George W. Bush

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

the democrats’ lost mojo

President Bush was in trouble. Nothing was going right, and the war in Iraq was rapidly losing support. Democrats smelled victory but kept bungling the chance. Their nominee was so unappealing that Bush and the GOP scored a giant victory.

That’s a short history of the 2004 elections, when Bush won a second term and the GOP gained seats, and kept control, of both houses of Congress.

Fast forward and 2006 is shaping up like deja vu all over again.

Bush hasn’t seen 50% approval in the polls for months, Iraq is stuck in bloody neutral and congressional Republicans are under fire for ties to a corrupt lobbyist. With midterm elections in the fall, Dems should be able to take one or both houses and exert much more influence over the last two years of Bush’s term.

But Democrats are still getting in their own way, and could blow their chances again. The most prominent party leaders, including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, have become so extreme that their attacks make Bush look good by comparison.

–michael goodwin, “dems are blowin’ it” (ny daily news)

quick. get austin powers on the phone. mojo of a different sort is missing from the party in opposition. they can’t seem to get anything positive out of their attacks on president bush. they can’t seem to find a message that works for them and also is something that the average american can identify with/relate to. in addition, they can’t seem to figure out who is really in charge of their party. is it howard dean? is it left-wing blogs? hillary? john kerry? nancy pelosi? harry reid? the answer is that NOBODY knows. it’s interesting that even the democrats don’t see hillary as a leader or even representative of their party’s views right now. i do think that if the democrats found a unified message and if (this is a big if) it consisted of more than just opposing what bush does, then they would have a much better chance of success in november. i just don’t see this happening.

where are the men and women of vision for the democratic party? who will provide an optimistic view of this country’s possibilities and promise in addition to concrete solutions to problems we are facing as a nation? who will step up and push the democrats closer to the views of most of the rest of the country? i haven’t seen any of them who are willing to abandon the kook vote. none of the potential democratic candidates for president have shown leadership, and they also don’t have a message that’s easy to sell.

but the republicans can’t rely on democratic failure/implosion. we still need to tear down some walls in our own house, and remember what made us successful in the beginning. it’s not enough to be against bush. the opposition needs to present a vision for change, and right now they just don’t seem to have one.

jonah goldberg in the la times:

“Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn’t have its own ideas. Others say they do have ideas, they’re just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada. “

exactly.

interesting weekend linkage (related and otherwise):

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

the dems’ 2006 plan will self-destruct in 3-2-1

now is not the time to be playing games with our national security and trying to score political points on the bush administration. the democrats are engaged in this effort to bring down the president of the united states any way they can. some are even floating the idea of impeachment, like barbara boxer and john lewis. any presidential abuse of power should be harshly punished and would be considered an impeachable offense in my book. however, that’s not what happened here with the wiretapping/NSA situation.

mark levin:

Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities.

what he said. the president has the constitutional authority to do what he did.

he goes on to say:

The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.

other legal eagles agree, including john schmidt, who was associate attorney general from 1994-1997 under president clinton.

President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

it’s important to note that no actual cases of abuse of the patriot act and its provisions have been alleged, simply the hypothetical possibility of such abuses taking place. also, according to a CNN/gallup/usa today poll… only 34 percent of the public thinks that the patriot act goes too far. sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn’t go far enough (18 percent).
(hat tip: nro)

yet some democrats have the temerity to ignore their own personal disregard for privacy (including chuck schumer and his interest in michael steele’s credit records) and act shocked and outraged that the president might want to authorize surveillance on suspected terrorists. it is understandable to be concerned that a president or a government would have the legal right and the desire to listen to our personal phone calls and read our emails. i am concerned about that, but according to what we know right now, it doesn’t seem that any law has been abused in the execution of this program.

the weekly standard’s mackubin thomas owens has more on that point here. i’ll give him the (almost) last word.

