I will be posting several posts today at Crooks & Liars and will post the links here when those posts are available.
In the meantime, two items today -- an article from the Times and a Dana Milbank column in the Post -- highlight the growing (in both numbers and importance) opposition among Republicans to the Administration's illegal eavesdropping program. How ironic, and sad, that some Democrats seem so tentative about confronting the President with regard to his claimed powers of law-breaking at the very same time that many members of Bush's own party are awakening to the real dangers posed by the Administration's actions.
And, as described by Milbank's column, it's particularly noteworthy how true conservative believer Bob Barr was treated like an evil traitor at the Conservative Political Action Conference held this weekend all because he is critical of The President's violations of FISA. Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader -- even when the criticism is based on conservative principles -- is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause. This really tells you all you need to know about what "conservativsm" has come to mean in certain circles:
Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."
But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.
Even to be subjected to the idea that "Bush is off course" is traumatic and wrong. Such an opinion has no place at a "conservative" event, where only praise and reverence of the Commander-in-Chief is appropriate.
* * * * * * *
My first at C&L is posted here, regarding the remarks of Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual event held this last week. Isn't it odd how demands are always made of every Democrat to denounce the latest "extremist" utterings from private citizens such as Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, or Moveon.org, and yet all of the top GOP officials participate in an event where one of the featured speakers urges violence against "ragheads," Supreme Court Justices and former Presidents -- and not for the first time -- and nobody seems to think there's anything inappropriate about it, and none of the Republican luminaries are asked to denounce those comments or repudiate her?
Until Republicans sever their ties with repugnant hate-mongers like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, shouldn't we have a moratorium on demands that Democrats renounce their extremists elements, as well as a moratorium on Republican sermons about the importance for civility in the political arena?
It's been apparent for awhile now, that what is termed conservatism in America does not even have a passing resemblance to traditional conservatism, as we were taught to define it years ago. That the few remaining traditional conservatives are just awakening to this is, I suppose, useful. At this point in the nation's history, "conservatism" has become a code word for anti-liberalism, which, in its most extreme form, should be properly termed fascism. I have scant hope that the Republicans will purge themselves of this element -- it is too pervasive in their party now.
ReplyDeletethese people are sick in the head and frankly i believe quite dangerous. their levels of cognitive reasoning are not separated from their emotions and fears to such an extent they villify anyone who dares suggest a difference of opinion. no one is saying bush shouldn't defend the US. I think we all want him to. The problem is, he's not, and he's actually making it worse. He's done more to advance the cause of al qaeda in the last 5 years than bin laden himself.
ReplyDeleteonce more i am very disappointed that you post at CrooksandLiars for i still cannot access that site / same old message : server stops responding / i do not believe it is due to my system / thanks
ReplyDeleteAlso telling of the cult-like behavior: the way Bush always refers to himself as "Commander in Chief", as if he's CinC of everything and everyone, not just the armed forces. Why doesn't he just shorten it to "Commander" or "The Commander" or even "Our Commander"? That's what Bushites mean when they parrot the expression.
ReplyDeleteI think one defining characteristic of the unfortunate genetic mutation that causes "republicanism" is the desire to be "commanded". Ball gags and named anal vibrators are optional.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI've been pounding away at this theme in every comments thread I can find over the past couple of years. The fact that the Right has managed to capture and exploit the respectable term "conservative" is a huge deal. It gives cover and mainstream legitimacy to what is essentially a fascist movement. It's amazing how many of our most perceptive liberal pundits and bloggers continue to make the mistake of referring to the Right as 'conservatives.' They don't adhere to any of the traditional principles of conservatism (fiscal discipline, small government, limited intrusion in personal affairs, cautious foreign policy.)
We have to stop giving them the benefit of the "c" word-- this lies at the very center of what is so wrong with our political culture at the moment.
I saw this under Nixon, God did I see it with Nixon. Wage price controls, for God's sake, but the loyalty never wavered. It totally shaped my political attitudes.
ReplyDeleteIt is complicated to say what it is, but it is not new, not particular to Bush, not Conservative Christian, not generated by Terrorism and Islamophobia. I think Dave Neiwert is closest, xenophobia and victimology, proto-fascism.
3:43 was me, Bob Mcmanus. I have completely messed up my blogger accounts.
ReplyDelete3:43 PM? Where are we?
We have to stop giving them the benefit of the "c" word-- this lies at the very center of what is so wrong with our political culture at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. There is nothing conservative about the Bush Administration or Bush followers. And coincidentally enough, I was writing a post about exactly this topic when I saw your comment -- in response to this quite personal post about me by Alexandra at All Things Beautiful, proclaiming her disappointment that I have become a mindless captive of "the Left" -- all based on the fact that I criticize the Administration and its most virulent loyalists.
