Buckley Says Bush Will Be Judged on Iraq War, Now a `Failure'

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anN._IfoJo1M&refer=us
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said George W. Bush's presidency will be judged entirely by the outcome of a war in Iraq that is now a failure.

``Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq,'' Buckley said in an interview that will air on Bloomberg Television this weekend. ``If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam.''

Buckley said he doesn't have a formula for getting out of Iraq, though he said ``it's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.''

The 80-year-old Buckley is among a handful of prominent conservatives who are criticizing the war. Asked who is to blame for what he deems a failure, Buckley said, ``the president,'' adding that ``he doesn't hesitate to accept responsibility.''

Buckley called Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a longtime friend, ``a failed executor'' of the war. And Vice President Dick Cheney ``was flatly misled,'' Buckley said. ``He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction.''



National Review

Buckley, often called the father of contemporary conservatism in America, articulated his beliefs in National Review magazine, which he founded in 1955. His conservatism calls for small government, low taxes and a strong defense. Both Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater said they got their inspiration from the magazine.

In the interview, Buckley criticized the so-called neo- conservatives who enthusiastically embraced the Iraq invasion and the spreading of American values around the world.

``The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country,'' Buckley said.

While praising Bush as ``really a conservative,'' he was critical of the president for allowing expansion of the federal government and never vetoing a spending bill.

The president's ``concern has been so completely on the international scope that he can be said to have neglected conservatism'' on the fiscal level, Buckley said.


Appraising Presidents

Buckley also offered his perspectives on other recent presidents:

-- Richard Nixon ``was one of the brightest people who ever occupied the White House,'' he said, ``but he suffered from basic derangements,'' which precipitated his own downfall.

-- Ronald Reagan ``confounded the intellectual class, which disdained him.'' Every year though, Buckley said, ``there is more and more evidence of his ingenuity, of his historical intelligence.''

-- Bill Clinton ``is the most gifted politician of, certainly my time,'' Buckley said. ``He generates a kind of a vibrant goodwill with a capacity for mischief which is very, very American.'' He doubted that ``anyone could begin to write a textbook that explicates his (Clinton's) political philosophy because he doesn't really have one.''

Buckley exalted in what he sees as the conservative success stemming from his call a half century ago in the National Review to ``stand athwart history and yell stop.''

That, he remembered, was when Marxism was widely considered ``an absolute irreversible call of history.'' The folly of that notion was demonstrated by the demise of communism a decade and a half ago, he said.

Buckley said he had a few regrets, most notably his magazine's opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. ``I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us,'' he said.
Well, Buckley almost realizes the whole truth. Cheney was misled? Jesus Christ! Cheney helped orchestrate the freakin' deception! Cheney's behind outing Plame to cover up his involvement with A. Q. Kahn and protect his military-industrial complex buddies.

But, at least he's willing to admit what everyone else with the least bit of critical thinking capability knows: Iraq is a no-win situation.
 

musicc

Member
Jul 3, 2005
74
0
0
But... Iraq, Sadam. They are the bad guys. They will kill us if we don't kill them. We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here,

Sorry, I can't help myself.
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Buckley is a dirty flithy liberal that hates America. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

:p
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
I'd hate to have to debate that guy. *shiver*
The facial twitch alone would be enough to send me running away screaming. ;)
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,563
889
126
``If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam.''

Does he get some kind of prize though for doing away with the Bill Of Rights?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,127
209
106
Ommm, Boosh is the failure here...

When has he done anything right? Now he is switching gears and back peddling hard and fast trying to get is ratings up before he leaves office. I think he is just going to piss off his "other side" supporters since he is no longer going to support his agenda ... I don't care how far to the left he leans most people won't give him the time of day. I say he better be walking the line of the 27% that still support him.

As for Iraq? I guess my question is what has he not failed at?

 

will889

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2003
1,463
5
81
Originally posted by: judasmachine
traitor.

No. He's simply trying to consolidate the real base conservative opinion. Sooner or or later the scholars/authors with clout in the conservative base have to rid themselves of this admin.

 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
when your dead and gone...who cares how you are judged.....hmmmmm

He's not dead, he's still in office and already he's being judged a failure by his own base....hmmmmm
 

Caminetto

Senior member
Jul 29, 2001
818
49
91
What a terrific article and thank you.

Long before the Internet, when it was not as easy to get a balance of information, I subscribed to "National Review" together with "The New Republic" for that balance. I believe that during the 1960's and 1970's, NR and Buckley almost single handedly legitimized conservative thinking.
As the word ?liberal? today evokes a negative connotation, 40 years ago those even moderately right were labeled as nuts and extremists. Interesting how things change.