Today, once again we face the perennial tension between vigilance and responsibility as the United States is the target of those who would destroy it. In all decisions involving tradeoffs between two things of value, the costs and benefits of one alternative must be measured against the costs and benefits of the other. At a time when the United States faces an adversary that wishes nothing less than America’s destruction, President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, “. . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln’s point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.

i agree with that. if there needs to be changes in the patriot act to better protect the civil liberties of US citizens, fine. the democrats should go ahead and propose those changes. just don’t completely throw away legislation that will help to keep us safe from terrorism simply because one part or another is not acceptable. do you really want to fix the patriot act or do you want to kill it completely? that’s the question to the democrats. make up your minds, gentlemen. choose one position on something.

related:

Privacy hypocrisy–michelle malkin
Patriot Act Showdown–opinionjournal.com
September 10 America— the excellent editorial from national review online

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

bush to dems: get used to disappointment

here’s some of the highlights of the president’s iraq speech sunday night. read the whole thing at nro.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq — more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal — unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

our enemies don’t have any interest in following international law when dealing with their captives. their cruelty to those they have captured doesn’t show the restraint the geneva convention requires, and yet there’s no outrage. why? this doesn’t mean that the united states should abuse prisoners, and those who have have been disciplined for it. i just see a double standard here. if you’re going to criticize abuse, don’t leave out the terrorists and insurgents in that criticism.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose — and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

john murtha said that the war couldn’t be won militarily. the president disagrees. our military men and women also disagree. more importantly than that…the terrorists also have shown signs that they share the president’s view of our progress in iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult — it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

and…

In all three aspects of our strategy — security, democracy, and reconstruction — we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

the president acknowledges that mistakes were made in iraq and that changes have been made to address what has gone wrong there. will his critics give him credit for this admission (that they never expected him to make)? i doubt it. he is right when he says that there is a difference between honest criticism and “defeatism”. mistakes were made. that doesn’t mean that iraq is a quagmire, or unwinnable on a military basis, as some are saying.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq — we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops — by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us — and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

there’s your case right there. i believe that it’s convincing. you may not.

the president addresses the anti-war crowd.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country — victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much — but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss — and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial — yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

this speech was not memorable for its rhetoric…it was memorable for its tone. this is the kind of speech we should have been hearing from the president frequently during this time of war. while it may be true that the authorization of military action originates in D.C., it is the american people whose support will determine the success or failure of any war effort. i am glad that the president is making the effort to get their support.

related:

THE BUSH SPEECH: NO CUT AND RUN–michelle malkin
Reaction to President Bush’s Speech–sfgate.com
Sunnis say they want to work with US–pajamas media

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

the emperor strikes back

many of us have expressed frustration with the president and his apparent unwillingness to go on the offensive against his critics on iraq. this hands-off approach seems to have changed recently. president bush has not only started giving some speeches including specifics about iraq, but also subjected himself to a round of serious questions with nbc’s brian williams, as well as the audience after his philly speech. here are excerpts from his speeches and the interview.

the president’s interview with nbc’s brian williams

on iraq:

President Bush: Well, John Murtha’s a fine guy. And he’s, you know, he served our nation admirably. I just think he’s wrong. I think the idea of having a, you know, a timetable for withdrawal, does three things that would be bad.

One, it emboldens the enemy. That’s precisely what they want. They want us to withdraw. And — and oh, by the way, here, we’re telling them when and how. And they will adjust accordingly.

Secondly, it sends a bad message to the Iraqis. We’ve said to the Iraqis, “We’ll help train you. We’ll stand with you. And we’ll get you on your feet so you can take the fight to the enemy.” And if our commanders on the ground say we’re not ready to, you know, stand down — a timetable would dispirit the Iraqis.

Finally, it’ll dispirit our troops. Because our troops know the mission hasn’t been completed. But strategy and my plans are these. I will listen to the commanders. I understand war is objective-based, not timetable-based. And we will complete this mission for the good of the country.

on the perception of the United States globally and especially in arab nations

answering questions in philly after his speech:

