Posted on 04/12/2010 10:30:40 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
A former White House speechwriter, Mark Thiessen, has jumped to the defense of his former boss, writing for the Washington Post that George W. Bush “established a conservative record without parallel.” Even by the loose standards of Washington, that is a jaw-dropping assertion. I’ve been explaining for years that Bush was a big-government advocate, even writing a column back in 2007 for the Washington Examiner pointing out that Clinton had a much better economic record from a free-market perspective. I also groused to the Wall Street Journal the following year about Bush’s dismal performance.
“Bush doesn’t have a conservative legacy” on the economy, said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Tax-rate reductions are the only positive achievement, and those are temporary … Everything else that has happened has been permanent, and a step toward more statism.” He cited big increases in the federal budget, along with continuing subsidies in agriculture and transportation, new Medicare drug benefits, and increased federal intervention in education and housing.
Let’s review the economic claims in Mr. Thiessen’s column. He writes:
The thrust of their argument is that Bush expanded the size of government dramatically — and they are absolutely right. Federal spending grew significantly on Bush’s watch, and this is without question a black mark on his record. (Federal spending also grew dramatically under Ronald Reagan, though he was dealt a Democratic Congress, whereas Bush had six years of Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.)
Since federal spending almost doubled in Bush’s eight years, it’s tempting to summarily dismiss this assertion, but let’s cite a few additional facts just in case someone is under the illusion that Bush was on the side of taxpayers. And let’s specifically compare Bush to Reagan since Mr. Thiessen seems to think they belong in the same ball park. This article by Veronique de Rugy is probably a good place to begin since it compares all Presidents and shows that Bush was a big spender compared to Reagan…and to Clinton. Chris Edwards has similar dat, capturing all eight years of Bush’s tenure. But the most damning evidence comes from the OMB’s Historical Tables, which show that Reagan reduced both entitlements and domestic discretionary spending as a share of GDP during his two terms. Bush (and I hope nobody is surprised) increased the burden of spending in both of these categories. That’s the spending side of the ledger. Let’s now turn to tax policy, where Thiessen writes:
Bush enacted the largest tax cuts in history — and unlike my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, he never signed a major tax increase into law.
Using the most relevant measures, such as changes in marginal tax rates or comparing the impact of each President’s tax changes on revenues as a share of GDP, Bush’s tax cuts are far less significant than the Reagan tax cuts. But there presumably is some measure, perhaps nominal revenues over some period of years, showing the Bush tax cuts are larger, so we’ll let that claim slide. The more relevant issue to address is the legacy of each President. Reagan did sign several tax increases after his 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, but the cumulative effect of those unfortunate compromises was relatively modest compared to the positive changes in his first year. When he left office, he bequeathed to the nation a tax code with meaningful and permanent tax rate reductions. The Bush tax cuts, by contrast, expire at the end of this year, and virtually all of the pro-growth provisions will disappear. This doesn’t mean Bush’s record on taxes was bad, but it certainly does not compare to the Gipper’s. But what about other issue, such as trade? Thiessen writes:
Bush enacted free-trade agreements with 17 nations, more than any president in history.
Those are some positive steps, to be sure, but they are offset by the protectionist moves on steel and lumber. I’m not a trade expert, so I don’t know if Bush was a net negative or a net positive, but at best it’s a muddled picture and Thiessen certainly did not present the full story. And speaking of sins of omission, his section on health care notes:
Bush created Health Savings Accounts – the most important free-market health-care reform in a generation. And he courageously stood up to Congressional Democrats when they sought to use the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to nationalize health care — and defeated their efforts.
Conveniently missing from this analysis, though, is any mention of the utterly irresponsible prescription drug entitlement. There is no doubt that Bush’s net impact on health care was to saddle America with more statism. Indeed, I’d be curious to see some long-run numbers on the impact of Bush’s prescription drug entitlement and the terrible plan Obama just imposed on America. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the negative fiscal impact of both plans was comparable. Shifting gears, let’s now turn to education policy, where Thiessen writes:
Bush won a Supreme Court ruling declaring school vouchers constitutional and enacted the nation’s first school-choice program in the District of Columbia.
