George W. Bush has been loyal to a fault with those who have served him poorly (see, George "slam dunk" Tenet's Medal of Freedom). But to former insiders who have uttered criticism from the outside, the president has been particularly vengeful. Paul O'Neill, John Dilulio, and now former White House spokesman Scott McClellan have become objects of opprobrium for their former comrades. Bush lackeys dubbed McClellan "disgruntled," said that he "sounds like a left-wing blogger," and labelled his charges "total crap." But the main criticism issued by McClellan--Bush "signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest"--seems so uncontroversial that one wonders what the fuss is all about.

Hmmph. At least he's still alive.

http://www.etherzone.com/body.html

McClellan’s new ‘expose’ is much to do about nothing. No new ground covered and no new facts. Outside of the in the tank left wing media and bloggers, few will be interested.

This guy was a low level member of the Bush team who read bullet points to the press and was eventually found to be such a lightweight, he was let go. By all accounts, he was not privy to discussions of any political or strategic magnitude.

But, he’ll get his payday and will go away.

Lest anybody forget how corrupt and scary the Clintons are, it's good to re-read the body count.

I forget what impressed me about this blog enough to bookmark it. But bookmark it I did, and now I wonder why.

I think that taking out Saddam was absolutely necessary. Maybe there were other choices that could have served our purposes equally well, but I can't fault it for a minute. He was the biggest, ugliest guy in the playground and that's the one you want to take out when the bad guys go too far. We went about it clumsily but he's gone, right? And Uday and Quassay and the rest of those sumbitches. And the strategy seems pretty much on track. We've taken the fight to the middle of their neighborhood and if the bad guys had more brains than they do they'd realize how stupid they were to f*&% with us. Now there worst nightmare has been realized- Shia, Sunni, and Kurds are beginning to cooperate as Iraqis.

When you say McClellan liberal take on Bush's actions is uncontroversial, you sound like one of them.

Steve, check out Rich Lowry's piece at NRO, where he says basically the same thing that you fault me for: "If McClellan's provocative language is stripped away, what he is saying is unremarkable. In its zeal to persuade the public of the case for war, the president's team ended up 'obscuring nuances and ignoring the caveats that should have accompanied their arguments.' In retrospect, that's inarguably true."

Steve, I think you equate fidelity to Bush with conservatism. I don't. George W. Bush is a big-government liberal who has some socially conservative views. Fidelity to Bush, more often than not, is fidelity to liberalism. Other than Jimmy Carter, he is the worst president of my lifetime. Principled men of the Right--Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, George Will--have come to the realization that the war was a mistake. About seventy percent of the American people have come to that conclusion as well. I wish the same number could also see the disaster that is Bush domestic policy--No Child Left Behind, prescription-drug giveaway, support for gun control and affirmative action, unconstitutional campaign finance reform, the amnesty scheme, nationalization of airport security, a new federal department, federal funding for stem-cell research on aborted children, etc.

Dan, I agree Bush has been a disaster as a conservative and we're paying for it now and will for years to come. All the dumb ideas you ticked off were dumb ideas. Its amazing to me how W has walked pretty much the same path as his dad.

He got one thing right though, and I think its so big that he'll be vindicated by history. He saw the absolute necessity to stop blowing off the Jihadis and to take the fight to them. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want but it would have been dereliction of duty to have done otherwise. All the reasons proffered were valid ones, not that I needed anything more than the reasons we fought WWII.

I'm glad you like Buckley and Friedman, but Buchanan and Will?!? Sorry, your fondness of Buchanan's opinion tells me you're not to taken seriously.

I got my first grandkid on the way. I'm proud Bush has had the wisdom to take the long view and sicced our military on these bastards.

Ronald Reagan liked Buchanan so much that he made him his director of communications. Do you not take Reagan seriously either?

I'm glad we responded to 9/11 in a military manner in Afghanistan. Iraq had zero to do with 9/11, so the operation confused me. I liked the conservative movement better when it was conservative--like when GWB ridiculed "nation building" in his debate with Al Gore. Now GWB supports nation building and conservatives without conservative principles now think it's a swell idea as well.

Nation building and spreading "democracy" by force of arms are not conservative ideas.

Steve,

Perhaps you are relatively new to this blog and are therefore to be excused, but Dan is hardly a "Monday Morning Quarterback" when it comes to the Iraq War.

Dan opposed it from the beginning, as did a whole host of conservatives like myself who think the Constitution matters - esp. on matters concerning war - and who embrace the old conservative principles enunciated by the likes of Russell Kirk that counsels against rash foreign interventionism and military globe-trotting, while calling for adherence to Christian Just War Theory, classically conceived and understood.

Many of us also opposed the war on pragmatic grounds related to our support for the war on terror: that overturning Hussein's regime would cause just the type of mess we see there now - including the mass exodus and new persecution of Iraqi Christians - and would be the impetus for more terrorism, not less. After all, far more Americans have now died over there than over here on 9/11 itself.

--Eric

Amen to everything Eric said. Expanding Eric's pragmattic point, I thought before the war that rather than a mini-America in the Middle East Iraq would more closely resemble America's West Bank and that when we left a regional power (i.e., Iran) might fill the void and assert its might. The first has already come to pass and there is evidence (particularly with the strength of the Iranian based parties in the elections and the reception the nut from Iran received upon visiting) that the latter may be in the process. I am encouraged that deaths are down and the situation has improved in Iraq. I just don't know what this week's justification (WMD? 9/11 connections? Ridding the world of evil dictators? Spreading democracy?)for the nation building exercise is.

