|
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Yes, It's All Bush's Fault
Yes, It's All Bush's Fault
For more than three years, the Left has characterised the War on Terror, and especially the liberation of Iraq, as "Bush's War." They've also referred to Iraq as "Bush's Adventure," "Bush's Crusade" and "Bush's Folly." They were calling it "Bush's Hastily Planned, Poorly Realised and Badly Executed Diversion From the 'Real' War," but pretty much stopped when they realised that it wouldn't all fit on a Volvo-sized bumper sticker. Liberals don't understand the strategy of defeating terrorism by changing the totalitarian governments that support it. They don't get the concept that freedom reduces frustration, which in turn reduces the ability of terrorist groups to recruit. They refuse to acknowledge that Congress voted the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq into law. They insist that the war was all Bush's idea (when they don't consider him a puppet, that is), and that every setback and problem is all Bush's fault.
Well, that's just fine with me. Let's establish that in plain English: President Bush is solely responsible for sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter decision made in spite of a corrupt United Nations and a compromised France, Russia and China. Therefore, he should be considered responsible for all the results of his decision -- the positive as well as the negative. So far, it's all been about the negative.
How many countries have been changed for the better by the War on Terror? Afghanistan has become a democracy in which women vote and hold positions of power, and has even sent female athletes to the Olympics for the first time in history. In Pakistan, Pevez Musharraf has handed the government over to civil rule but maintains his permanent position as president. However, Pakistan has been a staunch ally, and provided us with critical information by exposing the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan supplied nuclear weapons related technologies, equipment, and know-how to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and attempted to do the same with Syria and Iraq. Freeing Afghanistan (especially Afghan women), revealing the corruption in the UN and discovering Khan's activities, none of which would have happened without the War on Terror, must therefore be all Bush's fault.
In the Middle East, the central cesspool of terrorism, things have also changed dramatically. While the death of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was not part of the War on Terror, forcing him to give up some power to a Prime Minister was... and this led to free Palestinian elections upon his death. The liberation of Iraq led to the first truly free democratic elections in that country, which the naysaying Left swore would never, could never happen. Eight million Iraqis defied the death threats of terrorists (and the dour predictions of Liberals) to cast their votes as the rest of the region watched. Elections in Iraq, elections in Palestine... and suddenly, the Lebanese people took to the streets in protest. After the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, they demanded the end of Syrian occupation of Lebanon. The Syria-backed government spontaneously resigned, paving the way for elections. The fact that it happened without direct action on our part shows that democracy is developing its own momentum in the Middle East. And since Iraqi elections were the catalyst, that's all Bush's fault, too.
Now, inspired by the Lebanese protests, the Syrian people are beginning to demand a greater voice in their government. Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt, has announced that the next election will include opposition candidates for the first time, although candidates must be approved by Parliament. Saudi Arabia, which just had its first elections at the municipal level, has announced that women will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. Women will also be allowed to work in the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Baby steps, to be sure... but steps in the right direction.
Whose "interference" in the Middle East is responsible for these changes? The Left certainly didn't want the liberation of Iraq to take place. Senator John Kerry, representing the Democratic party in the 2004 election, repeatedly called Iraq "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." President Bush has been labeled a warmongering cowboy for sending troops to Iraq. If the blame for Iraq is laid at his feet, then the credit must go with it... and if he has earned the label "cowboy," then also "liberator."
Posted at Wednesday, March 02, 2005 by CavalierX
 |  |  | Jamie March 2, 2005 07:20 PM PST
Amen to that! Saint Hillary didn't waste any time going to Iraq to bask in the glow of the successful Iraqi election. I suppose she thinks that she can take some of the credit by doing what she did. And naturally, she was traveling with good old John McCain. They couldn't say enough nice things about each other. |  |
  |  |  | Poehlman March 3, 2005 12:18 AM PST
Dude its raining a little bit in southern california, just thought you should know im blaming bush for that |  |
  |  |  | skye March 3, 2005 11:08 PM PST
With all the positive changes towards democracy in the Middle East so exquisitely detailed in this essay. I would like to take this time to remind the liberal naysayers of their most cherished mantra:
Not in My Name!
