Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food
What might have been
It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}
"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.
I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.
Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.
Powell based this strategy for warfare in part on the views held by his former boss in the Reagan administration, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and also on his own experience as a major in Vietnam. That protracted campaign, in Powell's view, was representative of a war in which public support was flimsy, the military objectives were not clear, overwhelming force was not used consistently, and an exit strategy was ill defined.
Sounds a lot like Iraq doesn't it? Public support for the war is sliding. We're not using a fraction of our military potential, and there seems to be no clear viable long-term goal or exit strategy. {Update: On the issue of whether we're using our full military potential, Victor Davis Hanson observes: "throughout this conflict the United States has been apprehensive that it was becoming too brutal in its effort even as the Islamic fascists were convinced that we were too weak to fight such a war."}
The second problem is that the fly paper strategy seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up. This should hardly come as a surprise to anybody who has watched Israel pursue military solutions to its terrorist problems, after all. Does anybody really think Israel's military actions have left Hezbollah or Hamas with fewer foot soldiers? To the contrary, the London bombing suggests to me that it is only a matter of time before the jihadists strike in the US again, even though our troops remain hung out as fly paper in the Augean Stables of Iraq. {Update: The news that Scotland Yard foiled a gas attack on the House of Commons, for which the Yard deserves mega-kudos, doesn't change my mind. As the climax of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor suggests (and I still wonder of that inspired 9/11), the terrorists only need to win once. Conversely, the latest news about that rocket attack on a US Navy ship in Jordan seems to confirm my concerns: "The Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an al-Qaida-linked group that claimed responsibility for the bombings which killed at least 64 people at Sharm el-Sheik in July and 34 people at two other Egyptian resorts last October -- said in an Internet statement that its fighters had fired the Katyushas, bolstering concerns that Islamic extremists had opened a new front in the region." Indeed, the NYT reports that: "The possible involvement of Iraqis and the military-style attack have raised fears that militants linked to Iraq's insurgency may be operating on Jordanian soil."}
While we remain bogged down in Iraq, of course, Osama bin Laden remains at large somewhere. Multi-tasking is all the rage these days, but whatever happened to finishing a job you started? It strikes me that catching Osama would have done a lot more to discourage the jihadists than anything we've done in Iraq.
What really annoys me, however, are the domestic implications of all this. The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?
In sum, I am not a happy camper. I'm very afraid that 100 years from now historians will look back at W's term and ask "what might have been?"
Update: In response to a valid email question, I haven't changed my mind about cutting and running. I still think that's probably the worst possible strategy. But I'm very angry at Bush for having gotten us into this mess in the first place. And, as per the Powell doctrine, I do think it's time for the administration to come up with both a viable long-term goal and a clear exit strategy.
Update: Follow up post: Once More into the Iraq Breach
"See, I have a plan. And my plan is for success. We will not leave until - until we have success. That’s my plan. And I think the American people want a strong leader with a firm plan. See, I’m that guy. I’m the guy with the plan.”
“Well first, we’ve only regime-changed—only liberated—one axis of evil and we need another four years to regime-change the rest, and fourthly, it is important that you don’t change your saddle in mid-stride.”
It wasn’t Bush that got us into this situation. We have been in this situation since the end of the Gulf War and all through the Clinton administration. We ought to recognize the simple fact that containment of Iraq largely put us in a position of becoming a terror target. Multiple aspects of containment policy served as bin Laden’s stated causus belli. And while bin Laden is largely lying about how much he cares about any of that, it is likely that it accelerated his setting of his eyes upon us. Regardless, 3000 American’s died for the ghost of Saddam’s WMDs on and before 9/11. Bush is principled enough to not publicly crap on Clinton’s now apparent mismanagement of containment strategy and intelligence gathering regarding Iraq’s WMD programs.
One thing about the attack on the naval vessels. Terrorists with links to Iraq were already operating in Jordan before the war. Zarqawi’s men assasinated a US diplomat in Jordan using Iraq as a base of operations.
I can’t claim to be a conservative, but as something approaching a left-libertarian, I’ve been wondering when conservatives were going to stop their increasingly convoluted attempts to defend Bush and get pissed off. I mean, the guy just blew it. Conservatives won’t have a chance this good to chip away at the New Deal consensus ... maybe ever.
All for a pointless, counterproductive war of choice. The mind boggles.
War, and even the preparations for war, tend to diminish liberties at home, and I see little concern on either side of the aisle for the creeping police state and the massive tax increases that are almost certain to come when our Chinese banker friends cut the cord, the boomers start retiring, and we have to actually start paying for this war (which is projected to cost about a trillion dollars by the end of the decade, which means about ten grand per American taxpayer).
And what are we doing over there in the first place? At the end of the cold war, Washington closed up shop in Latin America and largely came home. The people figured out rather expeditiously that they could no longer blame their woes on the Yankees or the commies, and had to start governing themselves. There are to be sure any number of unsavory backwaters left down there, and it is one of the more illiberal corners of western civilization, but at least we don’t have Bolivian leftists blowing themselves up in our shopping malls.
Washington couldn’t close up shop in the Arab world because they have something we needed, and still need, and now there any number of Islamic fruitcakes feeling all aggrieved about our protection racket, and wanting to remake their little corner of the world into something even more backward than it already is. Well, whatever. You know?
The neocons do have a point, which is that the status quo in the Arab-Muslim world, and our relationship to it can no longer be sustained. But their answer - to invade and occupy half of the middle east, and spend the next generation teaching them the virtues of the Brady Bunch (not Allah, it’s *Marsha*), strip clubs, and big gulps (and maybe something about democracy too) - is just plain loopy. America is tired, and broke. And Joe and Jane Suburbanite who just spent the last twelve years sending little Johnny to St. Fondleite’s School for Boys at a cost of 750,000 dollars have no desire to see their kid drafted into occupation duty in Fallujah. Their kind don’t do that sort of thing, you see, and judging from the current enlistment numbers, neither does anyone else apparently.
