Beliefnet
Via Media

Professor Bainbridge on the Moment:

It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that’s all he has left. After all, if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?

There’s more, including a comments section that quickly, as such discussions do, devolves into a singulalry unenlightened exchange, no fault of the Professor’s. It’s all "You TRAITOR to THE CAUSE" and "Hey, thanks! Now I have a reason to love GWB!" at the end.

Other signs of discord: Andy McCarthy’s words at the Corner this past weekend, related to worries about the Iraqi Consititution, which might or might not enshrine Islamic law as a standard of some sort, but Iraq the Model has, he says, the latest:

Regarding Islam and the constitution: it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued.

Which is, of course, very specific and focused. Who knows?

What interests me (well, one of the things that interests me) is the collapse of political debate that’s so often reflected in these discussions. On conservative blogs and boards, criticism of the President is tantamount to High Treason (unless it’s Michelle Malkin going after him for his stance on immigration reform. She gets a pass for some reason). And then discussion between the "sides?" Forget it. It’s all about turf, even though I have no idea what the turf actually is. I’ve never understood why some, in discussing politics, erect altars and shrines to their political leaders, instead of actually debating issues. It’s hard to talk about Iraq, because it’s so easy to fall back on the "Oh, you think we should have just left Saddam in?" and "Oh, so you think we should cut and run?" Well, no, and no. But the comments thread at Bainbridge’s blog post is just a little depressing for the heat, rather than light it sheds.

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus