1 Close, but Stalin forgot that he started out on the other side.

2 Casca is right. Our fearless leader has this to add: http://poland.ytmnd.com/ This post makes me crave some online gaming now. Battlefield 2, anyone?

3 Haha, very funny R. Dammit, we keep doing that.

4 Damm, I wasted a mouthload of good scotch!! !!!!!lolo!!!RFLMAO

5 You asked "isn't that how it happened?". Not really, especially the comment about the western Allies not needing the Soviets' help... Even a cursory look at World War II would reveal that the war was won on the Eastern Front (that's the Soviets), every other front being a mere sideshow in comparison. There is no way the Allies could have beaten Germany without the Soviet Union, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE. No other country in the world could have suffered the losses the Soviets did and even survived, let alone come back and won. Could you imagine America suffering millions of military dead and many millions more civilian dead and still hanging on? Hell no. Could you imagine Chicago being beseiged like Leningrad was and holding out for over 900 days until relieved, being shelled and bombed every day, much of the time with the only food and medical supplies coming into the city having to be carried in trucks over the ice of Lake Ladoga (while being bombed), people living on starvation rations, eating sawdust bread and rancid meant, dying in droves, pulling their little dead babies on sleds through the streets to bury them in the frozen ground, all of this and still holding out for over 900 days until relieved? Hell no. The Soviet and western Allied contributions to Allied victory are not even worth comparing it is so lopsided but I will compare them just for levity's sake. While the Soviets were encircling the German Sixth Army and part of Fourth Panzer Army in the Stalingrad pocket in the most important battle of the war, the best America could do against the Nazis was to play a supporting role to the British in an invasion of Vichy French Morocco. While the Soviets were crushing Germany's last hope of regaining the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front in the Kursk salient, including the largest tank battle in history at Prokhorovka, the best America could do was to again be assigned a supporting role to the British in an invasion of Sicily. When the Americans and their more-skilled ally the British were desperately clawing out a foothold in northern France against mostly third-rate German reserve units, having finally gotten around to opening the long-promised "Second Front" (once the eventual outcome of the war had been long-since decided), the Soviets were crushing the German Army Group Center in Germany's most catastrophic loss of units in any campaign in the war. From 22 June 1941 when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union to 8 May 1945, the end in Europe, for most of that time the Soviets faced over three-fourths of Germany's total combat power, and even after the belated Normandy invasion until the end of the war they faced no less than two-thirds of Germany's total combat power. They destroyed vastly more German units than all the other Allies put together. Over 80% of all German military deaths happened against the Soviets. The war on the Eastern Front greatly dwarfs all the other fronts and relegates them to profoundly less significance. Germany lost the war because it lost on the Eastern Front, period. To put it in your boorish terms, the Soviets didn't really need the western Allies' help anyway, and won without much of it.

6 "From 22 June 1941 when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union to 8 May 1945, the end in Europe, for most of that time the Soviets faced over three-fourths of Germany's total combat power, and even after the belated Normandy invasion until the end of the war they faced no less than two-thirds of Germany's total combat power" Wikipedia says: [German armies pursued a three-pronged advance against Leningrad (modern-day St Petersburg), Moscow, and the Caucasus. Having pushed to occupy Moscow before winter, German forces were delayed into the Soviet Winter. Soviet counter-attacks defeated them within sight of Moscow's spires, and a rout was only NARROWLY avoided.] You said it yourself, we tied up 25 percent of Germany's military strength from joining the Eastern Front. If the Germans went in with full strength, Moscow would have probably been occupied before winter. "To put it in your boorish terms, the Soviets didn't really need the western Allies' help anyway, and won without much of it." You're forgetting one thing in your little moment of Soviet-philia: Japan. One reason Germany was defeated by the Allies was because of their foolishness to open up a multi-front war, right? Well, the Japanese could have invaded the eastern half of the USSR, but they made the blunder of declaring war on us first. Hence, we single-handedly distracted the Japanese throughout the war while the Russians only had to deal with the Germans. Stalin had the luxury of Japanese neutrality during the war, we didn't. Churchill was right. In the minds of all freedom-loving Europeans at the time, the epic battle of Hitler vs. Stalin shared the same tagline as "Aliens vs. Predator": whoever wins, we lose. In the grand scheme of things, we didn't want Stalin to "save" the free world. BTW, Annika didn't write that stuff you quoted since it was from her link, douche.

7 lighten up Allen. it's called a humorous post. you wingnuts have no sense of humor.

1 I picked Miers as the "stumbling block" because I think she was the last straw for Bush's relatively patient base. The Miers nomination might cause the conservative base to stay at home or cease campaigning heavily during the 2006 elections. The GOP might lose control of at least one house of Congress and the Dems will make sure Bush is a lame duck from then on.

2 Since the first history books will be written by dirty rotten stinking commie fag pinko junkies...the only thing most people will say will be "all of the above." My choice, tho, would be Miers. That's the first thing he did that made me go, "oh, shit, that idiot," for a reason I've heard but that hasn't gotten lots of airplay. To me, the nomination of Miers seemed like outright crony-ism to me, and I find that absolutely abhorrent.

3 if we lose a house, it would be very hard not to blame the miers nomination. Not sure if it would be accurate, but i think that will be the conventional wisdom. However, we will NOT lose a house. Will we?

4 Children, children, history will say that he presided over a country in the throws of the death thrash, and wimper of the MSM.

5 As an independent, I will say it is all the above, plus WMD/Iraq, Energy policy, and a slew of other matters.

6 No no, you have to pick one. And the question is what do you think the history books will say. Not what you think. Plus, i would agree that WMD/Iraq is going to be the focus of any historical survey of the Bush presidency, but i didn't include it in my choices, because that's an issue that began in the first term.

7 Everything you have listed is an MSM gotcha over an imagined Bush slight. Real historians see past that to bigger issues.

8 The problem is that history isn't written by real historians. At least, not the history that the vast majority of Americans will see. It's written by liberal producers of television news magazines like 48 Hours and 60 Minutes. WMD's / Iraq will be the main focus of most retellings of the Bush presidency (in short, it will read "He lied"), but the stumbling block for his second term will definitely be Harriet Miers.

9 I vote for miers, and as everyone has commented, his presidency rises or falls on the Iraq situation. Which bodes rather well for his future, because, don't look now, but I think we will be succesful in establishing a pluralistic government in two nations that had no history of anything but despotism, and that will pay big dividends to the free world in the future.

