Redstate

Peace is Patriotic, you know.  I read that somewhere.

George W. Bush, the Peace President.

I kind of like the sound of it.  I'll like it even better when he has a successor, and another and another, and I remember a time when terrorism threatened, but for his leadership, to deny us such a future.

of swatting the face of his adversaries.  As the Administration continuously reaffirms the fact that we came as liberators, not occupiers, the President's detractors cannot help but become red in the face.  This is due to enormous frustration and embarrassment, as the liberal jihad has failed to accomplish American's defeat at the hands of Saddam loyalists and radical Islamo-terrorists.  Keep up the good work, Mr. President!

and I like the totally different point-of-view it presents (I'm a European) from my normal experiences, but sometimes I wonder if we are living in the same world. What on Earth is this liberal jihad you are talking about?

Also, I've been following AcademicElephant's writings for a bit, and all I see is blind loyalty. It's just Rumsfeld is great, Bush is great, everyone who questions them is pathetic & wrong. All right, so she agrees with them and I don't, but it troubles me to see such uncritical defence displayed day after day. What would it take to make you doubt these people?

What would it take to make you doubt these people?

We are inundated by doubters.  It's inescapable for us, if we pay attention at all to our media, which I think everyone here does, particularly AcademicElephant.  Our colleges and universities have a stifling political atmosphere, unless you want to express something extreme along a particular, narrow band. AE, being a non-liberal in that environment, fights a battle with every post.

Why should someone else's view "trouble" you?  And if you think AE's a shill for the Bush Administration, you are incorrect.

you saying "doubt these people" to doubt those people.

Bush is not great, he is a man doing a job that would have broken lesser men (see Lyndon Johnson).  Like FDR and Truman fighting their wars, he remains fixed on the ultimate goal -victory.  War is fought through men and women dying, good days and bad, victories and defeats.  It takes a moral certitude on the rightness of cause to stay and take those bad days.  After 5 years not many people would have it and be willing to take the knocks for it.  GWB has it and believe it or not, you sir are, in a better position for it, no matter where you are in the world.

Rumsfeld is not great; he is just correct.  His view of the goings on in Iraq and the GWOT are buttressed by the facts, not the pictures of the daily car bombing nearby some mosque.  The only way those bombings become strategic victories is by allowing them to and falling into the game plan of the terrorists, i.e. get fed up, lose our nerve, cut and run.  That was the Democratic game plan for Viet Nam which the terrorists have no doubt studied.

And yes, Pelosi, Dean, Boxer, Durbin, Murtha, etal ARE pathetic and wrong.

is the war waged against any and all positions or policies taken by the Bush Administration, regardless of merit. The impetus for this "War on Bush" was the fact that after a long and ugly skirmish following the 2000 Presidential elections, the Democrats vowed that the fight was not over.  

There were speeches made to that effect, to the disenchanted AlGore-a-phobes scattered to the political winds of defeat.  There is no genuine atmosphere of debate and compromise that exists in American politics since then. Despite the President's early attempts, the Jihad was declared and they have been relentless ever since.

I use such terms to highlight the disgust that I feel for what the liberals have done, and continue to do. This is not even about liberal vs. conservative positions on any given topic, generally speaking, because President Bush has outraged nearly as many conservatives as he has liberals in his attempts to be inclusive, and in his attempts to move his agenda forward and out of the battlefield.

.

that when you look at our disgust with the media, it is with good cause. Is the media in your country so blindly loyal to one political ideology as ours is? Does your media routinely take the side of your enemies? Those are the realities that we face everyday, and given that so many in our country blindly listen to the media, and further that so much of the media blindly listens to the Democrats, we are inundated with anti-American propoganda and ingnorrant people who believe it. Has any real main stream media in the United States reported on the FACT that WE HAVE NOT LOST ONE SINGLE BATTLE IN IRAQ OR AFGAHNISTAN, NOT ONE. They NEVER report that. We are in a situation of being forced to rebut the media at almost every turn. Maybe sometimes we over-reach, but you have to understand where we are coming from.

Today I read that Joe Scarborough said at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that the convention wisdom was that Bush was basically finished as a President and that the Democrats stand to gain quite a bit from his meltdown.  (I'm paraphrasing.  I read it in the WaPo.)  

I'm not that pessimistic, which is a surprise even for me, because I usually cast myself in the role of doomsayer here on RedState.  But even I can't ignore the power of positive thinking and I'm newly convinced that while we have some tough fights ahead of us, we need to batten down the hatches, come together as a party on our core principles, and beat the Donks again.  I think we can do it.  

