The Moral Authority, of Bill Clinton, or

[Tigermike 3,053]

Just Blame It on Bush

BY JAMES LILEKS

You can't call this the Arab-Israeli war of '06, since some of the usual belligerents have declined to participate. You could call it World War III, as Newt Gingrich has suggested, but that annoys everyone who wanted the Cold War to be WWIII, never mind that we got it out of the way without a nuclear swapmeet. You could call it the Israel-Hezbollah War, but that lets Syria and Iran off the hook.

So let's just call it Bush's Fault. At least that's what Howard Dean proposes. The energetic head of the Democratic National Committee had this to say:

"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had ... when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? Clinton had been president less than a year. What's more, Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting (specifically, suspending disbelief about Yasser Arafat's motives, which can throw your back out if you're not careful).

Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral Authority, that's what counts. Doesn't stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!

This is not to underestimate Clinton's ability to make other diplomats feel good about themselves or to produce impressive pieces of paper. But Mr. Clinton, at least, is not running in 2008, and neither Al Gore nor John Kerry had Clinton's conspicuous gift for oleaginous empathy.

Then again, who knows? Perhaps Gore would have Moral Authority gushing out his ear if he'd become president and chosen to leave Saddam in power. No question Hezbollah would have been impressed -- perhaps enough to aim the rockets a little to the left, so they'd land on the outskirts of the playgrounds.

But the revealing moment in Dean's assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Nonstop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: Make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute won't solve itself.

This suggests the Democrats believe the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests they don't understand that Hezbollah's definition of "disarm" is blowing off Israeli limbs.

Imagine a typical negotiation ...

Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.

Gullible American: Well, that's just rhetoric; we understand.

Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.

(Pause)

American: So you're saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us you're ready to coexist with Israel.

Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.

American: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of details. Great! We'll draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony. You're going to love the pens. They're Cross. Smoothest pen you've ever used.

Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to crawl towards the sea.

American: Do you need your parking validated?

(Repeat until the most recent accords fall apart, then call for new accords.)

Howard Dean is not a stupid man; he knows Iran and Syria are the real actors behind this game. But his words placate the Democrats' netroots activists who think Bush is stumping the country blaming the Hezbollah attacks on Max Cleland.

Fine. If Israel eliminates Hezbollah, humiliates the fascists of Syria and lets Lebanon get on with the Cedar Revolution devoid of murder-gang influence, will that be Bush's doing?

Of course not. He doesn't have Moral Authority, like Bill Clinton.

July 19, 2006

(James Lileks can be contacted at newhouse@lileks.com)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668698/posts

[otterinbham 0]

I have to admit that I voted for W twice. But with deep reservations.

Before everybody springs to their pat political responses, I am a conservative. And here's why I believe GWB has been an awful president.

1) The man had Republican majorities in Congress. Yet spending accelerated, even when you do not take into account the War on Terror or the new Department of Homeland Securty. Case in point? The new Prescription Act, which adds new entitlements to an already overburdened welfare state.

Here the Republican Party had an historic opportunity to reverse the growth of government. And yet the opposite occured.

2) The Iraq Debacle. First, I felt we were right to go into Iraq. But there was absolutely no planning for what would happen in Iraq after we won. I am a defense contractor, and I have talked first hand to those who were involved at the strategic level in Gulf War II. As one colonel said to me over his beer, "You know, it was pretty apparent that nobody thought past toppling the Saddam statues."

Second of all, because our casus belli for Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction, did not exist, we now have a serious credibility gap among our allies and the rest of the Middle East. If you don't think that matters, just wait until we need regional support for the coming conflict with Iran.

So while we had general support for our invason of Afghanistan for the War on Terror, we essentially squandered it in what turned out to be, at best, tangential to our strategic needs. Yet a large proportion of our forces are mired in what was an unnecessary conflict, while the possibility of wars in Korea or the Taiwan Strait are very real.