Q. Mr. President, I’m a proud U.S. citizen, naturalized, and card-carrying Republican. I voted for you both times. I grew in India, a Sunni. In fact, the President of the Republic of India is a Sunni. And I think it’s a great testimony to this nation that was — the vision of which was laid out within a few — half a mile of here, that somebody like me can be in a position of leadership and be successfully engaged in contributing to the current and future economic well-being of this nation. Mr. President, I support your efforts in Iraq. But I’d like to know what are we going to do in the broader battle in creating a favorable image and reaching out to people across the world, so that people like me all over the world can be passionate supporters of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. First of all, success will help the image of the United States. Look, I recognize we got an image issue, particularly when you got television stations, Arabic television stations that are constantly just pounding America, creating — saying America is fighting Islam, Americans can’t stand Muslims, this is a war against a religion. And we’ve got to, obviously, do a better job of reminding people that ours is not a nation that rejects religion; ours is a nation that accepts people of all faith, and that the great strength of America is the capacity for people to worship freely.

he understands the need to win the battle in the arab press. what he needs to find is an effective strategy in attacking the negative view of the united states in the arab world. our leaders need to be front-and-center on al-arabiya and al-jazeera, taking questions and presenting our case. if the people only see one side of the argument, it would be easy for them to believe what they are told about america and americans. we should do this, but after a good-faith effort to communicate with the arab world through their television stations, we should be prepared to accept that words may not be enough.

the president continues his answer.

It’s difficult. I mean, their propaganda machine is pretty darn intense. And so we’re constantly sending out messages, we’re constantly trying to reassure people, but we’re also — we’re also acting. And that’s what’s important for our citizens to realize. Our position in the world is such that I don’t think we can retreat. I think we have a duty and an obligation to use our vast influence to help.

I cite two examples of where I think it will make a big — of where American image in the Muslim world will be improved. One is the tsunami. The tsunamis hit; it was the United States military, through the USS Abraham Lincoln, that provided the logistical organization necessary to get the — to get the — to save a lot of lives. We moved. A lot of people kind of sat around and discussed; not us. We saw a problem and we moved.

Same in Pakistan. The earthquake in Pakistan is devastating. The United States of America was first on the scene. We got a lot of kids flying choppers all around that country providing help and aid.

And so I guess what I’m saying to you is, is that a proper use of influence that helps improve people’s lives is the best way to affect — to change the image of country, and to defeat the propaganda.

i agree with this. one way to win friends and influence people is to help with logistics and finances during natural disasters, such as the tsunamis and the earthquakes the president mentioned.

from his speech to the CFR in D.C. on the reconstruction efforts in iraq:

Reconstruction has not always gone as well as we had hoped, primarily because of the security challenges on the ground…

In the space of two-and-a-half years, we have helped Iraqis conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools, train more than 30,000 teachers, distribute more than 8 million textbooks, rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.

Our coalition has helped Iraqis introduce a new currency, reopen their stock exchange, extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans to Iraqi entrepreneurs. As a result of these efforts and Iraq’s newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation. And according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the national economy over the next two years.

This economic development and growth will be really important to addressing the high unemployment rate across parts of that country. Iraq’s market-based reforms are gradually returning the proud country to the global economy. Iraqis have negotiated significant debt relief. And for the first time in 25 years, Iraq has completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund — a signal to the world financial community that Iraqis are serious about reform and determined to take their rightful place in the world economy.

With all these improvements, we’re helping the Iraqi government deliver meaningful change for the Iraqi people. This is another important blow against the Saddamists and the terrorists. Iraqis who were disillusioned with their situation are beginning to see a hopeful future for their country. Many who once questioned democracy are coming off the fence; they’re choosing the side of freedom. This is quiet, steady progress. It doesn’t always make the headlines in the evening news. But it’s real, and it’s important, and it is unmistakable to those who see it close up.

matt margolis at blogs for bush agrees.

abc news has interesting iraqi poll numbers here. to sum it up: the results are mixed. three quarters of iraqis are confident about the upcoming elections. 70% approve of the new constitution. the same percentage, of a group containing both sunnis and shiites, believe that iraq should have a unified government. there is a definite split between sunni and shiite perception for possible improvement in iraq over the next year, with shiites holding a more positive view.

from the breakdown of the poll:

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a “single strong leader.”)