10 I thought it would be the whining of Kerry and Gore. Doesn't everyone love sore losers?

11 Sheen will be credited with announcing decline in support for the destruction of Iraq. Katrina was the most telling of the incompetence resulting from the rampant cronyism that started on day one of the first term and has continued unabated. Plamegate is going to be the petard that sticks this shuffle and lie administration with its own nasty vindictive nature. Miers is still to hot to taste. It looks like a reward for her years of unrequited love mixed in with his religious psychosis. Did you read David Brooks on Oct 13? Just frightening. What hasn't happened yet is the complete breakdown of order in iraq and the unrelenting ineptitude and inadequacy of our response to a completly misguided mission. History will not be kind to the chimp. AMerica's slide into a gutter match with radial elements of Islam will be lain at Bush's feet. 911 will be put in perspectiive as an assult by a few men on a mission from Allah and the Bush response will look both misconstrued and inept once the smoke is allowed to clear. The lies of the run up to the conflict will become irrefutable to everyone and Iraq will slip into a never ending bloodbath of internecine warfare that will require an American presence for decades. Bush will only be remembered for getting us into Iraq, and for the most egregious tax cuts during a period of immense spending, debt accumulation and the begining of a serious inflation. He will become one of the least important( his father will still be less important) presidents in recent history certainly not requiring a library for his papers since he has not written a postcard.

12 Quick! Somebody please throw me a rope! I'm drowning in Strawman's pessimism! Jesus, why do all liberals think it is the end of the world?

13 Why do you even bother posting here? Let me clue you in, Neither I, nor Casca, nor Victor, nor Shelly, Nor Annika herself, or anyone else here is impressed with reflexive, bile spitting, bush hatred. We have heard it all before, and we just think yoiu are stupid. Futhermore, some of us are old enough to remember you lefties said EXACTLY the same things about Ronald Reagan, but history has been kind to him. I am not saying Bush is another Reagan, but I still see no reason to support any of your idiotic opinions.

14 I think President Bush said it best: , ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’

15 obviously, that was not meant for you Rob

16 Hey Kyle, Go fuck yourself. Read my posts, comment or move on. I'm not here to impress you. You read what I write, shake your head from side to side, spit, I don't give a voles ass. Either refute or as I said above gfy. When I am taking up space on your blog, block my IP until then last time I looked you were just one more balustrade knee jerking yourself into place in Anika's porch rail. Rob, it ain't the end of the world just another episode in AMerica's never ending attempt to fuck things up killing a bunch along the way. I voted against RR twice and think he is a mental giant compared to this dimwit and he was not a great intellect. But history has ignored him as well as it will GB.

17 Straw, u r so fucking far out there, I'm sure that in whatever feverswamp your claque haunts, that you're considered some kind of genius, but to the rest of America, which the folks here are probably a pretty good cross-section of, let's just say, you'd be voted off the island before anyone knew your name. So STFU, buy a vowel, and try to figure out why we think the way we do, instead of knee jerking yourself as a balustrade into place in Move-on-dot-org's porch rail. Annika aint got no porch dickhead.

18 "and for the most egregious tax cuts during a period of immense spending, debt accumulation" Hmm, that sounds like Reaganomics. Bush deserves blame for the debt and spending, but Reagan didn't since he never had control of both houses of Congress to get his budget cuts enacted. Anyway, it's time for an encore of my defense of the Bush economy. I love comparing "the chimp" to the Left's great hero and watching the haters swallow their tongues. [The US unemployment rate in August was at 4.9 percent. Let's put this into perspective again shall we? Unemployment trend under Bush since his re-election: Year / Month / Unemployment Rate 2004 / 11 / 5.4 2004 / 12 / 5.4 2005 / 01 / 5.2 2005 / 02 / 5.4 2005 / 03 / 5.2 2005 / 04 / 5.2 2005 / 05 / 5.1 2005 / 06 / 5.0 2005 / 07 / 5.0 2005 / 08 / 4.9 Unemployment trend under Clinton since his re-election: Year / Month / Unemployment Rate 1996 / 11 / 5.4 1996 / 12 / 5.4 1997 / 01 / 5.3 1997 / 02 / 5.2 1997 / 03 / 5.2 1997 / 04 / 5.1 1997 / 05 / 4.9 1997 / 06 / 5.0 1997 / 07 / 4.9 1997 / 08 / 4.8 1997 / 09 / 4.9 Now, Bush needs to contain the energy crisis and he needs to accelerate the post-Katrina reconstruction efforts so that we can keep up the positive economic developments over here. If only we could get the situation in Iraq under control, he'd be one of the greatest prez's since Reagan right now.] Luckily for the Bush-haters, hurricane Katrina left thousands of people jobless so the unemployment rate rose to 5.1 percent last month.

19 Strawman! Strawman, Strawman, Strawman. The proper phrase at annika's place is, "I don't give one of Victor's rats asses..." unless I say it in which it's, "I don't give one of my rats asses..."

20 Strawman is trying to make a mountain out of a vole-hill. seriously, i'll save my opinions for later when i do my poll result wrapup.

21 Actually, Eisenhower had Sherman Adams, a pretty bad recession and the U2 incident in his second term. And I think history will remember "all of the above" as being the President's weak spots in his second term. I supported the crazy bastard for re-election - not heartily, mind you, I don't much like pretend conservatives - but I did support him. I did this thinking that at least he'd be better than Kerry. I'm re-evaluating that position right now. Even more disheartening than pointing out everything that Bush has done wrong in the last year is looking for the things he did right. Other than Chief Justice Roberts , can anyone name three? I remember a time when being a Republican used to mean something. Under presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the first Bush, it meant a coherant foreign policy and some attempt at fiscal restraint. Now it means spending money at a rate that people like Henry Wallace would frantically masturbate dreaming about, winging it in Iraq and opposing gay marriage more than they had to. Let's put it this way, anyone who suggests that the greastest theat to the Republic is gay marriage SHOULD be destroyed in electoral politics. That the '04 cycle ended up hinging on the issue demonstrates that most people aren't serious about much of anything. The only reason that the Republicans have anything at all at this point is that the Democrats are so inconsequential. With an unpopular president, a House majority leader under indictment and a Senate majority leader looking at the same prospect, the Democrats STILL can't crack 32% approval. But if I were a Republican strtegist right now, I wouldn't be hanging my fortunes on the retardation of my opponents. Not only is it possible, but it's likely that the Republicans will lose the House next year. Given both the geography and the size of the majority, I'd say that the Senate is safe for now. But I'm not as confident of that as I was even six weeks ago. If I HAVE to choose just one, I'd say Miers. But only because it summarizes a much deeper and more serious problem in the Republican Party - the fragmentation of the conservative movement. The conservative movement has had an uneasy alliance for over a decade now. The social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have always mistrusted each other far more than either has the Democrats, but they banded together to win. And it worked, for a time. Fiscal conservatives have long loathed the President, who, let's be frank, has been the single greatest socialist in his spending priorities since FDR's first term. And that would be fine if he delivered for his social conservative base. He hasn't. What has he done for them? A constitutional amendment on gay marriage? Nope. Renewed the importance of the family in American life? No. "Nominated justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas"? He didn't even try to do that. Fiscal conservatives will someday look back at the jackalope, evil Clinton administration fondly and the social conservatives will realize that they've been screwed yet again. This is important for two reasons. President Bush as president IS the Republican Party to most people. His betrayal of the Jesus crowd will be seen as the Party's betrayal. It is also important to remember that the Jesus crowd were Democrats not too long ago. They bolted one party en masse, who's to say they won't bolt another. No matter what happens, next year will not be kind to the Republicans. There will be loses, and very probably heavy ones. Bt '08 is much scarier. The 2008 Republican convention is going to look at lot more like the 1948 Democratic convention than anyone now suspects. I think that if a Bush clone is nominated, the fiscal conservatives will leave. If the nominate someone like Giuliani or McCain, the social conservatives split. The 2008 convention is going to be a lot of things, but pretty ain't going to be one of them. I'm hardly a liberal. In fact, I loathe the Democrats with every fiber of my being. They actually sicken me physically. But that should not be taken to mean that the Republicans have given me a long list of reasons to like them very much. You can only spend so much energy on dopey things like gay marriage and Terri Schiavo before serious people stop taking you seriously. The last ten months have made me stop taking the Republican Party seriously. I should think that there are millions of Republicans who think as I do and are distraught by the direction of the Party. Perhaps a serious third party movement might be in order soon. Sorry to waste so much of your bandwidth, Annika. But I think these are issues that conservatives should debate seriously before its too late.

