Is George Bush Conservative?

[Hagbard Celine]

Why are you still arguing about what was said when the lines you quoted are proof that I am right?

Did you even read my post?

 

[Annie]

Why are you still arguing about what was said when the lines you quoted are proof that I am right?

Did you even read my post?

Could be argued that she was just pointing out that you hijacked the thread to try and trash Bush and the Christians to prove you are oh so clever.

I supposed you couldn't say, "No, Bush is acting domestically more like a Democrat than just about anyone I could think of..."

Oh I forgot, those that vote with the GOP are never negative about GW. Yeah, whatever. Your arguments, now whining are just lame.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Could be argued that she was just pointing out that you hijacked the thread to try and trash Bush and the Christians to prove you are oh so clever.

Hey, you could argue anything. But all I did was post a picture I thought symbolized Bush's conservatism so I really don't know where all the hostility has come from. The thread is called "Is Bush a Conservative" isn't it?

After all that has been said, I would submit that the Bush administration seeks to increase its voter base by appealing to evangelical Christian groups by portraying an image (truthfully or untruthfully) that it fosters traditional Christian ideals (It's positions on religiously linked issues like stemcell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but that some of it's real-world actions (economically and otherwise) do not reflect traditional conservative ideals such as low spending, reduction of federal bureacracy, illegal immigration, etc. and must be considered more of a moderate president than a purely conservative one, which actually now that I think of it, accurately reflects the population, which has been almost evenly split during the past two elections. (I have worded this very carefully, so if any of you have any problems with it, please tell me what the problems are instead of just calling me a liberal and saying my arguments are "stale")

Therefore, I would like to suggest that Bush is a fiscally liberal, socially conservative president except for his tax cuts. Henceforth, I feel that I would personally be better represented by a mostly fiscally conservative, socially liberal president.

 

[Annie]

Hey, you could argue anything. But all I did was post a picture I thought symbolized Bush's conservatism so I really don't know where all the hostility has come from. The thread is called "Is Bush a Conservative" isn't it?

After all that has been said, I would submit that the Bush administration seeks to increase its voter base by appealing to evangelical Christian groups by portraying an image (truthfully or untruthfully) that it fosters traditional Christian ideals (It's positions on religiously linked issues like stemcell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but that some of it's real-world actions (economically and otherwise) do not reflect traditional conservative ideals such as low spending, reduction of federal bureacracy, illegal immigration, etc. and must be considered more of a moderate president than a purely conservative one, which actually now that I think of it, accurately reflects the population, which has been almost evenly split during the past two elections. (I have worded this very carefully, so if any of you have any problems with it, please tell me what the problems are instead of just calling me a liberal and saying my arguments are "stale")

Therefore, I would like to suggest that Bush is a fiscally liberal, socially conservative president except for his tax cuts. Henceforth, I feel that I would personally be better represented by a mostly fiscally conservative, socially liberal president.

And if you had written that the first time, your 'rep' for whatever it's worth, would have shot up instead of down.

As someone else pointed out, if that was a photo op, it sure didn't get much play, as it would have been noticed by me-I didn't like it and not just because YOU posted it.

If you had read the Noonan piece, you would have seen that there are conservatives, even those that supported GW that have little trouble criticising when deserved. She did the same with his last inauguration speech, for much the same reasons.

 

[no1tovote4]

"If this is all it takes to count as "conservative" in America, I think maybe real conservatives need to be a little bit more careful about who they give their blessing to."

Can't believe this, I agree with Joyce.

Now we stand and watch as they attempt to centralize more power into the Federal Government because Evacuation Plans were not immediately effective in NO and Houston. Rather than allow cities to learn the lesson and improve we simply are willing to give the Military and the Feds all the power....

There is a Federal Law that when the Feds declare a disaster area 75% or more of the recovery effort money must come from the Feds. Instead of fixing this Bush spends even more and begins another power grab...

Spend money like you are printing it without regard to the deficit...

There is no fricking Conservative even willing to simply stand up to this "Compassionate Conservative" that has pretty much turned his back on almost every Conservative principal the party has stood for...

I hope that the Republicans put forward an actual conservative for President next time, I don't think that the nation can afford another 'Compassionate Conservative' leading that party down the path of Centralized power and Government dependancy.

 

[Annie]

"If this is all it takes to count as "conservative" in America, I think maybe real conservatives need to be a little bit more careful about who they give their blessing to."

Can't believe this, I agree with Joyce.

Now we stand and watch as they attempt to centralize more power into the Federal Government because Evacuation Plans were not immediately effective in NO and Houston. Rather than allow cities to learn the lesson and improve we simply are willing to give the Military and the Feds all the power....

There is a Federal Law that when the Feds declare a disaster area 75% or more of the recovery effort money must come from the Feds. Instead of fixing this Bush spends even more and begins another power grab...

Spend money like you are printing it without regard to the deficit...

There is no fricking Conservative even willing to simply stand up to this "Compassionate Conservative" that has pretty much turned his back on almost every Conservative principal the party has stood for...

I hope that the Republicans put forward an actual conservative for President next time, I don't think that the nation can afford another 'Compassionate Conservative' leading that party down the path of Centralized power and Government dependancy.

Ok, that's 3 of us that think Bush is not a 'real' conservative. He may be in some ways, but surely not fiscally.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hey, you could argue anything. But all I did was post a picture I thought symbolized Bush's conservatism so I really don't know where all the hostility has come from. The thread is called "Is Bush a Conservative" isn't it?

After all that has been said, I would submit that the Bush administration seeks to increase its voter base by appealing to evangelical Christian groups by portraying an image (truthfully or untruthfully) that it fosters traditional Christian ideals (It's positions on religiously linked issues like stemcell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but that some of it's real-world actions (economically and otherwise) do not reflect traditional conservative ideals such as low spending, reduction of federal bureacracy, illegal immigration, etc. and must be considered more of a moderate president than a purely conservative one, which actually now that I think of it, accurately reflects the population, which has been almost evenly split during the past two elections. (I have worded this very carefully, so if any of you have any problems with it, please tell me what the problems are instead of just calling me a liberal and saying my arguments are "stale")

Therefore, I would like to suggest that Bush is a fiscally liberal, socially conservative president except for his tax cuts. Henceforth, I feel that I would personally be better represented by a mostly fiscally conservative, socially liberal president.

Which is more important to you? The fiscal or the social?

In other words, if in 2008 it came down to Hillary or a fiscally conservative Republican, which one would you vote for?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Well of course this would be speculation and I'd have to actually go through the race to make a proper decision, but from what I remember, the Clinton economic plan was pretty stable. I seem to recall a balanced budget with a surplus. So I'd go for Hillary because she is socially liberal. Plus it'd be cool to see a woman president finally.

But I'd have to say, if the Repubs were to run say, John McCain against the Dems' Hillary, I'd be very hardpressed. That would be a good election because it would be two strong candidates.

--As opposed to what we've been used to for the last five years. I would like to see a landslide election so that some of the polarization in the US would wear off. We need more "golden means" met in this country instead of just rampant agenda mongering. We need fewer lobbyists.

I know I'm going to get ripped a new one for this post.

Who would you vote for?

 

[no1tovote4]

Well of course this would be speculation and I'd have to actually go through the race to make a proper decision, but from what I remember, the Clinton economic plan was pretty stable. I seem to recall a balanced budget with a surplus. So I'd go for Hillary because she is socially liberal. Plus it'd be cool to see a woman president finally.

LOL. The Clinton economic plan... His plan was to veto twice then claim a victory when the R Congress passed each of the points of the Contract with America unchanged three times. I am still amazed at the success he had at this.

But I'd have to say, if the Repubs were to run say, John McCain against the Dems' Hillary, I'd be very hardpressed. That would be a good election because it would be two strong candidates.

As opposed to what we've been used to for the last five years.

I know I'm going to get ripped a new one for this post.

Who would you vote for?

The last election had two very weak candidates, that we can agree on. I am unimpressed by McCain though, other than as a grandstander.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Oh yeah, he's done a great job "defending" our country. Doesn't anyone remember the "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US" brief we learned about from the 9/11 commission? Instead of reading the brief, Bush was on vacation at his dude ranch. What a great defender! Not!

Yes, he did see it. What some people don't seem to understand is President Bush is the president, no matter where is he is. The president, no matter who is in office, is never really "on vacation". They are all working vacations. President Bush spends time in Crawford, Clinton went to Martha's Vineyard, Bush 41 went to Kennebunkport, Reagan went to California, Carter went to Camp David, etc.

What you don't seem to realize is that memo was hardly a smoking gun. Anyone that was paying attention knew he was determined to attack the U.S. because he already had. Remember? The '93 attack on the WTC towers, the one Clinton wiped his hands of, was an attack on the U.S. Was it not? Bin Laden had headed attacks on our embassies and military targets while Clinton was in office, and nothing was done about it.

The memo you are talking about was really nothing more than general knowledge. It would be like getting a memo saying "Farts determined to stink if you eat cabbage".

What would you say is worse? President Bush with a memo like this, or Clinton not giving the order to take Bin Laden out when he was literally in our sites?

 

[Max Power]

The last election had two very weak candidates, that we can agree on. I am unimpressed by McCain though, other than as a grandstander.

McCain saved us $22+ billion
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=219

Grandstanding?

IMO, He's an honest politician in Washington, and that's a pretty tough find.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Bin Laden had headed attacks on our embassies and military targets while Clinton was in office, and nothing was done about it.

Not true. Following the '93 WTC car bombing, al-Qaida also bombed two of our African embassies. After that happened, Clinton signed off on hunting Bin Laden down. And there were several near misses. Actually, one bombing raid missed Bin Laden by minutes according to intelligence that gathered after the fact. You're either uninformed or you are lying when you accuse Clinton of not attempting to get Bin Laden.

