Where I was and where I am.
I voted for President Bush twice. I have absolutely no regrets. If I had to re-vote again, I would cast exactly the same vote. That is not because I support every single thing he's done or everything he is for, far from it, especially recently. It is because ideologically he was far superior to anything Democrats can and will ever offer. He has not been a steadfast leader and is fairly ideologically confused but his heart is in the right place and I offer no apologies for supporting him.
I supported many of Bush's actions including the War in Iraq. I have no regrets for that support even knowing that he embellished some of the evidence with vigor in order to gain more support for this War. The War has been severely mismanaged to the point where I declared it an unmitigated disaster, but I support a good will final effort to stabilize Iraq for both US and Iraqi ultimate benefit. I offer no apologies for my support of the War for it was absolutely justified by Saddam Hussein's actions in the more than a decade that preceded it. I signed up for the military right before the Iraq invasion and hoped to help the effort. I volunteered to go to Iraq. If I could, I would've been proud to help my brothers and sisters do their job.
I support most of the Bush's initiatives in the War on Terror. I support everything from secret prisons to harsh interrogations to Gitmo to NSA programs to screen the possible calls from US to Al Qaeda. I also hope that people who disclosed some of these classified secrets get their due and the full force of the law for their treason against our Country in the time of War.
I support the War on Terror. I know that Islamic Radicals are a mortal threat to Western Civilization only if we let them fester without actively engaging them on the Battlefields of the World. I support engaging them both Militarily and Philosophically, on the physical battlegrounds and ideological arenas. The enemy is not the vague "Terrorists" but the Death-glorifying, Woman-enslaving, Stone Age, Jihad-mongering philosophy of Islamofascism. That philosophy/ideology is not just a passive resistance to Rationality, Reason, and Thought but an Inhuman aggression to colonize and destroy any existence of Free Will, Self-Determination, Individuality, and Civilization. In my heart I know that the Right, no matter how currently politically confused, understands the threat, while many others do not.
There are plenty of other issues where I disagree with President Bush from Abortion to Immigration, from Stem Cell Research to Fiscal Discipline, but I know that ideologically he is capable of defending our country and doing the right thing. The current core Ideology of the Democratic Party almost fully precludes them from following suit and I cannot trust them.
The 15 to 30% of the Republican leaning voters who no longer support the Conservative Cause because of their dislike for President Bush are the ones most easily swayed by the Media propaganda. We who do not regret our stance and offer no apologies should be proud and stand tall while defending Fighting for our Country and Western Civilization. We will be on the right side of history.
In summary President Bush is my President despite disappointing me many many times. I do not even like him much anymore for the mismanagement of Iraq and the atrocious spending habits that contributed to GOP losing their congressional majority, but I will support his efforts to stand up for our Country. I offer no apologies for my votes and my support. I love my country and I am proud to be a Conservative.
Comments :
Thanks for this diary. I used to be a Democrat and
always voted in Presidential elections for the Democrats. However in 2000 I voted for Bush/Cheney and then switched my part affiliation to Republican. It became apparent to me that in foreign affairs and defending the country Bush and his team would do a better job. So much of what you write resonates with me.
The War on Terror (or, more accurately, the War Against Radical Islam) is the major threat to our country. I supported war in Afghanastan, and have come to doubt whether a President Gore would have carried out the same response after 911. I supported Iraq War, although wished the post war period had gone better.
name the enemy, win the war
Good to hear it
It is not that a bunch of terrorist groups necessarily present a huge threat to US. It is the incredibly destructive and radical ideology that takes no prisoners and is designed to spread by conquering and enslaving. That ideology will create more and more of those groups unless we aggressively fight it like a deadly bacteria that it is. You can't compromise with deadly bacteria but you can defeat em.