For once the Libs are right, none of the recent successes in democracy can be attributed to their name.
The only name that will be recalled by historians:
President George W. Bush.
|  |
  |  |  | JM March 4, 2005 04:26 AM PST
Wow, I knew Liberals would eventually try to claim credit for the success of the polices they opposed every step of the way, but even I didn't think it would be so blatant or so soon. Libs must really think we can't remember how viciously they fought against the liberation of Iraq. Don't let them fool you, Aakash, with their reasonable pose. The people who speak for them are Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer; their representatives are John Kerry and Howard Dean. As Skye said, they claimed the War on Terror was "Not In Our Name," and they got it that way. |  |
  |  |  | Mk March 4, 2005 07:31 AM PST
Wow you drive a pretty good claim there. yep it maybe that iraq has changed for the better but that still doesn't change the the fact that many people lost there lives when there could have been a better answer.
Bush did make Iraq better but does the end justify the means, its just all a question now. Somethings I guess are just never ment to be understood. |  |
  |  |  | Name March 4, 2005 08:15 AM PST
I heard some Germans died during WWII, so that means it wasn't worth it, right? Moron. |  |
  |  |  | JM March 4, 2005 09:03 PM PST
>That entry I did has a lot of this
>information in it.
Way too much. If you want to try and prove that Libs were really in favor of the war they opposed with every bone in their bodies, write it up as a blog entry on your own blog and post a link. I could use a good laugh. Please don't copy the entire Encyclopedia Liberalica in a comment section, however. :) |  |
  |  |  | Aakash March 4, 2005 10:33 PM PST
"If you want to try and prove that Libs were really in favor of the war they opposed with every bone in their bodies, write it up as a blog entry on your own blog and post a link."
That's what I did:
http://uis.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_uis_archive.html#107455604648659084
And if you want to know about the conservative and military-related opposition to the Iraq war, there's plenty of information available as well - there, and at several other places.
[Like www.trueconservatism.com] |  |
  |  |  | JM March 5, 2005 05:17 AM PST
>That's what I did:
Joe Lieberman is NOT a Liberal. He's one of the last true Democrats. Liberals are almost universally opposed to any use of American military might, under any circumstances. Don't confuse Liberals with Democrats, although they control the Democratic party.
>www.trueconservatism.com
Isolationism is not "true conservatism." Maybe "paleo-conservatism" or "pre-Reagan conservatism." Bush's proactive Middle East policy was the right thing to do; sitting back and just waiting to be attacked, as we did all through the 90's, would only lead to more innocent American deaths, and the overall weakening of America. |  |
  |  |  | Aakash March 5, 2005 03:58 PM PST
Lieberman was one of many liberals and Democrats that is mentioned in that blog entry.
The comment post that you deleted showed that several of your fellow pro-war bloggers have pointed out the Democratic and leftist roots of the Bush administration's foreign policy. The links within that blog entry demonstrate this. Even publications like the Weekly Standard and National Review have been pointing this out.
As for the issue of "isolationism"... Addressing that will have to wait for another time. |  |
  |  |  | JM March 5, 2005 04:34 PM PST
Lieberman is not a Liberal, and no group of people is 100% monolithic on any isssue. If some Conservatives went isolationist like Pat Buchanan, that's their choice. On the whole, Conservatives supported Bush's foreign policy, while on the whole, Liberals opposed it. Any other assertion would be patently ridiculous. If you want to claim that an interventionist foreign policy is essentially a Liberal thing, then you're going to have to make allowances for the fact that the Liberals of today are nothing like the pro-American Liberals of the 1940's. |  |
  |  |  | Aakash March 5, 2005 08:01 PM PST
Anoher thing that I was going to point out... to supplement my last comment post:
When it comes to a multi-faceted specific policy, like a particular war, the nuances of political science and philosophy created divisions that are too complex to be described by reductionism.
I thought an e-mail that was sent to me by blogger/writer Gary Manca is pertinent to this discussion. In response to a comment I posted, introducing myself, and letting him know that I was a conservative who was opposed to this war, he wrote:
--------
It's funny: I am a liberal and disapprove of many of the Bush
administration's domestic policies, but I supported the war in Iraq.