We need to stop running our economy on oil (the Saudis themselves said in a statement published July 7 in Forbes that opec won’t be able to meet western demand in ten years anyhow), and we need to pick up and come home. Occupations, bases, everthing. Let the Arabs know that they have to start governing themselves, and let them know that if any of this lunatic monkey business continues we will bomb the daylights out of their cities and shrines and holy sites.
Professor Bainbridge,
I’ll beg you to leave this comment up, and to consider the contents of the attached Video: Kris Millegan, which is directly related to Bush and the so-called War.
Mostly this will bring howls of contempt, but perhaps a few can be enlightened.
"Bush is principled enough to not publicly crap on Clinton’s now apparent mismanagement of containment strategy and intelligence gathering regarding Iraq’s WMD programs.”
So this Iraq debacle is all CLINTON’S fault? Perhaps you might consider whether a containment policy which stopped Hussein from compiling any WMD a success? And Bush is PRINCIPLED? Yeah, right.
Your comments are well-considered and they should touch off an intelligent debate.
However, you’re now going to be subject to the mocking/belittling treatment by the NeoCon establishment.
You know: “Paleocon.” “Bircher” “Peacenik.”
But you’re right.
I know, name calling is all that’s left (oops) of the Republican establishment’s argument, save for clear thinkers like Professor Bainbridge. Fortunately for our country, I detect more grumbling from that camp about the glaringly obvious problems apparent to all who never drank the Kool-Aid. Eventually, I think we will fix our problems—we usually do—but, oh, how much time and opportunity we have wasted .
Forget about a missed oppotunity to enact a conservative agends. I would settle for if Bush simply stopped making everything he touches worse. I just wish he would nap more.
Prof. Bainbridge, You are a traitor to the cause of our country. You have joined the cowards like Sheehan who cries because her spawn got shot up like a dog in Iraq. Maybe he deserved it. In an all volunteer army, death is a possible outcome. The left can scream about Cheney’s deferments and Bush escaping Vietnam, but the real cowards are the traitors who complain after one of them dies in a cause that they volunteered and was paid to do. I don’t care if soldiers are conservative or liberal. They are our servants and are paid to do our bidding and sometimes to die for it. So stop blaming Bush for the cowardice of some military families.
Using troops as flypaper is the right way to go. 138,000 assholes who volunteer to die is better than any number of civilians who may die in a terrorist attack. Prof., you have turned your hatred for Bush and Cheney blind you to the anti-American nature of the war-opposition. We should be prepared to sacrifice thousands more lives and billions more in a noble cause like Iraq.
Came here from Calpundit/WashingtonMonthly; so nice to find your place—thank you.
You have nothing to worry about; the Dem’s are so feckless—much like the Palestinians, they never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity—they’ll still manage to find some way to lose in ‘06 and ‘08. You may still get many, if not all, of your wishes.
But do you not find it interesting that in trying to enact the Right’s decades-long wish-list, Bushco finds it necessary to label every initiative with the opposite of its obvious intent? “HEALTHY Forests,” “SAVING Social Security” (much as Westmoreland “saved” that village), “Reforming” Bankruptcy Law (is THAT what that word means?)…
Now, do you suppose that’s because Bush is apparently innately a pathological liar? Or perhaps it’s because this Administration recognizes that, in the clear light of day, when things are truly labelled and defined, the American people—or at least a good majority thereof—really don’t WANT what y’all on the Right have been selling? Hmm? Just a thought…
Which goes straight to the point that conservatism is better at thinking about policy than in administering it. The American people might consider themselves “conservative” in principle but they are very “liberal” in their expectations from government. When they elect a “conservative” government, they don’t really want what that means, resulting in the schizoid approach that we have been now enduring for the past five years.
Oh, and Honest Barrone, nice trolling, but just a TAD too over the top to get the response you seek. Have a pleasant day.
an opportunity lost for conservatives? I guess so.
But that pales in comparison to the opportunities lost by thousands of Americans who only tried to serve.
Prof B.: You have more than enough comments to your excellent post already, but here’s a word or two anyway:
Please ignore the above comment by “Honest Barrone,” who is a jerk. HB: I will meet you with pistolas at dawn.
Please ignore all the hate-comments you get, and don’t let it turn you against comments. You *know* this kind of thoughtful post is the most likely to drown you in vitriol; we still value having comments.
I also recommend closing comments to particular posts, if you can, once everything that needs to be said has been said. Further comments can be by email.
And, as to my own take: In 100 years, people will look back and will be somewhat fuzzy on the idea that there were two George Bushes, rather than one FDR-like leader whose non-consecutive periods in office were labelled “George Bush (I)” and “George Bush (II)”. The initials won’t help; even some historians will be fuzzy. The availability of color stereo video of Bush as President will be no help; _everyone_ knows that can be faked by any 10-year-old with an iCray; it’s not even 3-D with pseudo-encryption!
I was talking about opportunities squandered (not to mention selfishly manipulated) for the country; the post 9/11 support America enjoyed from the entire world and the unity we Americans felt for each other, the chance to enact a sound energy policy for decades to come, the need to buttress technical education for our young people, the chance to harness that same technology for a market-based environmental policy, and on and on. History will not treat this president kindly.
What an intelligent post. It is refreshing (to say the least) to see someone from the right who can look at facts and follow where they lead, instead of repeating Bill O’Reilly’s talking points. Also refreshing to see your statement conceding that gerrymandering is enabling the Republicans to control the House (if you were to allocate Senate seats by the population each state represents—e.g., California and New York weigh much more than Montana—then you would have an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate.) While we probably disagree on most (if not all) substantive issues, I commend you for having the intellectual honesty to write the truth: that Bush has betrayed those who elected him (not to mention those who voted against him) with an ineptitude and a stubbornness which is shocking.
they’ll [Democrats] still manage to find some way to lose in ‘06 and ‘08. You may still get many, if not all, of your wishes.
