Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

David a Republican now? Well, I must say I’m surprised, but welcome aboard.

No, just been three days since the Republicans had posted anything so I am helping out on a non-partisan basis.

Too bad, David. We tried out some of our best arguments on you, and I was sure you were about to climb the fence and join our team. Well, I guess we still have five months, and in the spirit of Reagan, I’m remaining optimistic. I’ve reserved a “W in 04” T-shirt just for you.

As for your post, I’d agree that it really IS becoming clearer and clearer that Bush has delivered in dramatic fashion.

1) As of today, we finally got that UN resolution everybody’s made so much noise about.

2) Bush is visibly and actively campaigning for forgiveness of Iraqi debt. It’s a stunning sight actually, to see the leader of a nation that has paid in blood and treasure asking the leaders of nations who have done nothing for the Iraqi people to forgive debts owed to them by the same tyrant who oppressed them.

3) Many of the armed militias have begun disarming in Iraq, and those who aren’t are becoming increasingly isolated. The leading religious figure in Iraq has told the resistors to lay down their arms. Attacks on American soldiers are way down in the last month.

4)Iraq oil revenues and their oil industry are now controlled by Iraqis (doesn’t seem that long ago that people were saying that WE wanted all that oil).

5) Schools and hosptitals with modern equipment are spreading through Iraq. Something else you rarely hear about in the media, for whom the whole story of Iraq has been reduced to a handful of polaroids of abused prisoners.

6) On the domestic front (sit down, Paul Krugman), over a MILLION jobs have appeared in the the last ninety days. If growth continues at this rate, there will be a net gain of jobs under Bush—despite 9-11 and the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

Wow! Make room on Mt. Rushmore, kiddies.

Your reply is in good humor, Martin. Thanks.

At last survey )a couple months ago by a conservative think tank (I commented on it here somewhere at WB) only 42% of his campaign promises had been fulfilled.

1) Yeah, it took the world community and voters to drag him kicking and screaming, but, he did finally come around didn’t he?

2) I’d rather he worked just as hard trying to find someone to forgive the U.S. debt of 10 Trillion or more by the end of this decade - just 5.5 years away.

3)Perhaps attacks are down a bit, but the U.S. deaths and injuries keep piling up weekly, or are you avoiding those stories on an almost daily basis? The militia’s if they are smart, will wait for for the U.S. to withdraw or draw down significantly their presence, and then take up the struggle again. That is perhaps what we are seeing now.

4) We’ll have to wait and see on that oil. I suspect Haliburton and other oil companies are still reaping nice profits from building up the Iraqi oil infrastructure and will be for some time to come. Make no mistake, the oil folks are getting very wealthy these days thanks to the invasion of Iraq.

5) Well you got this one partly right. The social infrastructure is doing better than just after we invaded, but, the wealthy folks have just been told to evacuate Bhagdad to avoid ransom kidnappings, or did you miss that story? The news has been covering the positive things happening, I have been hearing of the improvements a couple times a week for many months now. The media is doing its job - though I grant you good news does not sell front page advertising as well as bad news.

6) You are right about 1 million jobs being created in the last 3 months. BUT - the unemployment rate isn’t changing. We still have as many unemployed as we had 3 months ago. So Americans without jobs are no better off. In addition, the wages and buying power per wage hour worked are not going up, but down. We are in fact replacing formerly better paying jobs with lower paying jobs. Americans are losing on this deal thanks to Bush and his outsourcing administration. Hell, even the federal government is outsourcing. How’s that for dedicaton to American workers?

Appreciate the levity of your opening paragraph, though.

David:

As I said in response to another of your posts in a different thread, you certainly are showing and adeptness at finding the cloud behind the silver lining.

Whenever Bush does something you’ve been clamoring for him to do, you chalk it up to him being forced to do it. And if he doesnt do what you want, you excoriate him for that as well. Sounds like the proverbial no-win situation to me.

Also, lest you forget, part of what happens on the international stage is posturing and negotiation. You seem to overlook this aspect of international politics.

For instance, politicians typically start with a position that is stronger than the one they hope to end up with. This allows for negotiation. I suspect if you and I were to go car shopping, and I started negotiating with the dealerat for a price of $25,000, and ended up at $27,000, you would conclude I had failed. But….if the car were really worth $30,000 then I would be quite the success, now wouldnt I?

Thats how politics works as well. Its funny how the left castigates Bush for being inflexible; when he does show flexibility, they call it weakness. The proverbial no-win situation…but people are catching on.

I didn’t call it weakness. I said it is about time. His inability to play well with others was a weakness before and during the invasion of Iraq, and it cost us lives and billions that likely did not have to be lost as a result.

As for the rest, I don’t mind if it is made up as you go… The record of Bush is well documented here in the WB archives.