Bush deserves some credit on school choice, but his overall education record is characterized by more spending and centralization. Thanks in part to his no-bureaucrat-left-behind plan, the budget for the Department of Education grew significantly and federal spending on elementary, secondary, and vocational education more than doubled. Equally worrisome, federal bureaucrats gained more control over education policy. Finally, Thiessen brags about Bush’s record on Social Security reform:
Bush fought valiantly for a conservative priority no American president had ever dared to touch: Social Security reform, with private accounts that would have given millions of our citizens a stake in the free market system. His effort failed, but he deserves credit from conservatives for staking his second term in office on this effort.
This is an area where the former President does deserve some credit. So even though the White House’s failure to ever put forth a specific proposal was rather frustrating, at least Bush did talk about real reform and the country would be better off today if something had been enacted.
This addresses all the economic claims in Thiessen’s article, but we can’t give Bush a complete grade until we examine some of the other issues that were missing from the column. On regulatory issues, the biggest change implemented during the Bush year was probably Sarbanes-Oxley — a clear example of regulatory overkill. Another regulatory change, which turned out to be a ticking time bomb, was the expansion of the “affordable-lending” requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And speaking of Fannie and Freddie, no analysis of Bush’s record would be complete without a discussion of bailouts. Without getting too deep in the issue, the most galling part of what Bush did was not necessarily recapitalizing the banking system (a good chunk of which was required by government deposit insurance anyhow), but rather the way it happened. During the savings & loan bailout 20 years ago, at least incompetent executives and negligent shareholders were wiped out. Government money was used, but only to pay off depositors and/or to pay healthy firms to absorb bankrupt institutions. Bush and Paulson, by contrast, exacerbated all the moral hazard issues by rescuing the executives and shareholders who helped create the mess. Last but not least, let’s not forget that Bush got the ball rolling on auto-industry bailouts.
If all of this means Bush is a “conservative record without parallel,” then Barack Obama must be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
That's called legal immigration. There's never been a time where we ended legal immigration.
Without border security, no war on terror can be won.
Again, Reagan didn't seal the border and had true amnesty.
For visa enforcement?
To go after the terrorists. Instead, Carter (after the hostages were taken), Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton did nothing.
They 9-11 terrorists violated unenforced immigration laws and used the same “services” that provide illegal aliens false documents
And Bush responded to that, unlike Reagan.
So, it was President Clinton who recognized Kosovo as an independent state in freaking 2008?
Clinton's war and it was over.
Saudi Arabia funds terrorism and radical mosques around the world. If you don’t understand that, you are not paying even the slightest attention to this war.
bin Laden was broke during Clinton's term and didn't have any money until Saddam had money. It wasn't Saudi money behind 9-11, it was Iraqi money. If it were Saudi money, then bin Laden would not have been broke during that time in the 90s because the Saudis always had money.
Speaking of paying attention, are you not aware Reagan had a true amnesty? Are you not aware of Saddam's role in worldwide terrorism? You're the one not paying attention.
“That’s called legal immigration. There’s never been a time where we ended legal immigration.”
Relocating thousands of Somali Muslims into the United States and opening up tens of thousands of student visas for Saudis when we are in a state of war with Islam is, frankly, stupid.
“There’s never been a time where we ended legal immigration.”
Not true.
“Again, Reagan didn’t seal the border and had true amnesty.”
Reagan’s amnesty was predicated on enforcement that future Presidents ignored.
“And Bush responded to that, unlike Reagan.”
Bush did NOTHING about the enforcement failures that enabled the 9-11 terrorists. Better to hand-search 80-year-old grandmothers than offend young, Muslim, males, right?
“Clinton’s war and it was over.”
Again, it wasn’t President Clinton who recognized Kosovo in 2008.
” If it were Saudi money, then bin Laden would not have been broke during that time in the 90s because the Saudis always had money.”
The Saudis fund the madrassahs that spread jihad and feed Al Qaeda.