If you remember, the embassy attacks occurred around the time the Lewinski scandal broke and Republicans judged Clinton's counter attacks on al-Qaida as a "wag the dog" strategy to divert attention away from Lewinski. Maybe if Clinton hadn't had all his time wasted with frivolous impeachment hearings, he might've had the time to channel more energy into gettin Bin Laden. But we'll never know will we Jim?

 

[Annie]

Not true. Following the '93 WTC car bombing, al-Qaida also bombed two of our African embassies. After that happened, Clinton signed off on hunting Bin Laden down. And there were several near misses. Actually, one bombing raid missed Bin Laden by minutes according to intelligence that gathered after the fact. You're either uninformed or you are lying when you accuse Clinton of not attempting to get Bin Laden.

If you remember, the embassy attacks occurred around the time the Lewinski scandal broke and Republicans judged Clinton's counter attacks on al-Qaida as a "wag the dog" strategy to divert attention away from Lewinski. Maybe if Clinton hadn't had all his time wasted with frivolous impeachment hearings, he might've had the time to channel more energy into gettin Bin Laden. But we'll never know will we Jim?

Then again, if BC hadn't been lying to Ken Starr, it may have all been for nought. On the other hand, more easily, he could have just monitored his behavior a bit more closely? Nah, it's ALL ABOUT SEX. Right.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Not true. Following the '93 WTC car bombing, al-Qaida also bombed two of our African embassies. After that happened, Clinton signed off on hunting Bin Laden down. And there were several near misses. Actually, one bombing raid missed Bin Laden by minutes according to intelligence that gathered after the fact. You're either uninformed or you are lying when you accuse Clinton of not attempting to get Bin Laden.

If you remember, the embassy attacks occurred around the time the Lewinski scandal broke and Republicans judged Clinton's counter attacks on al-Qaida as a "wag the dog" strategy to divert attention away from Lewinski. Maybe if Clinton hadn't had all his time wasted with frivolous impeachment hearings, he might've had the time to channel more energy into gettin Bin Laden. But we'll never know will we Jim?

If Clinton had finished doing his job and worried less about what people were accussing, we would have known, wouldn't we Hag? Then maybe I would have a little more respect for him than I do. President Bush has been accused of everything under the sun by liberals and Democrats, but that hasn't stopped him from doing his job.

As far as what he did do, I am judging him on results. I would hardly call firing a couple of shots into the hillsides an all out effort of Clintons part. Also, the '93 WTC tower attack should have been enough to get him off his fat ass.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

If Clinton had finished doing his job and worried less about what people were accussing, we would have known, wouldn't we Hag? Then maybe I would have a little more respect for him than I do. President Bush has been accused of everything under the sun by liberals and Democrats, but that hasn't stopped him from doing his job [poorly].

As far as what he did do, I am judging him on results. I would hardly call firing a couple of shots into the hillsides an all out effort of Clintons part. Also, the '93 WTC tower attack should have been enough to get him off his fat ass.

First of all, Bush hasn't been impeached for bullsh*t reasons.

Second, if you're going to judge on results, lets look at the results President Bush has given us in the war on terror. Bin Laden is still at large. Iraq is on the verge of civil war. There is an ever growing insurgence fighting our occupational force. There is no end in sight for the Iraq war. Iraqi police and military numbers are no where near where they need to be for us to leave.

 

[kurtsprincess]

You're either uninformed or you are lying when you accuse Clinton of not attempting to get Bin Laden.
QUOTE]

Ever read Richard Minter's Book "Losing bin Laden"?

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Mr. Minter regarding Clinton's attempts to contain bin Laden.

September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m.
Clinton’s Loss?
How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.

A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez



Richard Miniter is a Brussels-based investigative journalist. His new book, Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror has just been released by Regnery. He spoke to NRO early today about the run-up to the war on terror.

Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not take advantage of such opportunities?

Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was "not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff and ask for bin Laden?

The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true — and it wasn't — the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to anyone.

After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to? Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but Somalia."

In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.

Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.

Wonder if the papers Berger stuffed down his pants had anything to do with bin Laden?

rest of interview

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

First of all, Bush hasn't been impeached for bullsh*t reasons like breaking the law.

Second, if you're going to judge on results, lets look at the results President Bush has given us in the war on terror. Bin Laden is still at large. Iraq is on the verge of civil war. There is an ever growing insurgence fighting our occupational force. There is no end in sight for the Iraq war. Iraqi police and military numbers are no where near where they need to be for us to leave.

It's funny how people sitting in their house listening to Air America and reading the New York Times know more about how the war in Iraq is going than the people who are there.

As far as Bin Laden, he had several years to prepare for his disappearing act, thanks to you know who.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Haha, is George Bush Conservative? I may have found the answer:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

thanks to you know who.

???

Santa Claus? Who? Oh, you mean "he who cannot be named." Well, I wouldn't worry about Voldemort, Harry's got him pretty much under control for the time being...

 

[Annie]

It seems Hagbard has nothing to add to this discussion. The last two posts say it all.