trish said...
Matthew Continetti over at the Weekly Standard says, take heart:
If the voters in 2006 wanted a change in Bush's policy, they got it. The political market is efficient. Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld, chose a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus, and rejected the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey war strategy of force protection, Iraqification, and counterterrorism in favor of Petraeus's counterinsurgency approach.
The Petraeus strategy has barely been implemented--today only four out of five additional combat brigades are in theater--but already Democrats are calling for a return to the old strategy, or a drastic reduction in American forces, or cutting off funding for the war altogether. Bush and Congress will continue to fight over war policy throughout the 2008 election cycle. No one knows what twists and turns are ahead. We do know, however, that the terms of the Iraq debate on Election Day 2008 will not be the same as those on Election Day 2006.
This could mean even more Republicans will cross the aisle and vote Democratic. But there's a chance--just a chance--that the Republicans who left the GOP in 2006 will have reason to return to the fold.
"This could mean even more Republicans will cross the aisle and vote Democratic. But there's a chance--just a chance--that the Republicans who left the GOP in 2006 will have reason to return to the fold."
ReplyDeleteM. Continetti has penned one of the great miscalculations of the Republican party. The party presumes that voters who have left the fold have done so because the Dems represent a position more agreeable to them; it's the reverse, of course. Repub voters have left the fold because of inept Republicans, who have wandered far from their beloved principles.
Unless something very drastic or positive, unforeseen event occurs, this coming election will just be another "Bob Dole" election.
And, for the record, this former Repub hasn't voted Democrat since his youth. But, I have voted for "no-party" candidates that present a more principled approach.
It's time for both major parties to die.
This is interesting:
ReplyDeleteMilitants admit plan to draw US to Saudi Arabia: reports
By IANS
Tuesday May 15, 10:32 PM
Riyadh, May 15 (DPA) Suspected militants being held in Saudi Arabia on charges of plotting terror attacks have told prosecutors their main aim had been to draw the US into Saudi territory, Saudi media reports said Tuesday.
The suspects, Abdullah al-Muqren, Khaled al-Kurdy, Ahmed al-Muqren and Mohamed al-Zeinwere, were among the 172 suspected militants arrested in late April and reportedly linked to seven terrorist cells, including Al Qaeda.
The reports said they admitted that their plot had been part of a larger terrorist campaign that involved targeting other countries in the Gulf, such as Kuwait and United Arab Emirates.
They also said they had planned to attack Saudi Arabia's Bqeeq oil field under the instruction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
They believed that the US would have moved in to protect the oil field if the attack was carried out. If this had happened, according to the militants, the US would have been an easy target for Al Qaeda attacks.
Five of the 172 suspects were reportedly involved in a terrorist attack last year. On Feb 24, 2006, Saudi security forces foiled an attempted suicide attack on an oil processing facility in eastern Saudi Arabia.
Several Saudi nationals and people of Yemeni and African origin - mainly Nigerian - were reportedly among the suspects.
*********************************
Will they or won't they?
Petraeus said yesterday (interview at iraqslogger.com) that there will be no definitive guidance on Iraq come September - taking us, I presume, into the holidays before any is on offer.
Doug said...
ReplyDeleteAll Moot points,
since, as you indicated above, the neighborhood's done been screwed.
Compassionate Conservatism triumphs again.
No need for reconquistadors, the Gringos are more than willing to give it all up.
Thu May 17, 01:26:00 AM EDT
Cutler said...
2 oceans, weak neighbors, and we've decided to play Russian roulette. Massive massive population infusions, effects aggravated by ideas like multiculturalism that are so stupid, only an educated idiot could believe them.
And even more flabbergasting, we don't even bother to take advantage of the fact that we have the pick of immigrants the world over. Nope, we choose the one option that is most dangerous due to proximity and history.
"March of folly" indeed.
Thu May 17, 01:42:00 AM EDT
Cutler said...
Course, it isn't folly.
Democrats get their voters, Republicans please their business supporters by ensuring cheap labor (which demands continued illegal immigration, since legal immigrants have wage protections).
Status quo continues for the next round of law-breakers, and the next time it becomes an issue, the politicians will be even more afraid to tackle it.
Thu May 17, 01:49:00 AM EDT
Doug said...