Remember, folks:  change takes a long time, especially when you're moving an entire country.  Try not to be too disgruntled at specific policy decisions but work instead to keep the majority we've won and extend it.  It might take a generation, but the rewards for our country will be great, and our children will thank us for not engaging in a circular firing squad now.  The Democrats are the party that keeps emphasizing that "The World Is Ending Tomorrow."  Let them do that, and in the meantime, let's remember that we're the actual party of ideas and the party that's going to keep America on track.  

Joe Scarborough has been infected and
hopelessly damaged by his MSNBC stint.  

You know...

"Only Fools Go Where Angels Fear to Tread".

I think the demons got him.

.

I think there's a reason that Joe is on MSNBC and not in congress...

I appreciate your attention to my work on this site.  I am, however, disappointed that you consider my viewpoint so simplistic and uninformed--if you read a little more carefully you might see that what I am trying to do is to explain why I have arrived at my particular conclusion.  I don't expect you to agree with it, but I certainly don't think it's as myopic as you do--although I am disappointed that left Dr. Rice and John Bolton off the list of people I think are great.

What would it take to make you doubt these people?

You apparently belong to the group that believes that doubting the administration is now a self-evident truth.  I guess I don't think the situation is that simple.  Why is it so obvious that I should doubt them?

A word of friendly advice--drop the gratuitously insulting tone.  Debate is fine.  Rudeness gets old fast.

I have been very busy suiong and defending the last few weeks when not moving from Atlanta to Charlotte, but have read your diaries and enjoyed them all immensely and will post some comments later...

sorry for brief 't-jack"

A picture where he doesn't look like he's got Downs Syndrome or something.  He still looks like he might be sick any second, but at least he looks Semi-respectable...

Raven you know perfectly well that we're never going to agree on this issue--I think he looks terrific.  Not sick at all.  Where do you get that?  Can we at least agree that it's a good picture of Rumsfeld?

I was too busy looking at Condi.  Is she really that hot?  I know she's an older woman, but either God was especially kind to her or she's got the best plastic surgeon on the planet...

Oh good heavens.  How can you not notice Rumsfeld?  How about Pace?  But of course Condi looks great too.  I don't think she's had time for surgery, so I would say she's just diligent about maintainance and at least a little bit lucky.

it's a little hard to adjust to the higher standards of civility this board requires, given that you can generally say whatever you like about anyone on other boards. Perhaps that sounds like a criticism too, but I really do think this site is different to others I've read (ie Kos). Sure, there's plenty of "liberals are destroying this country" talk, which is just the converse of what people say non-stop on DailyKos, but there also seem to be genuinely intellectual people with well thought, genuine differences of opinion, by which I mean most of the front-page posters. A lot of contributors are real genuine legal professionals and academics, I'm not sure how true that is of Kos front-pagers.

All I really know about John Bolton is that he has an atrocious hair-piece, and the Republican-controlled Senate refused to confirm him, forcing a recess appointment. Also that he doesn't seem like a very good UN Ambassador. Doesn't really speak well of him.

As for Condi, she seems to get a pretty good rep with everyone, maybe because she hasn't been as prominent for as long? Though I was a bit perplexed at her interview when she was in the UK, where she admitted "thousands of mistakes" had been made in the Iraq war and then immediately backed off the comments. Did she mean it or not?

God's Peace, man! How could you even suggest such a thing on Red State. The woman works out and has the body of a track star and people speak of plastic surgery?

And it's probably the distance between us speaking more than any kind of real objection, is why so many Europeans hate, or seem to hate, GWB.  If you look objectively at the economy of the United States over the past year, and you look at the United States' commitment to reducing terror worldwide, and you understand that America has not become a police state under GWB (I know -- I live here, in Massachusetts actually) it's very difficult for me to discern why Europeans are so reflexively antagonistic toward this President, except that he is a Republican.

But if you also look at the rifts in the Republican party over his domestic decisions, GWB has not been a "toe-the-line" conservative and he has in fact angered many traditional conservatives and Republicans here in the United States.  In reality, Bush is a moderate, but my sense is that a great deal of effort has been expended in the media to paint him as an extremist, both here and abroad.

I fear that if that's all you know about Bolton  you might need to do a little reading.  Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that he has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize this year because of his work combatting nuclear proliferation?

And when has Condi been low profile? She was pretty prominent in the Bush 41 White House almost 20 years ago.

Here's a picture from this weekend's protests in NYC.

Many of us feels this is not just some isolated nutcase, but more a fairly typical representative of the Democratic part base.