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country’s future

more positive economic news:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it’s 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

there are many interesting components to this poll. one of the most interesting is the 45% that want the U.S. to “leave now” (26%) or to pull out right after the elections (19%). this poll has some good news and bad news for the bush administration. the iraqis are positive overall about the elections, the future of the government, and the possibility of improving conditions in iraq over the next year. they still have concerns about the handling of the war by the united states and coalition forces. they are unsure whether their country has improved since the invasion, which is understandable, because there is still much work to be done with security and reconstruction. perception would also vary by region, because of the variability of each region’s progress toward these goals. i think this poll has a more complete, balanced picture than we have seen so far.

this is a good strategy for the president –to take his message directly to the american people. showing that there were changes made in the initial strategy to make the post-war operation more effective than it has been in some areas will improve his credibility and his poll numbers. will he continue to take this approach?

Brian Williams: …And will you keep doing this, having these conversations?

President Bush: I will. I’ll keep taking my message to the people in a variety of formats. It’s one way for me to be able to communicate directly with people. And, I unfortunately don’t get to edit what’s on your newscast.

On the other hand, I do know that by giving a speech that’s broadcast say, on some of these channels that broadcast speeches, more and more people will be able to hear my side of the story, which is very important for the president to be able to do. And I enjoy it. I enjoy getting out and being with — I know — listen, in the audience, I realize everybody didn’t agree with me. But that’s — I’m confident in my message. And I am anxious to be able to talk to those that, you know, are willing to listen. I thought the reception was warm. And I appreciated it.

people can think for themselves, with no needed assistance from the MSM. make your case, mr. president. it’s up to you, not to the GOP or conservative bloggers. we’re listening.

related:
Operation Skinner: Major Success In Iraq-from california conservative
The voting has begun! (updated)–iraq the model (with pics!). actually, just read the whole blog.

Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush

president bush: hardcore neo-con.

now playing: pyro sets a wildfire/swirling eddies

is president bush a conservative? the answer is: it depends on how that word is defined. there’s a fairly strong case to be made that he is extremely conservative on social issues of importance to groups generally thought to be deeply connected with “the religious right”. two of his three supreme court nominations would suggest this. the fact that the president is a Christian is also a strong indication in this direction. i would say that in this respect, he is conservative. but does he follow the rules of what i would consider to be traditional (small-government) conservatism in policy decisions? the evidence would suggest otherwise.

from the weekly standard (11/14):

“THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. Bush has three years yet to run, but this season of scandal and disillusionment is an opportune moment for conservatives to start thinking seriously about the post-Bush era–and particularly how to fashion a domestic policy from the wreckage of Bush-style, big-government conservatism. Thanks to the abiding weakness of the Democratic party, Republicans haven’t yet paid a political price for insider-friendly appropriation bills, Medicare boondoggles, or the smog of semi-corruption rising from the party’s cozy relationship with KStreet. But even if the GOP’s majority survives the next election cycle, conservatives shouldn’t kid themselves: President Bush’s domestic policy looks less and less like a visionary twist on traditional conservatism, and more and more like an evolutionary dead end. “

read it here. the authors make some interesting suggestions for needed reforms in the status quo that the republicans would be wise to adopt for their own campaigns in 2006. reagan famously said that government is not the solution to the problem, that in fact government IS the problem…or something similar to that anyway. both liberals and conservatives are wrong when they consider making government the primary curative to what ails the country. the difference here is only in what kind of programs each side considers worthy of government largesse. the president isn’t re-inventing the wheel with his approach to spending and tax cuts. we have seen this act before, by more obvious culprits. president bush deserves much blame for any failures of his fiscal policy. but the democrats, who are so anxious to take the president to task on his foreign policy decisions, remain relatively silent on spending. why is that, do you suppose? the answer is because the democrats, and to some degree, the republicans, are complicit in the bad economic policy. both sides can’t say no to new spending and insist on some fiscal discipline, and somehow this is all the president’s fault.

fred barnes defines what he considers to be A ‘Big Government Conservatism’:

Big government conservatives prefer to be in favor of things because that puts them on the political offensive. Promoting spending cuts/minimalist government doesn’t do that. Mr. Bush has famously defined himself as a compassionate conservative with a positive agenda. Almost by definition, this makes him a big government conservative.

