RSS
GWB: Top 12 of all time?
I received an email from a buddy of mine this morning and did not immediately respond. My buddy describes himself as a “9/11″ conservative. Though he always leaned right on most issues, brainwashed by the media and just out of college (also brainwashed), he voted for Al Gore in 2000. (He now despises Gore) On 9-11, he woke up, realizing which party took the terror threat seriously and acknowledged George W Bush was the right man to be the first post 9/11 president. Following is the exchange between him and me:
Doughboy writes:
“Obama celebrates Iraqi sovereignty”
George W. Bush will be a top 12 president. Many of you owe him, and those of us who stood by our country the past few years, a big apology. We won the War in Iraq. Time to admit it. Just like Mr. Obama finally did last night.
He was wrong on the war every step of the way. But here was one of those rare occurrences where, as the US president, he comes to grips with facts, and for PR purposes, praises our nation rather than bashes it. Thank you Dick Cheney, George W Bush, John McCain, David Petreaus.
Good day,
Doughboy
As I mentioned, I did not immediately respond – partly out of concern for alienating my new friend, but also because I am not comfortable in the position in which I now find myself. Many of our readers will discern a change in my stance, as I have written previously about my support for the War on Terror. In my defense, I will simply say that anyone who is honestly seeking the truth and approaches a debate with that level of honesty will find, from time to time, that his mind is changed. I have drifted over time to the position in which I now find myself. The exchange was as follows:
Doughboy writes:
I am as cheered by the cessation of our role on the front lines in Iraq as anybody. However, by no stretch of the imagination do I think GWB will ever be considered one of our greatest presidents. First, Iraq was unnecessary – the fact that we won that war does not erase that essential truth. Second, the harm that GWB did at home with the erasure of personal liberty through the Patriot Act (warrantless domestic wire tapping?) and through his ramping up of governmental spending was inexcusable. Indeed, GWB’s spending has given Obama cover and, to some extent, license to spend even faster. It was certainly not something to be lauded.I am a freedom conservative. What made the second Iraqi war necessary for the United States to fight? Pre-emptive self-defense against weapons of mass destruction? That would justify our immediate invasion of Iran right now. Do you support that? Should we exercise the Bush Doctrine and preempt Pyongyang by nuking North Korea? There are major problems with extending the Bush Doctrine of preemptive self-defense as our national foreign policy.
As a freedom conservative, I believe that government’s role should be strictly limited to those enumerated powers expressed in the Constitution. Under what provision of the Constitution does pre-emptive self-defense fall? Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens? If we want to change those rules, that’s fine. There’s a mechanism for that. It’s called amending the Constitution. When the federal government arrogates undelegated power to themselves, it is rightly called tyranny, despotism.
Maybe I’m just a law guy who wishes there were more law guys in Washington.
“warrantless domestic wire tapping?”
Did he tap your phone? They have a list of SUSPECTED TERRORISTS whose calls they traced, and via that, saved lives.
The cliche you used above is false, and used often by left wing Bush haters.
No one you or I know has or will ever be wire-tapped. We’re alive because of President Bush’s “warrantless domestic wire tapping.”
Next you’ll tell me that waterboarding 9-11 masterminds and folks who planned to attack LA in the summer of 2004 — thereby saving more lives — was illegal or wrong.
As for invading Iran or North Korea, we fight wars we can win. Iraq is one; the others, not so much.
Karl responds:
If the government started invading homes without a warrant and stripping citizens of their firearms, but neither you or I knew any of the people that had been so victimized, would that justify the seizures? Your argument assumes as much.
I don’t even know where to start with your assertion that no one either of us knows will ever be wiretapped. How can you know that? The precedent has been set; the die has been cast. It is a short step from suspected terrorists to suspected criminals – neither of which establishes that those suspected are either terrorists or criminals. Do you honestly believe that Obama will not expand the authority already granted in the Patriot Act to obtain evidence against “environmental terrorists?” You have placed your bet, but I think you should pull your money back and think about what you are betting on.
Doughboy writes:
The slippery slope argument, in America, from someone as smart as you, is surprising. This is such a small, small, carefully orchestrated, professional & imperative program that debate is laughable.
Thomas Sowell, whom I know you respect, can explain better than I:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_7_06_TS.html
Karl responds:
Thomas Sowell is right to talk about Americans’ short-sightedness. He is guilty of it. He makes a strong point about the need to burn down the law to get after terrorists. I don’t dispute that some good could come from that or that the need is great. But I am reminded of a scene from A Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!For our own benefit, we cannot compromise the very thing which provides for our freedom from serfdom, tyranny and despotism under an oppressive government. The threat is grave, I agree. But when people start talking about the ends justifying the means, you can be sure that evil is afoot and that the next person to suffer from that evil will be you.