Another reason is that the Democrats never offer any sort of plan that can be debated. It's "Bush lied", "Bush did it wrong", "We can do better", with nothing that bears any resemblance to anything that could even remotely be called a plan.

you'll see her getting attacked by the "we're the only ones looking out for minorities" left as an Aunt Jemima etc. even more than has happened up until now.

AE.  A GUY.  Of COURSE Condi was the first, last and Only person I really noticed.  I only looked at Bush long enough to say "Finally, a picture where he doesn't look Terribly stupid."

And I still say that he looks like he's going to hurl at any second.  That guy is just not photogenic.

Pace and Rummy are both looking like chained junkyard dogs there.  And Pace has this look in his eyes that seems like he's just BEGging to be let loose...

Condi IS hot!

is true in any war. Come on nobody is perfect, yet the EU seems to think the USA should be.

But the vision is not a mistake. The USA has the leadership, the vision, and is going the take the long term view in this war.

Having been the subject of gender confusion myself, I apologize Raven.  All perfectly clear now.  Something for everyone, then, in a picture like that.

a higher intellectual level than anyone in the democratic party.

that is not too difficult these days.

I'd like to extend a hardy welcome to a fellow RedStater.

I hope you find the Tarheel State's robust business environment extremely profitable.  One caveat though, I'm pretty sure you'll find our tax structure somewhat depressing.

Is there a tax structure that isn't depressing?

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, Gamecock.  Congrats on the move.

Hot?...M.Malkin is hot...Condi is ...distinguished.

IMHO

Depressing?

Marginal Rates

and Tax Brackets

for Single Filers

6% > $0

7% > $12,750

7.75% > $60K

8.25% > $120K

I'll end this threadjack with that.

Condi is a much more appealing subject.  ;>)

people aren't so much concerned about GWB's domestic policy in Europe. Originally it was just that the man seemed so dim, I think. It seems almost outrageous to have a man of such intellectual calibre leading the free world. Coming after Bill Clinton (who was genuinely popular, you'll be pleased to hear) he seemed like a step backward. Plus, it was raw nepotism. Would the man be President today if his surname wasn't Bush?

And then there is his foreign policy, which has been conducted with such disdain for other countries. You may scoff at that idea, but you can't blame the media for destroying the post-9/11 goodwill towards the US. Everyone was on your side then, everyone backed Afghanistan. Did the world turn against the Bush administration since then for no reason?

That's all kind of academic, the main reason I dislike Republicans - and this made me genuinely angry - was a video of Senator Rick Santorum I saw a short while ago, in which he solemnly declared that Western European Civilisation was dying because we didn't conform to his idea of a "good" religious society. Who on Earth is he to say that? What gives him the right to condemn hundreds of millions of people because they do not share his brand of faith?  

Well, Skaffen, I would say that I don't think a cornerstone of our foreign policy should be to maintain an artificial and ephemeral sense of international "good will" at the cost of our national interests.  Such "good will" might make G8 summits more pleasant, but it doesn't get you too far when one of Saddam's old air force pilots detonates a dirty bomb over New York.  The point of this post and my previous one is that I think in the long term, a free and peaceful Iraq is very much in our interests--as well as in the interests of all those who value freedom and peace over oil-for-food kickbacks.  Actually, it's in their best interests too, but I don't expect them to have that kind of perspective.

Yes, American foreign policy has taken a dramatic change of course over the last five years, but it had to.  If 9/11 proved nothing else, it proved that the old policies were not working and that the broader jihad against us was very real.  I don't know that democratizing the Middle East will work, but I do think we have a much better shot with that approach--at the very least we have a shot--and if the people we have liberated in the past through similar acts of unprovoked imperial aggression can't understand that, well then that's just too bad for them.

There was a man. A great man who brought down an empire, an evil one. He saved countless lives, liberated whole nations, quite a few. All at once.

Without firing a shot.

He should be revered by the left.

Teach peace.

5!

not at all with Saddam.

I would say the USSR was a bigger threat at the time.

so it's ok

...but close

I don't think it needs to be an either/or--Reagan rose to his challenge and spread freedom and peace and Bush is rising to his.  The one thing I would debate, though, is the assertion that no one died fighting the Cold War.  A lot of people died--just not in conventional battles between the USSR and the US.  That's why we call it a war.

To understand your third point, I think, we have to start with the situation in Europe as seen from this side of the pond. Many people here would say that Europe, if not "dying," is facing some rather serious problems, to an extent greater than in the U.S.:

1. An increasingly elderly population and a rate of reproduction well below steady-state.
   
   
2. An influx of largely Islamic immigrants and culture to fill the void, and a distinct unwillingness to defend the primacy of Western culture against it, or even to acknowledge that certain social problems may arise as a result of that influx (lest one be labeled "racist").

