A loss of trust.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
What prevents me from supporting President Bush amounts to this: I do not trust his judgment. Put another way, a man whose judgment has been demonstrated to be so suspect cannot claim my trust.
The most resounding evidence against his judgment is his administration’s intolerable negligence of domestic security. How a politician whose government reacts to a kind of citizens’ arrest in the sky of a troop of Jihadist provocateurs, by ordering a new round of sensitivity training for security officers, can possibly hope to retain the trust of the patriots of this republic, is a matter for our soothsayers to explicate. For me, is a matter, piled on top of a dozen others and more, for disgust and disappointment. Is it possible that the President and his close advisers do not realize the demoralization they cause when, to take another example, they take no notice of brigandage on our southern border? This banditry is probably perpetrated by the sort of increasingly globalized criminal gangs which would have no qualms about alliance with the Jihad. The Jihad, its roots in oil-rich nations, has money after all. Is all this obscure to them? Or is it obscure to them that their studied ignorance of the whole menace of the Jihad domestically undermines the trust they draw on for political support?
Read on.
It is hard not conclude, alas, that the President simply doesn’t care about domestic security outside the narrow focus of law enforcement. It is hard not to conclude, what is more worrisome: that the President has no real grasp of the lineaments of this war. If he cannot see the danger that is caused when, in the face of agitation from sympathizers of the enemy, his administration folds like paper doll — why, then we just cannot trust him.
This Presidency’s political lifeblood is draining out of it: it is losing the support of the Right. You can hardly escape it if you are attentive to those sectors where Conservative voices are prominent. On talk radio, hardly a segment goes by without a caller, once supportive of Bush, now hostile. Old Left rags like The Nation are able to somewhat plausibly write about the “growing anti-war movement in the military.” On the blogs, disillusionment is everywhere. When the Democrats say they have a majority of the people behind them in opposition to the war, they are probably not perpetrating an illusion. That party has finally fumbled upon a slogan that may actually resonate beyond Washington and New York: the slogan that Iraq is the responsibility of Iraqis, we cannot do it for them. There is undoubtedly some cynicism in this rhetoric — everywhere else we look, Democrats are urging that we “do” something for somebody — but is has a core of truth. In stark terms, it means this: if the Iraqi people do not want democracy and liberty, we cannot give it to them.
These were the hurdles President Bush faced when he went on the airwaves last night. They may have been from the outset insurmountable. As a politician who rested on the trust of the people, the loss of that alone may put his presidency beyond recovery. Moreover, his second fundamental source of political capital — the treachery and madness of the Left — while unquestionably profiting him, also, like gold for the Spanish and oil for the Saudis, corrupted him. George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 against an insufferable and unlikable opponent only by the narrowest of margins; and he has retained sympathy throughout his time in office largely by virtue of his personal appeal (though this has always mystified his adversaries) and the unceasing tissue of abuse and invective launched against him. But none of these assets will avail him in the teeth of a loss of trust among his core supporters on the Right. Conservatives represent the largest constituency ordered around philosophical principle in the country; no right-wing candidate can survive their disillusionment.
Thus the only hope, I believe, for retrieval of domestic political support, which is of course a prerequisite for any renewed vigor in Iraq, is the patient work of earning again the trust of the people who once supported him. The easiest way to do this would be to talk and act like there is indeed a war on — a war which began for us, not with a shock somewhere in foreign lands, but with perfidy and massacre by agents of the Jihad who had penetrated our security apparatus and struck us at home. To lose sight of this stolid and stark fact, is to lose sight of what this all about.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Seeking Out And Destroying The Networks — Comments (5) »
A loss of trust. 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But I would say that the point about the lunacy President's domestic opponents no longer holds as much water as it once did. It's not that the Left is any less mad -- in fact the opposite is probably true. It's that the opposition to the war is now much broader. Leon mentions on Redhot that Brownback opposes the surge. Is he a wild-eyed Leftist?
