WFB, realist

Rod, This is nothing new. Buckley has been critical of the Iraq war for some time. TNR had a great piece on the topic in their March 19, 2007 edition that I would be happy to send you.

WFB has lost it. Too bad, he used to be a champion of non-fuzzy thinking.
During the Vietnam war, unlike the Iraq war, the enemy only had Hanoi as a HQ ops center, according to old Bill. Complete taurus shite! North Vietnam had three ops (and supply) centers: the Kremlin, Beijing and Hanoi. Nobody wanted to bomb the first two, and the cowardly Democrats wouldn't let us bomb Hanoi. Nixon, promised to end the war, and he did--by token bombing Hanoi and serious bombing of other previously off limit sanctuaries. Bingo--the cowardly Democrats' little Communist friends couldn't get to the negotiating table fast enough. But the cowardly Democrats, of course, wouldn't let a Republican actually win the war (bad for their Party, you know), so they cowardly cut off funding AFTER a peace had been negotiated. Down came the dominos, and millions in that part of the globe were slaughtered. Our kids and American credibility had died in vain. And billion$ went down the rat hole. Does any of that sound familiar? And ,of course, now no one seems to remember that in 2001 the president said to be prepared for a LONG war against terrorism--as long as it took to prevent 9/11s from becoming routine.
Yea!, we all said.

Cleveland, Maybe you would prefer to keep from slamming half the American people? Now that you're out of power and all...

Perhaps he could try expressing his opinion like a gentleman and not as a thug who can't help but describe the opposition as "cowardly" and "friends of communists". It's not just Republicans who can play the Unpatriotic/Treason card, as has been done since 9/11. I'm sure if GWB's/Cheney's popularity drops a few more percentage points, we could draw up Articles of Impeachment. Republicans aren't the only ones with long memories.

Usual suspects: Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, O'Riley, Fred Barnes, Charles Krautheimer, Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, Muriel Sparks (waitress at Terrell Diner), Joni Lamb and Joe Barton.

Kevin- You make my point for me.Are we there to wage a war on an enemy or have a cotillion for the likes of Dick Cheney's oil industry buddies? If you wish to wage war, then wage war, violently, ruthlessly, remorselessly, against thine enemy, destroying him completely.
If not, don't bother.
Last time I saw one, a live round gets discharged from an AR15, not a flower. Our Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Froce wage war better than anyone. They can kill bad guys and blow their stuff up with great efficiency and accuracy. But asking them to be caterers, social workers, ward healers and policemen doesn't work over the long-term.
Want to defend this civilization? Bring'em home, from everywhere-Germany, Okinawa, Korea. And have them help seal the border.

Bugg, There will be times when military action is called for, but never is it excusable to target innocent civilians. Clearly this poses a problem when fighting asymmetrical warfare, in which our enemies draw us into situations where ruthless waging of combat alienates the very people we are attempting to aid.
At any rate, saving what remains of the West will require much, much more than bringing all our troops home from around the global, but it could be a small step in the right direction. Kevin

I'll probably end up with arthritis in my neck from all the headshaking I'm doing these days reading conservatives launch-lunch on each other over Iraq. Guys-gals the Bush administration didn't blow the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It isn't a total fiasco costing lives and fortunes that will haunt us for generations because the Bush administration blew it. The mistake was TO invade. As a nation we don't do oppression good. What makes us great handicaps us in the aggressor area. It's our national character, our genetic disposition if will, whatever. We don't do invasion and occupation well. It's against our nature as Americans. We're believers in each other and we like to believe in other peoples too. No administration would have done much better after the invasion. Of course this administration is probably the only combination of personalities that would have invaded, the perfect storm if you will. Men like Rod and Buckley need to step back and look at their philosophy seriously. It's great for herding but it isn't worth a flip for leading. Iraq is the results when it's put in a leadership role.

Just as an aside, anyone who has any dellusions about how Giuliani is our man in 2008--think for a second, Bush minus the judicial nominees. Not something I want!

Laura, you are correct--it is immoral to treat our troops this way. But get used to it because Democrats control the purse strings, just as they did during the outrage in Vietnam. Before the last elections, Democrats said "elect us and we will provide a new direction in Iraq". Now we see that waving a white flag, just as they did in Vietnam, is their "new direction". Had they been honest about it, the American people would not have elected them to treat our troops this way. Get used to a lot more immorality in all aspects of modern-day America, Laura. Read Rod's excellent article in today's Dallas Morning News: "Impervious to beauty and deadened to depravity", then say a prayer for America, our kids and grand kids.

The war is over. Do we leave the troops there to die by the day or do we bring them home so they can have a life? Keeping the troops in Iraq to defend the honor of the Republican Party isn't cool. Unlike GWB and Co., the Democrats would like to give the troops a chance to live until old age.

Rod, do you think conservatives who think as I do about Iraq like war? We don't. In fact, we abhor it. We are trying to prevent WW III. As to the polls reflecting the American people's desire to wave the white flag a la Vietnam--Horsepucky! I don't believe that any more than you do. We both know they want victory over Al Queda, and not just in Iraq. We both know that is never what the polls ask. People are not stupid; they know that the Administration wants to protect our way of life by bringing stability to the region. Saddam, had he been given the chance, would have toppled the Saudis (as was his ultimate aim when this all started during the first Gulf War) and cut off the West's energy supply.
That, of course, would have meant all out war. It is a fact that Saddam was further along with his nuclear development than we thought, so had we let him have the time he wanted, it would have been one hell of a war--against both Iraq and Al Queda, at least! Before WFB got fuzzy-headed he used to say "He who says A, must say B", remember? Now all he and his crew, including Buchanan and Sobran, say is "A", i.e., leave Iraq, but they don't say "B"-- what then? Go to war and nuke Iraq, Iran, and Syria when it hits the fan in a few years? Oh, yeah--they really will be frightened by the Clintons in the White House again, won't they? (May God have mercy on us!).
And what about Al Queda in Pakistan? In the event of all-out war, Al Queda would have tried to topple Musharraf in order to get control of nuclear weapons to use against us, both here and in Afghanistan, and Israel. Wouldn't that be fun?
Come on , Rod, you are far too intelligent and honest to say I'm wrong. Should we have waited another 12 years for France and its pathetic ilk in the UN to talk Saddam and Al Queda into becoming Christians and leave us alone? Even the ultra-liberal Tony Blair didn't believe that would have been the proper course. Sorry for the sarcasm, Rod, but I am more than a little disappointed in my former heroes who will not say "B". We are in Iraq to prevent a much, much greater horror. And I am no longer able to suffer the mean spirited haters (no, my friend, I do not mean folks like you who have remained civil through out) to whom calumny against the Administration is "just politics".

I love reading these comboxes. Some of you guys are a pair of jackboots away from a goose-stepping party.