22 "Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the first Bush" I protest grouping those names together. One of those guys didn't want the Soviet Union to break apart and presided over "Bay of Pigs II". Another one was as worse as LBJ when it came to spending. And, the last one didn't think there was any Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. 3 out of those four listed were mediocre presidents. I'll let you guess which one isn't one of them.

23 no prob, skippy. you make many good points. 2008 is scary right now. will a hero rise? i don't see him (or her) now. condi doesn't want it. and i dont think she's the savior dick morris thinks she is, much as i like her, i don't know that she's executive material. right now i'm thinking about Newt. Don't laugh. i know he's got negatives, but he's a movement coservative (as much as anyone can be these days) plus he's got the "fire in the belly" that Powell lacked, and he's articulate and smart enoigh to take on hillary.

24 Gingrich is a conservative idea factory. He also engineered the balanced budget that led to the federal surplus under Clinton. He would be a good prez. I don't know why, but I used to hate Gingrich and Republicans as a kid even though my parents loathed Clinton. Oh nevermind, I remember why....... http://www.bwallartjknxyz.com/print-detail-asp/id-9582/from-Search/TIME_Magazine-Newt_Gingrich_as_Uncle_Scrooge.htm I remember when my parents got that shitty propaganda in the mail. Now, I know why they always had that cover face down on the coffee table.

25 Annika, As much as Newt is intellectually interesting, he has a common problem among smart people - he has no idea when to stop talking, and consequently says marvellously stupid things. I give you his stand on women in combat as just one example. There are several strategic and proper reasons to oppose it. But what did Gingrich cite? That women "get infections." I have no doubt that he would continue this trend and get annhiliated by virtually anyone. There's also the fact that he's no longer Speaker because he was shivved by his own caucus. How well that translates into a primary campaign isn't much of a guess. Frankly, I'll be stunned if Gingrich raises enough money to make it to New Hampshire. He's an intellectual Quayle, politically. Everyone is looking at Hillary as the nominee, which I think is a mistake. I seriously doubt that she'll get the nod, Gore will. I think that he's been seriously considering the prospects of a Nixon-like ressurrection. If he runs, he'll destroy Senator Clinton. Everything she can do, he can do better. He can raise more money and give a better speech (which, granted, isn't saying a lot) and he can remind people that he actually beat George Bush in the popular vote, which Clinton had no hope of doing and probably couldn't now. Republicans are making a disasterous mistake in planning soley on running against Hillary. The Democrats are very different from the Republicans, their early front-runner almost NEVER wins the nomination. Remember Symington in '60? McCarthy in '68? Muskie in '72? Hart in '84 and '88? How about Tsongas in '92? While Republicans usually have an annoited one, Democrats don't. That's why they lose so often. And if anyone thinks the Miers nomination is bad, just wait until the White House openly backs McCain in 2008. If the President has any of his father's good qualities (and I admire his father greatly), hopefully loyalty is one of them. Senator McCain was offered half of the United States government to be on Kerry's ticket last year. Instead, he turned it down and campained hard for a guy he has any number of problems with. It's also no secret that Karl Rove has been meeting with McCain's Chief of Staff, Mark Salter. Current polling has McCain annhiliating everyone in the Democratic field, except, stupidly, Gore who isn't included. The White House would not only be disloyal, but stupid to not to get behind McCain. And because backing McCain is smart, it'll drive social conservatives crazy. There are currently only two Republicans who have any chance of beating Clinton OR Gore. Those are McCain and Rudy Giuliani.. Anyone who believes differently is living in a fantasyland. Maybe Warner can, but I don't know enough about him to make an informed decision about that yet.

26 Reagan80 (if that IS your real name), So of the last half century of Republican presidents, you only have any use for two. That clarifies a number of things for me. You like Presidents Reagan and the current President. I fail to see any corraltion between the two. In fact, other than the most superficial, mainstream media nonsense, they couldn't be more different. Let's look at the records, shall we? Reagan did increase defense spending by about 37%. He also tried to cut non-descretionary domestic spending to offset the defense increase, but was stymied by a Democratic Congress. That lead to a record deficiet (which I vaugely remember Republicans being against) which consequently - coupled with the first Bush's monumentally bad political skills and Ross Perot hammering him from the RIGHT - lead to the election of President Clinton. President Bush, on the other hand, is capable of not spending money on bullshit. His increases in non-discretionary domestic spending have far surpassed his defense spending increses. Non -defense, non-discretionary domestic spnding has gone up by .....37% during President Bush's tenure. Where, oh where do you think that money's coming from? I'll tell you. The People's Republic of China is where. They are currently the single largest holder of T-bonds out there. During the Reagan years, most of the debt was held by either domestic banks, or other democracies, like Japan. That's not the case now. Of course, this directly impacts on foreign policy. The "Bush Doctrine" has been predicated on "spreading democracy", albeit with mixed results. How long do you think this can happen - if, in fact, the administration is honest about it in the first place - on money borrowed from the world's most powerful totalitarian regime? Not only is the Bush foreign policy working on borrowed money, it's working on borrowed time. There will come a time soon when China will have the power to turn America into Argentina if their foreign policy displeases them. President Reagan was also especially careful not to waste American lives in persuit of a fantasy. His main objective - at least in the short term - was to contain communism - not to spread democracy. The waving of Republican purple fingers aside, democracy in Iraq can still very well lead to a civil war that spread and ultimately threaten Isreal. Sure, everyone hopes that Iraq works out well. As a suporter of the war, I do too. But no serious person can argue that an army of 130,000 can stabilize a nation of 25 million people who, generally speaking, have hated each other for hundreds of years. More than thirty months after the invasion, even Baghdad has "irregular" electrcity. Certainly some of that can be blamed on the insurgency, but had a larger occupation force been put in place, the insurgency could have been contained. I remain in mortal terror that the adminstration will wave another big "Misson Accomplished" sign and decrease American forces out of Iraq in antincipation of the '06 elections. That would be disasterous. Republicans like to point out that "soverignty" was handed over to Iraq early. Well, President Reagan lived to see a seven year military occupation of Japan, which had no insurgency at all. The same is true of Germany. I also shouldn't have to point out that American forces are still in both countries in significant numbers. In short, President Bush has far exceeded the exesses that you have criticized the other Republican Presidents cited and has been a polar opposite to President Reagan. I'd like to close with a question. Can you, or anyne else, name five ways that President Bush has acted on the tenants of traditional Republicanism or conservatism? I keep hearing this blather about how is a Great Conservative President, but I have yet to see ANY evidence of it.