The American public is not stupid. They are not sheep. Essentially they do not trust the competence of this administration, which is why his poll ratings have spiralled into historical lows that can only be matched by Herbert Hoover. Defend him all you want. Blame the media. But the media disliked Ronald Reagan too, yet he remained popular during his own administration. Meanwhile, as Bush's popularity rating falls through the 20s and begins flirting with the teens, we have to wonder how disastrous the defeat will be in the 2008. Can you visualize Hillary Clinton or (God help us) Edwards licking their chops?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

I have to admit that I voted for W twice. But with deep reservations.

Before everybody springs to their pat political responses, I am a conservative. And here's why I believe GWB has been an awful president.

1) The man had Republican majorities in Congress. Yet spending accelerated, even when you do not take into account the War on Terror or the new Department of Homeland Securty. Case in point? The new Prescription Act, which adds new entitlements to an already overburdened welfare state.

Here the Republican Party had an historic opportunity to reverse the growth of government. And yet the opposite occured.

2) The Iraq Debacle. First,  I felt we were right to go into Iraq. But there was absolutely no planning for what would happen in Iraq after we won. I am a defense contractor, and I have talked first hand to those who were involved at the strategic level in Gulf War II. As one colonel said to me over his beer, "You know, it was pretty apparent that nobody thought past toppling the Saddam statues."

Second of all, because our casus belli for Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction, did not exist, we now have a serious credibility gap among our allies and the rest of the Middle East. If you don't think that matters, just wait until we need regional support for the coming conflict with Iran.

So while we had general support for our invason of Afghanistan for the War on Terror, we essentially squandered it in what turned out to be, at best, tangential to our strategic needs. Yet a large proportion of our forces are mired in what was an unnecessary conflict, while the possibility of wars in Korea or the Taiwan Strait are very real.

The American public is not stupid. They are not sheep. Essentially they do not trust the competence of this administration, which is why his poll ratings have spiralled into historical lows that can only be matched by Herbert Hoover. Defend him all you want. Blame the media. But the media disliked Ronald Reagan too, yet he remained popular during his own administration. Meanwhile, as Bush's popularity rating falls through the 20s and begins flirting with the teens, we have to wonder how disastrous the defeat will be in the 2008. Can you visualize Hillary Clinton or (God help us) Edwards licking their chops?

250793[/snapback]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader. They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader.  They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

250812[/snapback]

So the article told and discerned the truth about your leader Howard, so you can only take pot shots. Typical for Tex.

Tex don't give up your day job, because you wouldn't make it as a pollster discerning what people think. Huuummm on second thought you probably would make a good dimocrat pollster.

I don't think you even read the article did you Tex. Take your pot shots, I could care less. But it is your leader the piece was about. Your leader is the one out there telling the lies and working in spin mode and you eat it up. And what did you do? Blame Bush and attack me. You seem to be walking in the very deep ruts of that high road you want to claim.

Why does it matter that the dims are not in power? If they come out and make illogical statements like Howard has for,,,,, hell for as long as he has been on the national scene.

Stick to the subject Tex and defend Howard and if the author was wrong in anything he said, point it out.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader.  They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

250812[/snapback]

So the article told and discerned the truth about your leader Howard, so you can only take pot shots. Typical for Tex.

Tex don't give up your day job, because you wouldn't make it as a pollster discerning what people think. Huuummm on second thought you probably would make a good dimocrat pollster.

I don't think you even read the article did you Tex. Take your pot shots, I could care less. But it is your leader the piece was about. Your leader is the one out there telling the lies and working in spin mode and you eat it up. And what did you do? Blame Bush and attack me. You seem to be walking in the very deep ruts of that high road you want to claim.

Why does it matter that the dims are not in power? If they come out and make illogical statements like Howard has for,,,,, hell for as long as he has been on the national scene.

Stick to the subject Tex and defend Howard and if the author was wrong in anything he said, point it out.

250813[/snapback]

Howard Dean couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of Vermont. You worry about him all you want. I'm more concerned with the guy who claims to be the leader of the free world-- even though he is the first modern USA president to actually relinquish that role.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader.  They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

250812[/snapback]

So the article told and discerned the truth about your leader Howard, so you can only take pot shots. Typical for Tex.