This is probably true. The Dems won’t pick up much in the off-year elections even if the war continues and is very unpopular.
Conservatives and Republicans, of course, can thank gerrymandering for much of it. A new book by a Yale professor (can’t remember his name)shows that in 2000 with a absolutely tied presidential election, the Republicans won 54% of congressinal districts. In 2004 if the presidential vote had been exactly the same as 2000, they would have won 57%.
The Politburo will survive ‘06 intact no matter what happens.
Here on the left we have been waiting for more conervatives to realize that Kerry or Gore would have been a lot more Conservative.
Bush has not only failed to ‘roll back the state’ he has made it much bigger. When are Conservatives going to realize that corporate welfare is much more damaging than any other type of state handout because it distorts the market? The farm bill is socialism for milionaires. The road bill is Japan style bridges to nowhere in Alaska. The energy bill is handouts to some of the most profitable companies in the country.
None of this is the least bit Conservative. Bush and co are not conservatives any more than they are religious. Exactly what is Christian about starting a war of choice? Exactly what is Christian about their campaign tactics? Exactly what is Conservative or Christian about accepting $40,000 golf vacations from a corrupt lobbyist like Abramoff?
Unfortunately the backlash is likely to cost the Republican party very heavily. In the UK Tony Blair just won his third election in a row, the Conservative party did not have a ghost of a chance in any of them and few people think they can recover for the next election either. The US was 51:49 in every Bush era election, if just 5% of the country are disgusted by the corruption or dismayed by the war the GOP is anihilated.
A party built on patronage like the Tom Delay Republican party cannot last very long without power.
"You have nothing to worry about; the Dem’s are so feckless—much like the Palestinians, they never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity”
As a long-time Dem, you are correct. However, I think we’ve finally gotten our act together and will pull it off next time. The fact is that Bush reminds me of one a football coach that goes into halftime down but comes out in the second half with the same game plan he started the game with - then calls that leadership.
The one thing I’ve learned about politics is that a politician will eventually overstep right into a pile of crap. The Neo-cons have done that with Iraq. I’m not sure if the next Republican that runs for the White House can win using Bush’s agenda.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Change takes time and especially given our constitutionally established legislative processes, sharply divided electorate, and a hypercritical media
Your demands for instant gratification are unbecoming. Keep some perspective. Too many agendas will mean that nothing will get done and the one thing we need to keep front and center is to effect a radical change in the Middle East.
Perhaps you disagree with the need to effect that change and that’s probably at the root of this post.
I agree. I am a conservative and I didnt vote for Bush. I see how social conservatives have been used by politicians. When bush was reelected none of the things social conservatives want were on his agenda. And I laught at how they will support Roberts just because Bush nominated him. Liberals wont put up a big fight because he probably will be liberal. Actually illegal immigration already benefits the dems. In this country reps are counted by census and illegals are included. That’s why you have people from organizations liek la raza (the race) mecha and lulac (villagarosa in la teh mayor) getting elected and helping illegal immigratrion to continue. I just goit interested in politics from this last election adn I am very dissapointed. Oreilly doenst support I thik the war as a cheerleader i think he believes cause we are already there we have to finish correctly. In regards to voting i dont think it matters. The cafta vote was corrupted. I think the vote was tampered with. People who voted no were recored as yes. So if we voted in third parties the computer would probably change the votes.
I smell the sweet stench of neo-isolationism spreading across the land.
Shall we tweak the Clinton strategy and do some hit and run preemptive strikes?
Perhaps the MAD (mutually assured destruction) of the cold war was really our best security blanket.
Suppose we missle up and put a Big Bertha through the front door of the “Ministry of Reason” in Qom at the same time we knock out the sole refinery in Iran. Of course, Ahmadinejad would wear a GPS “x” and the new yellow cake refinery would be dust. Then we announce, ala Teddy Roosevelt, that the “Big Stick” is back in town. “Behave or be behaved.”
Our European “friends” will be cut loose to appease their way to security.
Somehow, I do not picture many Democrats jumping aboard this train.
It’s time for thoughtful conservatives to realize that the Rove / Neocons / Christian Fundamentalists triangle has corrupted and distorted the values of the Republican party, and that a lot of housecleaning is needed.
I am another left-leaning reader who found your post and this thread through a link on Kevin Drum’s site. I’m practically rubbing my eyes in astonishment, but I realize it’s the first hopeful piece of writing that I’ve seen in a long time.
I’ve been baffled over the last several years at the way “conservatives” (or at least vocal “conservatives") reflexively support everything that this administration does, every twist and turn of its policy, lemming-like, no matter how absurd, contradictory and counter-intuitive the policy rationale becomes. So much has been written about Mars & Venus, red & blue and the impossibility of a dialogue between “conservatives” and “liberals” (how to talk to one, if you must, etc.) that I’d almost come to believe that any sort of consensus was possible. But your post makes me rethink.
There are plenty of areas where I would agree with you - I want lower taxes, a strong military, a fierce and sustained response to Islamofascism, protection for the unborn (with the crucial corrollary of protection for the born, of course) and a lessening of government interference in my private life. Why should it be so hard for people on my side of the debate to talk to people on your side? One reason, in my case at least, has been my utter frustration over the personality-cult mentality that seems to suffuse the discourse on the right and, to a lesser degree, the left. Your post gives me reason to think that there’s a crack in the facade, which can only be a good thing.
Let’s start talking about national goals and ways to achieve them, instead of lionizing Bush and demonizing Clinton, and vice versa.
I am also a wandering liberal democrat, pleased to see evidence of intelligent life on this side of the blogosphere. That at least some people see that this administration is not “conservative” in any meaningful sense of the word is heartening. It all makes me nostalgic for Goldwater.
interesting.
henry kissinger wrote on these
topics last week in the
washington post—and i offer
some thoughts on his, which
may be germane to yours, here.
pax tecum,
-- tae, out.
