Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Not one of us... or them... or even competent.

From our friends at NewsMax:

Some conservatives contend he [Bush] really isn't really one of them.

They point to Bush's immigration stance, mushrooming government spending and soaring deficits on his watch and his failed attempt to put White House lawyer Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. Some complain about the growing cost and attempted "nation building" of wartime Iraq.

"A lot of conservatives have had reservations about him for a long time, but have been afraid to speak out for fear that it would help liberals and the Democrats," said Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration. Such concerns are no longer very relevant, he said.

"I think there are growing misgivings about the conduct of the Iraq operation, and how that relates to a general incompetence his administration seems to have about doing basic things," said Bartlett, author of a scathing book titled, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Recent polls suggest the Republicans are losing their long-held lead over Democrats on national security.

Its amazing its taking this long to change peoples' opinions... This guy has been a disaster and a national embarrassment since he sat there for 7 minutes (like a deer-in-the-headlights) after hearing the "nation is under attack".

(You know, if that was a democrat the conservatives would be screaming "incompetent" and "impeach, impeach!!!"

At every turn Bush has show he's not capable of governing... However, his administration knows how to do a couple of things: get people pissing down their legs in fear and waving the "we're Americans, we're great" flag.

Isn't it amazing how far those two things go in American politics?

So when is the next flight to Australia?

8 comments:

Stalin the Shark said...

And if you thought Iraq was bad, just wait for Iran; that'll be even better.

:-), StS

Reign of Reason said...

I desperately want to believe that even these guys are not dumb enough to start another disaster in the middle-east.

If we had only used dialog several years ago -- instead of "axis of evil" rhetoric this standoff might have been avoided.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Iran has nothing to do with the "axis of evil" nonsense. Like Saddam did before the US attacked him, Iran has proposed to change the currency used to value oil from the dollar to the euro. If the American economy is already hanging by a string, that would send it into a nosedive. That is what all of this is about.

Here is an interesting article on the subject. Amazing that it has received NO coverage in the American corporate media at all -

http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Reign of Reason said...

Well, the axis of evil rhetoric played into the hands of the fundamentalist hard-liners... It allowed them to play to the nationalistic side of the populace.

Between that and disqualifying a lot of the more progressive candidates, Iran is now moving away from the 'reform' direction we saw it going in the 90s: a direct result of our belligerence.

That’s what I meant by the reference…

Intellectual Insurgent said...

So what if it helps the hardliners? What does that have to do with the potential conflict with the US? According to every agency with credibility, Iran isn't doing anything wrong and is 10 years away, at best, from acquiring a nuclear weapon, even assuming that is the goal.

Back to the point of your post. Anyone with a brain knew 6 years ago that chimp wasn't a conservative. The fundamentalist hard-liners are still clinging to that fantasy though.

Reign of Reason said...

“So what if it helps the hardliners?”
Because the (younger) populace in Iran wants some western reforms in their country... but when you have a fundamentalist president on both sides (like we do in Iran and the US) it makes it much more likely that neither will back down since they each believe they are in the 'right' -- the absolute right -- on any given issue.

I agree, Iran is a decade away from a nuclear weapon. It's not the real issue. But providing fodder for Iran's leaders isn't gonna help the situation: in the near or long term.

When Khatami was in power he butted heads with the religious council that was really in charge -- but at least he tried to represent the growing dissatisfaction of the masses. Now our rhetoric has helped inspire nationalistic pride in some of those folks and set the cause of progress back. The new president -- while he doesn't likely represent most Iranians -- is using our policies and rhetoric to stir up anti-Americanism. Bush is making the hard-liners’ job easier.

I guess we're talking about two different issues. :)

mrsleep said...

Iran, a decade away from a nuclear weapon? My gut tells my no, it'll happen faster.

Yes, the U.S. has to keep our eye on these guys, and the sad part of it, is that they always were a greater threat than Iraq, which will go down in history as one of the all time bonehead actions.

Clearly diplomacy, and getting other nations to apply pressure is the best approach, but idealogues with money and power are dangerous, as our President is the best example.

Anonymous said...

What a great site
travel packages to vegas hosting plan shared web on line mortgage quote inventory software ftp hosting online payment credit cards making money independent of market movement