27 Yeah, that's my chosen pseudonym. I once considered Bush Jr. to be Reagan's true spiritual successor, but I'm starting to re-evaluate my position on that ever since the Miers nomination. I've known about Bush's Nixon-ian spending habits and gov't enlargement since his first term, but I forgave him since I thought he was just trying to appease the "moderate" and "undecided" voting demographic into re-electing him so that he could later show off his true Reaganite colors. I was hoping this scenario would occur: [Its preferred method has been to use deceit to create faits accomplis, facts on the ground that then make the administration's broader agenda almost impossible not to pursue. During and after the 2000 campaign, the president called for major education and prescription drug programs plus a huge tax cut, saying America could easily afford them all because of large budget surpluses. Critics said it wasn't true, and the growing budget deficits have proven them right. But the administration now uses the existence of big budget deficits as a way to put the squeeze on social programs--part of its plan all along. Strip away the presidential seal and the fancy titles, and it's just a straight-up con.] (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html) Bush almost lost to Gore, remember. Throughout his first term, Bush was trying to take away as much liberal political ammunition for his re-election campaign. -He signed the unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill to throw his biggest primary rivals, McCain supporters, a bone. -He signed the prescription drug bill to blunt Democratic attacks on the "let them eat dog food" party(GOP). -He created the Homeland Security Dept. and national intelligence csar to let the ignorant moderate voters know that Bush followed the shitty 9/11 Commission recommendations to a tee. However, it is impossible for me to justify Bush and the GOP's activities since 2005. If they don't start acting like the GOP of the Gingrich days, then I will have to declare Reaganism dead. Well, I'm tired of posting my criticism of Bush and the GOP, so I'll give my reasons why I like Dubya. "Can you, or anyne else, name five ways that President Bush has acted on the tenants of traditional Republicanism or conservatism?" 1. He's trying to reform the tax code. 2. He's tried to reform the great ponzi scheme, Social Security. 3. He's kept taxes low. 4. He let the assault rifle ban die despite his campaign promise to renew it. 5. He's been firm on his policy in Iraq even though it almost cost him his re-election. I have an affinity for Bush because, like Reagan, the media and the Dems have been saying that his policies would fail all along. Bush and Reagan proved everyone wrong when the tax cuts resulted in increased revenues and positive economic development. Reagan proved everyone wrong with his "peace through strength" strategy against the Soviets as opposed to starting a Nixon-ian policy of engagement with the USSR. Bush proved everyone wrong about the "apparent failure" of our forces in Afghanistan when the conflict was ongoing. Reagan got credit for finishing off the Soviets and ending the Cold War while his opposition was shrieking "failure". Bush will hopefully get credit for establishing democracy in the "cradle of civilization" and for halting the spread of radical Islam while the whole world was pissing on him. I was born while Reagan was in power. Bush is the first president that I've voted for. Those 2 will probably always be my favorites. 'Nuff said.

28 I am actualy starting to think we might need McCain, not because I like the guy, but because, he has been a certified deficit hawk all his time in the Senate, and we might need a serious deficit hawk now.

29 But when McCain gets heartburn whenever he starts to think about running. Wouldn't you?

30 Reagan80, You raise some particularly interesting points. Not only did the President sign the "unconstitutional" McCain/Feingold bill, he said it was unconstitutional when he signed it. So much for his oath to "support, protect and defend" the Constitution. This is but the most egregious instance of "being against something before he was for it" (sound like someone we know?) The prescription drug benefit, the farm bill, the highway bill, the stell tariffs and his constant fucking about with NAFTA all belie his claim to be a conservative and a free trader. He is nothing of the kind, and probably never was. In fact, his father was far more of a classical conservative than he was. You state that the above were ploys for re-election, and to some degree that's true. But what does that say about his principles? Is re-election really worth any and all costs? I think that the President,like most politicians spends like he does because it supposedly buys him popularity. How else do you explain the Republican conference spending like they do? Or DeLay's magnificently stupid remark that there's no spending left to cut? The tax cuts are something else entirely. Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you that tax cuts are spnding by other means. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, in implimenting large tax cuts sought to cut discretionary spending to minimize their impact on the deficit. President Bush has done no such thing. Not only is his father more of a conservative than he is, so was President Kennedy. You state that he's "trying to reform the tax code." If so, how? He hasn't introduced a bill to do this and there's absolutely no indication that he will soon. And the odds of such a bill passing are slim at best. If Bush can be properly compared to any other recent President, it would be President Lyndon Johnson. Both implimented large tax cuts as they wildly increased discretionary program spending and fought large wars. The economic consequences of Johnson's policies destroyed the presidencies of his three successors, Nixon, Ford and Carter. In fact, Bush's deficits are much worse than Johnson's and Nixon's because so much of the debt is held by a hostile foreign power. For example, what happens if China attacks Taiwan and the United States intervenes? The Chinese could respond by selling off their American currency and T-bonds, creating a run on the market, turning America into Argentina over night. This president's spending priorities have effectively frozen American foreign policy in South Asia As to "establishing democracy in the 'cradle of civilization '", that couldn't be more misleading. While the United States has achieved more in Iraq than I thought it would given the minimal investment in people and resources there, I don't see the prospects of democracy in the long-term as being particularly bright. Iraq is not a natural country and never has been. Like the former Yugoslavia, its competing etnic groups were unified by coercision. Yugoslavia was broken apart by democratic means and Canada will be someday as well. However, Iraqi democracy is particularly dangerous. What if the Kurds democratically decide to establish their own state? That state, as the Kurds themselves will tell you, will include swaths of Syria, Iran and Turkey, none of whom would tolerate that. Then there's the matter of Israel. Even moderate Iraqis are not likely to recognize Israel's right to exist in any meaningful way. But what if a radical Islamic government is elected in a fair and free election? The geopolitical consequences of that are enourmous. It is entirely possible that a "democratic" Iraq will subsidize terrorism against Israel as a means of "liberating" the Palestinan people. Remember, terrorism is a relative term. Does the United States attack a democracy that it created or does it abandon its committment to Israel? I'm not saying that any of the above will happen, but they certainly could, and no one in the administration has thought this through. Further on the point of "democracy", this is not the objective of American foreign policy and never has been. To this very day, the United States is friendly with some truly odious regimes, specifically in the former Soviet Central Asian region. Ironically, this is done to further democracy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan deserves a lot more attention than it recieves. Much has been made of the progress of democracy there, but little of the fact that the country outside of Kabul is controlled by warlords and heroin trafficers. Importation of heroin in the US has actually increased since the liberation of Afghanistan. It is incredibly hard to take the administration's policy on spreading democracy seriously when its closest allies in doing so are a military government in Pakistan, a royal autocracy in Saudi Arabia and a fascist government in Uzbekistan. Besides, aren't REpublicans supposed to be against "nation building?" President Bush lost the popular vote to Gore and nearly lost it to Kerry. Were it not for the abject stupidity of the Democratic Party, Bush would have been destroyed last year. He was easily the most vulnerable incumbent since President Carter. I'll believe for the rest of my life that if the Democrats were smart and nominated Joe Lieberman, he would've eaten Bush's lunch. Instead, they nominated Kerry and Bush only barely beat him, winning by the lowest margin of a re-elected president ever. Look not just at the President's own dismal polling, look at the "right track/wrong track" polling. Those numbers show that 60% think that the country is on the wrong track, up 12% in less than a year. This is much, much deeper than Miers. She's just the final nail in the coffin that the President's own misguided policy priorities have put him in. I imagine that the above arguments will paint me as a "radical Bush hater." I'm not. I supported his election twice and I supported the war against Saddam Hussein. But I cannot - and will not - ignore what he's done to both the country and the Republican Party. A close reading of my attacks on the President should demonstrate that I'm not attacking him from the left (although I could do that, too) but from the right. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. The President lost people like me a long time ago. With Miers, he seems to have lost religious conservatives as well. Accordingly, he now has no political mobility. His presidency is effectively over.

