WUSA-9 TV in DC surveyed me in a public opinion poll last night. Specifically, the computer asked if I approved or disapproved of George W. Bush's job performance. I selected "disapproved"--though not without hesitation. Such polls showing dissatisfaction generally get interpreted to mean liberal dissatisfaction. It doesn't occur to the newsreaders that many of the people most dissatisfied with the Republican president's job performance are conservatives. It should, though. Government is bigger, more intrusive, and more centralized than on the day George W. Bush took office. If anyone should disapprove of that most, a conservative should.
Dan
You claim dissatisfaction with the Bush administration but your criticism of him over the years has been most tepid. Wouldn’t conservatives have been better off with Gore elected in 2000? Today we wouldn’t be in Iraq nor would we have bankrupt the treasury with the upper class tax give back. Stem cell research would have progressed, FEMA wouldn’t have been gutted and staffed with cronies and perhaps Gore wouldn’t have ignored the “Bin Laden to strike in US” warnings received in Aug 01. Plus the republican controlled Congress would have prevented “the spread of big Government “.
Conservatives would be better off if taxes had not been cut, stem cell research had continued apace, and huge government beauacracies had been left alone?
Exactly, Ben-T.
Also, RC: Unless you have some sort superhuman omniscience that permits you to view alternate universes with perfect clarity, I cannot imagine how you can justifiably make any of these claims. In reality, no one ever knows "what might have been," and anyone who thinks s/he does is just full of it. Why ignore the distinct possibility that all sorts of even more horrible things could have transpired under Gore?
Becuase Al Gore had a record of success in government, and GW Bush was a drunk all his life?
Dan, I think most people in this country aren't conservative or liberal, they just want their elected officals to be competent.
GW Bush and crew are not competent, and that's what's showing in the polls.
Becuase Al Gore had a record of success in government, and GW Bush was a drunk all his life?
Dan, I think most people in this country aren't conservative or liberal, they just want their elected officals to be competent.
GW Bush and crew are not competent, and that's what's showing in the polls.
The name calling never ends with this guy, does it? I posted this comment a couple days ago but it bears repeating as the thread was getting old:
Let's just sit back and let Haha make a fool of himself with his bad writing and pseudo-arguments. I bet (6-5, you pick it) his next response to anyone who tries to make an intelligent point will be "Yo' Mama!"
In the meanwhile let's enjoy the show while it lasts, Burger King will be calling him back to work any day now and he won't have as much time to troll Flynn Files anymore.
A good laugh is a terrible thing to waste!
p.s. Haha, STILL waiting for your strategy on how you would handle the terrorism issue.
RC,
You bring up some very good points but I tend to agree with Buzz. How can we know for sure what Gore would have done? I would never underestimate old Al's ability to screw anything up. Like his pal Bill Clinton, Gore is a megalomaniac. He rode both sides of the political fence while campaigning and most likely would waffle when it came time to take any kind of action.
Also, what significant success did Al Gore ever have in elected office?
Dude wrote up a huge response to your terrorism thing, but it got blocked by the blog.
Some of you guys are right. We can not see what would have happened with clarity. But the probability of President Al Gore invading Iraq seems quite small. Can see imagine Gore cutting taxes on the rich? I can’t.
Maybe he would have loaded up FEMA with cronies – one never knows.
Perhaps he might have blocked stem cell research – It’s possible.
He might even have tried to award port security to the Arab emeritus – who knows. Doubtless we will never know if he would have nominated Harriet Meiers
Personally, I think Al Gore would have used 9/11 (if he didn't prevent it) to get the country off oil.
It's his envornmental passion meets a national security issue.
Anybody would have invaded Iraq. If Al Gore had tried not to invade the National Security community would have screamed for his head. The only alternative to invading one of the Midde East's Unholy Trinity (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran) was completely losing our regional dominance in the persian gulf.
Gore lost Tennessee. Who would know better what he is than his own state?
Come on Sean. You know Gore hadn't represented TN in ten years.
The state has changed since then.
Come on Sean. You know Gore hadn't represented TN in ten years.
The state had changed since then.
Ben-T ARE YOU SERIOUS??
The National Security Establishment was against this war from the begining.
It's Cheney and Rumsfield's war. They had to create a whole new Intelligence Agency just to give them the "evidence" they needed to go to war.
Read a book man, or better yet watch this documentary:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
BTW the only alternitive would have been to find and capture OBL.