Buckley touched upon it, but the two issues that I believe will always haunt the right are failure to recognize the righteousness of some social issues, and war being the very last option.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Originally posted by: Caminetto
What a terrific article and thank you.

Long before the Internet, when it was not as easy to get a balance of information, I subscribed to "National Review" together with "The New Republic" for that balance. I believe that during the 1960's and 1970's, NR and Buckley almost single handedly legitimized conservative thinking.
As the word ?liberal? today evokes a negative connotation, 40 years ago those even moderately right were labeled as nuts and extremists. Interesting how things change.

Buckley touched upon it, but the two issues that I believe will always haunt the right are failure to recognize the righteousness of some social issues, and war being the very last option.

first time I ever have heard the phrase one sided indicative of the words balanced reporting
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
My whole problem is blaming all of this Iraq stuff on Bush. He is no longer electable, and can't do much harm after 2008. If the Republicans are successful in pinning all of this ****** on Bush, the PNAC'ians, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., all get away clean, and could end up in future Republican administrations.

Bush is a stupid puppet, and is not the one making all the decisions. If the US fails to see who exactly is really to blame, the US risks more stupid adventures, wasted money, resources, and military, in the future.


And Vice President Dick Cheney ``was flatly misled,'' Buckley said. ``He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction.''

Utter bullshit. Again, pinning the blame on the guy leaving anyway.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
"Bill Clinton...He doubted that ``anyone could begin to write a textbook that explicates his (Clinton's) political philosophy because he doesn't really have one.''

Which is EXACTLY what we need right now. Clinton was not ruled by political philosophy that ignored reality. In fact, he wast the anti-Bush in this regard. It has been Bushes blind adherence to the dogma of his political philosophy that has gotten him and us in so much trouble.
Buckley makes a great point.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
when your dead and gone...who cares how you are judged.....hmmmmm

Well hell, when Bush is out of office, I will join him in not caring how he's remembered. And the sooner he's in that position to not care, the better.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

No you're not. Terrorist attacks cost lives and money, of course, as well as shaking consumer and investor confidence. And if I thought invading Iraq had prevented so much as one domestic terrorist attack, I'd be right there with you. But Iraq was not a terrorist threat, so I fail to see what the connection is.

As for the economy, money spent on war could almost always be better spent. Maybe we could have had a couple hundred billion dollar tax cut...
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

No you're not. Terrorist attacks cost lives and money, of course, as well as shaking consumer and investor confidence. And if I thought invading Iraq had prevented so much as one domestic terrorist attack, I'd be right there with you. But Iraq was not a terrorist threat, so I fail to see what the connection is.

As for the economy, money spent on war could almost always be better spent. Maybe we could have had a couple hundred billion dollar tax cut...

Wouldn't there still be skiddish consumer and investor confidence from tension and looming threats if we never attacked Iraq?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

No you're not. Terrorist attacks cost lives and money, of course, as well as shaking consumer and investor confidence. And if I thought invading Iraq had prevented so much as one domestic terrorist attack, I'd be right there with you. But Iraq was not a terrorist threat, so I fail to see what the connection is.

As for the economy, money spent on war could almost always be better spent. Maybe we could have had a couple hundred billion dollar tax cut...

Wouldn't there still be skiddish consumer and investor confidence from tension and looming threats if we never attacked Iraq?

Well I don't know, it's certainly possible. But where did that tension and sense of looming threat come from in the first place? The Republicans treat it as some sort of all-inclusive anti-terrorist thing, but remember, that all started with 9/11. How many Americans were worried about Iraq between 9/11 and when Bush announced that we were going to invade Iraq? The "threat" of Iraq appears, in hindsight at least, to be mostly manufactured by Bush and company. It wasn't something Americans were worried about and that Bush just took the initiative in taking care of. The truth is that Americans weren't worried about Iraq at all until Bush told us we should be. 9/11 was a wake-up call about Al-Qaeda and Osama...it only became a vague Global War on Terror when Bush made it that way.
 

sumyungai

Senior member
Dec 28, 2005
344
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

No you're not. Terrorist attacks cost lives and money, of course, as well as shaking consumer and investor confidence. And if I thought invading Iraq had prevented so much as one domestic terrorist attack, I'd be right there with you. But Iraq was not a terrorist threat, so I fail to see what the connection is.

As for the economy, money spent on war could almost always be better spent. Maybe we could have had a couple hundred billion dollar tax cut...