> Here on the left we have been
> waiting for more conervatives
> to realize that Kerry or Gore
> would have been a lot more
> Conservative.
A question: who controls the Republican Party today? The public face of the Bush Republicans seems to have a coherent strategy of some sort (although I cannot discern exactly what it is), and certainly has a coherent public relations approach. Who is devising those strategies? Again, I have no idea. But I think that is the first issue for Conservatives to consider.
The second thing I would ask Conservatives (of whom I think there are very few, at the moment) to consider is this: perhaps things are going exactly as the Radicals desire. Perhaps nothing is off-course from the perspective of the Radical leaders (of whom I would include Cheney, Norquist, Wolfowitz, and perhaps W Bush). Perhaps they are getting exactly what they want. If so, where does that leave Conservatives?
Something to ponder.
Cranky
Message to conservatives: stop reading National Review and start reading Chronicles. The Paleo Cons have been correct about this war from the start, but the Neo-Cons are in control. Time for a revolt.
I think any political philosophy that needs gerrymandering in order to maintain control over either House of Congress is on shaky ground and probably intellectually brankrupt. Bush’s support only stems from tribalism at this point anyway, and the election money tree ensures that candidates from both parties think of the good of their contributors first and the good of the country and the people as a whole second.
Wow, this is about the dumbest Bainbridge post ever.
Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state?
There is no person who could conceivably be elected to make government smaller. Was Bush President in 1995? That’s when the “smaller government” fight was lost.
You’re only choices are much bigger government (the Democrats) or moderately bigger government (Republicans). Your choice.
"Or perhaps it’s because this Administration recognizes that, in the clear light of day, when things are truly labelled and defined, the American people—or at least a good majority thereof—really don’t WANT what y’all on the Right have been selling? Hmm? Just a thought...”
I believe that someone has been overdosing on George Lakoff.
As for the post - Iraq was a big, huge fat blunder by Bush (The WMD thing was the bungle of… well, a long time...).
And yes, he and the conservative movement will therefore pay a political price. However, the political pullback has so far been orderly, and casualties light. Largely, this is because of Bush’s admit-no-error strategy. It will be interesting to see if it holds, but my bet is it will.
If there had been a crack, it should have come during the Sadr rebellion and Abu Ghraib frenzy last year. It didn’t, and so there is no reason to believe the movement will fall apart.
PS - Needless to say, Bainbridge never explains what he would have done in lieu of the Iraq War. Opponents like him never do.
Truly pathetic.
PPS - Isolationists like Bainbridge are a disgrace to the Republican Party. Please go join Pat Buchanan’s party, Steve.
Congratulations, Prof. Bainbridge, for acknowledging the obvious—that conservative President George W. Bush’s Iraq program has been a disaster.
When will principled conservatives acknowledge other conservative disasters, such as these:
1. Refusing to greatly expand drug treatment programs, and instead focus on interdiction, when drug treatment is far more cost-effective. Plan Colombia has been a $3 billion waste.
2. Refusing to support improving fuel economy standards, so we wouldn’t be so dependent on imported oil.
3. Refusing to support a “Manhattan project” to greatly advance energy efficiency, so we wouldn’t be so dependent on imported oil.
4. Banning openly gay people from the military, sacrificing talent for no real purpose. This has been a particular disaster in the termination of gay speakers of Arabic.
5. Failing to work with liberals to promote policies that would reduce the demand for abortion, both domestically and internationally.
6. Denying the global climate crisis.
7. Favoring abolition of estate taxes, which are relatively painless; every dollar from the estate of a dead multimillionaire is a dollar that can be left untaxed in the pockets of a family struggling to feed, clothe, house, and educate their children.
8. Attempting to knock down the wall of separation between church and state, which follows the highly successful model in Islamic countries of knocking down the wall of separation between mosque and state.
Well, that’s enough for now; I could spend weeks listing the failures of the conservative approach.
Your assumptions are mistaken. Bush is the natural and inevitable result of conservatism. Why can’t you see that? It’s been obvious for decades. Open your eyes for a change.
> 100 years from now historians
> will look back at W’s term and
> ask “what might have been?”
Liberals are doing that now.
One very large elephant missing from the discussion table of course is corporatism. I would be interested to read a Conservative discussion of big-dollar corporatism and whether/how it fits into the conservative framework.
Cranky
I can’t speak for Bainbridge, but there are plenty of things which could have been done in lieu of the War—such as not going there in the first place and using those resources elsewhere. Nor is it isolationist to oppose the war: an isolationist opposes all wars, while there are many in the US (probably a majority) which would support a just war but feel that this war is unjust. If you want to make the case that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory, then fine—but calling Bainbridge pathetic and isolationist adds nothing.
People, it’s already over!
We live in an EMPIRE now it is no longer a Democractic Republic.
The people who control the NeoCon Republican party leaders are the same people who run the economy, who have successfully divided the country ,permanently rigged the state and federal elections, the ones unfettered by concerns of value or morality - hey are interested only in money and power...Corporate America.
The Corporatocracy.
Repeat that word, Corporatocracy.
Remember that word and what it implies for the US.
Actions speak louder than words.
The actions taken by the NeoCon Corporate Republican Party only work to support the Corporatocray’s steady move toward EMPIRE and eventually total global resource control.
It seems to me that the Republican’s doth protest too much too often - Every scandal reported these days is about our corrupted republican leaders (Karl Rove, Delay and Co or Tom Noe for quick example)Delay has been getting caught taking bribes for years, exchanging votes for favours and for strongarming votes votes from less powerful politicians. The Republicans wanted to legalize these tactics for Republicans after outlawing them for Democrats. Sleazy.
Republican values - corruption, bribery, lying, hiding, sneaking partisan legislation through at the last minute in the middle of the night.
