The Waning of the GOP

[Guthrie]

The Waning of the GOP

By William F. Buckley Jr.

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established.

...

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

...

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

Link

Mr Buckley, for all of his lack of concern for the innocent lives, does strike an interesting note. Bush isn't just killing folks with brown skin -- he is also killing the conservative movement --- by showing all too clearly, the inevitable outcome of it's implementation.

[B. Max]

The Waning of the GOP

Mr Buckley, for all of his lack of concern for the innocent lives, does strike an interesting note. Bush isn't just killing folks with brown skin -- he is also killing the conservative movement --- by showing all too clearly, the inevitable outcome of it's implementation.

Buckley is poorly informed and it seems, has jumped on Pelosi's and Ried's time table for surrender which they want to hand over to al Qaeda, which is clearly a treasonous act. Lets assume that al Qaeda was not in Iraq, something we know is not true. Everyone knows they are there now. So why are the Dems now wanting to cut and run. We can only assume that if the al Qaeda flag had been flying over Iraq at the time they still would have been against going after them.

[Guthrie]

The Waning of the GOP

Mr Buckley, for all of his lack of concern for the innocent lives, does strike an interesting note. Bush isn't just killing folks with brown skin -- he is also killing the conservative movement --- by showing all too clearly, the inevitable outcome of it's implementation.

Buckley is poorly informed and it seems, has jumped on Pelosi's and Ried's time table for surrender which they want to hand over to al Qaeda, which is clearly a treasonous act. Lets assume that al Qaeda was not in Iraq, something we know is not true. Everyone knows they are there now. So why are the Dems now wanting to cut and run. We can only assume that if the al Qaeda flag had been flying over Iraq at the time they still would have been against going after them.

Maybe you should go ahead and figure out who it is, of whom you speak. Wm. F. Buckley, is informed on everything he speaks to. Wm. F. Buckley, is not a liberal.

[B. Max]

Maybe you should go ahead and figure out who it is, of whom you speak. Wm. F. Buckley, is informed on everything he speaks to. Wm. F. Buckley, is not a liberal.

I know exactly who he is, and he is not informed. If he is, then he is closet liberal in the same camp as Pelosi.

[Guthrie]

Maybe you should go ahead and figure out who it is, of whom you speak. Wm. F. Buckley, is informed on everything he speaks to. Wm. F. Buckley, is not a liberal.

I know exactly who he is, and he is not informed. If he is, then he is closet liberal in the same camp as Pelosi.

sorry, I'll choose to believe he is more informed than you - have you any evidence to support your wild and frantic accusations?

[B. Max]

sorry, I'll choose to believe he is more informed than you - have you any evidence to support your wild and frantic accusations?

There is plenty of evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2149499.stm

[Guthrie]

Sorry, Buckley isn't even mentioned in your article. So it's evidence of nothing. If you want to make Al Qaeda the excuse for the stupidity of Bush, hadn't you decide your excuse for the obvious failure of your argument?

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why did Bush abandon the attack on Al Qaeda in Afganistan?

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why has Bush made no effort to capture it's international headquarters, in Pakistan?

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why doesn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia, where there are more Al Qaeda than there are in Iraq?

so, what point were you attempting to make?

[B. Max]

name='Guthrie' date='May 2 2007, 04:13 PM' post='214829']

Sorry, Buckley isn't even mentioned in your article. So it's evidence of nothing. If you want to make Al Qaeda the excuse for the stupidity of Bush, hadn't you decide your excuse for the obvious failure of your argument?

It's what it was meant to be. More evidence of Al Qaeda operating in Iraq before the war.

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why did Bush abandon the attack on Al Qaeda in Afganistan?

They didn't. They are still fighting Al Qaeda .

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why has Bush made no effort to capture it's international headquarters, in Pakistan?

Given time they will.

If Al Qaeda is the BIG issue, why doesn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia, where there are more Al Qaeda than there are in Iraq?

The saudli's have been taking care of them.

so, what point were you attempting to make?

I have have made it. Pelosi and Ried are traitors. Buckley doesn't know what he's talking about. Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

[Guthrie]

name='Guthrie' date='May 2 2007, 04:13 PM' post='214829']

...

I have have made it. Pelosi and Ried are traitors. Buckley doesn't know what he's talking about. Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

No, you never actually won any point. You make harsh accusations, you show no proof. Your article doesn't show anything about any operational connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq before fall of Saddam. Al Qaeda invaded a portion of Iraq with the aid of the Kurds. No, there is no excuse in that nonsense.

have you no real support?