Whatever else the Bush Administration is, it isn't conservative, and it doesn't make someone a believer in liberalism to criticize and oppose them. As I've tried to make clear repeatedly, I'd say opposing them makes someone a believer in America.
Radicals.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out at Red State once that by definition The Bush Administration was radical, not conservative. I copied the free dictionary definitions of both words into the post.
The funniest response I got, in summary, was that the dictionary was not really accurate.
And, of course, I got BLAM'd.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
ReplyDeleteWhatever else the Bush Administration is, it isn't conservative, and it doesn't make someone a believer in liberalism to criticize and oppose them.
This is a silly refrain.
Every now and there are demonstrations in Washington put on by anti-Israel groups protesting the existence of the Jewish state. These demonstrations are organized by supporters of Hamas and other fascist elements of the hate-Israel camp. Inevitably, at some point in the proceedings, the emcee will announce the presence of four or five men dressed in full Hasidic regalia: caftans, talises, black hats, displaying their curly payos and ritual fringes.
The emcee will declare them the "real" Jews, i.e., those who hate Israel with as much ardor as the assembled crowd. They will garner a lusty and enthusiastic reception from the assembled crowd.
Your claim that the Bush administration and its supporters are not "real" conservatives reminds me of those who claim the supporters of Israel are not "real" Jews. In fact, in an eerily similar gesture, you inevitably trot out your little band of "real" conservatives (Bob Barr and Paul Craig Roberts, etc.), and even identify yourself as a "real" conservative in their mold.
The effect is the same.
The curious question is Glenn, why don't you simply admit, a la David Brock, that you have joined the other side? There is no shame in that, is there? After all, 99% of your most ardent supporters are in the "progressive" camp, opposed to every one of the Bush administration's policies.
Perhaps it's time you realized that standing in their midst wearing your (metaphorical) payos and caftan is more than a little ridiculous, and even unseemly. Isn't it time you took measures to redeem your dignity and declare your true political self?
I have to agree with gidaliya.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, there is nothing wrong with admitting you are a progressive.
Also, you now have developed the habit of mocking terrorist attempts. It is obvious when they said the terrorists would breach to cockpit using shoebombs it didn't mean they would knock the door down with them. I'll bet if I told you a bunch of muslims who never flew a plane before would wipe out the twin towers, you would have mocked that also.
It is one thing to argue against the warrantless surveillance on the grounds of legal arguments and civil rights or even to question the questionable timing of Bush's announcement.
It is quite another to go off the progressive deep end to mock the importance of national security and mock terrorist attacks. You have crossed over to the dailykos world, which is fine, that is what America is all about. But be prepared to be identified as a wimp on security because you have now accepted every progressive position on national security that has put the left solidly behind on this issue in the polls.
"But be prepared to be identified as a wimp on security because you have now accepted every progressive position on national security that has put the left solidly behind on this issue in the polls."
ReplyDeleteWATB. It is fallacy that Bush is "tough" on Terror. The War on Terror is all marketing. We are not safer with Bush at the helm. I wish the conservatives would stop being so scared. They are freaking me out when they act like Islam is the greatest threat to American republican democracy when we have so many more (Republican) enemies within. Now, if someone could figure out that problem then we might get somewhere.
As someone who identifies themselves as a conservative, I’d have to honestly say that Glenn you may be correct about the current Bush administration, but only in the classical, fiscal definition sense only. But I truly wonder how much of that spending is the by-product of 9/11 & subsequent re-organization of the Intelligence communities, the natural disasters that have occurred: failure of Eastern Power Grid, worst fire season in Western US history, hurricanes galore (how many in Florida & Katrina) & continued draught conditions for the Western half of the continent. Let’s not forget wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, rising oil prices & increased energy costs. Whatever arguments regarding his fiscal policy, I will agree that the Bush administration really can’t be called truly conservative in regards to it’s spending, but I am afraid that realities may have forced their hand or led to an excess in spending. But on tax cuts & socio-political issues, I have yet to hear an argument to persuade me otherwise. The opposition to his SCOTUS nominees surely confirms that.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Ann Coulter’s remarks, I have yet heard one conservative politician, blogger or CPAC attendee offer agreement & most seem put off by or very critical of her “rag-head” comments. I don’t think it is fair to compare any non-existing acceptance of her remarks to the likes of Michael Moore, I doubt very highly we’ll see her or Pat Robinson seated next Bush (41) during the 2008 RNC convention. I doubt she’ll ever be the spokesman for AARP or an UN goodwill ambassador like Belafonte & I have yet to see any prominent conservative or Republican organization or Coulter herself, compare Carter or Clinton to Hitler like Move.org did towards Bush (43). Surely there will be those that leave comments on certain web-sites that may agree, but the comparisons to Moore, etc. fall fairly hollow.