The war
has divided the country into four groups:
1. Liberal hawks
2. Liberal doves
3. Conservative hawks
4. Conservative doves
Michael Mandelbaum's categories of "Hamiltonians," "Jeffersonians,"
"Jacksonians," and "Wilsonians" lends great insight to the multisided
viewpoints on Iraq. There isn't a simple binary "for" or "against"
split.
----------
I was making this same point... Anyone who studies political science and history can see the same thing. On the pro-war side, there are the following groups:
- conservatives
- partisans Republicans
- neoconservatives
- neoliberals
- liberal internationalists
On the anti-war side, there are:
- conservatives (recently joined by people such as William F Buckley and George Will, among others)
- paleoconservatives
- libertarian conservatives
- constitutionalists
- realists and "neo-realists"
- Bush 41-type "agressive multilateralists"
- pacifist liberals
- partisan Democrats
- knee-jerk leftists who will automatically oppose Bush (but would be less likely to oppose the same types of policies under another administration)
The web publications that you link to on your left sidebar contains viewpoints from some of these conservatives who opposed the Iraq war. And the other major conservative publications (such as World Net Daily, TownHall.com, the Conservative Chronicle, VDare.com, as well as the American Conservative Union, Human Events, and many others...), also contain much of this material. (They also present viewpoints from the other side.) I have spent much of the past several years going over some of this (as a the huge pile of print-outs I've compiled, and the eyestain/headaches, can attest to).
This is just a brief over view of the cleavages that result when a multi-facted situation such as a war emerges. A binary classification system is way to reductionist for such a major issue.
Anyway, that's enough for now on this topic. The material we've discussed above covers this issue in length, from both a contemporary and historical perspective. Aside from Lieberman (and yes, he is a liberal - his foreign policy is one of liberal internationalism... and among other things, he was excommunicated by his own religious leaders for his support of left-wing social policies such as partial-birth abortion), that blog entry alone must contain links to some 50 or more prominent left-of-center U.S. political leaders and commentators who have expressed support for the Iraq war, and for the philosophy of liberal internationalism to which it corresponds. Even the Weekly Standard and National Review have pointed this out - Rich Lowry acknowledged this point when some of us anti-war conservatives were debating with him at this summer's "National Conservative Student Conference."
As for your "on the whole" statement, keep in mind that there is a certain phenomenon that occurs in politics, especially with regard to foreign affairs.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Party+Reversal+Phenomenon%22
I addressed this issue at this summer's Conference, sponsored by Young America's Foundation (many of their famous conservative speakers opposed this war, as did some of their leadership... the same is true with respect to the recent CPAC conference, where they held debates on this matter).
Anyway - People are more likely to support a certain policy if the head of state is from the same party as they. Or even if they oppose that policy, they are less-likely to say so publicly. During the past dozen or so years, however, most of the major military interventions and wars have been supported by the majority of Democrats, while opposed by the majority of Republicans and conservatives.