31 Almost sounds like the guy with the fucked up name above has the disease called Gonorrhea Lectimagin (pronounced "gonna re-elect him again"). So skippy, who you rooting for in '08?

32 D-Rod, Well, if I could vote (which I can't because I'm not an American citizen), I'd go with Giuliani or McCain. I find that I agree with both far more often than not. Besides, the social conservatives hate them and that's always a bonus with me. They're nice, traditionalist Republicans and both are strong on defense and probably don't advocate a small government that dictates where I can put my penis and what kind of pornography I can own. As you might guess, my penis and pornography collections are far more important to me than my political affiliation. Besides, both of them can destroy anyone the Democrats put up. The problem is getting them nominated. McCain won New Hampshire by 19 points, so that shouldn't be a problem. It's down South where they face some heavy opposition. McCain is loathed in the South and Giuliani's name is very foreign sounding. This is where the White House becomes important. Rove, et all are going to have to tame the lunatic wing like Senators Santorum and Brownback long before March of '08. If either of them are nominated, the Democrats can beat this with an autistic four year-old. God help everyone if the primaries turn into a death match ot there's a brokered convention. If Rudy's nominated, the Republicans can run on 9/11 again without saying so. It also takes Iraq off of the table as Giuliani had nothing to do with it. And Rudy can deliver New York state, which the Democrats can't mathematically win without. Either McCain or Giuliani can make California competetive. Giuliani also got rid of the silly comb-over, which was smart. It can be very difficult to be a profile in coutrage if you're afraid to go outside on a windy day. The Democrats have their own problems. No matter who gets the nomination, its virtually certain that Senator Obama will be on the ticket. Not only is he a problem for Republicans - who can't be seen as beating up on a young black guy - but for the top of the ticket. Obama outshines virtually everyone else in the party. Remember in '96, when Bob Dole gave Jack Kemp the second slot? Remember how no one wanted to talk to Dole anymore? It seems to me that Republicans have a very stark choice before them, nominate either McCain or Giuliani or lose the White House in '08. One or both houses of Congress will be gone next year.

33 Good Gawd, McCain "Deficit Hawk", "War Hero", '08 Candidate"??? McCain is nothing more nor less than this, an egoist self-serving aged Clintonian lite, clotpole. I always love it when foreignors weigh in on who we will/should elect. I'd NEVER think to opine on what might happen in any other nation. They all have cultures impregnible to the mind of one who is not part of them. Hill&Bill Redux will top the D ticket, and some already known R will top the R. It won't matter who, because whomever is atop the R ticket will prevail against the wicked witch of New York/Little Rock. One can safely say that it won't be a Guliani, or McCain. It will be someone with broad party appeal, who can raise early money, and man his barricades with the party footsoldiers. While we always enjoy G&M at the dinner table, we don't really want them in the kitchen cooking.

34 Casca, If you read my earlier posts, I said that I didn't think Clinton would win the nomination, Al Gore will. And, if I remember my history correctly, he beat the President by half a million votes. In fact, he won by pathetic margins against the worst campaigners the Democratic Party has ever put up. Gore is a very real, very serious threat. He should be ignored at the peril of the Republican Party. Hillary would be pretty easy to beat. I asked a question at my place nearly three years ago, "name me five states Hillary can win." So far, no one has been able to. Given the way the adinistration has fucked up everything its touched in the last 10 months, you'd have to be hallucinating to think that at least one house of Congress will go bye-bye. If the Republican primaries are half as nasty as I suspect they'll be, the Democrats can win. How do you think Jimmy Carter ever got to be president in the first place. If the social conservatives nominate one of their golden boys, a Born Again who lives to spend other people's money, virtually any Democrat will crush him. Nominating another George W. Bush is an invitation to disaster. If you don't believe me, watch his polling over the next year and the '06 off-years. We'll son see who's right, Casca. As I write this, there are maybe 4 Republicans who can clearly win. Those are McCain, Giuliani, Condolezza Rice (who won't run), and George Allen, who I don't know enough about to make an informed decision. And while I'm thrilled that my foreign nationality amuses you, you really haven't made any effort to point out where I'm wrong and why. There isn't any paucity of assertions that I've made in this tread that can't be challenged. Yet, you've chosen not to. And you'd NEVER opine in foreign politics? Not even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? After all, you did sort of invade those places, which one should presume to mean that you have some sort of investment in the outside world. On the other hand, I've read your comments here and you really don't seem all that interested in analysis that doesn't end up as cheerleading for the right-wing of the Party. Of course, that's your right as a citizen, but an indication of just how informed a citizen you want to be. But, hey, you can vote in the prmaries and I can't. So, knock yourself and nominate Santorum. I await the look of shock on your face when he gets crushed like a beercan by a loser like Al Gore. I think you'll grow to love Vice President Obama, too. Really, I do. Like I've said in prior posts, the Bush administration has turned out to be like FDR's, only the priorities are dumber. Maybe a couple of good, sound thrasings in the next couple of electons are what the Party needs to rediscover what, if anything, they believe. Truth be told, I'm not even sure I care anymore. The Republican Party has moved so far away from its founding tenants in the last 5 years that it's barely recognizable. More and more, I hope that Richard Nixon's dream - of a third party made up of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats - becomes a reality. Nixon envisioned tht Party being headed by John Connolly, but maybe a McCain, a Giuliani or a Lieberman can find a comfortable home there. Look, if the Miers nomination has pointed out anything, it's that the Republican coalition is facing the same fracturing that the Democrat one has over the last twenty years. Maybe a history lesson is order here. The only reason the Republicans are the majority party today is because it won over disgruntled Southerners who abdandoned the Democrats over desegregation. They are very religious, and very culturally conservative. Yet the voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Bill Clinton carried Florida in 1996. You can't count on the stupidity of Democrats forever. Eventually, they'll nominate someone who appeals to evangelicals - and that's when the Republicans get ruined forever. Sure, the Republicans can slow this by nominating people who hate gay marriage and love Intelligent Design. And not only will they lose, they'll deserve to lose, because they'll have betrayed all of their own basic principles. Wasn't it the Republican Party who wanted to abolish the Department of Education just a decade ago? Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who wanted to get the "government off people's backs?" I miss the days when Republicans said those things and even appeared to believe them. The Republican Party of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay differs not at all from the Democratic Party of Lyndon Baines Johnson. If it vanishes tomorrow, I certainly won't shed any tears for it.