Yeah, that’s what honest people do.
For the Republican leadership it is more important to lay a trap a “Bad” president for lying about his personal sexual peccadilos, it’s absolutely ok to wast millions of dollars and burn up our elected officials with endless smarmy atacks with the clear and Henry Hyde’s admitted attempt to fabricate a reason and entrap a president in a small and comparitively speaking inconsequential lie.
Republicans had the whole national security world looking at Minica Lewinski’s dress rather than address the terrorist threat. Now of course they want to blame Clinton for their zeal.
Republicans want their cake and they want someone else to buy it for them.
Calling this Republican administration moral or virtuos is moronic. Simply looking at their track record proves that claim.
Hmmm, let’s see. Who has benefitted most from this illustrious and very ethical and moral war on pronouns, The Enron Debacle, traitorous cabinet members leaking national security for political reasons etc. etc.
Well I’m not 100% sure, but we do know the oil industry is. Apparently, Conoco & their ilk is currently enjoying 50+% profits! Haliburton is sure doing well as is Bechtel, the communications industry not to mention the arm industry which is runing at 110% trying to backfill the hardware void that has existed since these doughboy chickenhawks started this unfounded war.
“
Keep drinking that holier than thou” kool aid NeoRepugnicians. Keep on believing you are somehow better in God’s eyes than the poor uneducated heathen Iraqi’s you all endorse killing for “freedom”.
Republicans won’t physically fight to protect their freedom, they make laws that allow them to be exluded, they get 6 deferrments or a cushy and unprovable stint in the national guard. Fucking Whimps. Real moral humans stand up against this kind of tyrrany. Posers’ just stand in line chanting the talking point pablum dujour, drinkingthe koolaid.
I honestly do not see how you conservatives can stand so firmly beside this administration when they are diametrically opposed to your core principles.
The Empire you greedy souless NeoCon/TheoCon Republican criminals have created (at the expense of the free world) will be all of our downfall.
You suck.
To Joel: I don’t think that George Bush is the inevitable result of conservatism. (Although I’m not sure what Liberal and Conservative mean anymore. Gay marriage? Liberal? Hey, I thought conservatives wanted to keep government out of people’s lives. Ditto for abortion, stem cell, unfunded government mandates, etc.). However, I think you can have a principled conservative government very different from the current one. Reagan’s, for example. Nixon, for another. You may disagree with most or all of what they did (I do)—but both administrations were thoroughly conservative, and both were fundamentally different from the Bush II administration.
we work with the flawed instruments that are handed to us. If you would, please name one electable conservative politician(as in running in the 2000 republican or democratic primaries)who would be doing a better job given the circumstances that have confronted us since 2000.
but there are plenty of things which could have been done in lieu of the War—such as not going there in the first place and using those resources elsewhere.
You mean keep hundreds of thousands of our troops in Saudi Arabia? Yeah, THAT was likely to “radicalizing our foes” (as Bainbridge thinks is happening now).
Or just let the sanctions against Iraq go away? Then we really would have had to face Saddam’s WMD.
Let’s face it, your “alternative” is facile.
Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq
As long as you keep enabling the NeoCON nutjobs by voting for them, you’ve got nobody but yourself to blame. When they continue to “piss away” not only the “conservative moment,” but the credibility of Conservatism due to their association with it (and continued support from “real conservatives"), you’ve got nobody but yourself to blame. As long as you keep voting for Republicans while the nutjobs are in charge, the Republican majorities will give the nuts their power to pursue (in your terms) criminally incompetent policies. If you really want it to stop, my advice to you is to stop voting Republican until the nuts lose their death-grip on the Republican party.
But that’s not going to happen, is it?
I would have focused on Iran and North Korea, which are real threats and have (or are acquiring) real weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was the wrong target, fought for the wrong reasons, and executed with the wrong tactics and resources.
Nixon, for another. You may disagree with most or all of what they did (I do)—but both administrations were thoroughly conservative,
Nixon - of the wage & price controls - was conservative??? Wow - utterly clueless.
I would have focused on Iran and North Korea
Focused - by doing WHAT?
Electable conservative politicians: Check Hagel, John McCain, maybe Rudy Giuliani. Hey, even Bob Dole or Antonin Scalia. Anybody but this guy!
Re Nixon: true, wage & price controls were hardly conservative, and maybe going to China wasn’t, either. On the whole, I think Nixon (and most, if not all, conservatives) would consider his administration to be far more conservative than liberal or moderate.
Re Iran and North Korea: I don’t know if the case can be made that we should have used military action to effect regime change. However, the case for invading those countries is far stronger than for invading Iraq—if we really want to challenge rogue states with WMD, these are the two which fit the bill.
Do Conservatives exist today?
Back in the 80s I knew some principled Conservatives, including one who was my college roommate and best friend of that period. I disagreed with their beliefs and conclusions, but they were rational people whose beliefs and actions were based on a consistent set of documented and defensible principles. They also had a stopping point; when they had lost an argument or election they accepted that and moved on to be part of the community.
I would challenge Mr. Bainbridge to identify people of that nature in the Republican Party today.
Cranky
Been comming to your place since I discovered it. Even though I am a strong liberal I enjoy your open, honest approach to things. I especially like that you do not preach hate as so many right wing and other christians do, and have an open mind. It is nice to see you come to the conclusion that Bush has done more damage to the US
army then any American since Robert E. Lee.
The question now is not what type of government Iraq has.
Rather, the question is how do we get out of this mess without futher damaging our
ability to play a constructive role in the region and maintain an effective foreign policy. Right now we look like a bunch of cowboys that can not be trusted to correctly weild our great power.
P.S. Al is the world’s greatest troll.
