Posted on 07/22/2006 8:45:38 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush ran for office as a "compassionate conservative." And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.
But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism. CBS Evening News Saturday anchor Thalia Assuras sat down for an exclusive interview with William F. Buckley about his disagreements with President Bush.
William F. Buckley's Stamford, Conn., home is a tranquil place that allows Buckley to think and write, and spend time with his canine companion, Sebastian.
"He's practically always with me," Buckley says.
Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," Buckley says.
Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq. ... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."
Despite evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and expertise to Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel, Buckley rejects neo-conservatives who favor a more interventionist foreign policy than he does, including a pre-emptive air strike against Iran — and its nuclear facilities.
"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"
Buckley does support the administration's approach to the North Korea's nuclear weapons threat, believing that working with Russia, China, Japan and South Korea is the best way to get Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. But that's about where the agreement ends.
"Has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?" Assuras asks.
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge," Buckley says.
Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. … So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"
At 81, Mr. Buckley still continues to contribute a regular column to the National Review, the magazine he started 51 years ago.
No. My Dad died about eight years ago.
Here in the Eastern Time Zone it's morning, so I'm up early. The teleconferences begin soon with the Europeans.
>>>>Name one thing Reagan did that GW hasn't done ...
That's easy.
President Reagan won the Cold War, dismantled the Soviet Empire and the communist Eastern Bloc, freeing 500 million people from totalitarian rule, rebuilt the US military, revived the US economy from the worst conditions since the Great Depression, cut federal income taxes 25% across the board, reducing the top tax rates from 70% to 28%, reduced welfare state and non-defense discreationary spending, and reduced federal regulations like no POTUS before or since. Reagan also proposed and advanced the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka."STAR WARS". Reagan also negotiated historic reductions in the strategic nuclear weaponry of the worlds two super powers. Reagan should have won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in ending the Cold War. In addition, Reagan was America's first pro-life President, post Roe v Wade. Reagan actually advanced the idea of a Constitutional amendment, for the right to life of the unborn. Read Reagan's essay/book, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation".
Finally. If it wasn't for President Ronald Reagan there would be no conservative movement today, no Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America, and no 43rd President called George W. Bush.
PS- Reagan didn't cut and run under fire in Beirut. You've been spreading that lie around FR for years. Reagan never raised income taxes either. And after eight years as Governor of California, Reagan left office with a huge surplus in excess of $500 million.
Oh really? After the Marine Barracks he boogied out within a week. give me a break. Yes I will give him credit for the Cold war but he damn near blew it at Reykjavik.
Link to that surplus please.
Oh, please. This is the pathetic "nuclear devices can only be delivered by ICBM" argument. Cargo container can deliver the same nuclear devices, much cheaper and more reliably, and can do it today. Or the terrorists can make kamikazi runs with cargo planes containing the devices. They will have plenty of volunteers for such missions, itching to shout "Allahu Akhbar!" seconds before detonation.
Forget the delivery methods, terrorist supporting states simply cannot be allowed to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, period. If the islamofascists acquire the devices, Israel will be hit, and we will be hit. Beyond the toll of the immediate damage, there will be an exodus from our urban centers, the value of urban real estate will collapse, our economy will take a hell of a hit, and things will go downhill from there. This must, must, must be prevented. It will not be prevented by sitting in our lounge chairs and stroking our chins.
would CBS have sat down with Buckley in his comfortable Stamford home had he only praise for President Bush?
Some more history for you.
Reagan ordered fighter attacks from the aircraft carriers Independence and Kennedy, launched attacks against terrorist sights in Lebanon in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing. Reagan also ordered the USS New Jersey to shell terrorists outposts within Lebanon. Terrorist installations were damaged and some of the enemy was killed.
So Reagan did stand up to the terrorists. What Reagan didn't do, was exacerbate the civil war that was going on in Beirut and all of Lebanon at that time. There were also geopolitical circumstances to consider that involved the Soviets and their support of Syria. An all out war wasn't in the cards.
Reagan came into office as Governor of California with a huge deficit. IIRC, he left office with a $550 million surplus. Look it up yourself, mister liberal and Reagan hater.
Capital gains tax is now 15% not 20. That's more than 3% cut.
Dividend tax is now 15% not marginal rate. That's more than a 3% cut.
There are more types of IRAs. Those are all tax cuts of more than 3%.
IRA terminal age of distribution has gone from 110 years to just about infinity, at least more than 3%
Death tax has gone down more than 3% and the amount of personal wealth retained before inheritance tax kicks in is more than a 3% increase.
Fewer people even pay income tax; at least 3+% fewer.
I know there are more.
yitbos
Spending
In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Killing 241 Marines was an act of war. He had the obligation to treat it as such and his actions are a direct link to the problems we are facing with the Middle East today. He won a COLD war BUT Bush is fighting a HOT war due in large part because of the malfeasance of prior presidents, including Reagan and now we have Russia making noise again and acting exactly the way they were when Reagan was supposed to be defeating hem but failing to rid them of their nukes..
That was one whopping whiney post, Mr. Elitist J145. Let's see if you honor your word and ignore all these 'irrelevant' people. LOL!
There was no call for an all out war after the Beirut bombing. Since you obviously weren't around back then, I'll excuse your ignorance. Fact is, its easy for you liberal-libertarians, to employ 20/20 hindsight in taking cheap pot shots at the Reagan record and legacy, while completely ignoring the historic events of the 1980`s.
BS. There should not have need to be a general call he should have done what Bush did and LEAD.
"All of us would that does'nt mean we can't vent."
I've never said otherwise. I've vented about Presidents unchecked spending and immigration policies, to mention a few
I remember Buckley defending capital punishment in his column and in his magazine.
Apparently the usual band of FReepers would be quite pleased if that were indeed the case. They seem to want to squelch certain Conservative voices. This past year it has been like watching a dynamic dominos show. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Hannity, Coulter, Levin, Schlafly, Buckley, et al. I guess George W. Bush does have a legacy after all, Mr. Buckley. He has 'redefined' conservatism.
conservatism
n: a political or theological orientation advocating sheep-like behavior and opposing any who dare question the policies of the individual elected to lead
OH cut the crap. I was in church with my wife and 2 kids and the Pastor announced the bombing from the pulpit. The next week Reagan invaded Grenada for God's sake.
That's " ....play in Peoria"
The phrase initially came into fashion during the vaudeville era, believed to have been first asked by Groucho Marx when putting together a new act. The belief was that if a new show was successful in Peoria, it would work anywhere in America.
(My name is Bob, and I am hopelssly picayune.)
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.