william f. buckley jr. on iraq on national review online

Even the great WFB seems to have gotten some stuff wrong. The war was not really a Republican war; the left's attempt to turn it into that notwithstanding! After 9-11 the Democrat party was falling all over itself to get to the media & be for a war & retaliation. Even with Iraq, while making sure they were known for being in the chairs of decision making they agreed with all the intel. And finally, after Saddam was deposed, they got fearful ... now what? (a very good question). They got fearful mostly not because of the post-partum depression of "mission accomplished" but for the fact that they saw themselves as loosing power. A wartime president who is successful & his party could reside at the reigns of government for a long, long time! So they turned against him, turned against the war & are now in the final throws of turning into a Viet Nam style defeat. Way to go Democrat Party! One of the facts which is rarely or never mentioned is that it was truly predictable that Saddam, when the sanctions were lifted because of a bungling bunch of inspectors lead by the Inspector Clouseau like Hans Blix, would then have been free to acqire them on the open or black market. He had proven that he would use chemical & bio weapons already! That & getting rid of a murderous dictator who had invaded his neighbors were good enough reasons for the war. The possibility of a democratic, non-theocratic government in the Middle East has all but vanished today. Too bad being united to finish the job & being successful was what the Democrat Party feared most! Too bad terrorists & insurgents took advantage of the vacuum. Too bad the insurgents had a vote. Too bad the sanctions didn't work in the first place due to a bungling UN. Too bad Clinton holdover, the George Tenet CIA, bungled the intelligence on what would happen after "mission accomplished" . Too bad Iran is in the mix for it's own power. Too bad the election in '08 will defeat any solution that might really work! Too bad for it all!

BUT, one thing remains:

Comments

Seth says

, Bukley got it spot on

... I liked Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish reveiew so well that i will quote it in it's entirity here ...

source: Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish
The 20 percent or so of Americans who still think we're winning in Iraq happen to be the Republican base. And so the GOP in Congress has to pick between surviving their own primaries, maintaining civility with their own faithful, and potentially getting wiped out in the next election. The game of chicken is getting very intense. I guess we'll know how strong the kool-aid is by September.

The paradox, of course, is that a major source of disaffection with the war is from the right. Conservatives don't like half-assed wars - and this one has been under-planned, under-manned and chaotically strategized. Conservatives don't like losing wars; and this president has been overseeing meltdown in Iraq and war without end. Conservatives tend to think armies should be about fighting and winning conflicts; but Bush has forced the US military to be nation-builders, religious peace-makers, torturers, and civil war policemen. Conservatives believe wars should be in the national interest; and let's just say that grinding your military into the dust for the sake of "democracy" in a place where few even understand it and those who do have left is arguably not in the national interest.

And yet no major Republican candidate can yet express the sentiment articulated by William F. Buckley last week. McCain seems to be grappling toward such a posture. But the GOP would be well served by an actual debate on the war, how it's metastasized beyond the original purpose, how it's become a way to increase rather than reduce the terror threat, and how to win it or cut our losses. I see no way this necessary debate will happen unless an anti-war Republican runs for president. Senator Hagel, your time may be now.

Yeah too bad that the American people have become sick of this war which was fought badly and for the wrong reasons ... a war which daily is creating more terrorist to blow them up. The only way for the Republican party to send any new politicians to Washington is for them to disavow this disaster. Yeah too bad there is an end to the amount of lies the American people can stomach.

Mark de LA says

source: ... Yeah too bad that the American people have become sick of this war which was fought badly and for the wrong reasons ... a war which daily is creating more terrorist to blow them up. The only way for the Republican party to send any new politicians to Washington is for them to disavow this disaster. Yeah too bad there is an end to the amount of lies the American people can stomach

... Yep, too bad nobody seems to be blaming the enemy for being thugs, innocents-murdering, murderers, liars, torturers, chemical warfare using shit-assed perverts, pig fucking Islam-soiling dregs of sub-humanity.

Just in keeping with my 7056, I am banning the words liar & lies from any items in my groups. If such happens the item will be deleted summarily without comment. It will be like all those empty blurbs on the group funnypages that disappear mysteriously. It's the least I can do to de-escalate the rwg on my blogs & will contribute to a kinder, gentler blogosphere!

- glad I got that off my chest!

Mark de LA says

Next time, Seth, try a link! But just for perspective I invite you to look at Ham Nation- I laughed so hard there were tears in my eyes! & she is a lot nicer to look at! Green Eggs & Ham style (Dr. Seuss) thoughts on good news of the war.

Seth says

M 2007-04-30 10:40:03 7054

But just for perspective I invite you to look at Ham Nation- I laughed so hard there were tears in my eyes! & she is a lot nicer to look at! Green Eggs & Ham style (Dr. Seuss) thoughts on good news of the war.

Yeah ... i give Mary Kathari

... very

... and well done ... but for a better understanding of the allegid surrender i suggest a comprension of the actual forces at work in the situation ... note that there are two vectors comming out of our involvement ... one that requires victory ... and one that does not.

Mark de LA says

FYI, her name is Mary Katharine Ham & her blog is http://www.townhall.com/blog/MaryKatharineHam

Mark de LA says

I still don't understand your diagram. It needs English to get your distinctions.

Seth says

M 2007-04-30 13:09:10 7054

I still don't understand your diagram. It needs English to get your distinctions.

The primary point of the diagram is to separate the US effect into two components: (1) against Al Aqeda, and (2) against the sectarian Persian/Arab struggel. We clearly need a victory (if that is the best word) against (1). (2) is quite a bit more complicated. If we withdraw our effect on (2) the sectarian struggle, then it will resolve itself of it's own because it is pricipally happening to force us out of the country and into a humiliating "surrender" ... when Al Queda/Iran Mullahs achieve that, then that violence will disappear. Now that is my theory, i own it, although it has been said many places before. Many people disagree with that thesis and claim that a wider regional struggle between Arab and Persians will ensue disrupting the flow of oil and sending us back to the dark ages. Please refer to what Frank has said in response to my comment on his blog. But if we don't withdraw, our effect will be to institutionalize the sectarian violence in Iraq just like it has been institutionalized in Palestine. The arrow from the US Military to Fight between the Shia and the Sunni perhaps is mislabeled ... our effect supposidly is to lessen that fight ... my claim is that it sustains it ... but what it really does is up to level headed analysis and not partisan politics. Whatever the US militiary's actual effect is on that Persian/Arag struggle actually is or becomes, nevertheless the American people's effect now (as voiced by Democrats in Congress) is to weaken that effect ... and that is what the diagram shows. I've also written more analysis of the problem over on my Persians Vs Arabs node.

Mark de LA says

william f. buckley jr. on iraq on national review online

BUT, one thing remains:

Tags

Comments

See Also