Bush the Liberal

[otterinbham 0]

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge ... There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable."

[Ranger12 46]

One of the dumbest things I have ever heard, even with so many "smart, big" words in the statement. This president has faced more adveristy with catastrophes then any other president in a very long time. The man has kept us from another 9-11 even after going after the terrorists, which many liberals claimed would make them even madder and attack us again. There may be some truth to the article. Slick Willy may be eventually better know because of his Oval Office affair and impeachment then the man the defended this country from terrorism.

Isn't that the way history works now? I know by the recent U.S. History college class that I took, revisionist history is a very popular thing now. My professor wanted to talk more about Mary Todd Lincoln's mental issues then what President Lincoln did for this country. I guess he thought doing that would make what Lincoln did less impressive.

[otterinbham 0]

Hey, I'm just telling you what's being written by staunch conservatives such as Buckley, Will, Friedman, Sullivan, and a host of others. These guys are not allied to any administration. They are just objective analysts. And what they have to say is not pretty.

Actually, the president's initial actions after 9/11 were quite effective. Nobody would argue with our invasion of Afghanistan. What is highly debatable is not only our invasion of Iraq, but the effectiveness of our occupation. It's not a smear on our men in uniform. It's a question of whether this was the right thing to do. The closest parallel I can think of in history was the Peloponnesian War. After initial reverses, Athens had Sparta on the ropes. In fact, the Spartans were debating suing for peace. So what do the Athenians do? Go on a military expedition against neutral Syracuse on the island of Sicily. The distraction gave the Spartans an opportunity to regroup, the Syracusans drained Athenian manpower, and the war wound up being a disaster for Athens. I'm worried that the very same thing is happening here. We had other fish to fry in the War On Terror. Not some expedition that was clearly tangential to the matter at hand. There were no WMDs in Iraq. There were no massive terrorist training grounds. Only an SOB in power with whom the Bush administration had a family grudge. And now we're committed there in a very brutal insurgent war that will suck up manpower, material, and money while other strategic needs go unanswered.

[Ranger12 46]

Actually according to documents that have been recovered and still being translated, it has been revealed that Saddam had ties to terroists as orginally thought. You don't hear about it because the mainstream media will not report it. Fox News is the only media outlet that was reporting it, then as it got more attention, Newsweek and the WAJ jumped on it a little bit. But, you never saw it reported on CNN, CBS, ABC, or NBC. Also, we all know there were WMDs because he has used them. The intelligence said there were WMDs ad they have been found. He had not destroyed all the WMDs as he was supposed to. The intelligence was apparently wrong about him creating more, but we still do not know that for sure. Also, according to some hints on the documents I was referring too, Saddam was looking for some type of nuclear capability. With that, I disagree with the fact that we should not have went after Saddam. If we would not have, we could be looking at the possibilty of him being just like Iran now, a nuclear power with terrorist ties.

Link

LINK

I completely understood the fact that Buckley, a conservative was making the statement, but that does not mean I must agree with him. I am not a conservative kool-aid drinker and I have disagree with Buckley before just as I have disagreed with some things President Bush has done.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge ... There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable."

251247[/snapback]

Bush is no liberal. He's a big government, neo-con on foreign policy and faux religious conservative on social policy-- he doesn't really care too much about the religous Rights agenda, but he knew he needed them so he wouldn't end up like Daddy. Buckley's real beef is that Bush helps to illustrate how many different forms "conservatives" take these days. On this board, for example, there are many people who defend Bush religiously and blindly who consider themselves "real conservatives." Bush simply isn't the type of "conservative" folks like Buckley and Buchanan or even Reagan championed for so many years. He is not what they envisioned the revolution would look like, Bush lacks a conservative ideology because the movement had to piece together too many divergent camps to form a majority. Bush has never been particularly ideological, which I foolishly tried to take solace in when he was elected. I knew he wasn't a true believer, but rather just wanted to win. Once in office, his goal was to not be a one-termer. So government grew and you got a budget busting prescription medicare plan which no real conservative would have ever been for. Big Pharma got their big payoff with it, though. No spending bill every got vetoed because everyone had to be paid off. Conservatism as an ideology only exists in theory. It has never existed in the actual practice of Federal governing in America.