35 You want McCain to be president even though Campaign Finance Reform was his stupid idea to begin with? "In fact, his father was far more of a classical conservative than he was." I doubt it. He was the one that was pouring cold water on the democratic movement in Ukraine when the USSR was collapsing. Speaking of the USSR, Bush Sr. didn't want the Soviet empire to break apart since he cherished totalitarian "stability" as opposed to fomenting the "chaos" of democratic independence movements. He called Reagan's economic plans "voodoo economics" during the 1980 Republican primaries. He presided over "Bay of Pigs II" in Iraq when he encouraged the Shia and Kurds to topple Saddam without giving them military support and finishing off the Republican Guard. I even believe that he intentionally left the Republican Guard alone so that they could quickly crush the anti-Saddam rebels and preserve regional "stability". "In fact, Bush's deficits are much worse than Johnson's and Nixon's" Bush has made an effort to reduce the deficit. Before Katrina fucked up things down here, the budget deficit was starting to decrease. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4343814.stm "For example, what happens if China attacks Taiwan and the United States intervenes? The Chinese could respond by selling off their American currency and T-bonds, creating a run on the market, turning America into Argentina over night. This president's spending priorities have effectively frozen American foreign policy in South Asia" Fuck China. If I had it my way, Nixon would never have re-established normal diplomatic relations with those commie shits so that they could eventually exploit our capitalist investments on their soil. They would have collapsed along with the Soviets by now. You think T-bonds are all we'd have to worry about when the Chi-Coms decide to go batshit crazy on Taiwan? Hell, that's just the icing on the cake. In addition to that, the Chinese will probably seize all American corporate assets(factories, manufacturing equipment, and technology) on their soil and use them against us. They will probably throw in an extra military offensive/diversionary operation to assist the North Koreans in driving our forces off of the Korean peninsula and reunifying Korea under Communist rule once and for all. Yeah, I kinda wish that we didn't create the Chi-Com monster with our money. The business community should have put that money and infrastructure into India instead. Let the Europeans finance the Communist monster and reap the whirlwind when they lose their assets someday for opposing China's foreign policy. "To this very day, the United States is friendly with some truly odious regimes, specifically in the former Soviet Central Asian region." True, but if we aren't friendly with these tyrants then we lose our "soft power" influence over them. Look at this scenario with Nepal: [As it happens, the Bush Administration has managed, intentionally or otherwise, to follow Amnesty’s advice: all military aid to Nepal has been suspended since the February coup. The result? The army is running out of ammo and Gyanendra is now getting cozy with China and North Korea, two regimes who will sell him arms on the cheap and won’t give two shakes about his human rights record. So we’ve forfeited any influence we had over the King and have lost geopolitical ground. Thank you Amnesty—mission accomplished.] (http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/04/25/coming-anarchy-in-nepal/) "She's just the final nail in the coffin that the President's own MISGUIDED POLICY PRIORITIES have put him in." Since he's considered "Bush's brain", I'll blame Karl Rove for at least half of Bush's mistakes. Like Coulter says, Rove probably would have told Bush to endorse Ronald Reagan's GOP primary opponents if he were alive today. Rove probably came up with the brilliant "let's get the hispanic vote by ignoring the border crisis" idea. I know Bush could have ignored his advice, but......? "I'd go with Giuliani" I wouldn't mind voting for Giuliani, but he better keep mum on overturning the ban on partial birth abortion if he wants the Southern vote. "More and more, I hope that Richard Nixon's dream - of a third party made up of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats - becomes a reality." That's not a third party. It's today's Republican voting demographic. The conservative Democrats were Reagan Democrats that finally abandoned the party after Clinton/Gore in 2000. The only third party I'd want to succeed is the Libertarians, but only when they become more hawkish or when the War on Terror is over.

36 Skippy: As long as people are reminded that enlightened fucktards like Zippy are running the Democratic party, then I wouldn't worry about the extinction of the GOP.