"Electable conservative politicians: Check Hagel, John McCain, maybe Rudy Giuliani. Hey, even Bob Dole or Antonin Scalia”
thanks for responding, it is interesting to see who you consider to be conservative politicians. scalia?, john “finance reform” mccain(bush beat him from the right)? hagel, if mccain couldn’t beat bush why do you think hagel could. pre 9-11 guiliani didn’t stand a chance in 2000 though he might make it in 2008. bob dole had his ass handed to him in 96 or do you not remember? what makes you think dole2000 would do anybetter.
"PPS - Isolationists like Bainbridge are a disgrace to the Republican Party. Please go join Pat Buchanan’s party, Steve.”
Uncalled for.
“Or just let the sanctions against Iraq go away? Then we really would have had to face Saddam’s WMD.”
Right. Because if Saddam ever got nukes he would surely rush out and hand them off to Bin Laden.
He was a real SOB for sure, but he was no more suicidal than Stalin or Mao. Nukes have a return address, and Iraq would have been incinerated if New York or Miami went up in a mushroom cloud. America’s nuclear arsenal has been and will remain the most effective deterrent we have to another state using a nuclear weapon against us, or passing off a nuclear weapon to non state actors.
If the Bin Ladenists ever get their hand on one of these things, it will be because they built it themselves or bought it on the Russian black market.
This war was about the neocons’s hard on for empire, and their abandonment of traditional conservative values. They’re just creepy statist new deal liberals without such an affinity for communism. Conservatives they are not.
What do you have against Birkenstocks?! They’re comfy!
Honest Baron: Your country wants YOU:
Check it out:
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
I guess that’s all he has left. After all, if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, I remember, these are the comments liberals like me made two years ago, which conservatives responded to by calling us unpatriotic. I guess late is better than never.
Well, having been raised to believe that voting Republican was a crime against nature, I don’t want to be held responsible for a lack of viable Republican candidates (not that the Democrats have much more to offer). However, I’m surporsed that you don’t feel that Scalia to be conservative—he is about as far from an Earl Warren or Justice Douglas as I cam imagine. McCain lost to Bush because Bush had Karl Rove and his tactics (implying that McCain was mentally unstable in the S. C. primary, etc.). Hagel is telegenic, intelligent, and independent minded. OK, Dole is a non-starter—his time came ane went. However, Bush was barely electable. He was behind by 500,000 votes in 2000 and it took the activist judges on the Supreme Court to end the process and get him in. He won 2004 by a single state where the results may have been different if, for example, Democratic precincts had waits on Election Day which were as short as those in Republican districts. (Ohio government being controlled by Republicans, the election commission run by the man who was also head of Bush Cheney 2004—must be just a coincidence that urban polling centers had much older equipment and much longer waits than elsewhere). I don’t see a whole lot of talent worthy of the Presidency on either side—but geez, couldn’t your side do better than this guy?
I grew up in a small midwestern town in the 50’s and 60’s, and was taught to believe that conservatism meant fiscal responsibility, respect for the rights of the individual, and cautious, sensible foreign policy. The Bush administration does not respect any of those values.
I’m glad that Prof. Bainbridge and others are coming to the conclusion that the ShrubCo administration is not conservative in any sense of the word as it is traditionally understood.
Bush and his followers pay lip service to conservatism only to the extent that it helps to keep voters and funders under the big GOP tent. Their real agenda is advancement of the corporate agenda, and nothing more.
Prof. Bainbridge’s post is just a replay of the weak arguments from the left, and are about as convincing.
Disappointing.
Just a round-up of the Jew haters and the articulate one world evangelists of the left who have posted above (feast and be awed):
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
When will principled conservatives acknowledge other conservative disasters, such as these:
1. Refusing to greatly expand drug treatment programs, and instead focus on interdiction, when drug treatment is far more cost-effective. Plan Colombia has been a $3 billion waste.
2. Refusing to support improving fuel economy standards, so we wouldn’t be so dependent on imported oil.
3. Refusing to support a “Manhattan project” to greatly advance energy efficiency, so we wouldn’t be so dependent on imported oil.
4. Banning openly gay people from the military, sacrificing talent for no real purpose. This has been a particular disaster in the termination of gay speakers of Arabic.
5. Failing to work with liberals to promote policies that would reduce the demand for abortion, both domestically and internationally.
6. Denying the global climate crisis.
7. Favoring abolition of estate taxes, which are relatively painless; every dollar from the estate of a dead multimillionaire is a dollar that can be left untaxed in the pockets of a family struggling to feed, clothe, house, and educate their children.
8. Attempting to knock down the wall of separation between church and state, which follows the highly successful model in Islamic countries of knocking down the wall of separation between mosque and state.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
One very large elephant missing from the discussion table of course is corporatism. I would be interested to read a Conservative discussion of big-dollar corporatism and whether/how it fits into the conservative framework.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
People, it’s already over!
We live in an EMPIRE now it is no longer a Democractic Republic.
The people who control the NeoCon Republican party leaders are the same people who run the economy, who have successfully divided the country ,permanently rigged the state and federal elections, the ones unfettered by concerns of value or morality - hey are interested only in money and power...Corporate America.
The Corporatocracy.
Repeat that word, Corporatocracy.
Remember that word and what it implies for the US.
Actions speak louder than words.
The actions taken by the NeoCon Corporate Republican Party only work to support the Corporatocray’s steady move toward EMPIRE and eventually total global resource control.
It seems to me that the Republican’s doth protest too much too often - Every scandal reported these days is about our corrupted republican leaders (Karl Rove, Delay and Co or Tom Noe for quick example)Delay has been getting caught taking bribes for years, exchanging votes for favours and for strongarming votes votes from less powerful politicians. The Republicans wanted to legalize these tactics for Republicans after outlawing them for Democrats. Sleazy.
Republican values - corruption, bribery, lying, hiding, sneaking partisan legislation through at the last minute in the middle of the night.
Yeah, that’s what honest people do.