If you were to say that her comments were racist or inappropriate like Howard Cosell’s “monkey” or Hillary’s “plantation” comments, I would wholeheartedly agree. But the Republican Party has never embraced either Coulter or Robinson (at least recently, like in the past decade or so) to the degree that the Democrats have embraced the likes of Franken, Moore, Sheehan, Belafonte, etc.
pmain - Bush's response to your laundry list of fateful "realities" ignores that Bush's reaction to all of these matters was not "conservative." You also imply that war in Iraq was somehow preordained as if Bush didn't choose that fight.
ReplyDeleteAnd the notion that Coulter isn't embraced by real conservatives is just plain naiive. I mean, come on, she was the keynote speaker at probably the conservative conference there is short of the RNC convention.
Remember "Speak Softly, and Carry a Big Stick"?
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to that...?
Now we have John Wayne, play-actor, as American HEro of World War II that he, um, skipped (well, he made a few half-hearted efforts to enlist - but succeeded in avoiding it all, unlike Jimmy Stewart, who not only served but later lost his son in Vietnam). Didn't matter: Wayne's a Congressional Gold Medal, and Presidential Medal of Freedom (courtesy of Jimmy Carter) recipient. After all, he fought those Hollywood "Commies" didn't he? A "true" hero? ["The fact remains that the man who came to symbolize American patriotism and pride had a chance to do more than just act the part, and he let it pass." --CECIL ADAMS]
And Arnold, Born in Austria play-actor, Schwarzenegger, as American HEro for, um, big muscles.
Etc. [Ring a bell, TANG member George W.??]
We need to stop vicariously living the Hollywood lie, and force ourselves away from the behavior-shaping images flashing at us nonstop on our television screens. THAT would do more for our vaunted "national security" and the common defense than all the strutting of Hollywood HEroes, combined. [Hmmm, wonder how the General Electric Olympics are going...]
"Real" men don't need to wear it on their sleeves.
P.S. To Dick Durbin - What's this about showing up at a GOP Press Conference in order to publicly stab Russ Feingold in the back with regard to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act....????
Cult indeed. But it’s one thing to say some things about Barr in a private meeting, and another to go after, say, Lindsey Graham and Brownback in a public campaign like they are smearing Democrats on this issue.
ReplyDeleteMelman said:
Democrats who have condemned the Bush administration's controversial eavesdropping program may not be suited to safeguard Americans against terror attacks.
What we need to ask is why doesn’t that apply to critics like Graham and Brownback?
Does that mean that Republicans Lindsey Graham and Brownback are also not “suited to safeguard America.” They say you they are not attacking Democrats’ patriotism by this accusation, but let’s ask how Graham feels about this charge being leveled at him?
While Graham is working for consensus with Democrats on this issue, Cheney and Melman are using it to smear Democrats.
Unfortunately, as Joe at AMERICAblog points out the press has pretty much gone along.
That needs to be changed. The only reason this cult of Bush has been allowed to foster and grow is the timidity and mendacity of the media in challenging it.
The rift between Graham (and other Repubs) and the Cult of Bush on this issue can be used to minimize the effect of these smears on Democrats, and only then can we move to the real issue here.
Will that happen as this debate (crisis) proceeds?
It's extraodrinary how people who remain consistent in their views are accused of "going over to the other side", and admonished to utter proclamations that they have shifted allegiances. I don't know Glenn's history, but I have never wavered one degree from being a laizzez faire capitalist who believes in small government, low taxation, individual initiative,
ReplyDeletethe Constitution of the United States, law and order, a strong national defense, and advancement based upon merit, not affirmative action or handout programs. Therefore, I have never found much with which to identify in the Democratic Party.
Now, however, I could not be more in agreement with Glenn's position, nor alarmed at the fascist mentality of people like Cheney/Bush/Addington/Yoo/Gonzales/
Libby etc. who suddenly loom as a far greater threat to our country than all the pinko, collectivist programs that have been the backbone of the Democratic party in this country since Roosevelt. At least those programs only took away my money. The new threat is my liberty, and that is a far greater threat.
Does that make me a Democrat? Hardly. But it makes me
strongly believe that unless some opposition party (I would accept Martians at this point) gets its nose into the House of Power, our country is doomed.
Since entrenched partisan thinking on both sides has led to the present shocking situation, I think it is only in the writings of people like Paul Craig Roberts, who has spent a lifetime as a a Christian Conservative, Reagan loyalist, and advocate of capitalism can one look for the truth.
He hasn't changed his views. Read his old columns and if you are a Conservative and you agree with them, that should establish his credentials. Read his columns of the last few years. Not a single column shows a shift in viewpoint. His principles remain the same. It's the world which has changed around him.