These are not problems that exist solely in the minds of American evangelicals, none of whom could ever be confused with, say, Christopher Hitchens, Oriana Fallaci, or "Theodore Dalrymple" (Anthony Daniels). The trend that links these things, in many American minds, is a loss of faith. Europe, having largely passed into the "post-religious" stage of its existence, having purged itself of the nationalism that so often bled it white, finds transcendental purpose in...what? "Towards uniform fruit regulations and more vacation time!" simply does not have the same effect on the psyche as "Vive la France!" or "Deus volt!", even if one thinks of nationalism and religious belief as atavistic and unnecessary phenomena. It's very logical to couple this with what appears, over here, to be a collapse of cultural confidence — no European politician, perhaps, would assert cultural primacy as Sen. Santorum did, but this reticence seems to extend beyond eschewing nationalism to unwillingness to defend basic principles of gender equality, free expression, etc. To many Americans, the connection is obvious: if your principles are no longer transcendent, but human, relative and fallible, there will naturally be little interest in defending them.

I realize you probably disagree with a great deal of this, but I hope this at least gives some idea of the reasoning behind these statements, and maybe grounds for further discussion.

I think i may not have gotten my tongue in cheek point across. When I read Socrates's observation that Bush could be called the Peace President I got a chuckle because I could picture exactly what a liberal would say to that.

I was merely trying to add to that by pointing out that the same could be said for Reagan. With a policy of peace through strength we took down an unimaginable enemy. Through a strong resolve and diplomacy, we won. I would think that, for a liberal, that would be the ultimate way to win a war. But did he get praise? No.

I do understand that there were many who died that we will never hear of. The dark shadows during that era were many. My own experiences and education are extremely close to this conflict.

But since the left is usually superficial about conflicts with other nations I figured I could take some poetic license. And, by mentioning it I was trying to point that out. Not to Socrates per se, but just a general rambling.

If I wasnt clear in my thoughts, sorry. Neither the first nor last time THAT's gonna happen!

Exactly right

Europe has died.  We should learn from their fate.

I personally hope Europe will resuscitate itself, although I hold out little hope.

Sounds like we're in accord on this--and to my mind, the parallels between Bush and Reagan grow by the day.

Now if I could only get W to do what I want domestically!

Sorry I didn't get your original Ronnie comment.  

As for getting GW to do what you want domestically, I refer you to C.S. Lewis: "He's good, but he isn't safe."  It's hard to find a leader, at least any more, who can take a hands-on approach to geopolitics and eschew by principle any economic tinkering.  Problem solvers, even right-brained ones like our Prez, want to solve problems.

Santorum is a lightning rod and one of the people who as a politician in America actually dares to speak his mind and talks about what his constitutents are thinking.  But he is by far not the most influential member of Congress and he is not leading any kind of crusade in Pennsylvania that is causing harm.  Santorum's problems started because he is resolutely anti-homosexual as far as marriage rights are concerned.  The pro-homosexual rights groups latched onto him very early, and if anything, they've had a much more important impact than he has, through the free press and alternative newspapers that you can pick up in almost every major city in the United States -- and read sex advice columns by Dan Savage.

It's very diffiult to say that there hasn't been a dialogue in this country about Rick Santorum's controversial views when, if you type his last name into Google, the first link is a website mocking him and defining his last name as a byproduct of anal sex.

For people overseas to understand that the modern Democratic party is not the party of John F. Kennedy and is no longer the party of classical liberals who were interested in the cause of the "common man."  Today, the Democratic Party in America is the self-described party of chaos, and is a loosely-organized bazaar of identity-politics interest groups with a few Marxist hangers-on and instigators, and one that takes a great deal of time before it "arrives" at a policy on any subject.  Rahm Emanuel, the leading light of the Democrats going into the midterm elections, has flatly stated that the Democrats will have a "position on Iraq" when the time is right.  Right for whom?  For the Democrats' electoral prospects, that's whom.  

These are not the people the rest of the world needs to see in power in the United States.  I don't think Europe wants to see America become more chaotic than it already is.  

I suspect this is exactly the sort of remark that irritates our interlocutor, who presumably lives a more or less pleasant middle-class life in what he considers to be a well-ordered community, and is doubtless surprised to be numbered among the dead.

To draw something of a medical analogy, Europe, after years of suffering from an auto-immune disorder, has forcibly put itself on immunosuppressants to guarantee its health. Now it's suffering an infection, but it may feel very little until septic shock gets it. The problem is persuading the patient to go to the hospital...