Again I go back to the trust point: If I could trust the President's instincts on domestic security, I would be far more inclined to trust him on foreign affairs.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
the Lunatic Left's unanswered criticisms that initially undermined public confidence. The pathetic performances on domestic security you pointed out, which continue with outrages like the flying imam flap, followed and further undermined public trust and I can't disagree it was a major although secondary factor.
We should strongly support the president where he deserves it, and I don't think you disagree with that point, and speak out when he ignores areas that are of great importance to the protection of the United States. As for trust and blind faith, I reserve that for God and my dogs.
As you yourself ably pointed out (in the Visa Express scandal), the weakness on domestic security is antedates the Iraq war itself. I would point also to the various jihadist razzias that have vanished down the memory hole: the DC snipers, the Egyptian attack on the El Al ticket counter at LAX, the Univ. of North Carolina hit-and-run attack, the Jewish Center attack in Seattle. The administration has never once connected these to the Jihad*, to which the careful observer will not fail to connect them: it has failed to make this connection because, to repeat, its judgment is suspect.
In short, and I take no pleasure in saying this, there are almost points, on the question of the Jihad, where the President deserves strong support.
____
* Neither has the media, either, to its shame.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
let alone connect it to American Islamists who operate here, sometimes independently, sometimes in concert with others. You are right about the memory hole; I had forgotten some of the incidents you listed, and several you didn't: the Muslim American's attack on his fellow 101st soldiers while stationed in Kuwait, for example.
Not to make excuses, because as you know I share most of your domestic criticisms of this Administration's anti-terror policies, but sometimes I think the president has gone to the other extreme to avoid anything that remotely resembles the horrific internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. As a result, we get platitudes such as "Islam is a religion of peace" rather than calls for American Muslims to denounce outrages on our own soil such as the one you listed.
Nonetheless, I think the president has done an excellent job abroad at taking down terrorists and their bases, most recently in Somalia. So I think he deserves our support in that respect as he merits our criticism for what he has (or hasn't) done here at home.
He never lost mine.
I am one not given to rhetoric or distracted by immeasurable action, which frankly appears to put me in a minority on this President. He has listened to a variety of voices in prosecuting this war and seeking remedy to a conclusive, region altering end. His leadership on related matters is evident in the actions taken thus far and an adroit ability to stay steadfastly resolute in pursuant policies. Has it all been perfect? Absolutely, not but that is what leadership is all about, making decisions and staying with emanating actions one feels will achieve that goal. This has been purveyed by his detractors into fallacious characterizations as inflexible and opprobrious unapologetic behavior; nonsense and certainly not borne out by all the relevant facts.
In exchange, the President’s detractors have offered very little in the way of real substantive policy. Their degrading and unrelenting acrimonious behavior has reached new lows and established politics as the most distasteful of many Americans issues. Everything is Mr. Bush’s fault; how long before the public just grows tires of hearing that, true or not believes it or is more interested in pocketbook issues? They just want it to go away and blaming Bush is a shortsighted and uninformed means of stopping the ignominious cacophony. The problem is, that will not cure our issues, most prominently terrorism and the alternatives offered by Democrats are infinitely more dangerous and likely to bring terrorism back to our country.
Argumentatively, one can say the knee jerk reactions to flying imams and border issues is an action made more distasteful by related bureaucracy and associated personnel. While I strongly disagree with some of the Presidents articulated feelings on the border my feeling is they are based in a misguided attempt at balance; not some unconcerned position based in ignorance.
As a conservative, I am certainly not happy with some of the actions this President has undertaken (exempli gratia-Harriet Miers), et al. But I did not vote for this President because I thought he would accede to everything I personally wanted. I voted because Mr. Bush would lead on the issues that mattered most to our countries future and democratic longevity. A fact I believe history will show was accomplished.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
I would ask that you respond a little more directly to the primary point I made: that if we cannot trust the administration to resist the Jihad where it is cloest to us, how can we trust it where it is distant?
