Conservatives vs. Bush - CATO, the American Conservative, ...

[Woodstock]

CATO has been on the neocons for their fiscal, foreign, and civil liberties policies. I've also noticed similar criticism from The American Conservative. My impression: a good number of reasonable Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians see the Bush administration's policies as disastrous, and some are ready for an alternative to Bush in 2004. Democrats have got a great opening to win this next election if we field an appealing candidate.

From The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/10_06_03/cover.html:

President Bush’s war policy marks the beginning of the end of America’s era of global dominance.

By Christopher Layne

The administration’s U-turn decision to ask for United Nations help in Iraq, and President George W. Bush’s request that Congress appropriate $87 billion to fund the occupation and reconstruction of that country send a very clear message: the administration’s Iraq policy is a fiasco. And a foreseeable one at that.

U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that American troops occupying Iraq would not be welcomed as liberators but would be resisted. A pre-invasion State Department report warned that the administration had the proverbial snowball’s chance of transforming Iraq into a Western-style democracy (a conclusion reinforced by a recent Zogby poll of Iraqis that found only 38 percent of Iraqis favor democracy, while 50 percent believe that “democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here”). Similarly, it was obvious that the administration’s go-it-alone hubris, combined with its sledgehammer diplomacy, would chill Washington’s relations with the other major powers and trigger a worldwide backlash of hostility toward the United States.

Those—here and abroad—who opposed Washington’s reckless march to war can say we told you so. But that is not the point. More than that, it is necessary to step back from day-to-day events and place the Iraq war in the context of its longer-term significance for the United States. A good place to start is by asking why the administration embarked on war while ignoring widespread—and accurate—predictions that even a successful military campaign could lead to postwar disaster. In other words, what were the administration’s war aims?

We know what they were not. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the Middle East and Persian Gulf. (Did anyone say “weapons of mass destruction”?) And—the administration’s manipulation of public opinion notwithstanding—Saddam Hussein was not involved in Sept. 11 and was not in bed with al-Qaeda. But, as both U.S. and British intelligence warned, by going to war with Iraq, the administration has created a terrorist threat where none existed previously, making the U.S. less, not more, secure than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq...

[Ivory_Tower]

1. Good article, thanks

I thought it interesting that the author mentions both Dean and Clark as candidates with potential bipartisan appeal.

Very well thought-out article. I'm curious -- what was The American Conservative's stance on the war last winter?

[Woodstock]

2. A friend gave me a copy about the time the war started

And I've checked in from time to time since. He also turned me on to CATO. Both have been critical of the war since the beginning.

From what I've read, American Conservative has always opposed it. The basic concept of conservatism seems to have been violated in their eyes: intervention only if necessary, if in the direct interest of our country, and if it doesn't cost us too much money.

[TennesseeWalker]

3. You're right on, Woodstock!

Pat Buchanan and AmCon have been against this foolhardy administration from the start of rumors of Iraq. I've said this before: on matters of survival of the country, Pat and the True Conservatives are our STRONG allies.

[Padraig18]

4. I have a conservative friend who plans to vote Dem next year

He's a Republican, but he views * ass 'our common enemy'. He says that after * is defeated, we can hash out our differences, but beating * is the #1 priority.

[TennesseeWalker]

5. Go tell it on the mountain, brother!

I agree! Anyone But Bush may be more than a DU slogan. :)

[BeFree]

7. Yep. * united us alright

True conservatives will always be against any Nation Building and Fiscal Deficits. It's good that there are a few true conservatives left in America, but there sure ain't as many as there was a while ago. Most of the so-called cons are showing their true colors: Greedy, selfish, and anti-human. Neo-cons.

[Ivory_Tower]

8. I wonder if we'll witness the birth of "neo-libs"

Former conservatives, disillusioned by the Republican party's betrayal of American values, joining the Democratic party. Wouldn't THAT be interesting? It could make the party dynamics even more interesting.

(Edit: grammar)

[Swede]

6. Good article

Bush may not get elected next year,but the world will still be stuck in his mess.