My favorite part of the plan, which Compassionate Conservative George will sign with glee, is that the illegals are rewarded for breaking the law with the privilege of bringing their parents, spouses and children into the United States.
Might as well have the dissolution of our society as we know it over and done with ASAP.
No long war this.
Thu May 17, 07:13:00 AM EDT
The true measure of the abject cowardice and uttter lack of real utility of the "right wing blogosphere," is that there will be no "blogstorm" ala Dan Rather to bring about change.
ReplyDeleteSure, do it for 80 year old Dan, but surely NOT when his Royal Highnass George the Great is involved.
So after 3 plus years of being almost 100% wrong on the War in Iraq with their cheerleading, these same educated nincompoops will cower in their corners as GWB signs the country away.
ReplyDelete...then crow their derision, blaming Nancy, for fruit of the arduous and persistent work of Teddy, Big John, and GWB.
Doug, you're describing most Repubs AND their cheerleader, Rush, perfectly!
ReplyDeleteI have the power !!!!!!!!
Oh wait! ....
ReplyDeleteBush was a cheerleader also! They make a nice couple, don't they?
there's a chance--just a chance that the hardworking Chicanos, Welfare Cheats, MS-13 agents, murderers and child-molesters will become reliable GOP voters and supporters.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh! But Dow Jones and NASDAQ will be happy!
ReplyDeleteAnd... as we know - that trumps everything!
Tiger,
ReplyDeleteSo far, on day 2, let it be said for the record, that Hugh Hewitt has held compassionate George harmless, WHILE BLAMING TANCREDO AND HIS SUPPORTERS (Me) whereas Rush has repeatedly said the problem in Washington these last six years has been A LACK OF CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP.
(refering to POTUS)
Hugh describes himself as a "moderate" on immigration, yet he describes the GOP talking points as "CRAP!"
ReplyDeleteModerate means he sees no cultural problems *yet,* and does not believe Citizens have lost good-paying jobs to illegals.
"Delusional" might be a more accurate term.
Yes, I understand Rush's purpose in life is to "preach and teach" conservatism, but he also does too much "pinking".
ReplyDeleteHe pinks up things to make them more acceptable to the "conservative" masses. Glenn Beck does the same thing with his, "a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down" approach.
I've always taken my medicine straight up. I prefer saying it directly, to so many people's chagrin!
Just call me Popeye! I YAM WOT I YAM!
A friend of mine in my town of 3,000 saw "cultural problems" 30 years ago after marrying a lady from Mexico, then raising their kids while fighting off the family after she went native in the good old USA.
ReplyDeleteAnd I saw good-paying construction jobs going to illegals 25 years ago in California, with the State of Calif signing the check to the contractors!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Delusional Talk show hosts:
ReplyDeleteDennis Miller figures he would not be affected by the Fairness Doctrine, just folks like Hannity and Rush!
...but I do enjoy his stories and guests enough to put up with that, and his equally delusional faith in GWB.
Doug, we just experienced such a thing down here. My daughter went to a hospital emergency room (thought she was having appendicitis), full of hispanic illegals, according to the triage nurse. The Numba-One girl of Tiger speaks espanol fluently. All the talk in the room was about having no insurance!
ReplyDeleteShe had a cyst, it's been removed and she's fine. And yes, she had insurance.
No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus' warning
ReplyDeletethat "All men will hate you because of me" than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn't pay to be nice to liberals.
Even Falwell's fans, such as evangelist Billy Graham and former President Bush, kept throwing in the "We didn't always agree" disclaimer. Did Betty Friedan or Molly Ivins get this many "I didn't always agree with" qualifiers on their deaths? And when I die, if you didn't always agree with me, would you mind keeping it to yourself?
Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell.
Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle -- the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn.
Tiger,
ReplyDeleteGood to know she's well, but of course the hospital, and her insurance company that paid for it, are dead men walking!
The Rev. Falwell was like us, he tried hard to do what's right, failing like we all do.
ReplyDeleteRest In Peace, Jerry! We'll miss ya.
"There have always been gay people -- even in the prelapsarian '50s that Jerry Falwell and I would like to return to, when God protected America from everything but ourselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat Falwell was referring to are the gay activists -- the ones who spit the Eucharist on the floor at St. Patrick's Cathedral, blamed Reagan for AIDS, and keep trying to teach small schoolchildren about "fisting."
