I've been following the debate. Some may not quite "get" what is meant by "stealth conservativism" --- that conservativism not passing the other litmus tests, is not [t]here, in spite of all the FRPRs who keep lauding Bush's "achievements" in the name of "we, on faith, really just have a feeling we know what he's up to and therefore because we ... think ... we ... know, ... he's ... done ... quite ... a ... lot" ---> like Clinton's "accomplishments" which were the feelings of having attained something --- feelings ONLY in the hearts and minds of liberals ---- based upon their sensitivity to Clinton's use of various socialistic jingoisms.
Which is a brief comment on how I've noticed other folks saying, not only myself saying it, that Bush is sort of the Republicans' version of Clinton.
Depends upon what the meaning (as Bush uses meanings) of what the term "compassionate" "is;" or it gives new meaning to it (pick either or both).
In spite of the list of Bush's giving away our VAST RIGHTS in exchange for attaboys from Daschle --- construed to be conservative accomplishments for all to see --- Bush is viewed by his apologencia as a master at political compromise(!) ... while he uses a formula whereby he gives quite a lot of other peoples' money and property in exchange for "beads of bi-partisanship;" not to mention his utter failure to prosecute for violations of the law(s), Clinton Administrators' (and "Executive Administrators Associates'") transgressions.
To wit: when the Bush apologencia go to Yellowstone Park and pick up some fallen eagle feathers and takes them back to the motel and / or awaiting bus, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of at least one politically-correct government agency's skewed imagination. While leftists handling feathers go free --- chalked into the category of political capital to be used at some future date.
Which goes to Bush's incredible "selective integrity" --- his failures, many, to uphold the equal application of the law(s).
I'm sorry, but in my book, and in George Washington's, you've either got integrity or you do not, and George W. Bush is wanting.
Except for the simple fact that my relating where Bush is falling down, on matters of defense, would reveal what I wish not to, here stateside, I can only say that he is darn near an embarrassment at how far behind the curve he is.
The statements of his administrators are laughable at how SERIOUSLY they regard the public for not knowing much and how, therefore, the Bush [still running the Clinton] Administration has as its first objective in this war, the coverup of, and immunity from prosecution pertaining to, MAJOR LEAGUE as well as MINOR LEAGUE SCREWUPS!
Bush is an executive boss but not a leader who leads by awareness of our might, our resources, and our freedoms.
Because frankly, they are not put forth to him on a one-page list.
"If only he had seen the threat," (presumably on yet another one-pager) he says, "he would have done something about it."
That is the most irresponsible of Presidential statements I have heard since "I did not have sex with that woman!"
There's a bunch of bull floating around the public eye, fed by the media, that "something must be done" about our intelligence problems vis a vis our concentration of the flow of info.
Well I'm here to tell you that the requirement is as old as military ventures and many times in the past, Ray Cline, who wrote the outlines for the C.I.A., etc., has addressed the matters.
And Ray and George's dad "go way back."
So please do not try to tell me that George W. Bush was "in the dark," and that the flow of intelligence is not concentrated because of the government not having the power (it needs MORE(?! <--- NO!!!!!) ... nor within the power of the President to correct!
It would not be the truth.
I guess taking over Afgahnistan and not getting hit again by al Queda is "nothing". I should have stopped reading right there, but I didn't...
"If only he had seen the threat," (presumably on yet another one-pager) he (the President) says, "he would have done something about it."
"That is the most irresponsible of Presidential statements I have heard since "I did not have sex with that woman!"" - First Salute
Now how would you know this? A fly on the wall perhaps? To make this comparison would indicate first hand knowledge that the President is lying.
If you are not in the White House, or directly in the chain of command, then your statement might be considered slanderous.
Then again, if you are in the White House or/and the chain of command, why didn't you 'connect the dots' and notify the President or(insert alphabet agency here ___)?
5.56mm
You hit on the issue of integrity, defined as all aspects of one's personality serving the whole. No pun intended, but in Bush's case it seems to be a "hole" not a whole.
IOW, there is no there there, that I can see. He is completely inconsistant, and appears to act on no consistent principles of any kind.
Once again, great post, my friend.
"Talk" to you next week.
Sadly, I have not. This is not an excuse, but is offered to allow the realization that I might not have been the reason you posted this diatribe.
in spite of all the FRPRs who keep lauding Bush's "achievements" in the name of "we, on faith, really just have a feeling we know what he's up to and therefore because we ... think ... we ... know, ... he's ... done ... quite ... a ... lot" ---> like Clinton's "accomplishments" which were the feelings of having attained something --- feelings ONLY in the hearts and minds of liberals ---- based upon their sensitivity to Clinton's use of various socialistic jingoisms.
I imagine FRPR means FreeRepublic Public Relations, a guess if you will. And further, I must assume, since you put me in your list, I am 'one of them'. I disagree, not solely for my earlier statement. I'm not much of a poster around here, I prefer to a) read, and b) post if I find my opinion unrepresented or misrepresented. In fact, I never made a post to this thread. I did however post to another thread on the Bush/Global Warming flap.
In that post I was consistently defending the idea that maybe the report was correct. I do not believe I was, in any way, a cheerleader for Bush on this issue.
Hence, I'll leave the rest of your diatribe to those who you have identified as participants in this 'FRPR' stuff.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but in my book, and in George Washington's, you've either got integrity or you do not, and George W. Bush is wanting.
You, and Washington, and I read the same books.
Your description of Bush supporters claiming that they ‘just have a feeling they know what he’s up to...think...know...he’s...done...quite...a...lot’ is priceless.
Bush is viewed by his apologencia as a master at political compromise(!) ... while he uses a formula whereby he gives quite a lot of other peoples' money and property [don’t forget liberties] in exchange for "beads of bi-partisanship;" not to mention his utter failure to prosecute for violations of the law(s), Clinton Administrators' (and "Executive Administrators Associates'") transgressions.
The blue part? It’s all done in the name of national healing, don’tcha know? We all have to get past the lying, and the perjury, and the treason, and the abuse of power, and the shredding of the Constitution, and the ....
(oops….I’m festering….not healing….sorry….just call me un-American….)