big government conservatism, as defined by barnes, is activist by nature. it may have more noble underlying objectives than the government activism suggested by liberals or moderates (although i suppose that is an open question), but the premise is still flawed. president bush is not as uncomfortable with using the power of the government to advance what he considers to be conservative ideas and values as he should be. using the government to bring about social equity or attempting to level the playing field for all americans in this way is an iffy proposition under any ideological banner.

take a look at the programs and proposals by the president during his first and second terms in office. it is the very essence of logic itself to believe that this president is not from the limited-government wing of the conservatives. he is very much all neo-con, and this has only a peripheral relationship to the war in iraq, although that’s part of it. dare i suggest bush 43 is in fact a slightly more conservative version of bush 41? (the difference of course being that bush 41 raised taxes after promising not to…and there’s that whole leaving saddam in power thing…) finally someone comes up with a logical definition for a neo-con…and apparently it doesn’t just mean republican war hawk.

Anti-Freedom Conservatism–from the future of freedom daily

So there you have it. Big-government conservatism, or its synonym, neoconservatism, stands for a powerful state in pursuit of “conservative ends.” There are problems, to be sure, with the Barnes-Kristol thesis. What are “conservative ends”? An older school of conservatism (which actually consisted of near-libertarians) would have said that chief among those ends was individual freedom achieved by restraining government power. But if that’s so, it makes no sense to talk about using government to achieve those ends. They also understood that a government with interests not bound by geography is in fact an empire, not a constitutionally limited republic. Thus, big-government conservatism is either incoherent or a cynical attempt to appropriate a cozy-sounding label.

What about the moral case for self-ownership and against coercion? We never hear this issue raised by the neocons. They sometimes talk about intrusive government. But your meddling neighbor can also be said to be intrusive. The fundamental issue is the initiation of physical force. “Transfers” are, in Bastiat’s words, “legal plunder.” The advocates of big government either don’t recognize that plunder is at the heart of the state. Or they don’t care.

this sounds more like what i believe and far from bush’s view(except for the part about taxes):

“Fundamentally, compassionate conservatism is a form of political conservatism. In other words, compassionate conservatives believe that government should have a limited role in people’s lives and that competition in the marketplace is the most effective means of producing social and economic progress. Consequently, compassionate conservatives believe in low taxes, limited government regulation, and the vast power of the free enterprise system.”

and:

“Big-government, one-size-fits-all solutions demean struggling individuals by treating them merely as members of aggrieved identity groups, passively awaiting government subsidies and restitution for crippling wounds inflicted by what is perceived to be an inherently unjust society.”

that’s the best argument against neo-conservatism in my view. it creates too many illegitimate victims. we do have a moral and ethical responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves, but i would argue that this category has been massively expanded to include more people that it should. the government has taken on more responsibility for attempting to cure social injustices than it can effectively handle. p.j. o’rourke, the official muse of this here blog once said: “A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.” he is a smart man. the president should take his advice.

somewhat related:

Can’t last–Jan 8th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

another view on iraq

this is one opinion that won’t get as much coverage as john murtha’s statements to the press. senator joe lieberman just returned from iraq, and he has a slightly different perspective on how things are going over there than murtha does.

sen. joe leiberman on iraq:

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

that’s how we can lose our political will to stay until iraq is stabilized. both republicans and democrats see the writing on the wall and obsess over the polls, which is why you won’t see many in washington (outside of the bush administration) echoing what lieberman says here.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

i agree with senator leiberman. he goes on to admit that mistakes were made initially, but says that we are making changes to correct some of those mistakes.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan–Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the “build” part of the “clear, hold and build” strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future–and why the American people should be, too.

this is good news. we should listen to both sides of the argument and decide for ourselves which strategy makes more sense, keeping in mind the motivations of each side for their position on iraq. i have been critical of senator leiberman in the past for disguising his views while he was al gore’s VP pick, but he has been a strong supporter of the war in iraq from the very beginning, and he has always been consistent on this issue.
former U.S. secretary of state henry kissinger weighs in (courtesy: breitbart.com):