[stignasty]

Mr Buckley, for all of his lack of concern for the innocent lives, does strike an interesting note. Bush isn't just killing folks with brown skin -- he is also killing the conservative movement --- by showing all too clearly, the inevitable outcome of it's implementation.

Or, this could simply be "We're not the conservatives you hate." He could be trying to distance the party from the current administration in order to better their outlook next election.

[B. Max]

No, you never actually won any point. You make harsh accusations, you show no proof. Your article doesn't show anything about any operational connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq until after the fall of Saddam.

have you no real support?

Not true. Now why does Pelosi and Ried want to cut and run now. They know for sure that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq while at the same time in the past claiming Bush isn't going after Al Qaeda. Why are they offering information to Al Qaeda in form of a time table for surrender to Al Qaeda . Concealed as a spending bill.

Shadowy connections

A captured Iraqi intelligence officer of 20 years' standing, Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, who is held by the PUK, said Abu Wa'il is actively manipulating the Ansar on behalf of Iraqi intelligence.

Abu Iman al-Baghdadi: "Some of Ansar trained in Iraq"

"I was captured by the Kurds after Iraqi intelligence sent me to check what was happening with Abu Wa'il, following rumours that he'd been captured and handed over the CIA," al-Baghdadi said.

He added that Baghdad smuggles arms to the Ansar through the Kurdish area, and is using the group to make problems for the PUK, one of the opposition factions ranged against Saddam Hussein.

[M.Dancer]

I have have made it. Pelosi and Ried are traitors. Buckley doesn't know what he's talking about. Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

....not was, is. There was no real connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But now for certain there is. Just not with Saddam....

[M.Dancer]

Not true. Now why does Pelosi and Ried want to cut and run now. They know for sure that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq while at the same time in the past claiming Bush isn't going after Al Qaeda. Why are they offering information to Al Qaeda in form of a time table for surrender to Al Qaeda . Concealed as a spending bill.

The obvious answer is they want to win an election. Like most pols they will prmise pone thing and deliver another, but I bet come the next president, there will still be US troops in Iraq for very real and good reasons. To do otherwise would be to turn the nation over to Al Q and to high intensity civil war......

.....that doesn't excuse the blunder that sent US troops there in the first place, but it answer why they have to stay.

[B. Max]

I have have made it. Pelosi and Ried are traitors. Buckley doesn't know what he's talking about. Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

....not was, is. There was no real connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But now for certain there is. Just not with Saddam....

Definately was in and is in Iraq. Even the clinton administration new it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...11/154020.shtml

One such report was published by The Weekly Standard in its July 5-12 issue. Stephen F. Hayes, author of the new book "The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America," says Clinton administration officials in the late 1990s and beyond were making regular references to Saddam, his WMD programs and association with al-Qaida.

[M.Dancer]

One such report was published by The Weekly Standard in its July 5-12 issue. Stephen F. Hayes, author of the new book "The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America," says Clinton administration officials in the late 1990s and beyond were making regular references to Saddam, his WMD programs and association with al-Qaida.

Old news, sketchy source and thoroughly debunked....

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2007

(AP / CBS)

Fast Facts

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network during that period.

(AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/...in2655316.shtml

[Guthrie]

when all else fails, the extremist right wing will go right back to buck passing -

blame someone else, anyone else

so sad

[B. Max]

name='M.Dancer' date='May 3 2007, 10:14 AM' post='215093']

Old news, sketchy source and thoroughly debunked....

Never been debunked.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

However we know the 911 commision never heard everything.

[Guthrie]

name='M.Dancer' date='May 3 2007, 10:14 AM' post='215093']

Old news, sketchy source and thoroughly debunked....

Never been debunked.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

However we the 911 commision never heard everything.

Is that post supposed to mean something in english?

[M.Dancer]

However we know the 911 commision never heard everything.

No we don't "know" that.

[B. Max]

However we know the 911 commision never heard everything.

No we don't "know" that.

Yes we do know that for sure.

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/new...e.aspx?NewsID=4

Nor did the 911 commission ever see the captured Iraqi documents. In the end the 911 commission turned out to be a waste of time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html

The 9/11 commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house," Weldon wrote in his letter Wednesday night.

"Therefore it is no small irony," Weldon pointed out, "that the commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention."

[Liam]

Is it any surprise Utah remains the most pro-Bush state??

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/220065/4/

[M.Dancer]

However we know the 911 commision never heard everything.

No we don't "know" that.

Yes we do know that for sure.

Partisan linkage to Berger hardly qualifies as proof.

[B. Max]

Partisan linkage to Berger hardly qualifies as proof.

Fact is fact.