing nuclear weapons? Oops, all we have is a more religious Saddam Hussein!

And our hand may have been force going in, but we've tied our *own* hands* behind our back now that we're there. American soldiers are dying because we can't conduct air strikes on terrorist camps, and force our troops not to retaliate to bullets being fired from mosques, because it's okay for a few dozen soldiers to die as long as a shot-up mosque doesn't appear on the evening news! We try to hold cities while leaving borders wide open for the terrorist reinforcements to come right across!

We were right to go in, but now we're playing politics instead of war, and Americans are dying because of it. Bush is no hero.

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.

"Establishing a democracy in the heart of Islamofacsist dictatorships? ...No small feat there."

...and it is far from clear that democracy in Iraq will last. I suspect that unless we are there, democracy will fail. Hopefully I'm wrong, but one can't really overestimate the depravity of the Arab mind.

I submit that WE would have been better off if:

* We pursued the Iraq war for their oil.

* We left Saddam in place to fight Iran (ala the 1980's) and perhaps Saudi Arabia

* We precipitated and encouraged a Civil War in Iraq

Of course, I do not address the morality of pursuing these policies, but if I were to look at what would be in the best interests of America (not anyone else), any one of the above policies could be taken advantage of to our benefit against the WOT.

Establishment of an Islamic state, even if democratic, is not in America's best interest, I don't think.

I also don't think we can afford the fiscal cost of pursuing a democracy in Iraq over the long term.

So addressing the practical issues, I think in the end the Iraq war has been a mistake and will be shown to be so by the establishment of a state that is equally tyrannical to Saddam, within a short period of time after our departure.