Also the ones who promote the gay lifestyle in a children's cartoon.
Beginning in early 1998, the news was bristling with stories about a children's cartoon PBS was importing from Britain that featured a gay cartoon character, Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubbie with a male voice and a red handbag.
People magazine gleefully reported that Teletubbies was "aimed at Telebabies as young as one year. But teenage club kids love the products' kitsch value, and gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon."
In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay -- in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice).
In its Jan. 8, 1999, issue, USA Today accused The Washington Post of "outing" Tinky Winky, with a "recent Washington Post In/Out list putting T.W. opposite Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, essentially 'outing' the kids' show character."
Michael Musto of The Village Voice boasted that Tinky Winky was "out and proud," noting that it was "a great message to kids -- not only that it's OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized."
All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky.
After one year of the mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay.
Teletubbies producers immediately denounced the suggestion that Tinky Winky was gay -- though they admitted that he was once briefly engaged to Liza Minnelli. "
Those "dead men walking" explain why Bush has to "grow the economy". The system is setup to be a capitalist venture to support marxist ideals! And yes, it ends in ruin.
ReplyDeleteStrange dichotomy isn't it? ....
I'll never forget the girly men at NRO for kicking out Coulter for telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteBetter to lose a long war.
Here's a LIBERAL "Tinky" for ya!
ReplyDeleteYes, Tiger, if we grow the economy fast enough, the capitalists will make enough to raise the Socialists to levels undreamed of heretofor.
ReplyDeleteJust prior to the fall into anarchy, poverty, civil strife, and depravity.
gotta run, Doug!
ReplyDeleteHave a great day! Stay away from those wearing pink! (except the girls)!
Repub voters have left the fold because of inept Republicans, who have wandered far from their beloved principles.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for the record, this former Repub hasn't voted Democrat since his youth. But, I have voted for "no-party" candidates that present a more principled approach.
- tiger
I was going to say something very similar.
Except that I've never voted for a Democrat.
You too, Tiger.
ReplyDeleteAppears that Slate article tries to lay the blame shared by all society on Jerry.
What a surprise!
James Pinkerton:
ReplyDelete[...]
Yet, while Giuliani shows great enthusiasm for carrying on Bush's war on terror, every other aspect of his candidacy breaks the familiar mold. In a party dominated by Southern Baptists, he is a Northeastern Catholic. He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control.
In addition, stylistically, Giuliani is far different from the incumbent president. Whereas Bush as a war leader chose to focus on broad themes, leaving the details for others to handle - or not - Giuliani advertises himself as detail-oriented, determined to cut through the clutter to get results.
It's hard to imagine that a President Giuliani, for instance, would have let Osama bin Laden slip away back in 2001, or let the Iraq war drag out for all these years, with our military so ill equipped. Giuliani is that rare political combination: moderate ideologically, but not mushy personally. He has the hard edge of an ideologue, but not the rigidity or extremism.
So today, with another debate behind him, Giuliani seems to be the most "nominate-able" of the Republicans. And probably the most electable.
*********************************
"...not mushy personally..."
How much are conservatives willing to throw overboard for "not mushy personally"?
And, in the end, how many independents and Reagan Democrats will bite?
After 6 years of W,
ReplyDeleteI personally would throw just about ANYTHING overboard to vote for someone
"...not mushy personally..."
who just happens to be a hard-ass for the rule of law.
GWB being the ultimate Stranger to the Rule of Law, being subject to higher powers such as the twelve step Christ, Condi Rice, good liberal press, and etc.
ReplyDelete"with our military so ill equipped"
ReplyDelete---
W sold himself as "results oriented."
(Harvard MBA, ya know)
Sure would be interesting to get an HONEST ACCOUNTING of the state of our military hardware, after being flogged mercilessly for five years, w/o significant replacement.
Some Results.
What is the premier issue of the day?
ReplyDeleteAbortion, gun control, health care or war?
Almost everyone agrees it is the war, no matter their personal political position. Is there even a war, how do we prosecute the war, should we at all?
If the destruction of those that attacked the US is paramount, then Rudy is the only choice for the GOP. If retaining the White House is important, to the GOP, Rudy is the man. If "making a statement" in defeat is the most important, they'll pick another candidate.