For the Republican leadership it is more important to lay a trap a “Bad” president for lying about his personal sexual peccadilos, it’s absolutely ok to wast millions of dollars and burn up our elected officials with endless smarmy atacks with the clear and Henry Hyde’s admitted attempt to fabricate a reason and entrap a president in a small and comparitively speaking inconsequential lie.
Republicans had the whole national security world looking at Minica Lewinski’s dress rather than address the terrorist threat. Now of course they want to blame Clinton for their zeal.
Republicans want their cake and they want someone else to buy it for them.
Calling this Republican administration moral or virtuos is moronic. Simply looking at their track record proves that claim.
Hmmm, let’s see. Who has benefitted most from this illustrious and very ethical and moral war on pronouns, The Enron Debacle, traitorous cabinet members leaking national security for political reasons etc. etc.
Well I’m not 100% sure, but we do know the oil industry is. Apparently, Conoco & their ilk is currently enjoying 50+% profits! Haliburton is sure doing well as is Bechtel, the communications industry not to mention the arm industry which is runing at 110% trying to backfill the hardware void that has existed since these doughboy chickenhawks started this unfounded war.
“
Keep drinking that holier than thou” kool aid NeoRepugnicians. Keep on believing you are somehow better in God’s eyes than the poor uneducated heathen Iraqi’s you all endorse killing for “freedom”.
Republicans won’t physically fight to protect their freedom, they make laws that allow them to be exluded, they get 6 deferrments or a cushy and unprovable stint in the national guard. Fucking Whimps. Real moral humans stand up against this kind of tyrrany. Posers’ just stand in line chanting the talking point pablum dujour, drinkingthe koolaid.
The Empire you greedy souless NeoCon/TheoCon Republican criminals have created (at the expense of the free world) will be all of our downfall.
You suck.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
As long as you keep enabling the NeoCON nutjobs by voting for them, you’ve got nobody but yourself to blame. When they continue to “piss away” not only the “conservative moment,” but the credibility of Conservatism due to their association with it (and continued support from “real conservatives"), you’ve got nobody but yourself to blame. As long as you keep voting for Republicans while the nutjobs are in charge, the Republican majorities will give the nuts their power to pursue (in your terms) criminally incompetent policies. If you really want it to stop, my advice to you is to stop voting Republican until the nuts lose their death-grip on the Republican party.
=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Back in the 80s I knew some principled Conservatives, including one who was my college roommate and best friend of that period. I disagreed with their beliefs and conclusions, but they were rational people whose beliefs and actions were based on a consistent set of documented and defensible principles. They also had a stopping point; when they had lost an argument or election they accepted that and moved on to be part of the community.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Been comming to your place since I discovered it. Even though I am a strong liberal I enjoy your open, honest approach to things. I especially like that you do not preach hate as so many right wing and other christians do, and have an open mind. It is nice to see you come to the conclusion that Bush has done more damage to the US army then any American since Robert E. Lee.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This war was about the neocons’s hard on for empire, and their abandonment of traditional conservative values. They’re just creepy statist new deal liberals without such an affinity for communism. Conservatives they are not.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bush was barely electable. He was behind by 500,000 votes in 2000 and it took the activist judges on the Supreme Court to end the process and get him in. He won 2004 by a single state where the results may have been different if, for example, Democratic precincts had waits on Election Day which were as short as those in Republican districts. (Ohio government being controlled by Republicans, the election commission run by the man who was also head of Bush Cheney 2004—must be just a coincidence that urban polling centers had much older equipment and much longer waits than elsewhere). I don’t see a whole lot of talent worthy of the Presidency on either side—but geez, couldn’t your side do better than this guy?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bush and his followers pay lip service to conservatism only to the extent that it helps to keep voters and funders under the big GOP tent. Their real agenda is advancement of the corporate agenda, and nothing more.
Your arguement is much like Democrat Party strategy; well thought out, adroitly stated, and simply wrong. The President is right in his refusal to turn away from the most important task that he has and rather concentrate on issues that may be important to different constituencies, but pale in comparison. You are doing exactly what the Islamists want you to do: allow your impatience and frustration to get in the way of your better judgement. You are giving them victory through this mechanism. You truly should be ashamed.
Deep down, the Islamists should be happy with Bush, Mike. If you look at the insurgency trends (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf) and read the news about the constitutional disputes they’re having, it will be obvious to you why. This war destroyed a more secular government, and some variety of Islamic government will replace it.
Great job!
Conservative/Liberal doesn’t matter as long as the US State Department operates like the United Nations, Americans are never going to be protected with either Democrat or Republican in the White House.
Note...it is the US State Department which insists a rapid wrap-up to the Iraq Constitution and it is the US State Department which blames Israel for Palestine, and it is the US State Department which has encouraged containment, appeasement and no war at any cost, even against Islamic-fascism (the US State Dept does not allow the White House to dare speak of Islam and terrorism in the same sentence)which has been attacking the United States at home and abroad for a quarter of a century. I could go on by why bother.
Get real, the US State Department is controlled primarily by foreign agents catering to the United Nations and are in position which unfortunately can never be fired, removed from office or otherwise terminated.
American presidents have no power over the foreign controlled US State Department!
As far a Big government concerns under the current adminstration....at least it is smaller than the prior adminstration.
Face facts, ever since FDR government will always be one massive Socialist institution.
That said, I agree ‘Bainbridge’s post is just a replay of the weak arguments from the left, and are about as convincing. Disappointing.’
Oh crap...Iraq was a ‘more secular government’?
Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship!
On the other hand...equating secular governments with totalitarian dictatorships is exactly how and why the United Nations continues to thrive.
Q. What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
A. Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
Pretty amusing to see the Radical trolls from Kevin’s site come over here and take after ...... Prof Bainbridge, one of their own. That is another point concerning Radicalism that any actual Conservatives out there might want to think about.
Cranky
Remember, it was the US State Department which prevented President Reagan from taking action against the rising tide of Islamic-fascism.