Sometimes you have to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. That being said, I voted for Bush, and I'd vote for him again, considering the alternatives. I'm not thrilled with everything he's done, but that goes for almost every president. Overall, I approve of Bush's performance. I think we're dealing with problems in this country that we never had before, and it's an exhausting job. I don't think Bush ever thought he would be tested and challenged this much...I give him credit for his consistency on the war on terror, which I believe will be his legacy. Hopefully, it will be a good legacy.
If I had been a tad more perceptive and realized that GW was more concerned with his ties to Vicente Fox and the sovereignty of Mexico than he is for the sovereignty of the United States (along with the intrinsic business ramifications), I would have chosen the giant douche. I have to go along with what Buchanan is saying that George Bush is willingly and blatantly neglecting his duties to preserve the republic and protect the citizens within with regards to his immigration policies. For that, he probably should be impeached.
Anyone remember when Al Gore resigned in disgust after Bill Clinton bypassed the UN and launched an undeclared war against Yugoslavia (a nation which had no WMDs and didn't pose any threat to the USA)? Me neither.
Anyone remember Bill CLinton launching an unprovoked ground invasion of Yougoslavia w/o the support of ony one major ally?
Yeah. Me niether.
The fact that you made that comparison Obi shows that you just don't get the new era of national security.
I don't think Al Gore has a problem with bypassing the UN to do something smart (like bring down a brutal dictator with O American casualties), I think he has a problem with bypassing the UN to do something dumb(like invade the only country in the Middle East that didn't have connections to terrorism with no major allies and no plan.)
I recommend you take a 101 class on International Relations, HaHa. Probably on Political Theory too, since you demonstrated such a poor understandinf of that in Worth Repeating # 29.
The United States was asked to leave by Saudi Arabia, leaving us with no regional presence in the Middle East other than a few navy bases clinging to tiny coastal sheikhdoms.
The Middle East is the most strategically important region on Earth. The United States would never allow itself to lose dominance of that region, and if we had not invaded Iraq, but now either Russia or China would be building, or preparing to build, bases in the Middle East. For obvious reasons, that is unacceptable.
Now, HaHa, you're clearly not very educated on the matters which you are commenting here, but how you could concievably have delued yourself into thinking that killing or capturing Osama bin Laden was in some way an alternative to re-establishing American ME dominance, I am unsure. Please, explain how capturing or killing Osama bin Laden would stop Russia and/or China from taking advantage of the USA's regional weakness and moving into the Middle East?
Ben-T you really don't know what your talking about.
You mention Saudi Araba asked us to leave our (brand new) air force base. You don't mention that we had a HUGE presense in Bahrain that could do everything we wanted to do in the Kingdom.
We didn't need Iraq to establish a new millitary base.
I do see what your saying about regional dominence, I do think that's why we invaded (I don't think I ever said otherwise).
I disagree however, that the Iraq war was the best way to do that.
I would prefer to lessen the Middle East's strategic importance by getting America off of foreign oil.
It would have been cheaper to convert every car in America to a plug in hybred than to spend half a trillion dollars on Iraq.
HeHe,
A little unsolicited advice: Given your concerns as you articulate them, I think your time might be better spent nagging "liberals" about getting us going on nuclear power.
The US base in Bahrain is mainly Naval, and there is not much USAF or US Army presence. At least that was my understanding when I was in Manama in March of this year. USAF has some stuff there, but the deal we have is that we can use certain areas if we need to in the event of a crisis.
Buzz, there are a lot of environmentalists who are strongly supporting nuclear power. The founder of Greenpeace is one of them, and I'm sure Al Gore is another.
Under either a Gore or McCain presidency, gloal warming is going to be agressively addressed, and nuclear power will be a huge part of the solution.
I can't wait for 08.
Homer, you must know as well as I that between Dieago Garcia, our long range bombers, our carrier fleet, our NATO bases in Turkey, our presense in Afghanistan and Kryistan, and our new bases in Romania and Bulgaria we have Middle East air dominance covered.
We didn't need to invade Iraq to replace our lost airbase in Saudi Arabia. In fact, they kicked us out becuace the Saudis didn't want us invading Iraq from thier base.
"Dan your crititicism of Bush over the years has been most tepid." RC have you read the blog the past two years? He has all the posts in archives. Your post is laughable.
BTW Buzz, what the Gov. of California did today on Global Warming is exactly the kind of non-partisan thinking we need in this country.
Seriously, Democrats for Arnold.