37 Reagan'80, Annika's gonna kill me, but again you raise so many tantalizing points. I should start off by saying that you remind me a lot of me when I was in my early twenties. Even though I disagree with you, I kinda like you. Actually, Bush 41 WAS far more conservative than the son would have been vis-a-vis the collapse of the Soviet Union. It would have been very easy (and very popular politically) for the president to have danced on the Berlin Wall and declared victory. But what would it have accomplished? It would have strengthed the resolve of the Soviet hardliners to hold n to their remaining empire. Since that empire wasn't particularly fond of the idea of being held on to, the bloodshed would have been gigantic. The same is true of the policy toward the Blatic Republics. A grand total of thirteen people were killed in the Baltics in their liberation. Had you have had your way, and the first Bush administration had gotten involved, it might have been 13,000. I think that the first Bush administration will be seen as heroic for their restraint during the collapse of the Soviet Empire. God knows, the son would've showed up in a fucking flight suit and gotten a bunch of people dead. Then there's Iraq. The first Bush adminisration went into Iraq in 1991 under very specific UN and congressional guidelines. Yes, he could've toppled Saddam then, but at what cost? Actually, itwould be the cost the United States is facing right now, but the situation was much more dangerous. Who's to say that that the Soviets wouldn't have used the Amerian redeployment to hold on to Eastern Europe? The circumstances were very diffeent then. As to the Shi'a uprising in March of '91, that was a Bush blunder, I agree. But it had far more to do with the Bush family's inability to complete a coherent English sentence. What 41 actually meant to say was to encurage the Iraqi military to overthrow Saddam. But let's assume that you're right and he meant a general overthrow with American support. You would then be faced with the same problem America is faced with in Iraq today. And I ould've much preferred the first President Bush to handle it than the current one. At least the first Bush knew that overwhelming force would have been needed for at least a decade to occupy a stable Iraq. Reading "A World Transformed" is very instructive on this point. It's too bad that 43 didn't bother to read his own father's book. On to China. Wishing things were different does absolutely nothing to change the way things are. Not recognizing China only allowed them nuclar weapons and the Korean War. Are you sure that you really want to follow the Truman-Johnson policy on China, Reagan? By the way, Nixon didn't re-establish relations with China, Carter did. But ignoring Communist China wasn't a good idea then and it isn't a good idea now. If you know your history, Reagan, you'll know that the biggest tank battle since World War Two was fought between the Soviet Union and China in central Asia in 1969. What the 1972 Nixon initiative did was exploit the communist schism and open up a second front against the Soviets in the Cold War. More than anything President Reagan did, THAT ended the Cold War. The Soviets, like the Nazis before them, were unequal to the task of fighting a two-front war. As much as you might rail against the Chinese and their holding of American debt, you cannot avoid the reality that they do and that President Bush willingly allowed it. In fact, you go further than I do in what the Chinese are capable of doing to the American economy. And guess who's reponsible for that? Your Tibet argumet is HIGHLY interesting. On one hand, you support "spreading democracy", yet on another you argue that doing so will throw said countries into the communist sphrere. If nothing else, you seem to reinforce my point that promoting democracy isn't nesseciarly in the American interest from a foreign policy perspective. Why, you sound almost Nixionian in doing so. While it's true that Mr. Rove is singly esponsible for electing President Bush, blaming him for the President's policy misteps is to argue that he shouldn't be president at all. I don't ever remember President Regan's policies either being credited to or blamed on Mike Deaver, Ed Meese or Bill Casey (at least in the first term.) Either George W. Bush is president of the United States or he isn't. Blaming his subordinates on major plocy decisons is a sucker's game, and one I would've thought better of you to engage in, Reagan. Where does the buck stop in your world? Karl Rove isn't the President of the United States, George Bush is. Furthermore, you entirely misread the history of "Reagan Democrats." I'll write that off to your youth. In fact, the Southern Democrats first swung to Nixon in '68. The did this despite George Wallace's being on the ballot. They were orignially segregationists who were betrayed by President Johnson. Well they've been screwed by the Republicans under five administrations now. President Bush just cemented that trend with the Miers nomination, which I applaud him for. But do you think they'll stand for being screwed forever? If you do, then you have even less respect for them than I do - which would be difficult. But let's say that the Jesus crowd pervails. In that event, I and millions like me, will walk away from the Republican Party. We're not interested in "Come to Jesus" socialists. The onus isn't on people on me to prove why we should stay, it's on you to demonstrate why we should. And that case isn't particularly compelling right now. People like me are strgging to find a way to argue how President Clinton wasn't a fiscal conservative and Preisident Bush is. That's what this comes down to.

38 "Even though I disagree with you, I kinda like you." The feeling is mutual. "I think that the first Bush administration will be seen as heroic for their restraint during the collapse of the Soviet Empire." No, Bush Sr. didn't want the Soviet empire to disintegrate. Here's what Sharansky said: [The president told me he intended to support Gorbachev’s efforts to keep the Soviet Union together and wanted my opinion on how best to help him. When I asked him why America wanted to prevent the breakup of the USSR, he explained that Gorbachev was a man with whom the United States “could do business.” Bush argued that it was better to have the Soviet nuclear arsenal in the hands of a leader America could rely on than under the control of unproven heads of state, even ones who were democratically elected. President Bush also make it clear that he believed dealing with an unelected Soviet leader who could be counted on to help preserve stability around the globe was better than taking a chance on a Pandora’s box of international chaos opening up in the wake of USSR’s collapse.] http://hnn.us/articles/9817.html "At least the first Bush knew that overwhelming force would have been needed for at least a decade to occupy a stable Iraq." Occupying Iraq with overwhelming force would be counter-productive. Oversaturating Iraq with American personnel would send the wrong message to the Iraqi people and it would have just provided more targets for terrorists/insurgents during the post-invasion "power vaccuum" period. Bill Kristol turned me off to our "Iraqification" policies at first, but I've warmed up to them. The terrorists lost most of the Iraqis' public support because we proved that we weren't imperialists by handing over sovereignty and security duties to their fellow countrymen. When we handed over sovereignty, the terrorists were starting to kill our troops less while focusing their attacks on Iraqi forces and citizens. They effectively nullified their claims to being "freedom fighters" and will lose this war as long as we keep up the financial and military support to the fledgling regime. Before you say anything, I have to give Nixon credit for this strategy("Vietnamization"), but unlike him, Bush doesn't have Watergate or effective Congressional opposition to distract him from making sure Iraq doesn't fail. And, Bush isn't an alcoholic during wartime. "By the way, Nixon didn't re-establish relations with China, Carter did." If that's true, then you have reduced my contempt for Nixon by half and have given me another reason to set Carter's ass on fire. "Your Tibet argumet is HIGHLY interesting. On one hand, you support 'spreading democracy', yet on another you argue that doing so will throw said countries into the communist sphrere." Reagan was a pragmatist. He supported the contras and many other anti-communist regimes that were atrocious. Even though they were atrocious, we would eventually try to use our influence to make them conform more to our human rights standards after the smoke cleared when the Communists were defeated. In other words, we can try to positively influence Nepal AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS when the Maoists are defeated. One thing at a time, please. South Korea was effectively a military junta until 1980, but we finally prodded them in the right direction until they were free and democratic. North Korea isn't aligned with us and the differences are as clear as night and day...literally.(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm) "We're not interested in 'Come to Jesus' socialists." I hate all socialists even if they are religious, but not all social conservatives want fiscal liberalism(Ronald Reagan comes to mind).

39 my vote somthing that has not happened yet.

40 Didn't the Sherman Adams thingie happen during the second Eisenhower administration?

41 Emperor, Yes, it did. That was Eisenhower's "second term stumbling block." Oddly enough, no one has mentioned the "mother of all second term stumbling blocks," FDR's Court packing plan and his subsequent targetng of opposition Democrats in the '38 off years. You'd think knowing all of this stuff would make me sexy, wouldn't you?