Would not want to take any action which might cause Arabia to rise up from their own government-created destitute streets of Mecca and attack the West....now would we.
The fact is....after a quarter of a century of US State Department’s appeasment policy, America was attacked on our home soil by the very Islamists we have appeased....And, twice in less than ten years!
Not to mention the hundreds of Islamic-fascists attacks perpetuated against American interests around the world.
The most pathetic thing of all...is that when Islamic-fasicts attack again the US State Department will advocate that we continue to play nice, have dialogues, scorn warmongering Americans, continue to blame American policy and will again require that the White House receive United Nations approval.
I’m going to stay out of Iraq and make some comments about domestic politics and the culture.
Culturally the country has shifted to the left in the last 25 years while politically the center-right party has gained at the expense of the center-left party. In part this is explained by demographic shifts, in part this represents stronger political leadership in the center-right party, in part this a strong policy shift in the Republican Party towards the center.
I think these facts explain a lot of the frustration among conservatives with Bush’s domestic agenda. With the center-right party gerrymandered into power (as the center-left party was gerrymandered into power for 50 years)right-wing ideologues instead of left-wing ideologues get 2nd tier appointments. This is enormously important for achieving the conservative agenda but this means very often putting up with the indefensible (e.g.,steel tariffs, the Medicare drug entitlement and the massive growth of the federal education bureaucracy). We will also see action on hot button issues for conservatives like reversing RvW which will happen if the center-right stays in power long enough. So we are stuck, for now, with supporting a President who is to the left of Hubert Humphrey. The alternative is to split the Republican Party and go into principled opposition.
We should focus for now on finding a credible, conservative successor for Bush and making the case for our IDEAS. So where is the next Ronald Reagan?
Them that can, do. Them that can’t, teach. Them that can’t teach, take state-worker jobs. You managed yourself into two of the three categories. Stick with your day job, little professor, lest you hurt yourself.
Oh yeah...now that some have all but given up on Iraq, Americans can all gleefully get back to our culture’s most valuable and prized habits like hoppin to the hip MTV, fawning over aging rock stars and silicone-crafted actors, adoring crappy Hollywood movies,and worshipping Gaia all the while sitting around growing fat, tired and old.
Thanks Professor for your words of encouragement
TR said this more than 100 years ago, after resolving a crisis with Germany, Britain and the Monroe Doctrine. It’s the big stick, and a major pint by Edmund Morris.
“If the American nation will speak softly, and yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training, a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far.”
Naval might and cautious, face-saving diplomacy kept a war from breaking out in 1902. There was an ultimatum, an early 20th century version of 13 days, and war was avoided.
I remembered that line, and Edmund Morris’ point about speaking oh so softly in diplomacy. Then, when I read Plan of Attack and saw that Bush had read Morris’s Theodore Rex, I wondered if he skipped that passage.
Short fisk as I don’t know how many lines I can put in the comments.
if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea?WMD were but a small part of the ‘casus belli’ (which I like to call ‘reasons for going to war’, since I only understand english 
Another ‘casus belli’ was that the guy was just plain evil, and we had no idea what he would do, or what he could do it with. Another was that he would not follow rules imposed by the UN. The list is long, and I’m going to run out of comment space if I try to put them all in.
Countries like Sryia, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc. are dangerous to the world and must change. Don’t ask why Bush picked one over the other to start with. They all have to go. Do you want us to fight them all at the same time? It seems clear that the war in Iraq has created beneficial changes in Kuwait (women voting), Egypt (2 parties), Saudia Arabia (well, long way to go there), Libya’s WMDs, and Lebannon. Perhaps we won’t have to go to war with most, simply because of Iraq.
Public support for the war is slidingPublic support for wars has always slid, ever since the Revolutionary war. I think we were 28% pro revolutionary war at the end, although I can’t find the stats right now :(. Most in America now are quite glad we did it.
Send US troops over to Iraq, where they’ll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we’ll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious.
Rather, this theory has proven quite prescient. Even the head of Al Quaeda said that the front has moved to Iraq.
For every fly that gets caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up.’Seems’ is the operative word in this sentence. These haters of america did not suddenly materialize, we just didn’t know who they were. Very few radical muslims hate us for what we are doing in Iraq. They hate us for our ties with Israel. So, again, it’s good that they are materializing in Iraq, not the USA.
Well, I’ve worked my anger out that I got from reading your post, so I’ll stop complaining. I agree that the conservatives we have in power are not as good as the ones from the Reagan years, but I refuse to believe that a soccer mom would go so far as to vote for a Ted Kennedy or a Nany Pelosi. And thanks to the far left websites, these are who most democrats are trying to emulate (bar Clinton). Hopefully, we can get back on track to making government smaller after we win again in 2006.
If we Americans so quickly and easily give up on the liberation of the Iraqi people and their process of achieving freedom, if we give up on Iraqis who lived for three decades under a ruthlessly oppressive dictator and sworn enemy to America, a despot who had acquired the greatest of wealth, much of it from the International community’s own corrupt United Nation’s own decade of theft, only to in turn fund and associate with Islamic-fascist organizations then, President Reagan’s light on the shinning hill will be dimmed and calling for his return would be be pointless if none is willing to make the sacrifice to FREEDOM
.....is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance;it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again. President Ronald Reagan
Americans should take note that past attempts at removing Saddam’s threat were appeased, subdued, and contained yet all that was accomplished by adopting this policy of fear was to enrich a tyrannt and ignore a corrupt International community of United Nations.
Considering the environment of the body politic, both international and domestic, it is amazing that the Bush policy has gotten to the point where the Iraqi people are actually formulating their own Constitution.
By the way, the Iraqi people still have their vote on this Constitution and everything else and, they haven’t
When I listen to people like Rush Limbaugh, I wonder if he has a soul. Thanks for showing that you have one.