“The rules of engagement exist for your safety and that of your team. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history. Is that clear?” We will be history if we burn down the very rules that protect us from the evils of totalitarianism.
I would be interested to know if Sowell still believes what he wrote in 2006.
Doughboy writes:
You’re using the lefties’ Ben Franklin ” a country without civil liberties ceases to be a country” argument — though much better presented than they.
I know life is short. I’d prefer to live to have children and grandchildren, even if we use “unsavory” means to combat terrorism.
That what we’re doing is perfectly legal, and moreover, are fighting wars with one hand tied behind our backs due to the constitution and the rhetoric you’re espousing, WILL get us all killed. It would have already without the Patriot Act.
But at least we’ll die knowing we did not “compromise the very thing which provides for our freedom from serfdom, tyranny and despotism under an oppressive government,” right?
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
I’m not sure how “a country without civil liberties ceases to be a country” is the exclusive province of “lefties.” It seems to me that the rule of law and the security of rights against unlawful searches and seizures, security in one’s property is especially conservative. It’s the “lefties” who tend to elevate the State above the individual or family. A conservative upholds the primacy of the individual, the family, and the community. The progressive accumulates power in the State.
Your argument, personal freedom and security from an oppressive and intrusive government for a greater measure of security from would-be terrorists would have been supported by such characters as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Any time one starts making the argument that the ends justify the means, one has to pause and wonder whether he has crossed over into the realm of utilitarianism – “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
Utilitarianism is hardly a territory defended by conservatives.
As for your bare assertion that the Patriot Act is perfectly legal, I wonder what compels you to that conclusion. It certainly cannot be the Constitution, which you claim along with rhetoric support it, would “get us all killed.” What, might I ask, is your basis for adjudging a piece of legislation legal, if not the Constitution? Furthermore, I don’t think it is at all clear that the Patriot Act has saved me personally from extinction. That is a rather bold claim that I think you will find difficult to support.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Careful, Karl. Your paleo is showing.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Howdy, boys. Have a nice Fourth? Mine was a regular American Spectacular!
Karl, anytime you can throw in a quote from Top Gun, you should. Thank you.
Doughboy: Holy Hell, Seriously? the “Patriot” Act saved lives? Why? You already said that the people (that we know of) subjected to searches, seizures, detentions, etc… were “suspected terrorists.” Would it really have been so bad to obey the Constitution and simply obtain a sealed warrant first? to provide domestics due process? Do you really think that a judge issuing a warrant equals death to America? You have that little faith in the U.S. and that much fear for a dirt-farming would-be terrorist?
“The slippery slope argument, in America, from someone as smart as you, is surprising. This is such a small, small, carefully orchestrated, professional & imperative program that debate is laughable.”
Hmm, just like the Alien and Sedition Acts?
July 7th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Howdy Bill. My Fourth was uneventful, literally, as I was with my wife at the hospital and it rained here. You and Karl got prescriptions for paleocillin, didn’t you? It’s the best remedy for neoconosis.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
That is too bad. Next year I recommend that you joinus in Cali for the annual American Spectacular bash.
Adherence to the Constitutional framework is simply Conservative. Paleos do not have exclusive rights. In fact, many times some show disrespect, if not disdain, for many parts of our founding and governing document.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Exempli gratia…?
July 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
With pleasure.
1. Secession is often advocated amongst Paleos.
2. The Anti-free trade movement pervades the Paleo mindset.
3. Presidential power is often a focus of outrage yet it is clearly delineated in the Big C (especially the president’s role as commander and chief).
4. Many advocate for the imposition of Christian doctrines either nationally or on a state level.
5. Many Paleos rally against the Electoral College.
6. Most desire a return to the Articles of Confederation and the destruction of the Big C.
7. The income tax is often called “unconstitutional” even though it is specifically written in as an amendment.
8. Most have some problem or another with one or all of the Bill of Rights. Most see one or more of them as horrible intrusions on state sovereignty.
Now, these are, of course, generalization. Not all “Paleos” would embrace the gripes I listed but I would say a vast majority would and do. So, that’s eight. I am sure more exist.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
1) totally constitutional.
Most want #10 to actually mean what it says. The others are fairly straightforward.
2) neither constitutional nor unconstitutional; I didn’t realize you neos thought economics was delineated in the big C. It isn’t.