He has no reason, nothing to gain, for sounding the bell of alarm. He was merely one of the first to see what was happening. I didn't see it when I voted for Bush in 2004. I see it now, and am horrified beyond description.
Preceding anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"I didn't see it when I voted for Bush in 2004. I see it now, and am horrified beyond description."
Can there be a more damning indictment of the profound failures of the John Kerry/Democratic Party presidential campaign than this?
Glenn, you are brilliant.
ReplyDeleteWhen I despair that your efforts will not result in a majority of principled Republicans and Democrats seeing the light and doing what is necessary to counter this huge assault on our Constitutional Republic, I remind myself of Margaret Meades' words:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed thinkers can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
MJS,
ReplyDeleteI implied that Bush’s response was & could be considered fiscally non-conservative & only in regards to the excessive spending & that the subsequent deficit & reason behind the spending is the by-product of those instances & more. So you are right, I did argue he was not being conservative, but in only in fiscal terms & strictly in relation to his spending. I further asserted that he was definitely socially conservative & in regards to taxes, completely fiscally conservative.
While I did not mean to imply that the Iraq was preordained, it seems to me that military action or some kind of change has been needed in the Middle East as a whole since WWII. I did not say anything directly in regards to Iraq, other than to include it as one of the sources of spending. However, Iraq to me, seemed the most logical place to start given its take over of Kuwait, refusal to abide by UN sanctions, interference w/ weapons inspectors, attempted assassination of Bush (41), genocide, harboring of terrorists, allowing terrorists’ training camps, the fact it was the 4th largest army on the planet & the most aggressive in the Middle East, etc. I personally believe Saddam should have been taken out during the first Gulf War & failure to that led directly to the current war we have now.
I’m not sure how I am being naïve in regards to Ann Coulter & conservatives. I know & have read just as many conservatives that dislike her & her approach as I have fans of her writings & speeches. I would never make that assumption, much like I would never assume that all Democrats like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc.
Yes, but the CPAC isn’t an official part of the RNC… so I am not getting your point. Does that mean that we can consider Moveon.org apart of the Democratic camp – while honestly I cannot tell the difference between the two, that doesn’t seem a logical jump to make. W/ the exception being that Michael was given a prominant spot in the last Dem. Convention. I do not recall Ann Coulter sitting next to Bush (41) & am not sure if she was even there.
"However, Iraq to me, seemed the most logical place to start given its take over of Kuwait, refusal to abide by UN sanctions, interference w/ weapons inspectors, attempted assassination of Bush (41), genocide, harboring of terrorists, allowing terrorists’ training camps, the fact it was the 4th largest army on the planet & the most aggressive in the Middle East, etc."
ReplyDeleteStart what, exactly? Global hegemony? A world war? Do you believe that Bush's war in Iraq is the change you believed was needed in the Middle East? It seems too many neo-cons were looking for a fight with the Middle East (i.e., Islam) just as much as Al Qaeda wanted to destroy Western civilization.
Even Bush didn't cite your examples as reasons to invade Iraq. Bush said Iraq had WMD, despite all good intelligence to the contrary, including a viable nuclear weapons program. With all due respect, this is not a conservative position.
America has faced far more serious threats than what we face from a relatively small gang of misguided, albeit danagerous, religious fanatics. I submit that the rise of "conservative" proto facism poses a far greater threat to our way of life, and your security, than the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
What is conserative about this administration?
ReplyDeleteThe record national debt?
The huge increase in government spending? More than Clinton!
Surveilling American citizens without a warrant?
Cooking evidence to goad the nation into starting a war?
Unprecdented reorganizations to consolidate power in the Executive branch?
The sweeping Federal mandates on education?
The fact that they only bring up abortion and gay marriage around election time?
If you support Bush, you are not a conservative. You are part of the most radical political movement this country has seen this century.
Just admit that this administration can in no sense be considered conservative.
mjs says:
ReplyDeleteI submit that the rise of "conservative" proto facism poses a far greater threat to our way of life, and your security, than the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
This says it all.
Democrats are doomed to irrevelency as long as fellows like this dominate the ranks of the party.
The United States needs a healthy, vibrant, loyal and competitive opposition political party. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been hijacked by people so blinded by Bush hatred that they cannot recognize the mortal threats we face from Islamic fascism. Amazingly, they will even say out loud that Bush is a greater threat to us then Bin Laden.
The Democratic Party was last in this sad state when it decided to accomodate the slavocracy of 1861. Aside from two Grover Cleveland terms they were out of power for almost 60 years thereafter.
It's deja vu all over again, as someone once said.
Bush loyalists would love to frame things that way.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, the Republican party no longer represents conservative ideals. It represents expansionism, unprecedented Executive privilege, corruption, and the suppression of dissent.