“Speaking of paying attention, are you not aware Reagan had a true amnesty? Are you not aware of Saddam’s role in worldwide terrorism? You’re the one not paying attention.”
Yes, I’m aware of Reagan’s amnesty. I’m also aware that not defending the border in TIME OF WAR is dereliction. Ignoring the Saudis while focusing on Saddam is akin to ignoring Hitler and focusing on Italy.
Bush put the FBI in bed with CAIR and spent a fortune to try to remake the Middle East into something it can never be as long as Islam exists.
There's never been a time when we ended legal immigration.
Reagan’s amnesty was predicated on enforcement that future Presidents ignored.
Reagan had a true amnesty.
Bush did NOTHING about the enforcement failures that enabled the 9-11 terrorists. Better to hand-search 80-year-old grandmothers than offend young, Muslim, males, right?
First you say he did nothing then you say he increased security at airports...which is it? Bush killed Saddam and his sons and went after the terrorists in foreign countries...Reagam did nothing.
Again, it wasn’t President Clinton who recognized Kosovo in 2008.
Clinton's war and it was over.
The Saudis fund the madrassahs that spread jihad and feed Al Qaeda.
The fact that bin Laden was broke until Saddam had money shows otherwise.
Yes, I’m aware of Reagan’s amnesty. I’m also aware that not defending the border in TIME OF WAR is dereliction. Ignoring the Saudis while focusing on Saddam is akin to ignoring Hitler and focusing on Italy.
No it's not because you have no evidence the Saudi government orchestrated 9-11.
Bush put the FBI in bed with CAIR and spent a fortune to try to remake the Middle East into something it can never be as long as Islam exists.
Bush killed Saddam and his sons and went after the terrorists in foreign countries. Reagan did nothing as I said in my original post.
“There’s never been a time when we ended legal immigration.”
We have had immigration reductions before, but I have a hard time comparing “legal immigration” to the active importation of Muslims AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!
“Reagan had a true amnesty.”
Bush wanted to repeat that mistake times a factor of 50.
“First you say he did nothing then you say he increased security at airports...which is it? Bush killed Saddam and his sons and went after the terrorists in foreign countries...Reagam did nothing.”
He didn’t increase security at airports. Roughing up old ladies while ignoring the real issues doesn’t increase security.
“Clinton’s war and it was over.”
You keep repeating that like it excuses Bush’s support for the whole thing. Camp Bondsteel didn’t close after Clinton. US policy didn’t change after Clinton. Bush supported the same TERRORISTS that Clinton had.
“The fact that bin Laden was broke until Saddam had money shows otherwise.”
You clearly think this war is only due to bin Ladin.
“No it’s not because you have no evidence the Saudi government orchestrated 9-11.”
The Saudi government spreads jihad, provides aid and comfort to terrorists, runs freaking telethons for them, and funds mosques and madrassahs worldwide that preach the death of the infidel. There is ample evidence of all of those, but no.... you think this is just about bin Laden.
“Bush killed Saddam and his sons and went after the terrorists in foreign countries. Reagan did nothing as I said in my original post.”
Bush killed a threat to the Saudis. Bush invited more terrorists into THIS country.
Legal immigration had never been eliminated.
Bush wanted to repeat that mistake times a factor of 50.
My original post was about terrorism, not illegal immigration.
He didn’t increase security at airports. Roughing up old ladies while ignoring the real issues doesn’t increase security.
Airport security was increased.
You keep repeating that like it excuses Bush’s support for the whole thing. Camp Bondsteel didn’t close after Clinton. US policy didn’t change after Clinton. Bush supported the same TERRORISTS that Clinton had.
Clinton's war and it was over.
You clearly think this war is only due to bin Ladin.
bin Laden and Al Qaida, Taliban, Saddam and his sons, UN oil for food, etc. A lot of things.
The Saudi government spreads jihad, provides aid and comfort to terrorists, runs freaking telethons for them, and funds mosques and madrassahs worldwide that preach the death of the infidel. There is ample evidence of all of those, but no.... you think this is just about bin Laden.