I say that the government's response to the Flying Imams is to give evidence that the enemy has cowed it into submission on domestic security. The administration is more fearful of antagonizing domestic jihadist sympathizers than it is fearful of American civilian safety. This is a failure of judgment so dramatic, in my mind, as to render all other judgments suspect.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I would say how is a TSA response to the “flying imams” directly linked to the administrations domestic credibility on protection from the Jihad? I have no direct knowledge, but strongly suspect top administration levels were not involved in this action. I am certainly not here to defend sensitivity training. However, that said it is given for a plurality of reasons which prominently includes mitigating legal action and applies to gender, race etc. In this case it could also provide further benefit by helping an observer more readily identify what is culturally normal and avoid false alarms. Overall; questionable from a value standpoint, but certainly not worthy or reason for indictment. If the actions taken by this group were repeated they would still arouse a fair degree of suspicion from security and civilians. Holistically, I fail to see how this renders all other judgments suspect.
Secondarily; how can we trust the administration on distant Jihad issues? The President has sought out the leaders of this Jihad wherever they live at great personnel expense. He has pursued this war while receiving a diverse set of advice and opinions (that statement is arguably a criticism). Nonetheless, we are safer than prior to the 9-11 attack. I am just curious how long that will last given the current majorities proclivity for verbal attack, thoughtless statements, and lack of written or factually supported policy. That is my primary concern.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Imams enter plane. Imams change seats without permission, request special seatbelts capable of being used as weapons, talk provocatively, provoke alarm in virtually all passengers and security personel. Imams get arrested, launch into standard victimology routine. Airline stands by its actions. Subsequent reports reveal that the passengers endorsed the arrests wholeheartedly, even stood up and cheered un unison.
And where does the Administration come down on this? Against the airline, against the security officers, against the passengers. It even goes so far as to institute punishment for the whole TSA, in the form of the Orwellian measures stamp out the viligance that provoked the whole episode. This is much more than "questionable."
I agree that the Administration has done some good work on going after the Jihad's big name leaders. I also agree that the Democrats are likely to do much worse. Such is the terribel agony of our country.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I'm with Paul on this one. The crew of that airplane should have been whisked to the White House and presented a Medal of Freedom.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
especially considering some of the other recent recipients.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
because of Minetta and Tenet...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think that you are right, Marcus, but I also think that the writer of the article to which you have replied makes an important point. Firmness, generosity, courage, truthfulness, resolve: these fine qualities are all manifest in the president. But judgment?
I don't think so.
One suspects that the recent surge for Mitt Romney has something to do with the fact that he brings so conspicuously the one quality Mr. Bush so conspicuously seems to lack: judgment.
Domestic policy and foreign policy: most presidents are stronger on one than the other. Clinton was stronger on the domestic front, Bush Sr. was stronger on the foreign front. Arguably Reagan was good on both, but even he had his failures in both (withdrawing from Lebanon, agreeing to a tax hike).
I think this is a very bad time to be saying that you can't trust Bush's foreign policy because of weaknesses in his domestic policy. To steal a line from CS Lewis, when a man has just defended himself from a tiger, it's hardly relevant or useful to point out to him that he hasn't helped his rheumatism at all. The President has proposed a well-thought-out change in foreign policy, and now more than ever he needs our support, not backbiting (and yes, I'm talking to you too, Sen. Brownback).
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
One of the rhetorical tropes of this conflict has been that "we are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here", or, "We're killing them there so that they don't chop off our heads here." Attempting the democratization of the Muslim Middle East while simultaneously sweeping knowledge of domestic razzias down the memory hole, genuflecting before the pieties of every aggrieved provocateur, and compelling public employees to endure sensitization regimens the inevitable effect of which will be to deaden them to the signs of subversive intent on the part of the enemy demonstrates either profound unseriousness or incoherence. That first rhetorical trope now assumes a more sinister significance, as in, "We fight them over there, and therefore it is not necessary to concern ourselves with them here."
