Posted on 05/20/2005 1:26:39 PM PDT by KidGlock
Likewise, once a "conservative" drinks the "it's okay to intervene in other people's business as long as it serves my purpose," he's no longer a conservative. Seems like Roberts remained a conservative, and the term has been hijacked by some.
Well said.
I don't believe that condemning Mr. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq is removed from conservatism at all.
The bottom line is that Mr. Bush sold the war as a necessary means to eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD's posed to the U.S. But as we have seen, there were no WMD's, no mobile biological labs, no drones, absolutely nothing that we were told turned out to be the truth. Of course, Mr. Bush, having doubts of his own also brought up the brutality of Saddam's regime and the miracle of democracy as if channeling Woodrow Wilson was some kind of conservative virtue.
Mr. Bush has violated Russell Kirk's sixth canon of conservative principles: "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations, and a statesman's chief virtue, according to Plato and Burke, is prudence."
.Conservatives are realists. Conservatives are historians and conservatives predicted the budding civil war, the quagmire that would befall our military, and the seedbed for terrorism that would become Iraq following Mr. Bush's invasion. Conservatives are not cheerleaders for a political party and a leader who woefully lacks the prudence necessary to be a conservative statesman, nor grows the breadth and reach of the government while spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
That isn't the impression I got from reading that article.
Snickering.
There is no grounds for impeachment nor will this go anywhere. It is the same ravings of Leftists we have been hearing for a long time now.
Yes it has. We have seen its insanity up close on many occasions here.
Muslim pirates raided American shipping in the 1780s and held Americans hostage during the Confederation. We had no Navy capable of doing anything. Unfortunately Jefferson and his allies fought desperately to prevent one from being built.
Maybe he married some young Leftist chick.
Wow. Are you sure? Isn't that the definition of "conservative"--according to some around here? Oh, add in, "discourages inquiry, and considers disagreement tantamount to treason"...
The truth is the truth. Doesn't bother me.
The above listed people have most likely not been drinking Sterno.
Yes, he had vastly different views in the past.
Syria, Iran, N. Korea and some others posed a far greater threat than Iraq. However, from a STRATEGIC angle, If Afghanistan and Iraq were "converted", it would isolate Iran and make it easier to eventually see them leave their wacko/terrorist ways. In this sense, I think the arguement "why Iraq" is not looked at by Bush critics from a strategic angle but by a nation by nation tactical angle.
My criticism of Bush centers around the financial, the tactics used, and Bush's ignoring of the invasion from Mexico.
It was wrong to spend $300 billion dollars and to be politically correct. We were attacked on 911. It would have cost next to nothing to use a few well-placed tactical nukes and then go in and target strictly leadership. This fighting the foot-soldiers and "insurgents" is nuts, as well as rebuilding Iraq and spending $300 billion dollars. We should have let Europe "rebuild Iraq" after we leveled the damn place. No matter if we spend $300 billion or $3 trillion, the people in that region will still hate us, even if we bankrupt ourselved doing it.
Bush's financial managment and decision making has been atrocious. Continuing this Mr. Nice Guy Politically correct way to wage war is killing America. We should be using the $300 billion to improve our national security and procure new advanced weapons and to beef up our Special Ops forces, not wasting it on the Arabs who will always hate us regardless.
Maybe some of these things bug Paul Craig Roberts also.
The flaw in your Benedict Arnold analogy is that there are several time tested writers that seem to think that GWB's resemblance to a conservative approximates my little Cairn Terriers to a Great Dane.
Freepmail back.
Uh, aside from the fact that you're wrong on every single thing you just said, what other opposition do you have to the war?
Nice attempt at rewriting history with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
At the time we were told it was going to be another Nam with 10s of thousands killed on our side. We expected and presumed that he had a fierce Republican Guard that would fight us the entire way and especially street to streed in Bagdud.
As for the WMD why do you think our guys wore Chemsuits the entire time? Your hatred of W is making you say things that are not true.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.