“I think to look at withdrawal from Iraq … could lead to disaster,” said Kissinger, who served as the top US diplomat in the administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

“We have to keep in mind what our objective should be, and if we leave Iraq under conditions at the end of which there will be a radical government in Baghdad, or part of the country becomes a haven for terrorism, it will have turned into a disaster that will affect the whole world,” Kissinger said in an interview with CNN television.

i will give the last word on this to iraq the model.

on the upcoming elections:

On the other hand, a war of words and speeches is growing among the different parties and candidates and two points issues to be taking more attention here, these are corruption accusations and the recurrence of former Ba’ath members in some lists.

Some candidates, namely Laith Kubba pointed out that he has political bombs regarding the above issues that will be revealed soon. Kubba who leads his own list has also challenged Ahmed Chalabi for an electoral debate.

However, people in the street think that candidates should focus more on their political platforms rather than on exchanging accusations and allegations.

the iraqis get it. i wish american politicians would figure this out.

from the post: The way to the parliament: fighting with posters and sometimes bullets.

I never had doubts in the hidden intentions of those in Iraq who keep saying that multinational troops must leave Iraq soon; they say their demands are essential for national sovereignty coming out of their patriotic feelings for Iraq while I see them as far as they could be from patriotism.

If those people put Iraq’s and Iraqis’ interests first, they wouldn’?t have asked the US to leave Iraq while the troops missions are yet to be accomplished and the Iraqi national forces are still not capable of protecting the country and the citizens.

We all know why some insist that US must leave or keep calling the presence of these troops an occupation. The problem is that the ordinary citizen here cannot talk about this in public for fear of being labeled as an agent or collaborator with the occupation and what can an unarmed citizen do to face such an accusation coming from this or that militia.

What pushes these politicians and militias to take this attitude is their dream of regaining sovereignty but not national sovereignty; it is their sovereignty over Iraq.

What is keeping these liars from making a large scale coup over the democratic change is the presence of coalition troops that are protecting the new Iraq.

Our newfound democracy is suffering a lot from the evil of neighboring dictatorships and the legacy of Saddam’s dictatorship and I see the only guarantee to the growth of our democracy until its institutions are firm enough and well established lies in the presence of coalition troops for a longer time. This requires not only the preparation of Iraqi security forces but goes beyond that to protecting the democracy until it passes the danger zone.

whether we like it or not, we will have to stay in iraq until the country is stabilized. we owe it to the iraqis who have risked their lives to vote in the elections (and to vote for the constitution) to see this through. we owe it to our soldiers who died to give iraq this new hope for a better future. at this point, we need to stop fighting about WMDs and playing political games. there’s more at stake than the political fortunes of the DC elite. what we are talking about is the future of iraq, and both sides need to stop playing games with that future.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

iraq exit strategy: win, then leave

“the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.” –george orwell

i’ve said previously that rep. murtha should not be subject to personal attacks on his reputation and character just because he dared to question the bush administration’s iraq strategy. i still believe that. however, there are some major flaws in his public statements and his suggestion for immediate troop withdrawal from iraq, as bill kristol and robert kagan point out in this weekly standard article.

according to that article:

Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed–almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.

there are some areas where our iraq strategy needs to be improved. i don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest such a thing. but as kagan and kristol point out, we can succeed in iraq if we have the patience to see the mission to completion. at this point, i can’t say i believe that the american people are convinced that we can win in iraq. that’s what the polls seem to suggest. it is discouraging to me, as i’m sure it is to many other americans, that complete victory in iraq may take longer than we thought that it would.

an article by james fallows in the current atlantic monthly has a sobering look at post-war iraq strategy. the following quotes are from that article.

Let me suggest a standard for judging endgame strategies in Iraq, given the commitment the United States has already made. It begins with the recognition that even if it were possible to rebuild and fully democratize Iraq, as a matter of political reality the United States will not stay to see it through. (In Japan, Germany, and South Korea we did see it through. But while there were postwar difficulties in all those countries, none had an insurgency aimed at Americans.) But perhaps we could stay long enough to meet a more modest standard.