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
Your rhetoric seems to give the impression that Bush personally ordered apologies to the Minnesota imams, gutted the southern border defenses, etc. Isn't it more likely that Bush just hasn't been paying as much attention to the homefront as he has to Iraq and the other overseas operations? If so, then why lose faith in his overseas work only because of lack of attention to the homefront?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
in your own mind: is Bush the Leader upon whose character and resolve this entire effort depends, or is he a hobbled executive whose underlings and subordinates are working at cross-purposes to his own? Do you imagine that cabinet-level officials responsible for the oversight of, and dispensing of counsel regarding, these areas of policy in which I note conspicuous failures have never apprised Bush of their doings? That he could overrule them if he so desired? The mind boggles.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
I trusted everything they told me for the first two years, but I am not blind. Even with the biased media reports, there is no lying about body bags coming home. It was obvious at least 2 years ago that plan B should be put into effect. Either Bush was distracted, trusting the wrong people, or didn't care. He is where the buck stops. Unfortunately, the professional anti-America crowd regains credibility.
Personally, I think you shoot yourself in the foot by undermining trust in the President as a means to rebuild it. After all, I agree with the outcome sought for in your conclusion. I have heard him give many speeches precisely to that effect, only to have the press characterize all such effect right out of them.
Your evidence, the link between sensitivity training on the Haaj and prayer, and the flying imams, is most tenuous - the Haaj itself is just as likely as concomitant cause as the flying Imams - and even if some State Dept. employee thinks it related, this is no indication that Mr. Bush fails to comprehend or is afraid to deal with the consequences of jihad. Pilgrimage and prayer are benign aspects, not to be confused with the treacherous one. Here is a good recent examination, by Peter Wehner, an advisor to President Bush, of Islam. I believe Mr. Bush gets it, even though I think he should raise the ante by taking it on more directly in the realm of ideas. His control over the specific individuals and decisions is limited.
As to the second leg of your argument, if I were to base my trust in you on your immigration policy, I would be admitting an element that would stand in the way of our more important alliance against the jihad. I am happy to say I don't think we permit that impediment to our allegiance.
And by all means lets concentrate the public mind on just what aspect of Islam threatens us and just how severely. I join the cause in a nearby post.
John E.
John, my purpose is not to rebuild trust in the President; it would be much closer to the truth to say that it is to undermine it. Because I believe his judgment untrustworthy.
My trust in him is broken, probably forever. But that trust was broken long ago, and here I am trying to explain, as I see it, the difficulties the President faces in the policy he laid out last night.
So I agree that we can make an alliance against the Jihad, but there is not much more agreement between us than that. I emphatically do not think President Bush "gets it." Google "religion of peace" on the White House site and see how many items pop up. Rather, I believe that the President's misapprehension of the nature of the threat from Islam has done great harm to the Republic.
I don't think the southern border chaos is unrelated. We know for a fact that the Jihad is in some regions fully integrated with the big criminal syndicates. There was an eye-opener of an article on this in US News some months ago. These gangs are now probing our southern border; and we should accept this with equanimity?
Our alliance against the Jihad is strong; whether similar alliances on other matters herein discussed can be forged seems sadly doubtful to me.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Then that ray of hope you shined on your canvas of desolation is a false one. Have hope, harbinger of despair. Heck, its more productive.
"religion of peace" is a smelly bone to PC. It may also be a strategic choice. The policy of confronting the hostile aspects of Islam, which you and I see as inevitable, is going to have a host of repercussions which our government may not be well prepared for. It is mind boggling to consider isn't it? Judgment calls for prudence. If we were in his shoes would we be willing to pull that trigger?
John E.
I believe the President's judgment is impaired enough by Liberalism to warrant opposition. I believe that this fact goes a long way toward explaining his current political difficulties.
In the old Thomist heirarchy, prudence is called the "mother" and "preceptor" of all the virtues. This because it embraces our "realization of the good," our perception of objective reality. Without a true sense of reality, the other virtues cannot properly operate. Thus I would say that it is precisely the President's prudence that is in doubt. He does not have sufficent realization of what the Jihad is.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Paul,
This is just nonsense. You are whining about southern border security as if it is joined at the hip with Middle East policy. It is not.