The Saudis are pro-Muslim yes...orchestrate 9-11, no. Saddam, bin Laden, and Al Qaida were the main ones that orchestrated 9-11.
Bush killed a threat to the Saudis. Bush invited more terrorists into THIS country
Oh, so you're a cut and runner. You just posted the liberal's main talking point that we can't fight terrorism because that invites more terrorism. You're a Paul nut.
“Legal immigration had never been eliminated.”
So, “legal immigration” is making US pay to bring over entire groups of people who hate us?
“My original post was about terrorism, not illegal immigration.”
The two are tightly coupled.
“Airport security was increased.”
It was not. Roughing up old ladies while continuing to ignore actual security holes is NOT increased security.
“bin Laden and Al Qaida, Taliban, Saddam and his sons, UN oil for food, etc. A lot of things. “
Including Saudi Arabia.
“The Saudis are pro-Muslim yes...orchestrate 9-11, no. Saddam, bin Laden, and Al Qaida were the main ones that orchestrated 9-11.”
9-11 was about and due to Islam. Just like every attack has been. The Saudis are pro-Jihad. We were attacked before 9-11. We have been attacked since 9-11 and I remind you, in case you have forgotten, that the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.
“Oh, so you’re a cut and runner. You just posted the liberal’s main talking point that we can’t fight terrorism because that invites more terrorism. You’re a Paul nut.”
Oh, BS. That isn’t what I said at all. You are absolutely blind to the threat and just want an excuse to attack Reagan.
Legal immigration has never been eliminated.
The two are tightly coupled.
Not yet.
It was not. Roughing up old ladies while continuing to ignore actual security holes is NOT increased security.
Airport security was increased.
Including Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia didn't direct 9-11.
9-11 was about and due to Islam. Just like every attack has been. The Saudis are pro-Jihad. We were attacked before 9-11. We have been attacked since 9-11 and I remind you, in case you have forgotten, that the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.
A majority of the KKK are US citizens, that doesn't mean the US government is the KKK.
Oh, BS. That isn’t what I said at all. You are absolutely blind to the threat and just want an excuse to attack Reagan.
Reagan was one of our best presidents...but no president is perfect and Bush was the best against terrorism.
If you're in the government you're a "statist" to some people.
If you're not actively trying to dismantle the state you're a "statist" to those people.
So pretty much everybody who isn't a hard core libertarian is a "statist."
(Paleolibs will make an exception for proslavery secessionists, though)
The word is meaningless unless you're part of the cult.
Another non-response noted.
“Not yet.”
BS.
“Airport security was increased.”
It was not.
“Saudi Arabia didn't direct 9-11.”
Saudi Arabia is at the root of the resurgence of the Jihad.
“A majority of the KKK are US citizens, that doesn't mean the US government is the KKK.”
The US government doesn't hold telethons to raise money for the families of KKK members.
“Reagan was one of our best presidents...but no president is perfect and Bush was the best against terrorism.”
Bush was not. You are hung-up on 9-11 and two small fronts in a larger war while ignoring his collaboration or surrender in the larger conflict.
Saudi Arabia didn't direct 9-11.
The US government doesn't hold telethons to raise money for the families of KKK members.
ACORN, same thing. A lot of that money goes to muslim black racists. Money is called currency because it flows. It would be quite a leap to say because government benefits ended up in the hands of muslims that the US government is behind 9-11, like you're trying to say with Saudi Arabia. Of course as a conservative I don't believe the government should be handing out money when the main purpose is politics, but no president has been able to eliminate that either.
Bush was not. You are hung-up on 9-11 and two small fronts in a larger war while ignoring his collaboration or surrender in the larger conflict.
There were no surrenders by Bush. Reagan's non-response to the barracks attack was getting close to a form of surrender though.
"Hung up" on 9-11? You act as if 3000 dead on our soil is no big deal...again you're sounding a lot like a Paul nut.
“Saudi Arabia didn’t direct 9-11.”
Hitler didn’t direct the attack on Pearl Harbor.
