.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Bush fighting Back

Powerline provides great commentary on the President finally starting to fight back against his fraudulent critics. I agree with Powerline that Bush should start attacking these critics every few days at the very least. However, I would go further. There are numerous comments made by Democrats over the last few years that are "unbecoming" an American, which were ignored by the MSM. Bush needs to start bringing these up as well. Some great examples are the trips to Iraq taken by McDermot prior to the war and the statements by Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin.

I don't know if waiting to respond to false attacks was a strategy by Bush. If it was it seems misguided. However, if Bush plans to withdraw troops in 2006, then the strategy makes more sense. Bush wants to be on the upswing when annoucing such decisions. Withraw from strength, not weakness.

Blogger Federal Farmer said...

Rumsfeld is joining the attack also. They certainly are right to attack the Democrats, who established the policy that is currently in place (who can forget Mad Madeline asking what is the military good for if it's not in use). However, they are prudently avoiding the criticism of the authentic Right, which criticized both administrations for their foreign policies of putting Islamists in political power, whether in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Basra. In fact, one Presidential candidate in 2000 was particularly eloquent in his argument against "nation-building," which always came at the American taxpayers expense. Now, according to the Israelis, we have committed a strategic blunder, in addition to engaging in hyper-nation building. I suggest looking to The American Conservative magazine if you want to read what has consistently been the most credible source of information on foreign policy.

12:28 PM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Does Conservative magazine offer policy suggestions on how to deal with nuclear proliferation. I would like to hear them.

2:07 PM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

A policy suggestion on what to do about a real problem? You must be joking.

9:34 PM, November 15, 2005  
Blogger Federal Farmer said...

Perhaps the commentators are suggesting that Israel should be in our sights now, as they are now criticizing our policies as having made the mideast more dangerous (see the complete post below, in "How Goeth the Empire Project."
From the American Conservative:
Leon Hadar, a former Israeli Defense Force Officer, now at the Cato Institute, writes, in an article entitled: Bad For You Too? How the Iraq War Disappointed Israel, the following.
"Even more intriguing has been the way Israeli officials and pundits have scoffed at the Wilsonian fantasies of the neocons—fantasies of using the invasion of Iraq as the first stage of “democratizing” the Middle East. Not only have most Israeli experts suggested that such a scheme is impractical, they have also argued that the collapse of authoritarian regimes in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan is bound to bring to power anti-Israeli and anti-American forces. As Israeli leaders see it, the Jewish state would have a hard time adjusting to a democratic Arab world in which public opinion, rather than centralized rulers, determined policy. Yehezkel Dror, a political science professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recently related the Israeli establishment’s view: “We’re all for democracy, but let us imagine democracy in Egypt or Jordan. Will it strengthen their peace with Israel?” Dror and his colleagues have concluded that the answer to this question is a clear “No!” That explains why Newsweek characterized the reputation of Natan Sharansky—George W. Bush’s favorite author and the prophet of Middle Eastern democracy—in Israel as that of a “scorned idealist.”
An aide to Ariel Sharon (presumably not anti-semitic) recently voiced the same thought, that the urban renewal project in Iraq has made it more dangerous for Israel, than it was before. Certainly the Iranians have benefited far beyond their wildest dreams, and China's People's Liberation Army's General Command looks at events in the mideast like the U.S. General Command looked at events in Afghanistan in the early 1980's.
Sorry to repeat this post, but it had been quickly buried under the inane chatter and obsolete talking points of the neocons.

8:12 AM, November 16, 2005  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I think that article sums up the Paleocon idea for middle-east democracy. That arabs cannot function in a democracy.

In my opinion, this view reveals a general misunderstanding of humanity - the view that people of different creeds and races behave differently in their basic psychology is the fundamental flaw in paleocon thinking.

As I have said before, if this is your view, then of course, the whole Iraq policy is a mistake.

Go read some Thucydides or ancient Chinese history and you will learn that people generally behave in the same way and always will (which is why you will always have stock market bubbles too!)

9:10 AM, November 16, 2005  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I certainly agree that the Mideast has become more dangerous. The US armed forces are killing scores of jihadists weekly. It is much more dangerous for them than it use to be.

(Oh. And still waiting for a positive policy recommendation. Cricket chirp. Cricket chirp. Cricket chirp.)

9:39 AM, November 16, 2005  

Post a Comment