Dealing with illegal immigration from Mexico is a very complex problem that that is a matrix of social, economic and political considerations. One of the very least of these is the concept of Islamic terrorists walking through the Sonoran Desert. I further doubt that those oil rich Arabs will have much luck recruiting Mexican drug gang members to blow themselves up on the Redline in LA.
You don't trust Bush? Then don't vote for him next time. He really doesn't need yours or anyone else's "political support". He needs to use the CHARACTER that he has resolutely and consistently displayed, to fight against the incessant attacks from the Left and the increasing attacks from the poor, "disappointed" whiners on the Right, to make this Country safe and secure despite both of theirs' pitiful and unhelpful lamentations.
EVERY day I am thankful that he sits in the White House compared to Al Gore or John Kerry. He beat both of those well financed guys DESPITE the universal support for them by the MSM. As I look at the crop of Republican presidential wannabes, I see none that could have beaten either. To try to diminish the fact that he won those elections by denigrating his opponents is just asinine.
In short, I have absolutely no agreement with your premise, your arguments and see no possible resolution to your self imposed dilemma. You don't trust Bush? Who cares? He has job to do. Either support him or go work for one of those losers you think will do better.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
reminiscent of that old pro-abortion slogan, "Don't like abortion?! Don't have one!!"?
Perhaps because this is not a question of personal allegiance to, or opposition to, the President, but a question of the wisdom of the policy package he has brought to the table to address the question of the jihad.
You might want to read up on the increasing prevalence of jihadists in Latin America, from the Triple Frontier of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay on north. And if criminal enterprises in Asia and the former Soviet Union can cooperate with the jihad when it profits them, so also can criminal enterprises in Latin America. To paraphrase, very loosely, money dissolves everything holy.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
because he has lost trust in the President. I say too bad. Call for impeachment or shut up and go start working to get someone better elected in 2 years.
PS. Let me know when the jihadist camel train gets to Tucson. Personally, I think they'll use the student visa program, but I may be wrong.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
any way they have to... Those who qualify under the visa programs will avail themselves of them, and those who do not will enter illegally. Same as it ever was.
And no, your formulation makes it seem as though the loss of trust is some brute, irrational movement of the soul, whereas it would be true to state that a realization of the folly of certain decisions has occasioned a loss of trust.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
expedient point of entry, whether the student visa program or a porous southern border. We know it nearly came happened on the Canadian border the night December 31, 1999. Crossing the desert doesn't deter the hungry and unemployed, so it is ridiculous to think it would deter dangerous and motivated fanatics.
The last election is hard evidence that he is failing. There is one--and only one--issue that can save his legacy: turning Iraq around.
Bush should have had made this speech last summer when it was clear that the Golden Mosque bombing accelerated sectarian strife. Bush should have applied his Harvard MBA training, having people in his inner circle who recognized that we were woefully undermanned and underplanned. Bush should have brought on new people and new ideas when it was apparent that little to no progress was being made in Iraq. Bush should have responded more quickly and more forcefully to changing situations there. Bush should have known that he needs to be more fully engaged in this Information War. Alas.
So, yes, to me, all of these shortcomings demonstrate his poor judgment, and his poor judgment was amplified because he kept people in his inner circle who gave him below-average counsel. But he is the Decider, after all, so it still comes down to him as being ultimately responsible.
I hope his proposed plan works, but given his substandard performance to date, I can't say I have confidence in it. I hope that Petraeus can pull it off, and I hope that al-Maliki grows some balls and takes Sadr down a notch or three. I think Petraeus has a chance, but I think I'd win more selling al-Maliki short than betting on his success.
In addition to the border problems and letting CAIR infuse its rhetoric into TSA policy (showing that Bush is to the left of Barbara Boxer when it comes to CAIR), Bush implemented steel tariffs, signed a bloated farm bill, signed a flawed Medicare bill, signed McCain-Feingold (even though he went on record that he thought it was unconstitutional), appointed mystery date Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, did little to control non-military discretionary spending, and the list goes on.
