Originally posted by TOC:
I see, Roger. Basically you blame Bush for not being right-wing enough. If I get you correctly, almost none of the problems that America is having today would have happened if Bush had been more decisively "radically conservative" (which is a contradiction in terms when you think of it). You will forgive me for doing a double-take when I read your statement that Iraq should be made to pay for your war in that country. Considering America was hardly invited there in the first place, that is a radical demand to say the least. Perhaps your country should consider leaving already?
Anyway, thank you for clarifying your position and saying, basically, that everything that is bad in the United States happens because its present administration, or one of its previous ones, did not push hard enough for a radically conservative agenda.
Strange how you can read into it something what isn't there and therefore make a sweeping statement saying that I believed all our problems were due to a lack of conservatism. No where did I say that no problems would exist if our presidents had been rock-ribbed conservative, especially with all the times I've said no one in office was to blame for the dot com disaster. I was merely responding to a request to make some criticisms of Bush since I seemed to be an ardent defender.
Katrina, for instance, was not the responsibility of conservatism versus liberalism. The economic damage and the lost jobs would have happened regardless of competence of the local officials, though the death toll would have likely been far lower. That was mother nature. The only impact of Katrina I've discussed has been its political impacts, with only passing mentions of its economic and human impacts. We now had Hurricane Ike with its impacts on all the people who suffered in Texas and all the damage it caused, which will have its own impact on the economy. It's not in the political arena since the left had not tried to make it political. (I can almost guarantee they really wanted to if Governor Rick Perry of Texas or FEMA had messed up)
One of the major points that hurt the American economy was the fall of the dollar and its consequential impact on commodities. That is neither liberal nor conservative. Some believe a strong dollar is good while others disagree. But to allow it to go into free fall is probably something neither liberals nor conservatives would agree upon.
Not everything I said can be seen in a liberal versus conservative prism, such as the ability to formulate strategies in Iraq. I have no idea whether Casey or Abizaid are conservatives, but Rumsfeld certainly was. And I advocated firing Rumsfeld. Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice, both ardent conservatives, incorrectly opposed the Surge, but they weren't involved in the decision-making. That point was a black mark on Bush's judgment for not seeing the failing policy earlier and correcting it, conservatism having nothing to do with it. Any sitting president in wartime would have to make similar judgment calls. FDR was good at it, and he was hardly conservative. Lincoln and Johnson were bad at it. Bush was bad at it.
We'll never know for sure if the single defining disaster on Sept. 11, 2001 would have happened if Bill Clinton had been a die-hard conservative and responded in much harsher ways when the various terrorist attacks occurred in his administration. We do know he didn't treat terrorism very seriously, but then again neither did President Bush since we were still believing in the myth that our oceans protected us. Ronald Reagan made mistakes in foreign policy, one of the most disastrous being sending the Marines into Lebanon and then retreating. And Reagan was no liberal.
So you're reading a lot more into what I said than what was actually there, especially since a number of items aren't even conservative/liberal concepts.
A conservative blaming a person for being non-conservative at time... Hmm, now that's shocking.
Now I'm being called a radical. To me, it's simply being conservative. I'm no where near as conservative as many others are, as it may shock you. I'm probably not even the most conservative person on this board, just the most "talkative." (I can think of some here who are more conservative than I am) But that's hardly surprising since people have a tendency to think anyone who isn't quite like them is radical.
Now I'll turn it around. Please heap some praise on President Bush and criticism of Barack Obama for those on the left. I've seen nothing but bitter hatred for President Bush and fawning praise for the Messiah (that's what Republicans believe Barack "He who holds back the waters and heals the planet" Obama thinks he is). By asking, you should know I'd be asking for the reverse.
Originally posted by bakasi:
I don't know how we are supposed to solve this problem, but I'm sure that war is not the right answer.
We would not be in Iraq today if al Qaeda had not attacked first, so we did not start the War on Terror. The war was brought to us. Americans see the War on Terror as a defensive war, not an offensive one. No one likes war, not even conservatives, despite what some people think. I wish we weren't in Iraq, but on the flip side, I think it'd be worse for us in the long run if we weren't there. I wish we didn't have to fight al Qaeda, but we must in order to preserve our way of life, if not preserve our lives. But war is sometimes necessary. I'm glad we're killing al Qaeda by the thousands in Iraq, if only because the dead won't be plotting to destroy our cities. If war is ever deemed unnecessary in all cases, as many on the left do feel, then that makes you even more susceptible to attack as our enemies would consider us weak and ripe for an attack. bin Laden even said as much, seeing our limp responses to previous attacks. He called us a paper tiger and began planning 9/11.
al Qaeda is not an organization that can be talked out of its agenda, but rather is an organization that can only be destroyed or made irrelevant. We've already seen the Sunni Awakening Movement that has turned against al Qaeda. The more people see of their true natures, the less they are supported.
As for al Sadr being a martyr, we've killed hundreds of al Qaeda martyrs (granted he isn't al Qaeda), chief among them Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Yet today, al Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray while recruiting is way down. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy and the one in charge of operations, since we captured one of his letters. Martyrdom hasn't helped al Qaeda much. After a few months, al Sadr would have been forgotten. And we'd have nipped one of Iran's main conduit of influence into Iraq.
Note that we obliged Saddam's request to be a martyr. Yet today many of his Sunni brethren are fighting alongside us, killing al Qaeda.
Originally posted by alcyone:
Not taking the bait. I can tell a rhetorical question when I see one.
Actually, it's not rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested in the names of the ones you're afraid of. I'll even promise I won't comment on your answer. I can think of a lot of individuals I'm afraid of who have shaped the way Obama thinks and how he would react. While no one is accusing Obama of being a domestic terrorist, for example, the environment you live in shapes the way you think. Just as Groobie (I hope I got that right) said that she hardly knew any Republicans and was interested in knowing how the other side thought because she didn't know, Obama has never really been exposed to the viewpoints of the other side and therefore would be expected to think similarly to the ones he associated with when he grew up. To me, it's no surprise he's the #1 liberal (even more than self-avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders) in the Senate considering who his associates have been. Many of his associates have been America-haters, believing this country is evil. So again, I'm very curious as to whom you're afraid of who associate with John McCain.
I'll shock you all further. I'd feel A LOT safer if Hillary Clinton were president rather than Barack Obama, and that's saying something.