There is a great deal more that I could say (and have said) on this matter... Books could be written on the topic that we're discussing here - and many have. One recent one is "Terror and Liberalism," by leading left-wing political intellectual Paul Berman. It shows how the philosophy behind the Bush administration's foreign policy has its roots on the left - something that even several of the major pro-war bloggers (such as "InstaPundit" Glenn Reynolds, "VodkaPundit" Stephen Green, military veteran Dr. James Joyner, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Totten, and others have pointed out. Mr. Totten and others, such as the socialist writer Christopher Hitchens and a leading leftist magazine, The New Republic, have called on their fellow liberals to stand on principle and support the Iraq war (despite disliking President Bush). But they have acknowledged that many liberals and Democrats may not be able to subdivide in their minds opposition to a President, and opposition to a policy that they should ideologically favor, and that they've supported in the past, under different leadership. And that has what has happened. There are many principled people on each side of the aisle, and within each major political party, but many are not able - or willing - to openly put their philosophy above their superficial instincts and partisanship loyalties. |  |
  |  |  | JM March 5, 2005 10:00 PM PST
Putting labels on things and playing shell games with them won't disguise the fact that most Liberals were against the invasion of Iraq and most Conservatives were for it. Terror and Liberalism was a good read, although Berman tended to dismiss Bush himself, even while praising his actions. Again, today's Liberals are nothing like yesterday's Liberals. Also again, refrain from mile-long posts. Put those on your own web site. This section is for comments, not dissertations. You want the ultimate in reductionism? Here it is: those who were against taking the war to Iraq were wrong, whatever convoluted political label they wear. Those who continue to oppose it are not only wrong, but laughably so. |  |
  |  |  | Jamie March 5, 2005 11:46 PM PST
That's more labels that I care to think about. Didn't know that they were trying to pigeon-hole every person in the country. I noticed that there are only 5 types of pro-war types, when there are 9 types of anti-war folks? How come they get MORE????? |  |
  |  |  | Van Helsing March 6, 2005 06:07 PM PST
So there are liberals actually trying to take credit for the triumphs of Bush's foreign policy, which were accomplished despite their hysterical and unrelenting obstructionism. I thought I knew that the Left was shameless, but I really had no idea. |  |
  |  |  | Aakash March 6, 2005 06:58 PM PST
Once again, a lot is determined by who is the White House. That is a phenomenon recognized by political scientists and contemporary politicos of all stripes. During the past dozen years or so, there have been a large number of military deployments and interventions. Most of them have been supported by the majority of those on the Left, while being opposed by the majority of those on the Right.
Forget the liberals of the "1940s"... What about the 1990s? There were more military deployments, interventions, and wars during the Clinton/Gore presidency than in the Bush 41 and Reagan administrations combined. (That is one of the biggest problems that conservatives, Republicans, and the military had with Slick Willie.) Liberal internationalism is a viewpoint that has been practiced by Democratic presidents throughout the years, and sometimes Republcans do it to. Generally speaking, however, liberals and Democrats support warfare and military interventionism more often than Republicans and conservatives do. We saw this most recently with regard to the Bush administration's interventions in Liberia and Haiti. It is liberals like Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi who are constantly beating the drums for those types of interventions, for "humanitarian" purposes, and for nation-building, peacekeeping, foreign aid, etc...
I will cut off this comment post at this point, but I do want to say - Yes, your last remark was perhaps "the ultimate in reductionism"... perhaps even more so than that "perspective" piece on your sidebar. |  |
  |  |  | JM March 6, 2005 07:35 PM PST
As you said, Van Helsing... shameless. |  |
  |  |  | Mad heron March 9, 2005 02:41 PM PST
Cluck cluck cluck from ATTILA THE HEN(hillary)i how much will she be clucking and laying eggs and frankly i hope she runs for president in 2008 and lays a big egg and embassaes the demacratic party |  |
  |  |  | Scott__in_Ark March 21, 2005 11:31 PM PST
Hey! Cav X, I just happened to click on your link on RWN.com. I gotta say, You have one of the best blogs I've seen yet. And I've never said that to Hawkins. Now as to the subject at hand; We all know every thing in your post is correct. The problem is, somehow we have to either bolster the "alternative" media, or force the MSM to abandon their agenda. Frankly, we can do both,but,with the momentum building from the CBS,and the underreported CNN scandals, it would probably be easier to convince the apathetic 40% that the MSM is not mainstream at all, but have been trying to dupe them for decades. Someone who normally doesn't participate in the political process can quickly become an activist once they realize they've been made fools of their whole lives. We need to come together under some sort of forum, ALL of us ,The way to change the rhetoric reported by Bush-haters in the press,is to go after the money. That can only happen with huge numbers of supporters flooding Viacom,Disney,ect...google up and find the rest of the parent orgs. and their major advertisers, and flood them wity e-mails, boycott threats ect. Wouldn't it be nice to see a network news brodcast that wasn't propaganda from beginning to end?. Here's an idea, set up a page on your site as a database for conservatives who want to share workable ideas. I will be visiting your site regularly, and am bookmarking it now .. Thanks for being there, bud. |  |
|
|