I've never been a Democrat, but I am a socially moderate Conservative. More of us are needed, and we welcome all the Democratic friends who want to help.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Judging from the last election
There are more people headed the other direction. I mentioned several Republicans who I have voted for in the past, but in this last election I voted straight Democrat, and there weren't any Republicans who I seriously considered for the most important offices.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The US as the premier superpower
of the 21st Century, had an opportunity to be a true leader of the world after 9/11. A leader with vision not an idealogue.
The WHOLE word stood with us, united. We could have accomplished truly great things. It was an historic moment....... that slipped by.
And now look, (I know you don't care what the world thinks) the will of the world is against us.
Why? Because we were dishonest and greedy. Afganistan was where we should have focused.
But no..... we had to go after Jesus Land and try and conquer Baghdad for it's oil and try and convert arabs to christians and put a "made in Iraq" label on your lastest fashion wear.
Two historic moments in this century.
The first was the world concensus after 9/ll.
The second was Iraq.
My only consolation to all this giant mess, is that for once and for all, it looks like the GOP is going to self destruct...... family values and all. Good riddance.
I'm only half stupid
It's just an iceberg, this ship is unsinkable!
...and how's that working out for ya?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why on earth would
you change in 2000. Changing in 04 makes more sense. After 9/11.
You hated Gore?
I'm only half stupid
No I liked Gore and Lieberman on a personal
level. However I had been onto the threat of the Islamists since before 911. The first WTC bombing in 1993, the attack on the Cole, the Kenyan Embassy bombing, the suicide attacks in Israel and so on. I came to the conclusion that the Dems (my party) just wasn't going to do anything about it--they would talk about what we should do, they would go to the useless UN, but they would not use our military to combat the threat.
Further, going back to Gulf War I, I remembered that only a few Dems voted with the Republicans to authorize Bush I to throw Iraq out of Kuwait. In other words, they would have defacto allowed Iraq to annex Kuwait. (I know that Gore and Lieberman voted for that authorization.) So my party became the party of appeasement and I checked out.
name the enemy, win the war
are you a vet?
I'm only half stupid
Islamist are from Saudi Arabia
If Islamist were really your problem--why not go after Saudi Arabia who spreads and funds heavily Maddrassas and very conservative Wahhabism and hatred for the west--why are you not angry for Bush about it?
Iraq were not Islamists--they were the most secular country in the MiddleEast--even women were in Govt and studying.
Saddam hated Islamists and killed them.
So why are you not angry with Bush for not running after Islamists?
I agree with you on Saudi Arabia
and the madrassas. Because of Saudi relationships with our politicians (both Republican and Democratic) and our need for their oil, we have been slow to confront them. But I'm definitely for confronting the Saudis. I would do it thru immigration policy--denying radical islamists entry into the USA and deporting those already here, but that's another diary........
As to Iraq, there were numerous geopolitical reasons for regime change. We can argue over them in retrospect, but we need to focus on radical isalmsist enemies in other countries.
name the enemy, win the war
19 of the 21 hijackers were Saudis
Thus your premise about Bush admi going after Islamist is wrong.
They even allowed the Bin Laden Family to leave the US without being interviewed.
Al Gore wouldnt have done that.
And he would have pressured Saudi Arabia to reform their schools.
Grow up, there is no reason to think
that Gore would have been tougher on the Saudis than Bush. It's not a Republican/Democratic thing. We need their oil and politicians from both parties have historically been too close to the Saudis.
name the enemy, win the war
Independence in Energy/Oil
That is the most effective way to stop our dependence to MidEast Oil.
And yet--what did this administration do?
With the Iraq War--thus Saddam was unable to flood the market with blackmarket Oil--Oil went way up. This made the Islamist --Saudi and Iran way too rich.
They have more money now to fund their conservative madrassas(Saudi) preaching fundamentalist Islam everywhere--do social action (Hamas and Hezbollah-Iran)thus endearing the public to them all over the world--like the Hezbollahs.
However Bush and their Oil Cronies benefitted mightily and set up headquarters in Dubai.
Saudi Arabia is a business partner of the Bushes --Al Gore however wants us to be independent of ME Oil.
The muslim world is growing more conservative.