“ACORN, same thing. A lot of that money goes to muslim black racists. Money is called currency because it flows. It would be quite a leap to say because government benefits ended up in the hands of muslims that the US government is behind 9-11, like you’re trying to say with Saudi Arabia.”
That’s not a leap at all, regarding the Sauids, except to state it is money from the “royals”, not specifically the government.
“There were no surrenders by Bush. Reagan’s non-response to the barracks attack was getting close to a form of surrender though. “
Bush surrendered to CAIR. He surrendered the domestic front of the war. Now, we have Saudi-funded recruitment campaigns in our prisons and terrorist training camps on our soil - all during the Bush Administration.
“”Hung up” on 9-11? You act as if 3000 dead on our soil is no big deal...again you’re sounding a lot like a Paul nut.”
It was still one attack in a larger war.... and quit with the “Paul nut” BS. There is a larger war. Focusing on that single attack - that Bush did nothing secure us from another one like it (ignoring visa overstays) will mean we’ll lose the whole war. Try to see the big picture.
Every claim you make is a leap. lol
Bush surrendered to CAIR. He surrendered the domestic front of the war. Now, we have Saudi-funded recruitment campaigns in our prisons and terrorist training camps on our soil - all during the Bush Administration.
9-11 was the only attack, proving there was nothing of the sort that you speak of.
It was still one attack in a larger war....
It, like the barracks attack, was an event to rise to the occasion to. Bush succeeded, Reagan failed.
and quit with the “Paul nut” BS.
Are you a Paul supporter?
There is a larger war. Focusing on that single attack
That "single attack" was solid proof of who were the head honchos in the terrorist business. And Bush took care of business, killing Saddam and his sons, and killing bin Laden in Tora Bora. Other presidents did nothing.
- that Bush did nothing secure us from another one like it (ignoring visa overstays) will mean we’ll lose the whole war. Try to see the big picture.
Results prove otherwise. No attacks mean Bush was right in his efforts.
“Every claim you make is a leap. lol”
Again, nonsense.
“9-11 was the only attack, proving there was nothing of the sort that you speak of.”
What?! Surely you can’t be serious?
“It, like the barracks attack, was an event to rise to the occasion to. Bush succeeded, Reagan failed.”
By telling America to go shopping and praising Islam.
“Are you a Paul supporter?”
I support his domestic ideas. If you don’t, you aren’t a conservative. I don’t support much of his foreign policy.
“That “single attack” was solid proof of who were the head honchos in the terrorist business. And Bush took care of business, killing Saddam and his sons, and killing bin Laden in Tora Bora. Other presidents did nothing.”
It isn’t “the terrorist business”. It’s the Jihad business. “Terrorism” is a TACTIC. If you don’t understand the roots of this war, you really need to do some reading.
“Results prove otherwise. No attacks mean Bush was right in his efforts.”
There have been a number of terrorist attacks in the United States since 9-11. Just not as large. Putting CAIR in bed with the FBI and increasing Muslim immigration was the very height of stupidity. Not correcting the visa overstay problem and border security was dereliction of duty.
It’s clear you don’t understand this conflict and don’t intend to. You think it’s just about bin Laden. It’s not.
Ron Paul called Reagan an failure, economically. He would have us be a rogue nation with drug law repeal. Some issues are worth going rogue on...Anti-global warming, Christian principals, the death penalty, low taxes,...but heroine and cocaine...no. Hypocritical on earmarks when it comes to the shrimp industry. He wants to tax the hell out of corporations and impose tariffs. Goodbye to jobs if that were to be passed. He opposes the Patriot Act, so, so much for your criticism on Bush over security...Paul would have done less. So, no I certainly do not support Ron Paul and his domestic job killing, drug-addicted teen policies.
It isn’t “the terrorist business”. It’s the Jihad business. “Terrorism” is a TACTIC. If you don’t understand the roots of this war, you really need to do some reading.
Spoken like a Paul nut...I thought you said you don't support his foreign ideas. Certain people do terrorism and they are the ones that Bush spent 7 years killing.