Tex don't give up your day job, because you wouldn't make it as a pollster discerning what people think. Huuummm on second thought you probably would make a good dimocrat pollster.

I don't think you even read the article did you Tex. Take your pot shots, I could care less. But it is your leader the piece was about. Your leader is the one out there telling the lies and working in spin mode and you eat it up. And what did you do? Blame Bush and attack me. You seem to be walking in the very deep ruts of that high road you want to claim.

Why does it matter that the dims are not in power? If they come out and make illogical statements like Howard has for,,,,, hell for as long as he has been on the national scene.

Stick to the subject Tex and defend Howard and if the author was wrong in anything he said, point it out.

250813[/snapback]

Howard Dean couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of Vermont. You worry about him all you want. I'm more concerned with the guy who claims to be the leader of the free world-- even though he is the first modern USA president to actually relinquish that role.

250814[/snapback]

Then start a thread about Bush, this one is about your leader Howard Dean.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader.  They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

250812[/snapback]

So the article told and discerned the truth about your leader Howard, so you can only take pot shots. Typical for Tex.

Tex don't give up your day job, because you wouldn't make it as a pollster discerning what people think. Huuummm on second thought you probably would make a good dimocrat pollster.

I don't think you even read the article did you Tex. Take your pot shots, I could care less. But it is your leader the piece was about. Your leader is the one out there telling the lies and working in spin mode and you eat it up. And what did you do? Blame Bush and attack me. You seem to be walking in the very deep ruts of that high road you want to claim.

Why does it matter that the dims are not in power? If they come out and make illogical statements like Howard has for,,,,, hell for as long as he has been on the national scene.

Stick to the subject Tex and defend Howard and if the author was wrong in anything he said, point it out.

250813[/snapback]

Howard Dean couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of Vermont. You worry about him all you want. I'm more concerned with the guy who claims to be the leader of the free world-- even though he is the first modern USA president to actually relinquish that role.

250814[/snapback]

Then start a thread about Bush, this one is about your leader Howard Dean.

250815[/snapback]

If he is my leader, then why are you the only one of us who cares what he has to say?

[Tigermike 3,053]

Tigermike, and so many other so-called conservatives on this board, define their conservative credentials as fealty to Dear Leader.  They prefer to bad mouth Dems who aren't even in power to facing the fact that they supported an incompetent bufoon.

250812[/snapback]

So the article told and discerned the truth about your leader Howard, so you can only take pot shots. Typical for Tex.

Tex don't give up your day job, because you wouldn't make it as a pollster discerning what people think. Huuummm on second thought you probably would make a good dimocrat pollster.

I don't think you even read the article did you Tex. Take your pot shots, I could care less. But it is your leader the piece was about. Your leader is the one out there telling the lies and working in spin mode and you eat it up. And what did you do? Blame Bush and attack me. You seem to be walking in the very deep ruts of that high road you want to claim.

Why does it matter that the dims are not in power? If they come out and make illogical statements like Howard has for,,,,, hell for as long as he has been on the national scene.

Stick to the subject Tex and defend Howard and if the author was wrong in anything he said, point it out.

250813[/snapback]

Howard Dean couldn't get elected dog catcher outside of Vermont. You worry about him all you want. I'm more concerned with the guy who claims to be the leader of the free world-- even though he is the first modern USA president to actually relinquish that role.

250814[/snapback]

Then start a thread about Bush, this one is about your leader Howard Dean.

250815[/snapback]

If he is my leader, then why are you the only one of us who cares what he has to say?

250816[/snapback]

Obviously I am not the only one, I didn't write the article.

But I did think the author made some good points.

It seems apparent the author was correct since you reverted to bashing Bush.

What will you people do when Bush is not around?

[otterinbham 0]

Hey. When no less a conservative eminence as Milton Friedman, the man who was behind so much of Reaganomics, the intellectual driving force of modern conservativism, essentially said Bush has screwed up and screwed up big time (Read this morning's interview in the Wall Street Journal), then you know that we have a seriously flawed leadership in the White House.

Personally, I cannot imagine that anybody with the IQ a notch or two above that of a rhesus monkey believes that GWB is doing a good job.