These are not the actions of a conservative. Then there are the Bush proposals that didn't happen: the faith-based initiative, Social Security reform, energy reform, environmental reform. His only major domestic accomplishments are (1) no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11 and (2) tax cuts, but because Bush is primarily responsible for the Republicans' new minority status, the tax cuts may just go away.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. They have simply fallen down the Memory Hole. The DC snipers, the El Al ticket counter attack at LAX, the Seattle Jewish Center attack, several hit-and-run jihadists (one in North Carolina, for instance).
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
but I don't believe any were affiliated with al Qaeda. As I recall, they were independent actors, but most if not all are indeed militant Islamists.
They'll all claim they were independent actors when they are captured. They will do whatever they can to protect their connections. I don't have much confidence in the DHS's ability to uncover those connections, to take action based on connections they find, or to make those connections public.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We still don't know who was behind that and the perpetrators of it are still at large... that is a mind boggling display of incompetence by our domestic security apparatus, if you ask me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The D.C. snipers? Please Paul spare me the literal parsing. When semantics are used as a way to support your points it is patronizing and insulting. Should we say “organized” or “major” terrorist attacks? Nobody is trying to bowdlerize the Bush Presidency. Please don’t allow this thread to denigrate into the converse as a means of advancing supportive argumentation.
We probably agree on a lot. There are a string of disappointments and curious decisions. Clearly there were mistakes made; does anyone remember Shinseki opining it would take several hundred thousand troops in post war Iraq? Then Wolfowitz comes out blasting Shinseki and then also saying there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq. Certainly, this shows the President was getting very bad advice (not to mention, Shinseki proceeded to tell the President different things after that). Yet we hear Bush does not listen to the people around him; which is it?
Do you remember the post 9-11 economy? How about the pre 9-11 military or the countries preparedness for attacks? DHS, lack of interdepartmental cooperation, etc. Do you remember people choosing whether to burn to death or jump from a 100 story building to end their suffering? I do; I was there. Seen that since 2001?
What matters often is the end state; who ended up on the Supreme Court, pushed Social Security reform over party objections and pushed to make tax cuts permanent? Who has kept us safer then we were before he took office?
If some are looking for perfection, here is a clue; it can not be found on this earth.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
John Allen Muhammad, acting on the basic principles of Jihad, launched a little razzia that significantly disrupted the capital city of this country for two weeks. I was there -- there to see the spectacle of people crouching behind their cars when filling their gas tanks, and the whole appalling debacle of the law enforcement handling of it. If you believe only semantics connect this to the Jihad, I would respectfully ask that you learn more about it. There is no evidence, of course, that Muhammad was connected to a terror organization; but this does not separate him from the Jihad, for its principles need no exterior organization.
I am not asking for perfection. I am asking an elementary step of the successful prosecution of any war: understanding who the enemy is. On the evidence, this basic understanding is wanting in the administration of George W. Bush.
Bush has done many good things; but his failure on this point is a serious matter.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
let alone elected him. "Fill in the Blank" would have been better. Well, fill in the blank you Bush Bashers.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The mute insult -- "you Bush Bashers" -- as a substitute for thought.
You resemble the other side.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
because you sound just like them. My "Bush Bashers" was only directed to anyone who wishes to consider themselves as such. If you feel that that is not inclusive of you, Paul, but would still like to fill in the blank, I will expand that to include "Those who hold such strong conservative principles and executive credentials that they have no choice but to have lost all faith in the character of the President but are qualified to pass judgment on his performance as a Chief Executive Officer."
If that doesn't work how about "Republican Whiners who lack the fortitude and understanding to deal with the adversity of what reality brings". Lets call that group "Whinos."
Or, just say "I'm _____ and I think ____ would have been a better choice".
You must fit in there some where.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Who would have been better? Can't answer can you because there is and was no better.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Since I can see no reasonable obligation on my part to furnish you with examples of preferable politicians sufficent to placate your fastidious partisanship, I am having a hard time perceiving what point there is to replying here.
My critique of Bush's domestic security record stands; you have hardly even attempted to confute it. Your method has consisted of nothing but irritable hectoring.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Your refusal to consider Tbones genuine question shows a lack of willingness to engage in honest debate. That reduces your entire thesis about Bush's shortcomings to be nothing but ranting negativism, which isn't really helpful and germain to nothing.