There have been a number of terrorist attacks in the United States since 9-11. Just not as large. Putting CAIR in bed with the FBI and increasing Muslim immigration was the very height of stupidity. Not correcting the visa overstay problem and border security was dereliction of duty.
Large scale terrorist attacks took place against us till 9-11...none since. So Bush was the only president that was right in his tactics and that will never change since Obama has rolled back the Bush policies and now he owns the issue and will own it when his actions cause a large-scale attack.
It’s clear you don’t understand this conflict and don’t intend to. You think it’s just about bin Laden. It’s not.
It's clear you're a liar. I have said since the beginning this is large scale and that Saddam was just as involved as bin Laden. You live in an alternate reality where results don't have to back up your assertions. Bush was the only president to end the large-scale attacks and that will never change.
” He would have us be a rogue nation with drug law repeal. “
Were we a “rogue nation” before drug laws? Are we not a “rogue nation” with dynamic-entry raids across the country that get people killed? You prefer militarized police? That’s the standing army the Founders warned about, after all.
“Goodbye to jobs if that were to be passed”
We’ve already said “goodbye” to jobs after decades of trade deals that used trade as a political tool. Before the income tax, tariffs were one of the only Constitutional sources of income for the federal government.
” He opposes the Patriot Act, so, so much for your criticism on Bush over security.”
Quite a few on the right oppose the Patriot Act as it will and has been mostly used against non-terrorists. With any law, remember that it will eventually be enforced by your worst enemy. Your proof that the “Patriot Act” makes us safe when we STILL DO NOT ENFORCE VISA LAWS?!
“So, no I certainly do not support Ron Paul and his domestic job killing, drug-addicted teen policies.”
Federal regulations are what is killing jobs. Bad parents are what causes “drug-addicted” teens. Parents who expect Nanny Government to raise their kids.
“Large scale terrorist attacks took place against us till 9-11...none since. So Bush was the only president that was right in his tactics and that will never change since Obama has rolled back the Bush policies and now he owns the issue and will own it when his actions cause a large-scale attack.”
There was a long gulf between the first Trade Center bombinb and 9-11 too. Did Clinton’s policies keep us “safe”?
“It’s clear you’re a liar. I have said since the beginning this is large scale and that Saddam was just as involved as bin Laden. You live in an alternate reality where results don’t have to back up your assertions. Bush was the only president to end the large-scale attacks and that will never change”
OK, it’s clear you are an idiot. Saddam and bin Laden were involved, but you completely miss the point that the freaking root problem is ISLAM and its expansion and that is funded by Saudi Arabia! If Bush “ended the large-scale attacks” then so did Clinton. Your argument doesn’t hold water. Try to be more conservative and less partisan.
The statements in your posts before this one are anti-drug law, pro-protectionist, anti-Patriot Act, libertarian non-reality based crap that is irreconcilable to me. I'll never be a libertarian as you are and and you'll never be a biblical conservative as I am and everyone has made up their mind on that stuff so it's a waste of electrons to go through it point by point.
There was not a long gulf between major terrorist attacks on us. We had one about once per year. Bush ended that in 2001.
OK, it’s clear you are an idiot. Saddam and bin Laden were involved, but you completely miss the point that the freaking root problem is ISLAM and its expansion and that is funded by Saudi Arabia! If Bush “ended the large-scale attacks” then so did Clinton. Your argument doesn’t hold water. Try to be more conservative and less partisan.
Yes Islam is the problem and it was Bush that got them under control. We had major attacks all through Clinton's term. Oklahoma City was a Saddam operation using anti-Iraq war nut McVeigh (whose views on foreign policy resemble Ron Paul's), the towers attack, the Cole. Were you asleep during all this?
“I’ll never be a libertarian as you are and and you’ll never be a biblical conservative “
Just what do you imply by that statement?
“There was not a long gulf between major terrorist attacks on us. We had one about once per year. Bush ended that in 2001.”
Not in CONUS, we didn’t.
“Yes Islam is the problem and it was Bush that got them under control.”