Saudi is more of a friend of Republicans
Al Gore wants us to be independent of ME Oil, which would cheapen Oil and give them less money.
However, Bush and Iraq made Oil more expensive thus made Saudi Arabia and Iran wealthier--too wealthy to fund Hezbollah and Hamas and their social services and schools, wealthy to set up Madrassas everywhere causing the Muslim world to be more conservative even previously secular places like Indonesia and Malaysia.
And now we hear of Halliburton setting up HQ in Dubai.
Note:
you say....
" But I'm definitely for confronting the Saudis. I would do it thru immigration policy--denying radical islamists entry into the USA and deporting those already here, but that's another diary........"
You see there......this country can protect itself from the Islamists you characterize as the enemy, with simple immigration policies. So much more practical and less disruptive than declaring war on Saudi Arabia.
Understanding that the "radicalization" comes from Saudi's who resent the cynical exploitation of their country by Westerners, who disrespect their religous traditions by building military bases next to Holy sites. Such actions discourage moderates and encourage extremists.
I'm only half stupid
I call bullsh*it--
I frankly don't believe you when you represent that you rejected Gore and Lieberman because of their stance on Islamists. Frankly, the issue was hardly even mentioned in the 2000 campaign by either side. The Cole and the Embassy bombings weren't earth-shaking events above and beyond the scale of terrorist events that had been occuring periodically for nearly 20 years at that point-- Beirut, the Locherbie plane, and so on. There was no sense that terrorism was accelerating to an alarming degree, and I just don't believe that anyone outside people with inside info like Richard Clarke really put the threat together in advance.
If I am wrong, and you did vote for Bush based on terrorism, you obviously erred. They ignored experts at their disposal and had an extremely cavalier attitude towards terrorism until 9/11. There is no indication that Bush was going to do much of anything to fight terrorism based on the first 9 months of his Presidency.
I find it much easier to believe that you may have voted Republican based on Gulf War I.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
President Gore would go to Afghanistan
and even run after the Bin Laden in Pakistan and would be successful---because he wont be diverted by Iraq.
There is one heck of a rant
at RedState
that is a sort of confessional like this, but takes a different tack.
It is a worthy read, but the priorities are somewhat different.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/robert_a_hahn/2007/mar/22/behold_the_clint...
I feel Ender you would support anyone that supports the war. That is your only qualifier.
That some of us "realistic liberals" and some disgruntled conservatives are not happy with Bush is because of his actions. He is an idealogue and he can't even do that right. He doesn't take his position seriously. He has let underlings do his work unsupervised. His actions display an incompetence that is stunning.
There is something to be said for a moral foundation that involves something besides supporting the rich, conquering arabs for their spoils.
I'm only half stupid
heh
that's not a rant at RedState but rather a liberal pretending to be a "conservative with a conscience" or whatever else trolls do.
All the usual liberal talking points. I am not impressed and neither was the RedState crowd.
Supporting the War (and I am not talking about the Iraq war per se) is critical to me. It's not the only qualifier but it is a litmus test that a candidate must pass. I will not support anyone who supports changing US policies to appease the neanderthals who've attacked us.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't think it was a liberal
I think he is an old time Republican. Back in the days when Republicans were reasonable.
I think there is a lot of truth to what he says, AND I think there are plenty of other good old Republicans that feel the same way.
Even Rush understands the the base of the GOP is gone.
All that is left are idealogues and wishful dreamers wondering where the good old days went.
No one wants to be in a war in Iraq for the next century. The only way that is gonna happen is if Bush tries to scare everybody to death again, and frankly I wouldn't put it past him.
Bush's elite supports are angry. They are trying to do business in the big world and Bush is making it harder, because no one really trusts him. Why should they. Look at New Orleans. He has no desire to even take care of his own people. Shame.
I'm only half stupid
bullsh*t
your whole comment is nonsense. He was not a republican just like all the bs you wrote here on what you think is happening in GOP has no connection to reality.