So what is our best hope for a Republican candidate in 2008?

1) Stay the course in the Middle East (a pullout would be a complete disaster at this point)

2) Retrench entitlements. Stake his presidency on it, if necessary. Because the economic future of the country depends on it.

[Tigermike 3,053]

No one said you didn't make very good points in your earlier post and it required no response, unless you wanted or needed an attaboy. Even though it was not on subject I didn't say anything. Mainly because I agreed with much of your post

Tex made no point at all. Which is typical Tex.

But now you wish to continue the push in that same direction. So I will ask you, where in the article did the author take up for Bush? Why is it impossible for you (and Tex) to comment on the points made by the author without going on a rant about Bush> Even someone with the IQ a notch or two above that of a rhesus monkey can manage to stay on subject once in a while without going off on tangents. If you and Tex are so myopic that you can't consider anything without filtering it thru the glasses of anti Bush then you need to step back and take a good hard look at yourself.

As far as this article goes, the author makes some good points. Just because he points out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the rhetoric coming from the DNC, does not mean he is taking up for and propping up Bush. Nor does it mean I am because I posted the article here.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

No one said you didn't make very good points in your earlier post and it required no response, unless you wanted or needed an attaboy.  Even though it was not on subject I didn't say anything.  Mainly because I agreed with much of your post

Tex made no point at all.  Which is typical Tex.

But now you wish to continue the push in that same direction.  So I will ask you, where in the article did the author take up for Bush?  Why is it impossible for you (and Tex) to comment on the points made by the author without going on a rant about Bush>  Even someone with the IQ a notch or two above that of a rhesus monkey can manage to stay on subject once in a while without going off on tangents.  If you and Tex are so myopic that you can't consider anything without filtering it thru the glasses of anti Bush then you need to step back and take a good hard look at yourself.

As far as this article goes, the author makes some good points.  Just because he points out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the rhetoric coming from the DNC, does not mean he is taking up for and propping up Bush.  Nor does it mean I am because I posted the article here.

250852[/snapback]

My initial post was a reply to Otter, but frankly, what I said applies to the author's "points" as well. This author is just like you and so many others, which is why you posted his article here. Focus on everything but the incompetence of the person who is actually in charge and calling in the shots. Focus on anything to deflect a critical look at Dear Leader.

[otterinbham 0]

No one said you didn't make very good points in your earlier post and it required no response, unless you wanted or needed an attaboy.  Even though it was not on subject I didn't say anything.  Mainly because I agreed with much of your post

Tex made no point at all.  Which is typical Tex.

But now you wish to continue the push in that same direction.  So I will ask you, where in the article did the author take up for Bush?  Why is it impossible for you (and Tex) to comment on the points made by the author without going on a rant about Bush>  Even someone with the IQ a notch or two above that of a rhesus monkey can manage to stay on subject once in a while without going off on tangents.  If you and Tex are so myopic that you can't consider anything without filtering it thru the glasses of anti Bush then you need to step back and take a good hard look at yourself.

As far as this article goes, the author makes some good points.  Just because he points out the idiocy and hypocrisy of the rhetoric coming from the DNC, does not mean he is taking up for and propping up Bush.  Nor does it mean I am because I posted the article here.

250852[/snapback]

Here's why. Because James Lileks isn't what I would term an objective voice. He's a lap dog for an administration that's not doing its job. At every misstep of the Bush administration, he's been there to write a justification for it.

I prefer to get my commentary from objective conservatives who have the honesty to criticize the administration when it's screwing up and commend it when it does the right thing. Conservatives such as George Will, Newt Gingrich, and William F. Buckley, conservatives with impeccable credentials who have become more and more strident in their critiques of an administration that simply doesn't know its you-know-what from a hole in the ground.

Hey, I detest the Democrats. But the problem here is that the Republicans have blown a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape the face of government in this country. And they let greed and the easy seduction of incumbency let them sell their principles down the river. So guess what's going to happen? A wholesale revolt against the GOP in the polls. And it's more than a pity. It's an outrage.

I don't need an attaboy, by the way. What is required here is for you guys to take the blinders off.