Not even close. He went after some branches of the enemy while ignoring or helping other branches. He sucked up to the Saudis almost as badly as Obama. He gave the enemy a seat at the security table by involving CAIR and fought a PC war that got more of our people killed to make “like us”.
You ignore the expansion of Islam in this country since 2001. I do not.
“We had major attacks all through Clinton’s term. Oklahoma City was a Saddam operation using anti-Iraq war nut McVeigh (whose views on foreign policy resemble Ron Paul’s), the towers attack, the Cole. Were you asleep during all this?”
The Kobar Towers attack and the Cole were not in CONUS. I trust you paid enough attention to this? Where’s the evidence that OKC was a Saddam operation?
I don't believe in abolishing the drug laws. I don't believe in restricting trade through tariffs. I dont't believe in the libertarian motto that anything is OK as long as it doesn't hurt others. Immoral acts hurt others sometimes indirectly. I'm a supporter of the Patriot Act, it got the American Muslims under control. My conservatism goes back 3500 years to the teachings of the bible during the Exodus (keeping in mind the Old Covenant passed away). Do you believe the bible is the place to look to get political advice? If not you're not a biblical conservative.
Not in CONUS, we didn’t.
'93 World Trade Center was CONUS, Oklahoma City was CONUS. Did you sleep through those? Major terrorist attacks against Americans happened about 1 per year until Bush ended them after 9-11. Any in the future will be owned by whomever is president since Obama ended a lot of the Bush policies.
Not even close. He went after some branches of the enemy while ignoring or helping other branches. He sucked up to the Saudis almost as badly as Obama. He gave the enemy a seat at the security table by involving CAIR and fought a PC war that got more of our people killed to make “like us”. You ignore the expansion of Islam in this country since 2001. I do not.
Results do not support anything you say. The major attacks eneded with 9-11. Bush's policies were correct.
The Kobar Towers attack and the Cole were not in CONUS.
So. They were against Americans. That ended under Bush.
I trust you paid enough attention to this? Where’s the evidence that OKC was a Saddam operation?
Ha! Talk about being naive and not paying attention. You believe everything Dan Rather tells you? lol
“I don’t believe in abolishing the drug laws.”
That’s nice. What does it have to do with the “biblical conservative” line?
“I don’t believe in restricting trade through tariffs. “
Yet it’s ok for us to enter into deals that allow the other party to use tariffs against us? You prefer the income tax?
“Immoral acts hurt others sometimes indirectly.”
Government cannot legislate morality. People have to do that. Do you want alcohol abolished too? What good did that server last time?
“I’m a supporter of the Patriot Act, it got the American Muslims under control.”
That’s laughable. Seriously laughable. It did NOT SUCH THING. In fact, they’ve become emboldened since 9-11.
” Do you believe the bible is the place to look to get political advice? If not you’re not a biblical conservative.”
The Bible - particularly the New Testement - informs my basic opinions. Are you familiar with the concept of “free will?”
“’93 World Trade Center was CONUS, Oklahoma City was CONUS. Did you sleep through those?”
I’m the one who first brought up the ‘93 WTC attack, sparky. OKC was CONUS, but you have not proven it was Saddam. The USS Cole was definitely NOT CONUS.
” Major terrorist attacks against Americans happened about 1 per year until Bush ended them after 9-11.”
Not in CONUS, they didn’t. The certainly didn’t stop OCOCUS after he became President.
“Results do not support anything you say. The major attacks eneded with 9-11. Bush’s policies were correct.”
So, inviting the Saudis here and putting CAIR in with the FBI HELPED SECURITY? Are you nuts?
“So. They were against Americans. That ended under Bush.”
OK, you are nuts. We’ve established that.
“Ha! Talk about being naive and not paying attention. You believe everything Dan Rather tells you? lol”
You dismiss my claims regarding the Saudi backing of the Jihad - something I can prove easily - yet expect me to just accept that Saddam was behind the OKC bombing. I’m familiar with the theory that there was MUSLIM involvement in that attack, but Saddam? Prove it.
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.