Then we'll get the worst of both worlds.
That pot hole is still not fixed alderman, let's get that road crew fired up, it seems your cousin and nephew are really moving slow, this year.
If the Republicans of any wing decide that there is one litmus test item that makes it impossible for them to support a Republican candidate, the Republican Party will lose. With full control of the government , court selection, changes to immigration and amnesty for illegals, the Democrats will complete the destruction of the Republican Party started by George Bush.
ReplyDeleteLyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush, all white males from the South of both parties, have not exactly inspired anything that should exclude candidates from other parts of the country.
There is also the fact to consider that Giuliani was elected Mayor of New York.
ReplyDeletePOTUS would represent the people of the USA, quite a different demo, until a decade out, when we become Mexico Norte.
W sold himself as "results oriented."
ReplyDelete- Doug
And Giuliani's selling himself the same way.
Remember what a law and order hard ass Bush was as Texas governor?
I see Giuliani much like I see McCain. If there are cafeteria Catholics, there are certainly cafeteria Republicans. And they're always bad for business.
At least in 2000 we elected someone who upheld a convincing pretense to conservatism.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't be doing that with Rudy.
Rat, what is it exactly that Rudy wants to do in the war?
ReplyDeleteThe Real Barack, free with your e-email.
ReplyDelete"Remember what a law and order hard ass Bush was as Texas governor?"
ReplyDelete---
I remember him as a "conservative" Republican who could work with Democrats to get results.
Which he has.
Unfortunately, Teddy Kennedy ain't no Texas Democrat.
Not sure, really.
ReplyDeleteHe's a fellow that lost his friends, if there is any chance that "payback" will be delivered, he's it.
Beyond that, the President has little impact on Roe vs Wade, or Mr Reagan would have quashed it.
Rudy's position on gun control, in NYC, made sense to me. He's seems pretty pragmatic.
No ther GOPer can carry NJ or PA.
One of those two will be the key to a GOP win in '08. Since Mr Taft has muddied the waters so, in Ohio.
One thing Rudy has going for him on the War is Ted Olsen as his right hand man.
ReplyDeleteTalk about a man that will NOT Forget!
"Not sure, really."
ReplyDeleteEggzactly.
New York in the seventies and eighties looked to be mission impossible. Anyone who had a hand in turning that around knows how to lead. Ever try working with New Yorkers? They are not exactly humble people. It is hard to predict what qualifies a person to be president. Not peanut farming or being governor of Georgia, not being governor of Arkansas, not being governor of Texas. Bush senior, clearly had the pedigree and resume.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is too strange. It will probably come down to Romney or Guiliani, Clinton and Mike Bloomberg.
The positions taken by Mr Bush, prior to to 2000 elections, about the mission of the military were a;; abandoned by him and his administration.
ReplyDeleteHis team lied about their core beliefs. Ms Rice, Mr Cheney, the whole cast of characters misrepresented their position to US.
Vote for revenge, or not.
Mr Bush and his team got distracted from that mission, painting walls and buffing floors in Iraqi schools.
Deuce,
ReplyDeleteRush's descriptions of getting his apartment in New York renovated in the face of the Govt and the Unions made the WOT look like child's play.
And Donald Trump's derision of the Govt efforts and obvious mastery of what was really required to renovate the UN Building put Rush's experience to shame.
To bad Trump was not made CZAR of getting the WTC rebuilt.
"The positions taken by Mr Bush, prior to to 2000 elections, about the mission of the military were a;; abandoned by him and his administration.
ReplyDeleteHis team lied about their core beliefs. Ms Rice, Mr Cheney, the whole cast of characters misrepresented their position to US."
Or believed one thing one day, another thing the next. Or, as habu would say, 9/11 changed everything - chiefly by making previously rejected ideas acceptable. Wildly, hugely, suddenly popular, even.
The lesson we must draw from that experience is...a rather depressing one.
You lemme know when Rudy comes out with his revenge platform, though.
ReplyDeleteI've got a dollar that says Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the rising stars of the allied universe.
" 9/11 changed everything - chiefly by making previously rejected ideas acceptable. Wildly, hugely, suddenly popular, even.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson we must draw from that experience is...a rather depressing one. "
---
A less depressing one:
Never put a wet noodle in charge of Wildly, hugely, suddenly popular ideas.
