Posted on 04/28/2007 8:08:08 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
The Waning of the GOP
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.
Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established.
It isn’t that Tenet now doubts the lethality of the terrorists. What he disputed was an organizational connection which argued for war against Iraq as if Iraq were a vassal state of al Qaeda.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
You said — “By his logic, all these measures should become reality?”
Not “should” — but rather “will become reality” if you have the support of the people for it and the legislators in Congress to do it. And you see..., that’s the problem here, with this Iraq involvement..., the larger majority of the people in this country do not seem to want it. That’s the basic problem
You said — “I would say that 100% of Americans want this war over, me included. The question is when and how to get to that conclusion. I don’t think 60% of the people agree on that.”
Well, then let’s say that the troops will be involved in fighting these things (that they are now) for the next 10 years, plus the fact that we’ll have bases and troops in there for the next 30 years.
I think that’s more realistic. And so, if that’s what we’re looking at (and it’s very reasonable to say that (given the state of affairs with the Iraqis being able to manage things themselves, with the legislature, with the infracstructure, with the Iraqi army, with the Iraqi police force, with Iran exporting terrorists into Iraq, with Al Qaida sending in terrorists) — if that is the situation — then are people going to want to stay another ten years and bases for another 30 or so?
I don’t think so. Therefore — if — this is what it’s going to be perceived as needing, people are going to say — “To hell with it; let’s get outta there!”
I think this is what people are perceiving now, that the committment and time frame is just too long for what they want....
The legislature also supports higher taxes, repeal of the 2nd amendment, illegal immigration ... Should these also become reality? That's how a republic works. If we don't like it, we need to send legislators who represent OUR views.
You said — “The legislature also supports higher taxes, repeal of the 2nd amendment, illegal immigration ... Should these also become reality?”
It’s the difference between “should” and “will”. “Should” is a goal, while “will” is simply a measurement of the American people and the legislature and the executive branch and the courts.
For taxes, that’s something that goes back and forth. For repear of the 2nd Amendment, that’s a Constitutional issue requirement the amendment process and is not likely (meaning it won’t fall into the “will” category). For illegal immigration — that’s not either “should” or “will” — but rather a “fait accompli” (being neither “should” or “will”).
You said — “If he wants to argue that because the legislature is against the war, that therefore this is the will of the people, then he is making a weak argument for endorsing al Qaeda’s resolution for Iraq.”
I don’t think I read that his argument was that the legislature being against the war makes it so with the people. No, I read that it was both the people *and* the legislature. He seemed to say that it has now reached the “indisputable” stage, and thus, the GOP is in a no-win situation.
He seems to be giving this his best effort at analyzing the situation. And it does appear to be exactly like he says. So, even though there are significant numbers still supporting what we’re doing — if they are in the minority — it’s simply a *matter of time* and it’s all over...
You said — “Tenet is puzzled that they have not hit us? The answer is simple: When the entire Democratic Party is working with you against the American Military and it’s efforts, why spoil it by driving your supporters back into Bush’s hands. Tenet does not have a brain.”
It sounds like having the Al Qaida to “hit us hard” and big-time will have us “get back into the war” once again — with the support of the people...
You said — “Hello Bill? Have you ever heard of Iran home of the Khomeniacs?”
Well..., another analysis I read is that for the U.S. to get involved against Iran would be the *best case scenario* that Al Qaida could ever ask for. In fact, Al Qaida has been working *diligently* to try and get the U.S. to do that very thing.
And that may be the reason that the Bush Administration is now saying that they are going to open “talks” with Iran...
You said — “But it’s perfectly true that Bush has never answered these lies.”
And it appears that *this* is the biggest problem of the war...
Rome's big problem was it's rapid expansion and the armed Germanic tribes it attempted to absorb to support it's empire.
You said — “Buckley reveals here his sense of total defeat. Not just in the War in Iraq but in the entire defense of civilization. He reveals here that he believes that indeed it is the last days of Rome and that nothing can be done to stem the decline. What he fails to see is that defeatism like his can only become a self fulfilling prophesy.”
