It was fun to watch the freeps implode before they pulled it...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312247/postsTop 10 Reasons Republicans and Conservatives Should NOT Support George W. Bush
In The Arena: The Homepage of Republican Patriots ^ | January 1, 2005 | Thinking Republican
Posted on 01/01/2005 5:16:11 PM PST by Thinking Republican
With the election behind us and a new term ahead of us, it's not time to call on this president to return to GENUINE Republican ideals and principles. Republicans have a right to believe that a Republican president will act according to long-standing Republican and Conservative principles. So far, he hasn't done much of that. Those of us who are traditional Republicans and Conservatives should demand that he does by pointing out the more aberrant acts of the Bush Administration that are inconsistent with our principles. Here, then, are the "Top 10 Reasons Republicans and Conservatives Should NOT Support George W. Bush.
10. He abrogated Republican principles that support free, fair trade and conducted protectionist trade policy by imposing tariffs on steel in March, 2002 solely to protect the domestic manufacturing base against foreign imports.
9. He has subrogated long-standing Republican environmental and conservation policies to private corporate interests by adopting proposals such as "Clear Skies", ANWR drilling and other programs. Republicans from Theodore Roosevelt, to Barry Goldwater, to Richard Nixon had always been at the forefront of environmental policy, viewing America's environment and natural resources as a special trust to be preserved for the ages.
8. He has violated Republican principles that have always held that the defense of the United States was the principal reason for a central government by neglecting explicit warnings contained in the President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001 that stated "Osama bin Laden determined to attack within the United States". He issued no alerts; he did not raise the national defense condition; he did not even alert state or local police authorities of the warning. No president in our history - with the possible exception of FDR - has been so negligent in his sworn duty to protect the United States in the face of explicit prior warnings of a possible imminent attack.
7. He has gravely damaged alliances that have been built and advanced by every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower by diminishing America's standing within the world community, including America's relationships with some of our closest and most long-standing allies in NATO, ASEAN, and the OAS.
6. He has contravened Republican policy to support a strong national defense by "transforming the military" with his notions of a "lighter, faster, stronger" force and "network-centric" warfare. These concepts, and the fashion in which they are being implemented, diminishes American force readiness and the ability of American forces to wage warfare successfully in a variety of battle spaces and against a multitude of enemies. Force redundancies and force capabilities in multiple specialties that have been built into the American defense palette since at least the beginning of World War II, and that permitted America to project force to a variety of combat environments (e.g., we used an army we built to fight the USSR in Europe to fight Saddam in the desert in the first Gulf War), have been put aside in favor of a force that "treats warfare as a glorified targeting exercise", as one analyst put it. The American ability to achieve political objectives by means of warfare - as opposed to simply waging combat - has been greatly diminished by Pentagon planners that have created a force that can fight only one centrally controlled conventional opponent, and then only if that opponent relies on the type of sophisticated electronic weaponry that only advanced industrialized economies are likely to possess. (We can beat England, Germany, and Japan, individually or together, but a conflict with Nigeria, Iraq, Somalia, al-Quaeda, FARC or Hamas - individually or together - may not be winnable because our weaponry is too sophisticated and our tactics won't work against "lesser" enemies.)
5. He has abandoned the Republican principle fiscal responsibility and support for the Middle Class by burying America in a mountain of debt and tolerating prolonged and exorbitant trade deficits. 40% of his 2001 tax cuts funded tax cuts for the top 2% of taxpayers and added $2 Trillion to the national debt. Trade policy has been ineffective, ill-advised and mostly ad-hoc (a simple fix of an illegal export subsidy in the Internal Revenue Code was viewed, instead, as an opportunity to reward lobbyists and contributors with virtually everything on their corporate tax wish list). Meanwhile, presidential hubris threatens the economy with the prospect of higher interest rates, inflation, and a gravely weakened dollar. These economic conditions endanger the savings and economic well-being of the Middle Class, a vital Republican constituency.
4. He and Dick Cheney have further weakened the Republican notion of a strong national defense by creating a civilian defense establishment that seems more concerned with Israeli political party Likud's interests than with American interests. (Even Bret Scowcroft, Bush 41's NSA, says this president is "mesmerized" by Ariel Sharon and that Sharon has this president "wrapped around his finger".) Richard Perle, the mentor or confidant to many of the civilian leaders in the Pentagon has twice been investigated for espionage on behalf of Israel; and "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith (to name only a few) are all protégés or confidants of Perle. At least one of Feith's Pentagon intelligence subordinates has been investigated for spying for Israel, and UPI reported that former Reagan NSC Intelligence Director (and CIA Counterintelligence/Counterterrorism Chief) Vincent Cannistraro said that Feith himself was dismissed from his position in the Reagan National Security Council because the FBI suspected he was passing classified intelligence to the Israelis.
3. He has undermined traditional Republican support for maintaining the world's preeminent national intelligence service by politicizing intelligence to support a preordained Iraq War policy; by selectively classifying documents so as to prevent political embarrassment; and, by "outing" intelligence operatives for purposes of political retribution. In just four years, the Bush Administration and it's neoconservative operatives in the Pentagon have turned the CIA, the DIA and NSC into, essentially, political adjuncts of the White House Office of Political Affairs. Highly respected military officers, like Anthony Zinni, and undercover intelligence operatives, like Victoria Plame, have been branded "traitors" or had their cover identities revealed, respectively, because they dared challenge the White House in it's rush to war in Iraq. Now, the credibility of American intelligence -- once the best in the world -- is questioned by our traditional allies, and our ability to safeguard vital American interests throughout the world is undermined, because our intelligence services were blatantly misused and abused by the Bush Administration to "sell" the Iraq War.
2. He has violated Republican military doctrine of a generation, as best embodied by the so-called "Powell Doctrine". The Powell Doctrine actually dates back well before the Gulf War and it's principles go back to at least the Reagan Administration when Col. Harry Summers of the Army War College published "On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War" in 1982. In nearly every phase of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration violated virtually all of the precepts of the Powell Doctrine, from failing to use overwhelming force to building a sufficient and sustainable public support for the war, to failing to have a clearly defined mission, to failing to have a clear exit strategy.
1. He has violated traditional Republican and conservative notions of foreign policy - not to mention internationally recognized foreign policy principles dating to the Treaty of Westphalia - by engaging in a radical plan to transform the Middle East into a democratic region by force of arms without a casus belli.
1 posted on 01/01/2005 5:16:13 PM PST by Thinking Republican
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(969 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
