Originally posted at TexasKaos.com
Original title shortened due to DKos limits: "Father of Conservatism says Iraq is a Failure & Bush should resign. True, but look in the Mirror."
You know things are going bad for George Bush when the supposed Father of Modern Conservatism, William H. Buckley, says Bush has been obsessed with Iraq and [update:] implies Bush [/update] should consider resigning.
Buckley goes on to take apart George Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" creds by saying that George Bush is not a true conservative.
In my opinion, that's utter BS.
Bush may be incompetent and illogical but by his actions, such as his recent veto of stem cell research due to conservative religious reasons, Bush has proven himself to be a true,
red conservative.
It's a delicious interview & I do enjoy conservatives undercutting each other (& we'll enjoy more on the flip), but, this is another example of conservatives like Buckley and the GOP trying to distance themselves from a bonafide loser to save their own face & the 2006 elections.
What Buckley does not consider or want to admit is that it is conservatism the movement that is as much a failure as the Bush Presidency.
But first let's enjoy see Conservatives implode and read more of Buckley's take down of the Bush administration.
Buckley went on to say that Iraq has made the myopic adminstration even more short-sighted
"I think [the Bush administration] has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq. ... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."
Um, isn't this exactly what we progressives have been saying for the past six years?
Bush has been obsessed with Iraq prior to ever taking office back in 1999.
"[Bush] was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said President Bush's former ghost writer, Mickey Herskowitz of the Houston Chronicle.
"It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father.
(Original Houston Chronicle source is here in case ya don't trust them fur'ners.)
So, Buckley, thanks for the revelation. Glad you guys caught it SIX years later.
After calling the Iraq war a complet failure (we've been saying that for while too), Buckley goes on to say that he opposes the neo-cons on invading Iran.
My first question to those neo-cons would be "um, with what army?" The one you guys locked up in Iraq?
The best thing IMHO to happen to Iran was the invasion of Iraq.
|
It not only handed Iraq to Iran (something they could not do themselves), but it also gave Iran the opportunity to lock the US military down in Iraq by funding an insurgency that has had more success crippling the US military than any open war between the countries would have.
Iran would be a fool to let the US military out of Iraq because then Bush actually has a military capable of invading Iran.
For this reason alone, I think we'll see Iraq destablize further into civil war, which may already exist openly. |
So Buckley is right to question the ability and need to invade Iran.
"If we find there is a warhead there that is poised, the range of it is tested, then we have no alternative. But pending that, we have to ask ourselves, 'What would the Iranian population do?'"
I may be naive but I don't fear an invasion of Iran. This administration of course has demostrated incredible degrees of incompetence and stupidity, but I don't think we'll invade Iran largely because they have lost power & control of their base.
Besides the fact that we don't have a military to invade Iran, we see in Buckley's public comments and in the anger among many conservatives a disgust with the neocons who've hijacked this country. The neo-cons are hell bent on starting World War III, as Newt Gingrich literally supported and it's talk like that which has lead conservatives like George Will to describe neo-cons as "so untethered from reality as to defy caricature." |
|
There is a real division amongst conservatives between more "moderate" conservatives and the neo-cons in control today. And we're seeing battles between various side as to who are the "real" conservatives.
Progressives have also wondered how people could accept Bush was a conservative (after Katrina, I don't think we t need to debate "Compassionate", do we?) given the HUGE budget deficit.
But then Ronald Reagan whom Buckley I'm sure would hail as a true conservative ran up a pretty huge deficit in his day too.
So spending more than you can afford is in the veins of some conservatives it would seem - even if it's not in their ideals.
And this is where I disagree with Buckley's comments. Bush is a conservative and saying that he is not is like saying that the Titanic is not a boat because it sunk.
Bush, like Reagan, invaded another country for his political idealogy (and polls). Reagan was smart though to choose a tiny island nation that posed no possibility of long-term conflict and had no troublesome neighbors.
In order to finance the unnecessary war, Bush cut funds out the budget to critical services and benefits such as veterans benefits, education, science and infrastructure - such as levees.
This belief in small government actually led to (and often leads to) an anemic government causing massive failures because Federal agencies were unable to respond adequately to the Hurricanes. emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
True Bush's incompetence and callousness (he was playing Country Music star the 2nd day after landfall) made the situation worse.
However, Bush was still only following his conservative beliefs when he cut government funding down to the bare essentials and funneled it to a military operation.
What we saw in NOLA was not just a failure of leadership by the federal government, but the failure of the cherished conservative belief that the smallest government is the best government.
No one wants a bloated beureacracy but an anemic one such as what many conservatives dream of endangers its citizens as we saw in NOLA.
Add to this Bush's well documented hard-right religious beliefs, his Medicare plan which actually raised premiums, his appointment of conservative judges, his fiscally irresponsible tax cuts beloved by his base - and can we really doubt that Bush is a true conservative?
No, Mr. Buckley. You may not want him - though we'd be happy to give him back - but George Bush is most definitely following conservative principles as he goes about incompetently damaging America.
He may be a moron and an arrogant, spoiled rich brat who's never paid the price he asks ordinary Americans to pay, but he's your brat.
Like the Titanic, this administration is sinking, and you can expect more rats to jump ship. It's smart and necessary strategy by conservatives and the GOP to distance themselves from Bush and his failures.
However, the fact is that the Titanic was not George Bush but Conservatism. Bush is merely the captain that ran it aground.
But if your direction is pointed the wrong way, it doesn't matter who's steering. You're going to sink anyway.
And Conservatism, after several decades of planning (or unplanning?) is slowly undoing America.
It's time for the whole crew to go.
Update:(forgot this part)
Buckley's final comments are incredibly poignant & ironic:
"There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"
In my opinion, Bush will be the legacy of failure. He will be a lesson to future public policy students of the dangers of what can happen to a democracy when the people cave into their fears and anger and forget their ideals.
As for Buckley, his comments are poignant because one has to wonder what will be the legacy of Willam H. Buckley, the Father of Modern Conservatism (as noted by some comments).
At the age of 81, you wonder how Buckley must feel he looks back on his life and sees the ideals he championed and nurtured as a youth bear such poisonous fruit.
And that is probably the best analogy for Bush. He is not a wayward ship but the inevitable consequence of a bad seed.
Bush may not be a twisted departure from ideals, but the logical result of misformed ideas.