There is no such thing as the good old Republicans. It's like all those good old Democrats who hated blacks and wanted segregation. Do you want them? Well we don't want the pansy socialists you are describing.
Conservatives have plenty left so keep on dreaming that there are few of us. You don't have the first clue about what true Conservatives want so who the hell are you giving us advice on what we should do and how we should be?
Next thing socialists will also pipe up with their ideas on what GOP should be.
No thanks, we don't need advice from you.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
*shrug*
You have your point of view.
I have mine.
I don't feel like playing the "hate" game tonight.
My dad is a good old republican so it's not like I am wholly ignorant of what I am speaking.
I'm only half stupid
think about
"good old boys" and what that really means.
Why is "good old" anything automatically good? That's even disregarding the fact that "good old republicans" you speak of never truly existed in the way that you imagine or with the attributes you assign them.
I want the New and don't want the Old. I want to change the party. I want a fighting new progressive Right Wing ideology that will keep standing for what is right and good and just with no surrender.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Then you are in the wrong party
Because the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America.
What exactly is "progressive right-wing ideology?"
BTW, your party has achieved what it has in the last 25 years because of racism. Without racism, the Republican Party would have never won the loyalties of millions of white Southerners. And without white Southerners, the GOP would have disappeared long ago.
So how do you justify belonging to a party that remains in power because it appeals to the racist instincts of those "good ole boys" that you seem to blow off?
qui tacet consentire
I agree
It is an ugly and unspoken truth, and an deniable undercurrent that has sought political advantage.
It is astonishing once you start to look into it.
The NRA a hugely powerful lobby was an outcropping of the KKK. And the KKK would go to church and sing the lord's praises on Sunday morning and hang any msbehavers in the afternoon.
I'm only half stupid
I support
whatever party supports capitalism and war on terror. If Democrats suddenly decided to erase their platform and redo it with emphasis on pro-business and pro-war and follow it up with real bills in that direction, I would consider switching.
I don't care about who supports GOP. Communists and Socialists and other assorted morons vote Democratic, yet I don't claim that Democrats are automatically socialist/communist/moron. Same with GOP. All the racists in the world can vote for it, and it wouldn't matter to my vote because I only care about where the Party stands and who it appeals to. I'll keep voting for it.
I am a progressive right winger because I believe in Economic and Scientific progress towards a future where humanity overcomes "nature" and we no longer have to deal with environmentalists (who according to Czech president are the new commies).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You support a fantasy currently
You don't have a deep bench of competent, honest people in the leadership right now. Change will come slowly. If you sincerely desire change, your best bet is to lose in 2008 and regroup for 2016.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I like George Bush Father
How do you rate Bush 41? I would consider the old style Republican--not the ones you have now--who I think are just corrupt--not really conservative.
They made in my mind corruption synonymous to conservative.
I came to US when Bush 41 was president. I had no problems with him. After the mean character assasinations on Clinton--my impression of GOP was they were mean.
Then with Bush 43 --my impression of GOP was corruption.
Because everything I think is going now was really driven by "money" and corruption. Every incompetence I saw--Katrina, Iraq War, Enron--their cronies profitted.
and
they aren't liberal talking points.
They are conclusions that any sane person would draw after evaluating the evidence without prejudice.
I'm only half stupid
Right, a candidate has to demonstrate that
they are willing to fight back if we are attacked. Kerry, despite his military background, had lots of problems in 2004 convincing voters that he would fight the radical islamist enemy.
name the enemy, win the war
Kerry betrayed
his comrades in arms with his congressional testimony. He was a liar and a sleazeball who was not worthy to be President.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
****!
I'm only half stupid
If we're going to go way back...
...then you also have to apply the same standard to Bush-- I don't see how not serving out his term in the Guard makes him worthy of the Presidency.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ender
Were you drunk when you wrote that?
qui tacet consentire
At least he read books!
The problem was...... convincing the voters, while the Swift Boat Vets were cruising the media on full tilt throttle.