The worst of all possible combinations.
Esp when we get to the self-justifying wet noodle stage.
Oh, that's right. It was a brilliant idea if only the right person had been in charge of implementation.
ReplyDeleteThat Prince Bandar, he did a really good job, for his Kings.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that he will become King.
Knows "everyone" that Prince Bandar.
I think you're right about the Sauds, trish.
The Pakistani, the current government will not last, in it's current makeup. The Army has to choose to ally with the democrats or the radicals. It won't be able to "go it alone" against both.
Just sayin A Moronic Man of Mush is not a valid test.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree, the ideas were "flawed."
...someone posted about killing all the men and raping the women in the last thread.
Never considered, nor will it be in the next 18 months, despite all the predictions of "you just wait" destruction of Iran, etc ad nauseum.
Going after the Mussulmen that attacked the US was a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWhy we stopped and changed the mission, that is a matter of implementation.
If the '02 State of the Union promises had been kept, the public would have stayed the course.
But purple fingers do not substitute for Osama's and Doc Z's heads.
No one in the US gives a shit about the Iraqi, not before 9-11 nor after.
That Bernard Lewis Piece in Opinion Journal was classic:
ReplyDeleteThe usual blame DC politics of defeatism,
...ignoring FACT that the admin adopted a defeatist stance PRIOR TO losing support of the the people/DC politicos.
I remember, Rat, back in - what was it? '98? - we had a friend heading off to Kabul. FBI counterintelligence adviser. Then the Taliban took over.
ReplyDeleteYou never know.
But I'll stick with the prediction 'til it doesn't pan out.
"But purple fingers do not substitute for Osama's and Doc Z's heads."
ReplyDeleteOr any others. No, they sure don't.
Ingraham reports on an article at World Net Daily:
ReplyDeleteDobson says:
"Rudy Not the One."
What's that, about 6 million voters?
Better Ms Clinton than Rudy then, for Mr Dobson.
ReplyDeleteThat'll advance his personal agenda, perhaps.
Dobson must go with his principles, Rat - which you once encouraged, quite rightly, all and sundry to do.
ReplyDeleteYep, that's true.
ReplyDeleteHe must balance principle with pragmatism, which is something we all should do.
Wouldn't it be something, if the three choices for President were Ms Clinton, Rudy and Mayor Bloomberg.
A straight flush for the New York state of mind.
Of the three, which would be preferable?
Does make me wonder what Mr Dobson thinks of Mitt Romney, the smooooothest of the crew.
Mr Thompson, another bonafined actor, preparing for the part.
If you folks are such diehard repubs that you'll only vote for the one party then maybe the influential among you should push Alderman Williams to take a run for it. He certainly had the wit to keep me entertained...
ReplyDeletehmmmm, only one good party - maybe China is a model that should be emulated.
If you are willing to at least vote independent then there was only one candidate that ran for President in the last election that actually said anything with merit re: Iraq --
"The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink deeper into this occupation, with more U.S. casualties, huge financial costs, and diminished US security around and from the Islamic world. The faulty and fabricated rationale for war has the US in a quagmire. Already more than $155 billion has been spent, adding to huge Bush deficits, when critical needs are not being met at home. We should not be mired in the occupation of Iraq risking further upheavals when our infrastructure, schools and health care are deteriorating. Four years of free public college and university tuition for all students could be paid for by $155 billion."
gosh who took that position?
And on a completely different note...
Are these the articles of 'the enemy' 'those that want to absorb US into the Caliphate'? Is this moderation or extremism?
ISLAMABAD, May 17 (APP): Following is the text of Islamabad Declaration adopted Thursday by the 34th session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers held here:
1. We, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Heads of Delegation of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, participating in the Thirty Fourth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Peace, Progress and Harmony), having met in Islamabad, Pakistan, and considered the issues facing the Islamic Ummah, declare as follows:
...Now, what was that I said about not liking a particular flavor of kool-aid?
ReplyDelete4 charged in Mall Massacre:
ReplyDeleteA grand jury has indicted four people in connection with the firearms an 18-year-old used to kill five people at a shopping mall, authorities said Thursday.
Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, died in a shootout with police during the Feb. 12 attack at Trolley Square. Four other people were wounded by his gunfire.