I'm sorry I used to vote Republican: when they told me they believed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, limited government, individual freedoms, fiscal responsibility, and accountability in our public servants, I believed them.
I got suckered.
MJS,
ReplyDeleteI’m not really sure where to start in response. Bush did indeed cite all of what I had during his address to the nation & all where included in the authorization of military force signed by Congress – as well as many other & more specific descriptions. All of the intelligence available, as well as intelligence from a majority of other countries, pointed towards there being WMDs – scientists on payroll, buried or hidden centrifuges, over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium, interference & refusal of UN based weapons inspectors, etc. While I have no wish to readdress these points & most readers would probably agree that to continue such an argument as being pointless since we are there & Saddam is gone.
You are right, this isn’t a “conservative” position, it was the position held by the majority of the intelligence agencies within & without the US, including several countries in the Middle East – not to mention the Bush (41), Clinton & Bush (43) administrations'CIA, NSA, State Department, Congressional Intelligence committees & all branches of the military.
As far as there being countries posing a more serious threat to the US, I cannot recall any other nation trying to assassinate a former US president, refusing 17 UN sanctions, violating signed US cease fire agreements & invading sovereign nations. So I am not sure exactly what or who you are referring to, maybe you could enlighten me?
Yes, there are other nations that pose a threat to the US, but none had so willfully supplied reasons or have/had the history against the US that Iraq did. Look at the changes that have taken place after the invasion – Syria withdrawal from Lebanon, Libya surrendering its weapons, Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, democratic several elections in Afghanistan & Iraq, electoral changes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Lebanon – not to mention other countries.
While you may disagree w/ the War in Iraq, I’m not sure anyone can reasonably argue that these changes were not directly or indirectly related to Bush’s foreign policy or maybe the majority of Afghans & Iraqis polled are lying & under "Neo-Con" mind control.
The only religious fanatics involved are those that chose to hijack some planes & attack the World Trade Center, Pentagon & thankfully a small field in Pennsylvania.
By DKOS & DU standards, a good argument on your part, because you managed to imply a conspiracy theory, use the words neo-con & fascism & proclaim support for National Security illegal all without actually make a point.
No, my security is a lot better than it was 09/10/2001, I can’t imagine anyone taking over a plane in the skies of America w/ a box cutter, much less being able to hijack it & crash into a building.
al Qaeda had nothing to do with Hussein. bin Laden loathed the secular Hussein.
ReplyDeletebin Laden also loathes the Shi'ite Iranian leadership.
But bin Laden is benefitting greatly from the increased anti-American sentiment and the weakened American strategic position and economy.
I think that that is a fallacy about the Republican Party. I would say that those are the beliefs most commonly held by Republicans, but even Lincoln was in favor of a strong Federal Government in certain instances. But truthfully I wouldn’t know, I am an independent & have never actually belonged to a political party, but will probably register as a Republican.
ReplyDeleteQuestion & I mean this w/o being snarky, if these are values that you hold then what party do you vote for? None of those are values held by the Democratic Party…
I will be forced to vote strictly Libertarian this election.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I might vote Democrat on the national level just to put up some small opposition to the anti-conservative neoRepublican party.
If they were tied up fighting with a majority Democrat Congress, they wouldn't be able to continue as easily with their radical and dangerous agenda.
prunes says:
ReplyDeleteBut bin Laden is benefitting greatly from the increased anti-American sentiment and the weakened American strategic position and economy.
This is laughable and utterly fatuous.
If he is actually alive, he is almost completely isolated and on the run, moving between caves in the barren moonscape of northern Pakistan. His fighters are dying in large numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. His only hope is the strategy employed by the Vietnamese communists 30 years ago...win the war on the American home front.
Unfortunately for him, George Bush is in the White House. There will be no victory on the America home front for Bin Laden while Bush is President of the United States.
The momentum is going our way, and victory over Islamic fascism is not only possible, but looking more and more likely each day. By this November, the American people will affirm this fact by increasing the Republican strength in both houses of Congress.
Most Americans find sentiments such as yours revolting. As long as national Democrats continue to express themselves thusly, they will remain in the political wilderness.
Most Americans find sentiments such as yours revolting. As long as national Democrats continue to express themselves thusly, they will remain in the political wilderness.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you threatened by the fact that bin Laden was never collaborating with Hussein? Or the fact that bin Laden would never collaborate with the Iranian leadership?
I'm not a Democrat, by the way. I'm very conservative.
Prunes,
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 Commission said that there were ties between Osama bin Laden & Saddam. They also said that there was no conclusive evidence that they had collaborated in the planning & execution of 9/11. I am going to assume that is what you meant, if it wasn’t you are dead wrong.
So you are saying that Osama hates the Shiites more than or as much as the US?