There is nothing genuine in Tbone's question. It is a taunt.
An equally taunting reply might be: "Is there anything Bush could do to lose your trust, or has he carte blanche? Could he propose shari'a law for America and still win your slavish approval?"
My thesis here is simple enough, and the fact that you cannot render it accurately does not speak well of your powers of perception.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
You lament because Bush hasn't met YOUR expectations. That he hasn't overcome a RINO Senate and a pork flinging House. That somehow he has prosecuted the war in Iraq in tune with your 20/20 hindsight and yet you can offer not even a suggestion of person who you think could have:
A. Won the Republican nomination in 2000
B. Beat a sitting Vice President in a reasonably good economic environment.
C. Weathered 9/11 and respond in a forceful and aggressive manner.
D. Beat John Kerry having to run on a pro war platform.
E. Gotten two very qualified SCOTUS appointments through a Judiciary Committee chaired by the Scum of the Republican side of the Senate.
You sir have no grounds for your complaining and no alternative to offer. Take your self-sorry lamentations and play your harp to some one who cares. Your credibility is of no further consequence to me.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You're one of my favorite commenters, Tbone, so please take this for what it's worth: You and Paul are going to separate now. Paul's made it clear he's done with you, and you've done the same for him. The way you appear in each of his threads, more or less without fail, is starting to have a TokyoTom feel to it, and that ended fine for Nick Danger, not so fine for Tom.
Are we clear?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
that I was a regular in his threads. I never much pay attention to authors, only erroneous content. I will try not to intrude on his versions of reality in the future.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
has been in realizing that this war has a significant domestic aspect to it. In fact I'd argue that the domestic aspect is the most significant one. The executive branch has been in a state of open revolt against the President for several years now. For a time in 2005 it sounded like some steps might be made to bring them into line, but recent disclosures show that was a pipedream.
I don't know how much of this is Bush's personal responsibility. It may be that civil service rules make the supposedly "executive branch" agencies basically independent entities which answer to nobody. But he and the GOP have had control and are being held accountable for what they are perceived to have failed to do.
I agree in part and disagree in part with this blog.
There are two fronts in this war, one foreign, the other domestic. The Administration has fumbled on the first largely due to poor communications; the military has performed splendidly although under too many restraints. On the domestic side, I find it hard to disagree with you and will admit I became very disillusioned with the Administration once it seemed to declare national security ended at our own borders and other points of entry.
I don't think anyone can dispute the initial battle for Iraq was anything less than a complete success. The aftermath has been shaky, but this is as should have been expected. Where the Administration dropped the ball, and badly, was not in rebutting the Left's propaganda and the MSM's daily lies, distortions and even truths that needed a response. Whether this was due to hubris or preoccupation or a combination of both doesn't matter. It happened, and it has become public perception that the war is all but lost and needless. The real tragedy is that this perception spills over from Iraq into Afghanistan, Somalia, and everywhere else we have to confront our enemies.
As Becker pointed out last night, the ball is now in the president's court because the military has done and will do its job. Bush waited far too long, and only once he was under duress, to communicate directly with the American public. I'm pessimistic that he can make up lost political ground now, but it is not impossible. As Becker posted, it is Bush's job to turn around the public.
As for the domestic front, the worst example of failure almost is anecdotal. Remember "visa express," where Saudis and others could expedite entry into the United States? Well, if memory serves, Colin Powell ran block and that abomination continued for another two years or so after September 11th. God knows who entered the United States under that program in the interim.
The Administration can regain a little public confidence if it will actually enforce our immigration laws, secure our borders and ports, allow profiling at our airports, and implement other measures that not only are logical but are necessary actually to win the GWOT. Unfortunately, this Administration has shown little inclination to act on this, the most important front.
I disagree that we cannot support this president, even as horribly flawed as he has been at times, because the GWOT will determine what we are as a nation and as a people in a generation or so. Nonetheless, we can nudge and push hard when he makes errors or fails to address past mistakes.