I'll make this quick since I need to leave work early to catch Freddy Couples play the back nine in the Open Sectional Qualifier. (I'll be in a gallery of about 5 people. Not bad, huh?)

I don't have much experience dialoguing with doctrinaire conservatives. It reminds me of arguing with 5 point Calvinists. I really don't care about Russell Kirk. Never read him and don't plan to. I liked Buckley but he seemed to go a little wobbly in his old age. Why was Reagan great? Because he stood up to (and made America stand up to) the Soviets. He thereby liberated millions. He did some other good things- like fire the Air Traffic Controllers. But he wasn't Jesus Christ. He appointed some bad judges. He missed the fact that Buchanan is an anti-semitic crackpot. He rather stupidly pushed the Japanese reparations act into law.

You guys sure sound like liberals to me. At least when you make your Afghan- good, Iraq- bad argument. And when you go on about more soldiers killed since 9-11 than were killed by the terrorists on 9-11. Didn't more soldiers die in WWII than were killed at Pearl Harbor? What's your point.

My son served two tours in Iraq and was happy to do it. He said that if his mom or I ever pulled a Cindy Sheehan on him he'd haunt us from beyond the grave. This is what soldiers do and what they sign on for. To protect this country from its enemies. The Jihadi's are America's (current) 21st century threat. If you ignore them they don't go away. 99% of Muslims are the biggest trash-talkers on the planet. They beat their women. They'll kill their daughters. Or is this just propaganda.

Besides my son, I employed a marine sniper. These guys want to kill the bad guys so the Iraqi's can get on with things. They love that they're doing it over there, and not here. My son doesn't regret a minute of his service and will treasure it to his dying day. But he hopes never to go back. We need to support this to the hilt and not squander a bit of it. We also need to clamp down on the arrogant bastards that are over here doing their little jihad crap with impunity.

For my money, you guys are aiding and abetting the liberals.

I wonder, Steve, how you would define "conservative"? Esp. since you admit ignorance of the conservative canon.

Further, if one stubbornly refuses to consider the consequences - both short and long-term, intended AND unintended - of interventionism, how is that not doctrinaire? That is closer to liberal ideology, I'm afraid, than conservatism. After all, liberals are oblivious of the unintended consequences of their economic policies. The only thing that matters is their intentions. Why bother considering actual real-world consequences?

In foreign policy, the CIA has a term for unintended consequences: blowback. Here's one place to read about it: "Terrorism and Bin Laden Expert Has a Lesson for Giuliani."

Another hallmark of liberalism is a complete disregard for the Constitution and, by extension, the rule of law. Neo-cons have joined them on this score, esp. in matters related to blowing up people they don't like. The trouble is, there is a constitutional prescription for going to war, and the Founders had particularly good reasons for prescribing it. Please see my "Is the Iraq War Constitutional?" It seems to me we would have far fewer problems if we actually tried following it - and actually upheld our Oath to preserve and defend it.

I'm not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer. With all the lawyers in the White House though, I doubt this is near the constitutional issue you want to make it.

Quite frankly, I think you guys are a bunch of pussies.

Jihadis have been terrorizing us and our military for years. When would you have us straighten their asses out? How about we do it when we have some one in the White House with balls. If not Bush, who? Obama? Hillary? McCain? Remember, for all McCain's talk about staying the course, he's the one that wants us to be kind to captured Jihadis.

Are you old enough to remember back in the 70's when the PLO made the mistake of kidnapping some Soviet diplomat in Israel/Palestine? Do you remember them capturing 10 palestinians and delivering one of them dead with the promise to deliver one dead per day until their guy was released? They got their guy back, remember?

You are living in a fool's paradise with your heads stuck in the ground if you fail to grasp that Saddam was as implicated in all this as anyone.

It goes without saying that we want our leaders and our generals to think things through so as to minimize surprises. But God deliver us from leaders that can't pull the trigger because they're perpetually afraid of "unintended consequences"! I want them to deliver bundles of "unintended consequences" upon the enemy.

I doubt you guys can out-conservative me on any issue. You've got to think (or intuit) your way out of the Buchanan conumdrum that keeps us from dealing head-on with the Jihadi problem for fear of aiding those dreaded Jews!

Steve,

I love it when folks throw the gauntlet down: "I doubt you guys can out-conservative me on any issue." Okay, I'll do it.

For starters, Christ taught us to pray for our enemies. Ergo your alleged conservativeness in this area is inferior unless you somehow reconcile your view that this was "implied." However, given your post and what you said, I doubt you can truthfully say that you pray for the terrorists.

Secondly, I note that you avoided the question by Eric to define what a conservative is. You don't know, do you? You can't claim to be something you don't even know the meaning of, right? Be careful about your definition. The right one will contradict you and the wrong one will, well, contradict you. You'll have to admit you're not even conservative!!!

Sorry, I can't resist one more. Steve, you said, "Quite frankly, I think you guys are a bunch of pussies." We're not the ones who are scared out of our minds enough to give up our freedoms. You are. The sand people hit us as hard as they could and you folks turn around and create a 3 trillion dollar budget. More people die on federal highways each month than in that one attack 8 years ago. Who is the real pussy? I assure you it ain't me sweetheart.