The ONLY reason I am glad Bush won, like I mentioned, is that Bush's incompetance has led to the downfall of the GOP. I am grateful for that.
IN the end, we will fight this war on terror, with a much smaller military force. And without using countries as proxies for war profiteers.
Do you really think people without an army or a navy or an airforce are going to swim across the ocean to attack us if we don't keep fighting them over there?
There are a lot smart ways to fight islamismists than to poke sticks and offer them a fighting front full of piles of leftover munitions.
I'm only half stupid
I agree
It must be a troll, because Republicans that change their minds are extremely rare, even when their program fails spectacularly and repeatedly.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That's just your opinion
Why would people who can never be or do wrong ever acknowledge their errors? They're not called blockheads for nothing.
Sic semper tyrannis
A fanatic redoubles their efforts...
You can't defend a thing by sacrificing it, Ender. They've thrown everything that makes Western Civilization what it is overboard (think rationalism, a dedication to human rights, the rule of law, and so on), and you have and continue to cheer them on while they do so.
So you may be fighting for something, but whatever it is it isn't Western Civ.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
since I don't believe
terrorists are humans, I am not sacrificing human rights by disposing of their rights. I want them stamped out like cockroaches. It's irrational to want to deal with cockroaches but many of you persist in this irrationality.
Western Civilization is not about surrendering to weak-kneed compromise with totalitarian neanderthals under the false banner of "liberty".
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We will put you in charge
of deciding which humans are terrorists or cockroaches as you say.
You can mark them with a red X, and we will march them off to camps, to be disposed of later.
I'm only half stupid
no need for me to mark them
our brave soldiers are doing a fine jobs disposing of them with their weapons.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
.
I'm only half stupid
Red X's ...
or even yellow crescents. I know! We can infect their blankets with smallpox! 'Cause lynching's too good for 'em.
History is full of examples of people thinking other people are sub-human. Even today, those who use terror as a tactic against us have that same attitude toward us. Ender, you lower yourself to their moral level.
it's not about a certain ethnic group or race
but it is about a certain evil subgroup - Islamic Radicals who wish to destroy us.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Fair enough
and I apologize for implying differently. But I wasn't thinking about that part -- it was the "subhuman" that got to me. By definition, no human is subhuman. Calling them that is a way to make it easier to lash out and start killing. But as a strategy, that is horribly inefficient -- indiscriminate killing just makes more terrorists, as we are seeing in Iraq. All of human history shows us that the best way to deal with the world is through understanding, and working with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. The path of anger and fear is the wrong path.
no problem
and generally you are right - indiscriminate killing is not an answer. However it is possible, through understanding, realize that a certain group is so degenerate and so hell-bent on their chosen course of action, that the only way to stop them is to kill them. I don't know if it describes all the Islamic Radicals but many seem to fall into that category.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Unfortunately, true
Ender said:
This is the situation we are presented with. Many of the enemy are the so-called deadenders. I can't understand what motivates them. They are requiring our liberal western democracies to do things we normally would not do.
name the enemy, win the war
We were stamping out the cockroaches...
...in Afghanistan. We were on the right track, it seemed. We were respected and supported around the world, and the world seemed to support the effort in Afghanistan. Bush had a close to 90% approval rating at one point right after 9/11, I believe. For that next month, I thought he set a good tone-- I'm a hardcore Democrat who had thought he was a bad choice for president, and I supported the guy.
I'm not naive enough to think that all terrorists in the world were in Afghanistan, but the fact is, they aren't all in Afghanistan + Iraq either. Iraq was not critical at the time of our invasion, and Iraq lost us the support of the rest of the world, period. That's key-- and you can say all you want that the world was wrong, the world was not strong enough against terrorism, bust on a purely pragmatic level, it is extremely hard to be successful in this type of effort if you rub the rest of the world the wrong way. So now, we're in a situation where, instead of getting wholehearted support from the world at large, we have a situation where the nations of the world are indicting our leaders for war crimes and indicting our CIA agents instead of cooperating with us in choking off terrorism.