What is needed for an honorable departure is, at a minimum, a country that will not go to war with itself, and citizens who will not turn to large-scale murder. This requires Iraqi security forces that are working on a couple of levels: a national army strong enough to deter militias from any region and loyal enough to the new Iraq to resist becoming the tool of any faction; policemen who are sufficiently competent, brave, and honest to keep civilians safe. If the United States leaves Iraq knowing that non-American forces are sufficient to keep order, it can leave with a clear conscience—no matter what might happen a year or two later.

the whole article is brilliant. it’s worth getting a trial subscription to read more than the provided excerpt. the idea is that in order to get the iraqi army to the level of readiness it needs to keep the peace in iraq, it will require a longer commitment than the american people will support. unfortunately, i think this analysis is dead-on. the polls are already bruising the president on the iraq war. while i don’t believe any president should navigate by polls, i’m not sure that this war can succeed without the support of the american people. timetables are misguided, as i’ve said before, but the bush administration will continue to lose support for the war unless they can point to successful operations that resonate with the non-politicos in this country.

for the non-political blog post, please scroll down and enjoy the pandas. 🙂

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Republicans

house G.O.P. to dems on iraq : put up or shut up!

this all started with a statement made by rep. john murtha to reporters on thursday. this is part of what he said:

“I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted — this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times — over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free — free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you’re not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation — a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they — or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they’re worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.”

it was a direct call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq. that’s a bold move, no matter what you may think of that proposed strategy. although i think that murtha’s war hawk reputation is overstated, he’s not advocating the exact same strategy as michael moore. it would be convenient for us to characterize him that way. it would also be wrong, scott mcclellan. even though mcclellan tried to make the case that it was only murtha’s argument that was being discredited, not the man himself, i don’t think he managed to sell that to anyone still listening to him.

some of what rep. murtha said made sense, at least in the previous excerpt. he’s not a raving moonbat like michael moore. i do have a serious problem with immediate withdrawal of the troops from iraq, whether that means tomorrow, or six weeks from now. the administration has made what i believe, and many others believe, to be a strong case against this approach. iraq will be left worse than we found it, should we decide to leave iraq before it can defend itself. i would also like to question this assertion by rep. murtha in the full text of his remarks to the press on thursday: “ I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily. ” i’m not buying this argument. at least in the public statements by current members of the administration and the military now in iraq, i just don’t see the general consensus for this POV in either group. there are improvements we need to make in our approach to post-war iraq. i don’t dispute that. i also think that our successes there have been woefully under-reported.

so the house republicans decided to take a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from iraq, to make the democrats go on the record on how they felt about what murtha was suggesting in his comments to the press. i like this move. did it smack of a political stunt? yes. but it accomplished something very useful, in spite of the partisan sniping that took place in the pre-vote debates on the house floor. all but three democrats voted against immediate withdrawal, which should have been expected and probably was. this was a turning point in the whole argument over the war in iraq. i think this because now that the house has decisively rejected immediate withdrawal, we can now move on to the question of what more we need to be doing to help the iraqis run their own country.

i believe that murtha’s broader point is correct– that we need to give the iraqis an incentive to kick us out of their country. while timetables for withdrawal are misguided, we do need to emphasize to them that we will be leaving, and that they will need to secure their own country. the two previous elections and the new constitution are very positive signs that the political process is starting to work. i’m sure that there are other major positive developments there that we don’t know about. there is more work yet to do, and the administration should let us know about the progress that’s being made to address rep. murtha’s concerns and those of the american people. i hope they will.

oh yeah…and ohio state beat michigan. WOOHOO! thoughts on that in the previous post. scroll down for more on that.

hosting some of sunday’s open trackbacks: cao’s blog, adam’s blog, basil’s blog, california conservative, and my vast right wing conspiracy.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Liberals

democrats with short memories

here’s an excerpt of what president bush said in his november 11th speech:

While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

let’s look at what some prominent democrats had said in the past about iraq and WMD’s, shall we? (credit to sister toldjah in this post.) any italics are my addition. 🙂

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

what they are saying now:

