if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Comment of the Day
by Lee
From Southern Deb.
I’m very conflicted Lee...See, there are some Bush policies and behaviors that i think are totally unconscionalbe. Then there are others that I think are (or were at least) 100% spot-on the right thing to do, and I think they took great courage to pursue them.
However, I agree wholeheartedly that Bush has betrayed conservatism even in the policies he’s pursued that I agreed with (Iraq war). A true conservative is, by nature, a bit of an isolationist/nationalist and Bush’s “democratization” of the M.E. is true neo-con, not con. Then there’s his border policy, what a fucking joke! Add to that the total failure to veto any spending bill that’s come before him and you have a spendaholic that even Teddy Kennedy can look up to.
Meanwhile, you see his hardline policies on social issues and scratch your head “Why????” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not keen to see the definition of marriage rewritten to Swedish standards, nor am I gung-ho to allow abortion unfettered through the ninth month, but I guess I trust the states to decide those issues (a more conservative approach than banning them actually).
I supported Bush and voted for him twice because I had no choice. And I supported the war in Iraq because I do believe we had to take the war to the terrorists and did believe that there were probably WMD in Iraq (I think they were moved to Syria frankly--it’s not like the bastards weren’t warned in plenty of time), and any responsible leader would have done what Bush did at the time. The policy since then has been bungled, Rummy needs to go--it’s time--and Bush has proven to be the stupidly loyal stubborn ostrich with his head in the sand that he was accused of being so long ago. I wish this weren’t so because I hate to admit being wrong about someone, but it seems unavoidable now.
And that is what I have always liked about the conservative community--it was always WILLING to admit it was wrong and to call its leaders on the carpet. I don’t see the same thing on the left or in the liberal community. It does no one any good to keep singing Dubya’s praises because he had a few moments of courage and guts on foreign policy. His behavior of late has been downright weird, and it’s time for true conservatives to stand up and be counted so the Dems don’t assume that all of his critics are now their fans because we are NOT. If anything we’re pissed at him for acting like THEM!
See? It isn’t just me.
Comments
Heh, there are a lot of us.
Latest tidbit: after weeks of being in technical default, we’ve finished up emptying out federal pension funds, we’ve now emptied out the exchange stabilization fund, and we’re basically out of money to move around. Snow has finally told congress he’s out of tricks and we have to raise the debt limit now to avoid literal default (link).
One reason why I continue to hate the democrats is that they’re too fucking incompetent to turn this into a real debate about fiscal policy in this country. If they had an ounce of sense, they could make a major issue of this and either force the republicans to step back to their roots or start one of those strange inversions that regularly occurs where, 20 years from now, the democrats would be the conservative party.
I absolutely disagree that any part of the Iraq war was bungled.
Wow. Um, have you read the various reports _written by conservatives involved in the process_ about how badly all of this was managed? Look, I agree that war is messy and people need to get used to that, but our post-war planning was based on ex-Trotskyite fantasies about how democracy and civil society magically spring up in the absense of oppression. War is messy, but when we failed to recognize that nation building (what we signed on for when we invaded) requires more than fairy dust, we wasted the opportunity to minimize the mess and maximize the chances for success.
One reason why I continue to hate the democrats is that they’re too fucking incompetent to turn this into a real debate about fiscal policy in this country.
Classic!
“I hate you because you won’t point out my idiocy.”
And yet, when they do point out conservative inconsistencies you bitch about the slanted liberal media.
As for the war, who knows. It’s great for some, and really sucks for others. I sure wish I had stock in defense contracting companies right now. I don’t think the real goalposts have ever been presented to the public so it may actually be going quite well.
Not to worry, Southern Deb. There are two changes on the horizon.
Hillary comin’.
And.
Taliban comin’!!!!
That will be the time when we all wish that W and Rummy and Cheney were back.
I absolutely disagree that any part of the Iraq war was bungled.
The war itself was fought with textbook precision. We captured the whole country in less time than it took Janet Reno to take the Koresh compound in Waco, and with fewer casualties than a holiday weekened here in the States.
It was the long insurgency that followed that I have the problems with…
I absolutely disagree that any part of the Iraq war was bungled. War is messy, deal with it.
I mostly agree with you. Certainly I think the people who say that we sent in too few troops because of Rumsfeld not listening to his generals, or some such hogwash, know absolutely nothing about the way the military works, who is responsible for war plans, etc.
On the other hand, it’s pretty hard to argue that some things couldn’t have been managed better. In particular, I think the rules of engagement were a little too soft, placing too much emphasis on infantry and military police, with all of the awesome firepower that we spend trillions of dollars on to be called upon by the grunts in the field.
That being said, I think most of these shortcomings are not the ‘fault’ of the current civilian leadership, these are things that have been institutionalized ever since the Vietnam debacle, and even moreso after the 1991 Gulf War, where the lives of American soldiers become more expendable in the pursuit of limiting ‘collateral damage’.
Trying to predict how a civilian population of rival Muslim sects is going to respond to such a situation is something that nobody would have been able to have done. If somebody did predict it, it was a matter of luck, not overwhelming knowledge and prescience. Pretty much every possible scenario was predicted by somebody, so somebody was bound to be right.