Getting America off of alternative energy, while a worthwhile goal that ought be pursued, is not an alternative to American regional dominance in the ME.
What alternative energy WOULD do, if we pursued it as an alternative to a pro-active ME policy, instead of as a supplement, is the following.
Without our oil money, the Saudi government would collapse and be replaced by direct Jihadi rule. At the same time, India and China are emerging as the two largest energy markets in human history, and neither being anywhere near getting off of oil.
You would in essence put Jihadis in control of the largest oil exporting nation on Earth at the same time that the strategic advantage of oil reached its maximum influence. It would be an unmitigated disaster.
Our presences in the coastal sheikhdoms are not enough to exert regional dominance, because of the severe worries the coastal governments have about what may happen to them should they incur the wrath of any of the Middle East's big three. Big three presence is necessary to exert dominance.
You suggested capturing or killing Osama bin Laden as an alternative to an invasion of Iraq. This would seem to suggest you believed that doing this would solve the problems that the Iraq War was aimed at solving.
There can be no policy for "Global Warming" because there is no such thing as "Global Warming". Ahhrnauld is just being a good politician and pandering for votes.
What??
How do you alternative energy=collapse of Saudi regime?
As you said yourself, India and China will pick up demand for Saudi oil, the Kingdom already has a piles of money saved, and the transition to a carbon-free economy will be gradual. The Saudis eventually will have to liberalize their poitical system to survive, but they have pleanty of time.
Alternative energy does not equal handing the oil fields over to jihadists :)
No I don't suggest that captureing Osama Bin Laden would achieve the aims of the Iraq war. I suggest that capturing Osama Bin Laden would achieve MORE IMPORTANT aims.
BTW asdf, talk about intelletually dishonest. Global Warming=hoax is about the same as saying the moon landing happened in a desert in Nevada.
Hate to bite but, prove it.
HAHA!!
Every scientist in the world has proved it.
Humans are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, principally CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. These increasing gases trap more of the sun's energy , heating the Earth.
Both temperatures and CO2 levels have increased in concert and will continue to do so until CO2 levels are stabalized by a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use. The consequences will be dire.
BTW its not for me to prove. I'm not a climate scientist. But I do have trust science, and that's the difference between global warming believers and non-believers.
Wow. Every scientist in the World, eh? And they all agree that there is a threat from some theory know as "Global Warming". It's amazing that this seems to be the one thing in the history of science that EVERY scientist has agreed on. This "Global Warming" must be powerful stuff.
Yes every climate scientist in the world - those paid by ExxonMobil.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!
WAKE UP!!
"Global Warming" is a theory. Believed by some scientists; not believed by others. It has never been proven to be scientific fact because those who claim it to be true can be refuted with historical facts and statistics.
Interesting (and typically hypocritical) how one of the most vocal and visible purveyors of this foolishness, Al Gore, is seriously locked into Occidental oil. You know, Gore: the guy who burned up tons of jet and SUV fuel promoting his book on how carbon based fuel emissions are adding to “Global Warming”. What a hoot.
Who cares about Al Gore's hypocracy???
Global warming is happening,its a threat and it needs to be dealt with.
You can insult Al Gore all you want, you can not change these FACTS!
Yes global warming is a scientific FACT!
There is no debate in the scientific community.
PERIOD.
WAKE UP!
"What??
How do you alternative energy=collapse of Saudi regime?
As you said yourself, India and China will pick up demand for Saudi oil, the Kingdom already has a piles of money saved, and the transition to a carbon-free economy will be gradual. The Saudis eventually will have to liberalize their poitical system to survive, but they have pleanty of time.
Alternative energy does not equal handing the oil fields over to jihadists :)
No I don't suggest that captureing Osama Bin Laden would achieve the aims of the Iraq war. I suggest that capturing Osama Bin Laden would achieve MORE IMPORTANT aims.
BTW asdf, talk about intelletually dishonest. Global Warming=hoax is about the same as saying the moon landing happened in a desert in Nevada." -Haha
Nope, you're right, I left a hole in my argument. Posted without thinking.
But what that does mean is that Saudi Arabia would have A.) Lots of resentment towards us for abandoning them and B.) No incentive to stay friendly with us.
The result is that in order to deal with the political problems in their own Kingdom, and no longer having any obligation to us, they would crank up the amount they give to Jihadists to unprecendented levels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/greenhouse.stm
Here's Al Gore:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3681222751225228441
Check it out.