While I admit he immediately benefited from the US invasion of Iraq, in the long run I think it is going to hurt him. While there is no way to know how many followers he gained, there is a definite majority in the body count on his end & I’m not sure he is gaining as many as you hope. In Iraq, the insurgent attacks are down as well as IED based attacks & several of the Sunni communities are tiring of the Al Qaeda presence & actually turning on them or turning them in. Poll numbers in both Afghanistan & Iraq show that most are happy w/ the changes & feel that their countries are going in the right direction.
As far as the US economy is going, it’s going great – unemployment 4.7%, interest rates are still lower than they have been for decades, home ownership is an all-time record high, etc. Oil prices are completely high, but this isn’t the first time that OPEC has tried to affect us by playing w/ the oil supply, you may not be old enough to remember the gas crisis in late 1970’s during the Carter administration.
Good luck w/ the Libertarian Party, you of course realize that by voting that way you, & depending upon where you live of course, you are actually voting for the party that hates all of your ideals – the Democratic Party that is. Me, I live in CA, so it doesn’t really matter how I vote for most Congressional offices, there are enough Democrats & the voting districts are designed to keep incumbents in office. But I can happily say that I live where Bush did carry the votes, as well as all of Arnold's referendums.
The Republican party hates all my ideals now, so what does it matter.
ReplyDeleteYou are going to be in for a surprise economy-wise, buddy.
Go ahead, keep conflating all Arabs. It's such a simpler world that way.
prunes says:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you threatened by the fact that bin Laden was never collaborating with Hussein? Or the fact that bin Laden would never collaborate with the Iranian leadership?
I'm not the one who claims Bin Laden is benefitting from our foreign policy. You are the one making that fatuous claim.
If Bin Laden and Hussein weren't collaborating, why was Hussein providing aid and comfort to Al-Zakarwi for most of the 1990s?
bin Laden and al Zakarwi were not affiliated at the time, as I understand it. I welcome a link to correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteEven so, if I send you money and one of your pen pals commits a crime, did I aid that criminal? No, I only aided you. There would have to be some reason think I sent money to the criminal via you.
Hussein and bin Laden were never in league.
Prunes,
ReplyDeleteIf we can go through all of what we have (see my “laundry” list a few posts earlier) & have such a robust economy I doubt it, pal. Besides, I really don’t mind paying more for gas if it means a chance for the Middle East to become democratized, it’s a lot better than having to relive through another 9/11, chum.
I do indeed hope we continue to "conflate" Arabs under the banner of the benefits of democratic & representative governments w/ equal rights for women, amigo.
This is just a shot in the dark, your name isn’t Pat Buchanan is it, compeer?
Prunes,
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying that when Al Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan - well before we invaded Iraq - & he went to Baghdad for medical attention & lost his leg that it was because Saddam was a total stranger or are you implying that Iraq, well known for its open & free health care, simply opened its doors as a nice gesture to a fellow muslim, little buddy?
pmain,
ReplyDeleteI don't visit DU although I admit to lurking from time to time at dailykos. The small gang of religious fanatics that pose a threat to the US are Islamic.
My point is that Bush's decision to invade Iraq, whether to neuter him or to promote democracy/liberty/freedom, take your pick, was not a "conservative" judgment in any meaningful sense of the word.
I said "America has faced far more serious threats than what we face from a relatively small gang of misguided, albeit danagerous, religious fanatics." I am referring to the Civil War, WWI, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union's acquisition of nuclear arms and the spread of communism to Latin America, nuclear proliferation in Pakistan and North Korea, the rise of China, lack of access to reliable sources of oil, etc. I can't imagine how Bush would have handled those crises.
Do you also give Bush credit for the the domination of Afghanistan by heroin producing tribal warlords, the rise of fanatical Iranian political leaders and Hamas' democratic victory? And didn't I just read that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia were behind the incitement of Muslim hatred against the Danes? Is that Bush's victory also?
Look, we cannot eliminate by force every potential threat to the United States by trying to bring democracy at gunpoint to those who wish to do us harm and don't share our values.
Your last point, that you feel safer today than you were on 9/10/01 because Bush invaded Iraq, says all I need to know about you. You want the illusion of security. You probably believe Iraq had something to do with Iraq. Bush loves suckers like you. Stop acting like your afraid of your own shadow.
gedalyia, why do you hate America so much? I rather like the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law.
pmain,
ReplyDeletecorrection: You probably believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
MJS,
ReplyDeleteYou know its funny, I would never presume to know all about you from a couple of paragraphs, nor would I be so apt to make such a presumption regarding your opinions – but to each his own I guess.
