Nov 18 2006

The Bush Conservatives Vision

Published by at 1:22 pm under All General Discussions

I was not the only one to push for supporting Bush and his consvervative leadership. I found this image and message at Point Five, which came out months prior to the elections: [H/T: Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy]

While a bit idealistic, the point is still excellent. We should be applauding Bush’s effrots, not tearing them down. Again, if I had my choice I still support Bush and oppose the Republican Gliterati.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “The Bush Conservatives Vision”

  1. Steve_LA says:


    That wing has never defined what Victory is in Iraq, or for that matter does not want to entertain any discussion of the matter, even with those that agree in principle but maybe not in detail with you.

    Let’s not even talk about the issue of competency, taking a hard look at your course of action or addressing your mistakes made in an honest and open manner, you are after all the “Decider in Chief”.

    Oh and while we are it, let’s ignore lessons from history about how strange bed fellows can result in defeat in with the best of intentions. After all, Jalal Talabani may be incompetent, but he’s our guy and we brought him to the dance.

    If this past election proved nothing else, competency matters even in matters of war and peace.

  2. erp says:

    God bless our president.

  3. kittymyers says:

    I’m with you, AJ.

  4. momdear1 says:

    The problem I have with this president and all past presidents since Truman, is that they send our soldiers to fight and then restrict their fighting activities so that they are ineffictive and cannot even protect themsleves. We should declare war on whatever entitiy we are fighting, and then the rules of war should apply, both domestically and on the war front. There is no way we can win a war, when we commit our men to fight and then tell them they can’t hurt or kill anyone , and we allow subversives, traitors and malcontents to openly work to undermine and defeat their efforts. If we aren’t going to let our soldiers win, by whatever means, we shouldn’t get involved.

  5. The Macker says:

    Steve_LA ,
    The MSM and a handful of “failed” generals don’t measure “competency” for me.

    ” we allow subversives, traitors and malcontents to openly work to undermine and defeat their efforts.” – And it has taken a toll.

  6. Christoph says:

    Then you’ll hate this:

    It is assumed by everyone, and accepted as truth that hardly needs expression, that the brilliant and independent Michael Steele was not chosen as head of the RNC for the simple reason that he doesn’t look like someone who’d simply take orders. Mel Martinez was chosen for the reason that he will. I heard talk of what is called “the list”–the lengthening White House list of those who are to be treated as enemies. A White House preoccupied with the petty gave too little attention to policy, to the big picture. Thus the history of bungles…

    The White House’s reaction to the recent election was, essentially, Now we can get our immigration bill through with the Democrats. That was a clue. I suspect the president will over the next two years do to Republicans what he did to Donald Rumsfeld: over the side, under the bus and off the sled.

    He doesn’t need them. They’re not popular. They’re not where the action is. He’ll work closely with Democrats, gain in time new and admiring press–”Bush has grown,” etc.

    This is the path he will take to build his popularity and create a new legacy. If the Democrats let him.

    More from Peggy Noonan

  7. ivehadit says:

    Right on again, AJ!

  8. Steve_LA says:


    So what would be a measure of competency for you then? Who do you believe, the President or your own lying eyes….?

    I’m no expert on military affairs, just a former enlisted guy who is the son of a 30 year lifer, and if we are winning in Iraq, I don’t know what loosing looks like. The President certainly has not proposed what Victory looks like, or when we should achieve it that’s for darn sure.

    Senator Warner recently back from Iraq did not come back impressed, Big John McCain does not seem impressed, but that’s the Elephant in the room isn’t it? Republicans seem to be promoting the proposition that you ether support the President or you are some form of Un-American life form, strange echo going on from the times of RM Nixon with that one.

  9. The Macker says:

    First, your premise that Iraq is a separate war, is wrong. It is a front in the Global War on Terror. The military phase was won in record time, breaking historical records for advancement. Remember the predicted “Battle for Baghdad?”

    The control of Iraq has proven difficult, due to a combination of unforeseeable factors, ie. Syria, Iran, Tribal rivalries and stubborn disunity at home. Mistakes are made in every war, but they don’t constitute “incompetence.” Iraq got a constitution and a government up and running in less time than it took us after our Revolution. And Germany still doesn’t have a constitution.

    Franks, and Abizaid are better barometers than McCain and Warner. No one is questioning your “life form”, but uninformed disunity at home has prolonged the “insurgency,” exactly as it did in Viet Nam.