David:

I think we found the most elemental area of disagreement between us. I see Bush’s strong stances as part of his overall platform of NOT simply going along with the world. The world went along with Saddam’s gameplaying etc for 12 years….Bush finally said, “Enough!”

While I’d agree that we need to rebuild friendships around the world (with the Germans and French for instance), I’d also say that having them as friends who would not support us when we needed isnt much of a friendship. In life, often times closer and stronger friendships are forged on the steel of disagreement and rancor.

I count among my closest friends some whom I have had terrible disagreements, only to come out with an even closer relationship. We now see Bush meeting with Chirac and Schroeder—they see the relationship for what it is. They now see that America is not simply there to help them, but America is also there to be helped.

This change needed to happen. We have had many false friends around the world who kept their hands out in their time of need, but with no plans to support us in ours. The friendships certainly take a beating for a while, but if they return even stronger, as I have suggested they will, then the future is even brighter.

Yes, joebagodunuts, we are in disagreement on this issue. We agree that international cooperation in this globally interdependent century is vital. But, what you call friendship in need is where we diverge. We needed international cooperation in pursuing terrorists and invading Afghanistan, and our friends were there to support us. You place Iraq into that same category. I do not.

Friends have no obligation to support each other when one’s friend elects a course of action which one believes to be counter both to their own and their friend’s long term interests. At such times, a good friend will try to dissuade a friend from electing a perceived course of folly. That is what France, Germany, and Russia, and many other nations did, in my view, by opposing the U.S.’s preemptive war strategy on what bases which were dubious from the onset. Our friends tried to warn us. The fact that the State Department is about to revise 2003 terrorist incident numbers upward discounting Bush’s claim that we are winning the war on terrorism by reducing the incidence of terrorism will be sufficient evidence for me that our friends were justified in opposing our invasion of Iraq and their predictions of such action increasing terrorism as opposed to reducing it, was good advice.

Except for the facts that death and destruction, further Middle East destabilization, and horrendous deficits and debt are the costs of our failing to heed the warnings of our friends, I would concede that it is fine for us to just agree to disagree on the Iraq issue. But, the costs without far more progress than we are seeing are just too dear, in my opinion.

David:

I dont see that that is what France and Germany did at all. I see ulterior motives in their behavior, though certainly their opposition to war is one of the issues. Lets not forget about the increasing belief that both France and Germany were focused on money issues. This is being investigated currently, though of course its being done in apparent silence and secrecy.

You are willing to look at the worst possible motives for Americans, while at the same time looking at only the most honorable motives for France and Germany. I wonder why that is. Obviously neither situation is correct since all three are fallible. Yet you see only American fallibility while seeing European honor.

When Reagan strategized against the Soviets, people chastised him, yet here we are with the benefit of history knowing that his actions contributed to the downfall of the Soviet state. (Lets not argue on how much or how little)

Perhaps in a few years, you might alter your viewpoints once again. I see Iraq coming around….slowly, but surely. Time will once again be the arbiter of this….yet you seem to think you know better than time.

Sorry, joebagodonuts, I just don’t accept your unwillingness to address the near global resistance by nations populations to our invasion of Iraq. Yeah Britain’s Prime Minister was with us, but, his PM position was in such opposition to the concerns and will of his people that he is barely holding onto his position. America was respected and had friends around the globe who by and large trusted America’s motives.

If one believes in democracy, one must believe in the wisdom of the populace. That is true of the American people as well as the people around the world. It is utterly illogical to propose on the one hand to export democracy to other nations, while on the other hand, condemn the opinion of the people throughout the world. One either has confidence in populaces to know what is in their best interest or one does not believe they are capable of democracy.

The peoples of the world feared fueling the terrorist’s cause via preemptive war, and felt threatened by the precedent it established for international relations. I believe in the concept of democracy and therefore accept the wisdom of the vast majority of people in the world who believe our invasion of Iraq was a terrible dangerous and potentially futile act in terms of the goals it was intended to bring about.

joebagodunuts, to support my arguments I direct your attention to the following headlines from this week:

State Dept. Understated Terrorism Attacks

Bush gives up on more Nato troops for Iraq

Independent: World News: “President Bush yesterday was bluntly told by European and Arab allies alike that a serious new push for a Palestinian-Israeli peace solution was vital if his vision of a stable Iraq at the heart of a reformed Middle East were to have any chance of success.”

Iraqi Kurds consider autonomy . “After Wednesday’s UN vote, Kurdish leaders are threatening to resign from the new government.”

Did you notice that as part of the G-8 agreement on the cut back version of Bush’s Greater Middle East initiative, Bush attached “a firm rejection of the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has stalled democratic and human-rights reforms.”

Amazing. He still doesn’t get it.

No, he doesn’t, and frankly, it now appears he never did. We could have gotten the same or better performance from almost any reformed alcoholic jock with a B.A. degree.