..
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.
Mr. Buckley is, of course, correct.
I knew Bush wasn't a true conservative in 2000, but I nevertheless supported him, because the alternative was too horrible to consider. He was passably conservative on enough issues, in my opinion, and when he selected Cheney as his running mate, I figured he was all right.
As to the war, I was ambivalent about it up to the moment we invaded. Once that was done, though, we were committed, and have to remain so until the job is done, in my opinion. Bickering about it accomplishes little, and detracts from the ability of the military to succeed. I wonder if Buckley is critical of the idea of the war, or the way it has been fought. There are, I think, some legitimate criticisms there.
Regardless, overall, Bush has been at the very least, a caretaker for the conservative movement, and has been good in a few spots (sanctity of human life, epecially), decent enough in several others (tax policy and economic growth), despite his shortcomings (spending, size of government).
Bush deserves credit where credit is due, but let's not go overboard and make him out to be some kind of conservative icon, which he is not, and has never been.
I forgot to mention that Bush has also been very good on judicial appointments, save the Harriet Myers fiasco.
He does propose and issue a a budget, no? And in those budgets, he has steadily increased funding. He then issues those proposed budgets and the meager Republican hacks in congress that then approve his budget. So, as much as you are right that he doesn't issue the money, he does set the guidelines for spending.
------------------------------------
Ah, but all those freepers are so much smarter than dim-bulb Buckley don't you know, you can tell by the reasoned, researched, cogent and comprehensive refutations.
..
You're understanding is dead on.
Buckley was Wills mentor at the National Review.
who ya gonna call when ya wanna bust a liberal?
"So, Thank you MV, for posting CONTEXT."
You are quite welcome. I just hope others realize that the reporters are taking liberties with Buckley's words.
Great graphic of Will. I've gotten several responses to my post. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that about Will. Apparently not.
You may not regard Bush as a conservative, but he has pulled a lot of the world into conservative government.
I agree with all you said. I think Bush is a brand of conservative. he just isn't Buckley's brand! He is a big government conservative, not a small government version.
Enough said about WFB.
You're idea that Rush was one of the major causes of the politic change is right on. He used WFB's pattern and presented it to the public in a way most of us could understand, over the airwaves. Both men are a gift and I appreciate them equally.
FMCDH(BITS)
Kudos to Buckley for not fearing to speak the truth.
I've never had any use for Buckley. I find his demeanor haughty, pretentious and distracting. I find his statements confusing. I have no idea what his point was above for example.
Great Presidents make ambitious statements like Reagan's "Tear down this Wall". Was Reagan too ambitious? Clearly now even the MSM agrees there is an Axis of Evil consisting of Iran, NK and Iraq. Apparently Buckley finds stating the obvious to be "ambitious"? Its too early to judge Bush's legacy but whatever it is it will be tied to the Axis of Evil.
And if it 'played in Peoria' there was no chance it would be 'banned in Boston.' Of course being banned in Boston (how times have changed!) was often considered good for box office back in the days when "Lady Chatterly's Lover" was an underground 'dirty' book.
We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16425
Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.
For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
Buch opposed California Proposition 187.
As for sounding like Buchanan, Pat may be wrong on many issues and is inflammatory on others, but he was right about Bush's domestic policy.
He is very conservative in the most important thing: judges. Especially in his Supreme Court appointments.
Judges?
Spending is a given. Refusing to defend the border and pouring money into a country that hates us doesn't help.
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.