When you mention a “self fulfilling prophesy” — it brings my thinking to the Bible’s prophecies. And we’ve definitely entered the time of history that these are now being brought into play. It’s all about the Middle East, centering around Israel and having to do with Islam (which is so anti-Israel, to the point of its destruction) and how much of the world is against Israel.
What does this have to do with this issue (of Iraq and either succeeding or failing)? Well, it appears that the U.S. (in these Bible prophecies) has no great part in what will eventually happen over there. The U.S., as the major player that it is now, doesn’t appear. If the U.S. is there at all, the best one could say is that they are subservient to Europe and play only a “bit part” in all of this. Right now, that’s not true.
So, it appears to me that the U.S. is indeed going to be getting out of Iraq, whether it’s the right thing or not. Or else, something much more severe is going to happen to the U.S. to “put it out of commission” as being a world-power player (don’t have a clue, though...). Whatever it is, the U.S. simply isn’t a major player over there anymore, at that time.
While you might decry “self-fulfilling prophesy” — the prophecies of the Bible (on the other hand) are not required to be “self-fulfilling”. They come to pass as a result of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob simply saying so.
It may not really be self-fulfilling, it may be the series of actions that take the U.S. out of being a major or significant player in the Middle East.
Now, this doesn’t mean that I would support actions that do this, but, at the same time, I’ve been on the losing side of things before — so it wouldn’t be the first time.
Greed, reliance on a large professional standing army which owed its allegiance to Generalissimos instead of the state, massive civil wars which destroyed the military professional elite, mass “immigration” by unassimilable tribes, a primitive form of “gun control” (Roman citizens were denied the use and possession of weapons - only those professional soldiers and the unassimilable masses of barbarians carried them) contributed to the fall of Rome.
Rome fell because it was like America in the 21st century.
You said — “Rome’s big problem was it’s rapid expansion and the armed Germanic tribes it attempted to absorb to support it’s empire.”
Sort of like the expansion of the U.S. from the beginnings of the 20th Century, to then being recognized as the sole superpower in the world (finding then, that it had all sorts of enemies wishing to “take it down”) — while at the same time, finding that it’s difficult to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea — not to say anything about the so-called “friends” of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China — in addition to the so-called “allies” of France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Spain, Italy (and whoever else you want to list) — along with the “invasion” from Mexico, not to say anything about the drug lords from South America...
Yes, it does look like a real mess...
You said — “That’s how a republic works. If we don’t like it, we need to send legislators who represent OUR views.”
And apparently we were *unable* to do that in the last election. It may very well be that we can’t do it in the next election either. If that’s the problem — then what?
The myopia of the American public, the fecklessness of the Democrats, and the collusive treason of the major media don’t help. Neither have the spinelessness of the Republican Congressional delegation or the subversives who constitute the Democrats.
Iraq is a battle, not a war. Good Generals pick their battles carefully. Bush did not pick the battle he waging very well. Iraq has been converted into a very important battlefield which we can’t afford to loose without jeopardizing the war we are waging with Islam - and George Bush made it so. He made it so by diverting our efforts from destroying regimes which threatened us, to nation-building - trying to create a western style Democracy among a population of factionalized, religiously fanatic primitives.
You said — “I’ve been saying for some time that if Bush doesn’t start disengaging from Iraq before the election, the GOP could lose by historic proportions. That may not both some Republicans - maybe it makes them feel noble about going against opinion polls - but it will be a disaster for the country.”
And if that happens (i.e., the “disaster”), then who will everyone here be blaming. I’m just wondering...
I sort of see a disaster coming down the pike... The only thing that can help is for Al Qaida to bomb a few of our big cities. What a deal??!! Seeing that the only way for conservatives to “win” is to get Osama to bomb us!!
To tell you the truth of the matter, that *is* the only way that conservatives are going to win...
Here, Buckley, the author of God and Man at Yale, looses has no faith behind the civil culture of the west and rolls over in the face of Islamic Theocracy and not even state theocracy, but terrorist theocracy.
Get your testosterone checked Bill, your age is showing.
correct.
the result probably will be the election of a democrap president.
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.