42 Reagan '80 I'll respond, as you did, point by point. -No, Bush Sr. didn't want the Soviet empire to disintegrate. That Sharanskt quote is misleaing and lacks proper contxt. As you might know the Soviet Union bgan it's collapse just as Yugoslavia did and, it was feared, several other Easter Bloc countries might. This was a time of mighty, even genocidal, nationalism. One of the great fears of the time was a the USSR would fragment, and nationalist/chauvinist leaders would get elected. These leaders, depending on how the Soviet Union disintegrated, would cntrol nuclear aresenals and would therefore immune from world opinion and its ability to change circumstances on the ground. Imagine Milosovich with nukes. Now imagine 12 or 13 of them. There was also the fear, which is much more pronounced now, that the former Soviet Reoublics would be facing such economic despair that they would sell nuclear technology to rogue states or terrorists. That is still a real threat and one that would have been unlikely under a unified Soviet command. And, as anyone who knows something about history can tell you, wars that start in Eastern Europe only very rarely stay there. The borders of the Soviet Republics were fluid and never determined by something like due process. The possibilty of war - even nuclear war that could've spread into Southern, the Western Europe was also very real. Foreign policy requires a great deal of subtlety. 41 had and 43 doesn't. I shudder to think what would have happend were this President in office just 16 years ago. I suspect the worls would be far worse off. - "In fact, Bush's deficits are much worse than Johnson's and Nixon's" Bush has made an effort to reduce the deficit. Before Katrina fucked up things down here, the budget deficit was starting to decrease. No, in fact, what bush has done was made a (very tepid) to reduce the growth rate of government spending. Actually, last years budget was 3.7% abobe the previous year's. You're making the same argument that President Clinton made against Speaker Gingrich in 1995. Gingrich tied to cut the rate of growth of program spending and Clinton sold it as "cutting programs." Conservatives were outraged ay Clinton's assertion then and you can't honestly make it now in support of President Bush. If anything, the fiscal situation is much more dire than it was 10 years ago. What might fix the deficiet is spending CUTS, not reductions in the rate of growth. As things stand, President Bush is following President Johnson's policies of tax cuts, increased defense spending and the costs of waing war. The results of this are predictable. If you're interested, the United States government now eats up a greater percentage of the GDP than it did during World War II. I'm not sure the economy can bear it for too much longer. Occupying Iraq with overwhelming force would be counter-productive. Oversaturating Iraq with American personnel would send the wrong message to the Iraqi people and it would have just provided more targets for terrorists/insurgents during the post-invasion "power vaccuum" period. Actually, I would argue that the reverse is true. The Administration decided to try Rumsfeld's experiment, wherein a light military can topple an entrenched enemy. It worked militarily, but it was diasterous both politically and for the long term stability of the region. You see, the lack of a heavy occupation force allowed social order to break down in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's fall. This, I believe, provided the insurgency with reason to believe that they can act with impunity. Subsequent events have proven this all too true. This was further compounded by Ambassador Bremmer's decision to disband the Iraqi military. It immideiately reduced the defense capability of Iraq from about 650,000 Iraqis and Americans to 135,000 Americans. In a country of 25 Million! The comparison to Vietnamization is therefore not apt. Nixon never disband the Vietnamese army, he built upon it. Bush's policy is the reverse, to build from the ground up. And this is one of the hings that annoys me about Republican purple finger waving. The right has been crowing about Iraqis facing death just to vote where it is because of American political and military decisions that thy faced that fate in the first the first place. I have no illusions that there would have been SOME insurgency, but it could have been minimized. And THAT will be President Bush's ultimate legacy. -He supported the contras and many other anti-communist regimes that were atrocious. Even though they were atrocious, we would eventually try to use our influence to make them conform more to our human rights standards after the smoke cleared when the Communists were defeated. In other words, we can try to positively influence Nepal AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS when the Maoists are defeated. One thing at a time, please." Okay. Again, name five times this has hapened before? You seem to mistake results with actions, Reagan. Often times, the United States has (and continous to) support malignant regimes. However, the tactics of those regimes have rarely changed because of US pressure, rather the countries changed regimes, toppling US allies. Sometimes, the "moderating influence" of the United States has lead to the overthrough of friendly regimes and lead to their replacement with more brutal ones. For example, the United States had managed to "moderate" The Pahlevi dynasty in Iran. It was replaced with Khomeni. The United States only had to support the Contras because it tried to "moderate" the Somoza regime in Nicaraugua. In fact, one of the things that scares me the most about the neo-conservative agenda is the inistence on "moderation", despite what its done demonstrably in the past. If you check your history, you'll find that both things occurred during the Carter administration, the last to use a "moderating influence" on tyrannies allied with the United States. I hate all socialists even if they are religious, but not all social conservatives want fiscal liberalism(Ronald Reagan comes to mind). Socialism, as one can gleam from its title is more than just an ecoomic theory. It is also a theory of statist thought. Socialism also brings about things like "speech laws" and "behaviour codes" that are dictated by a federal government. You can't really argue that the Bush administration hasn't been socialist in its spending priorities. At least not while trying to look serious, anyway. But to get at what I mean by "socialist", maybe you need to understand what conservatism to mean. The Republican Party used to believe in minimal government. Minimal government can mean many things, but to me it means freedom of the individual. The current republican government has decided that it is the jurisdiction of the government of who you fuck, where you fuck them and what you do with the result. It is also a party that feels that feels that it limitations can placed on who gets married, but not on who can get divorced. Newt Gingrich is a perfect expression of "family values." How can he not be? He's on his third family now. That the Republicans get so bent out of shape about abortion astounds me. They maintain that they people have the glove compartments in their cars have a right to privacy to keep their guns safe from "tha man", but a fucking uterus does not? C'mon, how can any serious person believe that gun collectors and Rush Limbaugh's doctor have a right to privacy and a woman's uterus doesn't? How about a government so small that it can legislate the death of Terri Schiavo? When Reagan was president, that was a decision reserved to families -including Tom DeLay's. Ronald Reagan famously said that he wanted the government "off of our backs." George W. Bush wants it not only in the front of your pants, he wants it in your hospital bed, too. If that's "conservatisim", I regret ever having signed up. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I Didn't leave the conservative movememnt, the onservative movement left me."

43 I haven't encountered any Leftist trolls that have ever made a teflon-coated "Bush-bashing" argument in a debate with me, but this thread is giving me a bad case of "cognitive dissonance". I'm glad that you're not on "the other side", Skippy, because I would be humiliated if you were actually a liberal poster. Thank you for shedding more light on these glaring flaws....

44 Reagan, Would it be worse if I told you I was a Canadian?

45 Skippy: No, the truth doesn't have a nationality. The only Canadians that I have a problem with are the anti-American and socialist ones. Before I ran into you and before the Miers nomination, Bane was also a sign of the imminent schism of Bush's base. (http://banedad.blogspot.com)