An illusion of security was not taking real measures after the WTC bombing & treating the matter as a criminal affair well after Al Qaeda declared war on the US, erecting the “Gorelick” wall binding our intelligence services, ignoring the attacks on the USS Cole & on our embassies or pulling troops out after the incident in Mogadishu. We now have a President that won’t be cow-tied by opinion polls & will react to future attacks accordingly. I, like my President & the majority of voting Americans, believe we should actually act as though we are really in a war, not a crime spree. You don’t have to tell me about security, I live in the largest concentration of US military assets, a few miles from the porous Mexican border & 60 miles from a nuclear power plant besides the ocean – I live in San Diego, CA.
I do believe that Iraq had a lot to do w/ 9/11. I think that if Bush (41) had finished the job over there during the first war or if Clinton had actually responded to Saddam’s violations of cease fire agreement & UN sanctions more seriously or not pulled the troops from Mogadishu, Osama wouldn’t have gotten the support, financing nor had the balls to undertake 9/11. Yes, Iraq had a lot to do w/ 9/11.
pmain, I should have said that your response told me all I needed to know about your political views. For that I apologize for I know I can't possibly know you, in all of your human complexity, by our little exchange here.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that
Bush likes to act like we are in a time of war. It's too bad, though, that it is just an act.
Even Bush said that Saddam was not involved with 9/11. If I understand you correctly you are not necessarily arguing that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 but that our failure to take him out sooner did. So we are responsible for 9/11? Do I understand you correctly? I mean, that is what you said.
No, I am saying that if we had actually treated Osama bin Laden as a threat originally, not shown weakness by withdrawing troops from Mogadishu, if we had stood up to Saddam, instead of fly-swatting him w/ missiles & allowing him to act like it was business as usual, Osama wouldn’t have thought of our military as a “paper tiger” & attacked us, more specifically the World Trade Center, again. I am saying that the failures of Bush (41) & Clinton let Osama think he could actually pull it off & he was right. It’s real hard to plan 9/11 w/ a bullet in the head.
ReplyDeleteThe only ones acting like we are not at war are the Democrats & the MSM. Osama understands, so does Bush (43) & Saddam completely understands now.
Isn't it fallacious to believe that OBL would be deterred if Bush 41 and Clinton did as you suggested? I thought he is a madman bent on destruction. He is not a rational actor. What of his statements that he waged jihad on the US precisely because the US military built bases near Islam's holy places in Saudi Arabia. I mean we propped up OBL, and Saddam for that matter, for years while OBL fought Russia on our behalf in Afghanistan and Saddam was our client in the fight against Iran.
ReplyDeleteMJS,
ReplyDeleteLike I said in my last post, “It’s real hard to plan 9/11 w/ a bullet in the head.” It doesn’t get much clearer. Osama came to the conclusion that the American military & the American people were a “paper tiger” after Clinton pulled the troops, now add his success w/ bombing the WTC the same year... & you get someone who has no fear of US retaliation. You get someone who has attacked us twice & is still walking around…
How successful would 9/11 had been if Osama was dead prior to it being planned? If he was dead when he first declared war or after the bombing of the World Trade Center, would 9/11 have happened? The answer is of course No!
So what if they were propped or used by the US in the past against our enemies. Japan once attacked us & we in turn dropped nuclear bombs on them. They are now an ally. Are you really naïve to think that allies cannot become enemies or that enemies cannot become our friends? I guess I shouldn’t mention the wars we have had w/ the Spanish, British, Germans, Italians, French, Canadians or Mexicans… because according to your logic they must always follow a static line or relationship.
MJS,
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, don't tell anyopne but the Russians were our allies against the Germans in WWII. I guess we can now ignore the total Cold War because they were always our friends?
pmain,
ReplyDeleteI support finding and killing OBL for 9/11. I don't believe, however, that the war in Iraq has anything to do with that effort.
pmain,
ReplyDeleteYou missed my point entirely about our prior support of OBL and Saddam. I understand history well enough to know that Japan was an enemy that became an ally and that Russia was an ally that became our adversary (that is now, arguably, our ally again).
pmain,
ReplyDeleteWe started this exchange by disagreeing about Bush's claim to be a conservative. I return to this point because you and I have a fundamental disagreement about America's role in the world. Good night. Hopefully we will talk again.
I am afraid I fail to see your point unless it is that we can't at one time ally ourselves w/ someone who has common interests & then find them to be an enemy decades later? It doesn’t matter that we gave Osama basic military training & stinger missiles, he choose to cross us & we (Bush 41 & Clinton) dropped the ball several times. Now we are not… Osama is hidden somewhere & totally ineffective & Saddam is in jail.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I really don’t mind paying more for gas if it means a chance for the Middle East to become democratized, it’s a lot better than having to relive through another 9/11, chum.
ReplyDeleteI do indeed hope we continue to "conflate" Arabs under the banner of the benefits of democratic & representative governments w/ equal rights for women, amigo.