Well...let me chime in.
First off, let’s address the war effort. Not bungled. To say that is, in my opinion, an assumption based upon the media reports and the delay in Iraq putting together their Parliment and permanent government.
In Iraq, we are completely changing a society. There was no democratic system in place there...all of the social tensions were dealt with via the use of force, be it war, genocide, or intimidation. More than half of the population of Iraq does not remember a society other than that. Changing 40 years of military coups and Ba’athist fascism isn’t a 3-year deal. Period. The Eastern European countries experienced, as a rule, economic and social problems after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Hell...Yugoslavia fell apart once the totalitarians left the stage. I don’t think that we can fault the Bush Administration for the remaining inertia of the Islamofascist government that ruled Iraq.
As for his policies here....there are some things that he has done that make me batty. The $65 billion in Katrina aid....too damned much. Harriet Miers. What? The inability to effectively curtail spending. I’ve written articles on this point....he spends at the rate of increase Clinton did, minus the good conservative Congress Clinton ran into. I would like to see a wall on the Mexico border, and our total border operation overhauled, but the DPW deal wasn’t bad.
See, Bush is not as fiscally conservative as I would want. He has a clear picture of what he wants, and he is not one to act decisively when he needs to or wants to. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I’m still behind him.
Why? Because he ‘gets it’ where the War on Terror is concerned. Say what you want, the proof is in the pudding. Just because we don’t hear about what is going on around the world doesn’t mean that it isn’t going on. There are operations in the Horn of Africa, in central Asia, Pacifica, the Middle East, and in Europe. Bush has tried to get the moderate Islamic nations (UAE) on the same page, and has at least got them fighting terrorism on the national level (Afghanistan, Packistan, Saudi Arabia).
I am behind him because the national defense is a Preamble duty of the government, and he has done a very good job.
Trying to predict how a civilian population of rival Muslim sects is going to respond to such a situation is something that nobody would have been able to have done.
I disagree. There are sociologists that could have weighed in on the matter but something tells me none were called to the planning session. The Bush admin doesn’t roll like dat.
Obviously, no one can be absolutely sure how various groups will behave. But, it’s not like the issue of the different tribes wasn’t raised during the pre-war debate. I just gotta wonder how much effort was made to address the inevitable conflict between these various groups.
I’ll certainly stand corrected if someone shows me otherwise.
A true conservative is, by nature, a bit of an isolationist/nationalist and Bush’s “democratization” of the M.E. is true neo-con, not con.
So I guess Reagan was a Neo-Con too, huh? I mean, he brought down the Evil Empire and heralded democracy into Eastern Europe.
Actually, I don’t think there are ANY AMERICAN or CANADIAN sociologists who could have weighed in on the rival Muslim issue. They are all trained in postmodernism, feminsim and Marxism (read the first two as “special” cases of Marxism, or Marxianism, if you wish--Marxists--those guys in the streets with the guns Marxians--the intelligensia that will direct the Marxists with the guns).
Now, IF Daniel Pipes would have been called in . . . THAT is another matter!
I think a majority of American troops will be gone from Iraq by 2008 and it will take away a huge issue for the Democrats. After all, what are they going to do-completely reverse themselves and say we should stay?
Bush has sacrificed fiscal responsibility for the sake of pleasing religious nuts on the fringe. If McCain’s star is rising and the base doesn’t like it, that’s part of the reason why.
I guess Churchill is a neo-con by Southern Deb definition. Here is Sir Winston opinion of the Muslim world.
“Title: Winston Churchill wrote it a century ago ("curse of islam")
Source: American thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php? comments_id=4403
Published: Feb 9, 2006
Author: Winston Churchill
Post Date: 2006-02-09 10:33:09 by RussKon45
3 Comments
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceasedto be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899). “
OT---
http://tinyurl.com/r6y7v
An SF Judge has ruled that you can’t pee in public, I wonder if that’ll stop the bums & crackheads in SF from peeing and shitting all over the place.
Trying to predict how a civilian population of rival Muslim sects is going to respond to such a situation is something that nobody would have been able to have done.
Twelve insurgents were hung today in Iraq. The first death sentences to be carried out by the new govt.
Just my 2 cents! Until anyone of you people have been there, I dont think you knoww all of whats going on. Bitch about Bush all you want, but he was right about this war. You hav’nt seen or heard all of what happened or what is going right over there. Some of you know I did 2 tours and I would go back with my marines at the drop of the hat. Hell Bush spends like a drunken dumocrate,and I think his veto pen is lost, and he does not fight back with a set of balls against the likes of dean and kennedy, but I truly feel that he is the pres. that should be leading us through this.
1sgt. Rick F.
usmc
Rick!!!!!! I thought you dropped off the face of the earth!!! I tried to email you a million times, but your email kept bouncing back.
A true conservative is, by nature, a bit of an isolationist/nationalist
And a true Scotsman never has sugar in his porridge.
I absolutely disagree that any part of the Iraq war was bungled. War is messy, deal with it.
Yeah, IEDs suck. Putting 100,000 more soldiers in there at the start to go door to door looking for bad guys would not have given us fewer casualties. We need to redouble our efforts to deal with North Korea and Iran in a way which avoids war.