Sen. Levin:(from the weekly standard blog) “The intel didn’t say that there is a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq,” he said in an appearance on Fox News on February 2, 2004. “That was not the intel. That’s what this administration exaggerated to produce.”

also: “But, as a matter of fact, when you look at the statements of the administration prior to the war, over and over and over again the basis that was used is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction – not programs, not intentions, not hopes – has weapons of mass destruction in his possession and could use them against us at any time and could hand them up to terrorists.” from the original FNC transcript from that february 2nd appearance.

interesting, but i’m confused. didn’t senator levin say something similar to what the administration said in the beginning? let’s look at it again. he says that saddam is building WMDs and the means to deliver them. that sure sounds like an allegation of a program or an intention to me.

in response to a question about why he voted to kick saddam out of kuwait when there was a known threat and why he voted to kick saddam out of iraq when there may not have been a threat, here’s what Sen. Kerry had to say:

Sen. Kerry: (interview with Chris Wallace on FNC quoted here–external link to FNC transcript n/a) “Now, I’m happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.”

“With respect to this time, I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.”

now, i don’t see anything in the previously quoted statement that puts any conditions on his vote. maybe he did put all these conditions on his vote. if he had these conditions for war before he started running for president, then i would be willing to correct the record on this and post it in this space. as to his first point, the international coalition was larger for Bush 43 than Bush 41. saddam thumbed his nose at numerous resolutions. as far as the war as a last resort? well, apparently john kerry doesn’t believe his own statements about saddam. if he did, then he could logically find a legitimate reason to go to war.

just read the above quotes and compare to current rhetoric. make up your own mind about the president is just a flame-thrower at the democrats, or whether what he says about democrats rewriting history has some ring of truth to it.

related:

chris hitchens: believe it or not (from slate)

carol platt liebau asks the question : who is lying about iraq? she comes to a different conclusion than the rest of her fellow bloggers at huffpost would.

thinking right has more, referencing the norman podhoretz post, with background on the history of iraq and WMDs.

Democrats Deny Having Pre-War Intelligence–from scrappleface

and for my progressive/liberal friend in the uk, some unrelated links: 🙂
Liberal groups to step up pressure on Alito nomination–from CNN
and a poll with positive news for democrats –from huffpost.

tags: , , , , , ,

Posted on George W. Bush, Iraq

iraqi constitution updates

links of interest:

Numbers Show Iraq Constitution Approval Likely–from FNC
Rice, Iraqi official optimistic about referendum–from CNN
Austin Bay’s Iraqi constitution day recap
Finally, a Smart Iraq Strategy–defending cities and killing insurgents
Iraq’s constitutional referendum-what you need to know about it in a handy one-page summary (would it be too flip to call it the iraq faq? just wondering…)

this is a wonderful development for iraq and its people. getting to vote on their own constitution is something not even americans had the option to do. i am aware of some of the objections to this constitution, and i think that concerns about the role of islam in the law are legitimate. having some skepticism that change is possible and that women’s rights and those of minorities will be protected is certainly understandable based on iraq’s recent history under saddam. i don’t think that this constitution should be feared for this reason. i would like to see those so-called experts point out where exactly this constitution restricts these rights, because i didn’t see that part when i read it.

much has been made of polls about the president’s approval rating and about how the american people feel about the war in iraq. i believe that most of us want to see iraq succeed, and somehow we have lost sight of the bigger picture. this is because we don’t have concrete evidence of progress and tangible proof at our fingertips every single day on our tv newscasts or in the newspaper. the mainstream press contributes to this negativity by putting the worst spin possible on everything happening in iraq and generally ignoring the good that is being done there.

that’s why we as bloggers have such an important responsibility– to provide balance to the MSM and to tell both sides of the story in iraq. we are doing that, and we will continue to do that.

read this from oblogatory anecdotes. it’s inspiring.

related: ( UPDATE 8:57 PM EDT)

all about iraq (me)
Just said my YES –iraq the model
Polls closing, Iraqis celebrating— from Say Anything
Voting on the new constitution — Cao’s Blog
Iraqis Vote for Constitution (A Sad Day for Liberals)— from California Conservative

Technorati : , ,