This is just a shot in the dark, your name isn’t Pat Buchanan is it, compeer?
If you wish to imagine up these tenuous connections between Hussein and bin Laden, I can't stop you. It probably helps you to sleep at night. Your notion that ignoring the political realities of the Middle East will somehow result in more democracy there is amusing.
I have no clue what point you are intending to make by that last question.
The issue with the economy is not the oil, although that is a minor component. The issue is unprecedented national debt. Our debt is 8x larger than it ever was under Clinton.
This all has to be paid back.
For instance, my share of the national debt is about 150% of my yearly income.
That is what things looked like in Argentina a few years ago, right before their crash.
The ONLY thing our economy has going for it right now is a big GDP. That can't sustain us forever, particularly if the moron Republicans keep expanding the size of the federal government at record rates. They show no signs of slowing down their foolish spending, or of printing money by the bucket.
Do you know why they are printing so much money these days? It is because the only thing keeping the dollar from crashing is intentional inflation.
It would only take another few real bad months to crash the American economy. We have no buffer anymore, and it is not an accident. It is the result of socialist spending practices by the Republicans. (Boy, I'd never have thought I'd have to say THAT!)
prunes said:
ReplyDeleteFor instance, my share of the national debt is about 150% of my yearly income.
Hmmm. The national debt is about $8 trillion, the population about 300,000,000. Simple arithmatic would put the per capita debt at about $27,000. This puts your yearly income at about $17,300.
Perhaps it's time you found a better job.
What a ridiculous comment.
ReplyDeleteHow can you expect to be taken seriously on economic matters?
The debt cannot be paid by non wage earners. The debt will be primarily paid back by primary breadwinners.
You could have easily determined this with a simple Google query.
Do you think you might be making other errors in critically thinking about national policy?
prunes writes:
ReplyDeleteThe debt cannot be paid by non wage earners. The debt will be primarily paid back by primary breadwinners.
Nearly every one of the 300,000,000 people alive today will be breadwinners during their lifetime. That is why the per capita debt statistic is meaningful.
Your own link supports my arithmatic calculation.
But prunes, don't get all bent out of shape from what was, after all, a light-hearted riposte to one of your remarks.
Just relax.
*rolls eyes*
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't got enough econ. under the belt to continue this.
Prunes,
ReplyDeleteThe connections existed between Saddam & Al Qaeda well before we invaded Iraq. The 9/11 commission even showed them, it was the relationship to 9/11 itself that cannot be proved. It was the links to terrorists’ organizations that were only part of the Bush administration’s justification of the Iraqi War. That is the only reality & it’s not political. Unless you think that the 9/11 Commission & the findings of the Clinton Administration’s CIA was completely lying as well.
How is Democracy not in more abundance post Afghanistan/Iraq? Turkey has been admitted to the EU, elections of multiple parties have occurred in Afghanistan & several in Iraq. Palestine elected Hamas, Egypt & Saudi Arabia have both opened up provincially, multi-party elections. All of which hadn’t occurred pre-GWOT. It’s not amusing, it’s fact.
The last question was a joke, look at the positions you presented & ask a right leaning, politically aware friend to explain it to you. It was in jest & I did not mean to offend or confuse you.
National debt & additional spending is due to several things somewhat included my “laundry list” posted above. While Clinton did manage to reduce the debt he never had to deal w/ the failure of the eastern power grid (but he & Bush (41) ignored warnings), hurricanes in Florida or Katrina, 9/11, etc, etc ad nausea. I personally would add that the majority of the force behind the balanced budget is due largely to the Republican congress & the Contract w/ America. Much like I blame our current Congress for much of the deficit. It you look at American history, great national debts always have occurred in the past during war-time. What percent was the debt versus the US’s GDP for WWI or WWII?
Argentina is a piss poor argument or example, they have never had an economy that is in any way comparable to the US. What was or is there GDP versus rate of economic growth. Have they ever had unemployment of less than 10%, much less 30-40%? That would be like trying to compare the state of California to any small town in Ohio, no contest or relevance.
Hi Glenn,
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to take a minute to thank you for your wonderful piece the other day, Do Bush followers have a political ideology? in which you referenced the diary I wrote on Kos.
Your post was wonderful, beautifully written, and couldn't be more on point with regards to the truth of the matter.
My brother noticed the re-post of your work on Kos and directed me here to read the entire piece.
I'll definitly be checking in more often, as I'd never been to your site before.
Thanks again!
Glenn, thanks so much for your analysis. It never fails to uplift me. I dont know how old you are but I lived through the dark days of Watergate and it was a long hard struggle for those of us who wanted Nixon out. We cannot give up the fight. I intend to work against Pat Roberts in Kansas. I hope others will work where they live too.
ReplyDelete