    Why do you need to be told what “victory” means in the GWOT? Is it that mysterious?

    Yes, I believe my own eyes over the “lying” MSM.

  10. ivehadit says:

    So many project so much of their dark sides onto George W. Bush.
    *They* are the clueless…

    And as far as Peggy Noonan goes…ain’t going with her. Thanks but no thanks.

    George W. Bush all the way. Best President we have ever had. Ever.

  11. anti-herman says:


    Based on all surveys and re-enlistments, the troops in Iraq believe they are making a difference and winning.

    Are you the John Kerry conservative that thinks the troops are too stupid to know if they are winning.

    Your one point about not being an expert on military affairs is very astute and insightful.

  12. Steve_LA says:


    Well now, I’m sure you are a military expert, what arm chair did you command? Was your command part of the chicken hawk forces or have you ever severed a day in uniform? While I may not be a military expert, I do come from a family that has over 55 years in the uniform of this country, Dad did 30, brother did 22 and I was the black sheep at only 6 years, oh and my son is most likely going to go into one of the Armed services when he graduates this spring from high school.

    So you see the conduct of this war in the future is not just some abstract game that is going to be pissed away by arm chair generals or Presidents or Secretary of Defenses who are incompetent and or too pig headed to take hard looks at what we are doing. I think it’s high time for people to hold the President accountable for the conduct of the war, we elected a President, not a “Dear Leader” after all. Oh and while we are at it, this President has been a spectacularly terrible communicator of his positions and why they are the correct one, being the “Decider in chief” is not good enough in my book, he also needs to be the “Ex plainer in chief”.

    As to re-enlistments, that is a much a factor of guys and gals being loyal to their commands in arms, it is not an endorsement of this war.

    In closing, ever hear of something called the Domino theory? There is a strange sense of Deja vu when I hear the excuse for waging a war based on “Over there instead of on our shores”.

  13. anti-herman says:


    I am a former officer so save the lala talk.

    I guess in your world, personnel re-enlist in record numbers is because they hate the mission, the chain of command, and enjoy needless sacrifice.

    Sorry dude, your stuck in the Vietnam mindset. Maybe you and Kerry had some heart to heart talks in Cambodia.

    Also, maybe nobody told you but the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are “over here”.

  14. Steve_LA says:


    You must have a reading comprehension problem, actually I misspelled comrades in the above posting so it may be on both of us. I do not ascribe the increased re-enlistment to validation of the campaign in Iraq or approval of the political aspects of the war, I tend to think the loyalty of one soldier to his fellow soldiers is driving it. That loyalty is starting to be tested with some units and individuals being deployed to the sand box for the third time, something unheard of during Vietnam.

    In Iraq we went in too light, did not secure arms caches, borders or anything else. This was over the objection of former JCS General Schchecki (sp) and others that were run off by Rumsfeld.

    In the first Gulf War, Enduring Freedom, our forces went in under the lessons learned from Viet Nam, manly overwhelming force. This was in part to then JCS by the name of Collin Powell, another fine leader that was not listened to in the lead up to this war.

    Nice try with the Kerry barb, my service is from that era but I was not there and I was in the Red Crown/RJ businesses then. Kerry was the sort of officer we would throw out first to clean off the antennas before the rest of us jumped out anyway.

    I personally think John McCain got it right the other day, we need more forces to do the job right, or get the heck out of Dodge toot sweet. The new SECDEF will have his hands full when he takes over, and hopefully he will have the good sense to ether call for more forces and win, or withdraw.

  15. anti-herman says:

    Steve in LA

    Where are your stats backing up your third deployment observation?
    Have you even bothered to speculate why morale and re-enlistments are so high? Do you see a relationship between high morale and belief in the misssion?

    If you are from the Nam era, how do you interpret Westmoreland’s “search and destroy” vs Abrams “Vietnamization” strategy?
    What’s your interpratation of the French experience in Algeria?
    Have you studied the Roman conquest of Britain? British experience in Iraq and Malaysia?

    Do you recognize that 9/11 occurred on our soil?

  16. Terrye says:

    I think the problem in Iraq is not just military.

    The future will be decided by politics as much as military and it takes time to create political institutions and parties.

    The idea that people here know more about how to fight that war than people who are actually over there always annoys me.

    I think Bush wants to succeed, for his own sake as well as the country’s. But these things can not easily be done on time tables. Especially in the Arab world.

    There is a reason the Europeans abandoned that mission long ago. This is a very rough neighborhood.