Wouldn't there still be skiddish consumer and investor confidence from tension and looming threats if we never attacked Iraq?

Well I don't know, it's certainly possible. But where did that tension and sense of looming threat come from in the first place? The Republicans treat it as some sort of all-inclusive anti-terrorist thing, but remember, that all started with 9/11. How many Americans were worried about Iraq between 9/11 and when Bush announced that we were going to invade Iraq? The "threat" of Iraq appears, in hindsight at least, to be mostly manufactured by Bush and company. It wasn't something Americans were worried about and that Bush just took the initiative in taking care of. The truth is that Americans weren't worried about Iraq at all until Bush told us we should be. 9/11 was a wake-up call about Al-Qaeda and Osama...it only became a vague Global War on Terror when Bush made it that way.

Some could say he was mislead by the information presented to him. As I recalled, some of sources of intel that lead to the war in Iraq came from Russia. Maybe Bush was the one who was lied to and was wrong on using that intel?

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
I would like to add that Bush will be compared to Herbert Hoover. They both believed in ideology and did not take appropriate, realistic actions when everything went to hell.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Some could say he was mislead by the information presented to him. As I recalled, some of sources of intel that lead to the war in Iraq came from Russia. Maybe Bush was the one who was lied to and was wrong on using that intel?
Some could say you are the epitome of the far-right's desperation.

BTW, as for the Propagandist being misled:

Bullsh*t
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: umbrella39
The failure is, is the failure is and never will be recognized by this administration. That said, how can you correct something you won't even acknowledge? You can't, you simply throw more money and more US lives at the problem until it goes away. Which it never will. I can't understand why some here still champion this man and this war? Some people just can't or won't admit when they are wrong. They are the most un-American Americans there are IMO. Because they don't care what the cost is in money or in lives as long as it is not their lives on the line. Every time they look in the mirror I hope they know they are looking at part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Aye, do terrorist attacks costs lives? Do terrorists attacks cost money? Would our economy be where it is today if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq? I know I sound harsh, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

No you're not. Terrorist attacks cost lives and money, of course, as well as shaking consumer and investor confidence. And if I thought invading Iraq had prevented so much as one domestic terrorist attack, I'd be right there with you. But Iraq was not a terrorist threat, so I fail to see what the connection is.

As for the economy, money spent on war could almost always be better spent. Maybe we could have had a couple hundred billion dollar tax cut...

Wouldn't there still be skiddish consumer and investor confidence from tension and looming threats if we never attacked Iraq?

Well I don't know, it's certainly possible. But where did that tension and sense of looming threat come from in the first place? The Republicans treat it as some sort of all-inclusive anti-terrorist thing, but remember, that all started with 9/11. How many Americans were worried about Iraq between 9/11 and when Bush announced that we were going to invade Iraq? The "threat" of Iraq appears, in hindsight at least, to be mostly manufactured by Bush and company. It wasn't something Americans were worried about and that Bush just took the initiative in taking care of. The truth is that Americans weren't worried about Iraq at all until Bush told us we should be. 9/11 was a wake-up call about Al-Qaeda and Osama...it only became a vague Global War on Terror when Bush made it that way.

Some could say he was mislead by the information presented to him. As I recalled, some of sources of intel that lead to the war in Iraq came from Russia. Maybe Bush was the one who was lied to and was wrong on using that intel?

Perhaps I phrased that wrong. I am not (yet) on the "Bush Lied" boat. But my argument was not dependent on whether or not Bush was mislead himself, my point was that the Iraq war was largely a war based on untrue facts, pushed by Bush himself. Perhaps, as you suggest, he himself did not know the real facts. It's certainly possible, I'm just saying that I'm not sure, had the Iraq war never come up at all, there would be any problems as a result. It was largely a case of "You have a problem, now let me fix it for you".
 

Caminetto

Senior member
Jul 29, 2001
818
49
91
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Caminetto
What a terrific article and thank you.

Long before the Internet, when it was not as easy to get a balance of information, I subscribed to "National Review" together with "The New Republic" for that balance. I believe that during the 1960's and 1970's, NR and Buckley almost single handedly legitimized conservative thinking.
As the word ?liberal? today evokes a negative connotation, 40 years ago those even moderately right were labeled as nuts and extremists. Interesting how things change.

Buckley touched upon it, but the two issues that I believe will always haunt the right are failure to recognize the righteousness of some social issues, and war being the very last option.

first time I ever have heard the phrase one sided indicative of the words balanced reporting

10 lbs on the left of the scale and 10 lbs on the right = balance.
You won't find any truth by presuming you already know it or listening to just one side of an argument.