3) Abuse of presidential power is a legitimate focus of outrage; being named CinC does not negate Congress’ sole authority to declare war, inter alia. (Many, many alia.)
4) The big C says nothing preventing states from enshrining Christian, Buddhist, or Aztec doctrines as they see fit. Amd 1 says “Congress shall…”
5) So, the amendment authorizing the income tax was okay, advocating elimination of the EC isn’t. Got it. Very consistent of you, Bill. (FWIW, I like the EC, and I liked indirect election of senators. I liked landed gentry being the sole voters, but hey, there I go expecting common sense to come into play.)
6) Who does? Most? You’re serious?
7) see response #5
July 7th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
And please don’t make me sick by telling me Everson v. Board was good jurisprudence.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am
1) obviously, it is not but we have had this argument. History proves my position correct.
Id.
2)Article 1, Sec. 8 Clause 3 definitly gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. the 9th and 10th amendments seem to me to give the states or the people the right to trade.
3) A declaration of war is not necessary for the president to comand troops to battle.
4)Umm, you are aware of the Bill of Rights, no?
5)Advocatation is fine, the Constitution is able to be amended. I just find it funny the Paleo “conservatives” often languish over the EC. If it was abolished and direct elections implemented, NY and CA would make all the decisions and they are not very conservative.
6) Lew Rockwell and many of his ilk sure do. Check this out: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg11.html
7)Weird
July 8th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Damn smiley faces! what ever happened to the good ol’ eight)?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Bill,
1) We have had this argument and it is not at all clear that you are right on this issue. You rely on the outcome of a war as establishing the rightfulness of your position. In other words, might makes right. If that is your position, you’d better hope that the might always remains on your side. The moral question, however, remains no matter who possesses the superiority in arms. I daresay you would find it difficult to establish the position that military might determines truth. For that would render truth variable, situational, relative.
4) Reread the words in the Bill of Rights. Several States had established religions well after the Bill of Rights’ ratification.
5) How do the people retain rights to trade when the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce? I propose that the 9th and 10th amendments refer to something other than bare trade rights. (Look at the general structure of federalism that the structure of our constitution established for a clue).
6) Lew Rockell is, in my opinion, paleo-libertarian or, more properly anarchist. There are plenty of paleo sources that are far more reasonable than Lew Rockwell.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Karl,
I do not base my position on “might makes right.” that is ubsured. You are right, we have discussed this before. See the other arguments for a good discussion. I believe that the argument against wholesale secession controls. It is the most legally sound argument presented. The opposition went to war because they desired to follow emotion rather than logic. War enforced the law. Force is an acceptable reaction to violent breach of the law, no? Again, history and the Big C. lend favor to my (and yours as it were) position.
Okay…? Several states also had patently unconstitutional laws regarding racial discrimination after the Big C included the equal protection clause.
I agree that 9 and 10 encompass more than simply trade rights. But that does not mean that the right to trade is not included. Sure, Congress can regulate and they often do. Barring some Congressional prohibition on trade, free trade is a protected right.
Lew Rockwell and his ilk are hopeless fanatics, I agree. But they also represent a large number of paleos. Not all, mind you. They are not the only source that prefers the AoC over the Big C either. Look around.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Karl,
I’ve made another pitcher of Kool-Aid. Have another glass. Mmmmmmmmmmmm.
Bill,
At least you didn’t try to employ Everson. So you’ve got that going for you. Which is nice.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Mike,
I just wish you’d make some other flavor of Kool-Aid than Green. That crap is disgusting. Don’t you have any Red flavors in the cupboard?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Well, excuse me. Bill took all the Blue stuff and added the last of the red to try to cover it up.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Did that just come to you? Damn brilliant, you ought write for National Lampoon.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:23 am
So GWB …
1) got us into two land wars in Asia, which we are still fighting to win, the definition of “winning” being totally illusive and uncertain.
2) told us that Saddam had WMDs, which hasn’t worked out so far.
3) signed every piece of legislature passed before his eyes, making him a bigger spender than all Presidents since LBJ.
4) pushed through the first round of bailouts.
5) okayed prison camps for untried, suspected terrorists, the definition of which is fungible.
6) okayed the debasing of our currency, which in effect is stealing from everyone.
7) promoted risky mortgage lending to everyone and his brother, helping to cause the housing bubble.
And this guy is a top-12 president?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Now, Nimrod, you haven’t been paying attention. Victory has been achieved on the Malabar Fron… I mean, in Iraq! Didn’t you catch the news when all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Iraq[i cities] last week?