What does it tell you that Bush and Cheney can't even find a friendly country in the world to visit? It is not always possible to please everybody-- but this is different. The past 5 years have represented a complete collapse of support for America worldwide. Only a new president with an entirely different approach can turn that around.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Are all terrorists subhuman?
Even Menachem Begin?
I am referring to the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun.
qui tacet consentire
not all terrorists
are terrorists :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ah,
another glimpse into the relativistic universe of absolute good and evil based on Ender's arbitrary criteria.
Confused? So am I.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I wasn't speaking specifically
but evaluating all people called "terrorists" by all the different sides of all the conflicts, and at the same time having objective definition of Good and Evil, plenty of those so called "terrorists" would be forces of good, killing evil. Obviously I am partial to the morality of the Western Civilization and would have a different view on who is a terrorist and who isn't.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If it is
absolutist, it shouldn't matter which civilization it is partial to. Absolute means everywhere at all times.
Evil is not evil at some times and not at others without stepping into the realm of relativism (and vice versa for good).
It is not 'partial' to anything, since 'partiality' means biased on context, and context is relativism.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
One mans terrorist...
...is another mans hero. How do you think the Allied forces in Iraq are viewed by the ever increasing majority of dis-heartened Iraqi civilians?
it doesn't matter
how they are viewed. Let's say you are walking down the street and a big guy steps out of the shadows and beats you up. A woman in the window nearby cheers him on. Apparently a week ago you called her a moron in a supermarket for pushing by you as you were walking to the cashier. To that woman, the big guy is a hero. Why the hell should you care about her view when you are getting your ass kicked?
The point is that to Americans, it is our view that should matter and not anyone else's. That's true for most other self-respecting countries.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender's a nice guy....
... so don't take this the wrong way...
But have you ever noticed that when someone insists over and over that they're not going to offer any apologies -- that sometimes means that somewhere, deep down, they feel like there's something they should apologize for?
And really - you don't have a lot left when the only reasons you're still supporting this president are that you think he's got the right ideology (despite zero results in advancing that ideology), and he's 'tough' on terror (despite a completely bungled foreign policy)?
If that's enough to hang your hat on, then you must have a really small head. Heh.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I don't agree
that I possibly have something to apologize for... But some people on the left think that I do by the virtue of supporting people they think are devils incarnate.
I don't think Bush even has the ideology right, but he has done some things better than I'd imagine a Democrat would. Untying the hands of the intel agencies and increasing their ranks and budgets is a good idea. He's done other decent things like cutting taxes.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I could respect your stance a lot more
if you were a bit more straightforward about it:
What is Western Civilization, in your mind? Is it something tangible, like buildings and roads? Probably not, because Islamic Radicals have those, too. Is it something intangible, like a particular set of values? It can't be, because then you wouldn't support torture, which is the antithesis of that set of values.
I could respect your stance a lot more if you stopped pretending that it's Western Civilization you want to defend. If you believe that the battle is a fundamentally concrete one - that is, ideology doesn't matter because it's a war of security - then you don't need to invoke these issues. If you believe that the battle is a fundamentally ideological one, then you've already sold your side downriver.
Which is it?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
see
the thing is I do not view torture as necessarily such an antithetical value that it negates all the values our country was built on. I already stated that I view it as neutral. Torture is an ugly word and in reality what we do does not compare in the least with what the evil regimes has done through the ages. I am simply using "torture" in the expanded definition that liberals have adopted which can include loud noises, sleep deprivation, and rough interrogation. To say that torture is an antithesis of American values is to incredibly devalue American values.
The war is not just ideological - of course it is also about security but ultimately defending America is defending Western Civilization because we are the last remaining guardians of that Civilization remaining in the World. Without US the rest of the world (well with a few exceptions like probably Australia, Holland, and Israel) would capitulate and give in to the Radical Islamic values in the name of diversity and respect thus surrendering what is left of the enlightenment and pro-individual rights.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR