This is the first time I have read this theory, and I find it compelling.

Well done.

Some writers need new ideas, and some writers just need a bigger wastebasket. Noonan desperately needs both.

If you say she is not a real conservative I will take your word for it Dafydd. I think she is bitter and tiresome.

The truth is the world would be a better place if Reagan had smashed the mad mullahs in their infancy. It really would. And he could have slapped Saddam around a little more too, put the fear of God and the USA in him back then...things might have been different today.

I do think you are right about the paleos and the Bushes. Jeb had a 60% approval rating when he left office as Governor of Florida. For that matter Bush had a high approval rating as Governor of Texas. Bush1 would have won a second term and Clinton would not have been elected if not for these people and yet they seem convinced that the Bushes done them wrong.

As for George Washington, I think he was talking about France. We tend to think that every statement any of the founding fathers made had some great meaning for all times. But sometimes they were just talking about the world they lived in.

When you actually compare President Reagan's record to President Bush's, Bush doesn't come off that bad.

If President Bush had done some of the things Reagan did these movement conservatives would be calling for Bush's impeachment:

-241 U.S. military personnel killed in their Barracks in Beirut. Has anything that happened in Iraq been as bad as that?

-Iran Contra - geez anyway you cut it that was a little worse than firing a bunch of U.S. Attorneys.

- Two massive tax increases.

- Appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Supremes, a man who makes Harriet Meirs look like Antonin Scalia. (While we're on that subject who was it that appointed Justice Thomas to the Supremes?)

- Actually signed the 1986 IRCA, the original amnesty program.

- And that's ignoring that as Governor of California, pre Roe vs. Wade, he signed what was the most liberal abortion law in the nation.

So what exactly is it that President Bush has done to merit the back stabbing he's been getting from these guys.

History seems set to repeat itself. The movement conservatives elected President Clinton, the first and now they're doing their best to elect President Clinton, the second.

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

HERESY! (just kidding)

Dafydd,

I don’t agree with all of it, however, you are definitely onto something here, and the post is well written and thought out. Had heard of “Reagan Democrats” before, but had not really thought about “Reagan Conservatives”…even though conservatism is often linked with Reagan by many who speak about it.

I have always wondered why Reagan didn’t respond, at least forcibly, to the 1983 Beirut attack. However, the USSR was a serious threat back then, and many of us had spent years under the threats of what would happened if the “Cold War” suddenly turned ‘HOT’, and Reagan had spent more time than that (pre-WW2).

Other than the First Gulf War, America had never addressed the growing threat of radical Islamism, so ‘W’ basically had this growing threat (growing since Carter encouraged it) dumped on him…so to speak.

I have been upset at the Republican Party for some time, but have supported ‘W’ since 911. Never voted for Reagan or anyone else, until seeing ‘W’ in action and his actions got me out to vote. I’ve cursed him for not taking more forceful action against the town of Fallujah (as in leveling it); however, your insightful post here has made humble me realize that these radical Islamists had been preparing for a war of this type, for decades before 911…whilst we had not prepared at all. ‘W’ has done a remarkable job, and the ‘Reganites’ should not only be thanking him, but also helping and supporting him!

Look at the Islamic mess in England, Europe in general, all of the Middle East, and many other areas…it’s been growing for a long time, and sending the occasional cruise missile did nothing to slow it down. Osama and Saddam had both stated that America would “never place troops on foreign soil again”, soon after the disaster in Mogadishu. Now we have defeatists trying to push ‘W’ even harder, and none of them seem to realize what will happen if America pulls out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) in defeat. The Islamic world will explode, rapidly boiling over into Europe, and headed here.

Anyway, great post, and I suspect that it will cause a lot of angry debate here and elsewhere.

Dafydd: Sorry, but attacking Peggy Noonan and Ronald Reagan doesn't make George Bush look any better. The last thing I saw from Noonan she was slamming Bush 43 for the immigration bill. Forgive me for suspecting that the negative feelings toward her here stem from that. The Bush foreign policy is the one element of his presidency that I whole-heartedly support but his overwhelming political ineptitude has made its failure likely. For example, splitting the pro-war party with an intensely unpopular immigration bill was idiotic especially if you want their support for what has become an unpopular war. Not implementing the successful COIN tactics of the "surge" until after your party loses control of congress was another avoidable blunder. Funny how you mention a strain of conservatism that follows a leader down a blind trail. Sounds like you're describing the remaining followers of George Bush to me.

Dafydd: Sorry, but attacking Peggy Noonan and Ronald Reagan doesn't make George Bush look any better. The last thing I saw from Noonan she was slamming Bush 43 for the immigration bill. Forgive me for suspecting that the negative feelings toward her here stem from that. The Bush foreign policy is the one element of his presidency that I whole-heartedly support but his overwhelming political ineptitude has made its failure likely. For example, splitting the pro-war party with an intensely unpopular immigration bill was idiotic especially if you want their support for what has become an unpopular war. Not implementing the successful COIN tactics of the "surge" until after your party loses control of congress was another avoidable blunder. Funny how you mention a strain of conservatism that follows a leader down a blind trail. Sounds like you're describing the remaining followers of George Bush to me.

Oops- sorry about the double post.

Reagan did, in fact, respond forcefully to the Beirut barracks bombing. He invaded Grenada.

Excellent- and An Assignment.

Dafyyd,

As usual, very well done. I have gotten almost embittered toward Reagan (through no fault of his own) because of the Bush-bashing "Reagan Conservatives." Perhaps you could do an extensive piece spelling out the things Reagan did/achieved vs. GWB and show the Reaganistas that GWB may be, in fact, more "conservative!"

Quite brilliant and thought provoking.

The world is changing, W is leading, and what are Pubbies doing? Digging out the ground from underneath him as fast as they can scurry. I'm convinced the GOP is incapable of vision, accepting good news, or governing in the modern world.

She will end her days as an embittered Maureen Dowd of the Right, endlessly railing against the modern and clinging to her narrowing tunnel-vision of Reaganism as if it were poor King Charles' head.

Oh yeah. That is the perfect description and it applies far beyond Noonan.

Bravo...articulated very nicely what I've been thinking but unable to express as eloquently as you Dafydd. I have noticed that I've been continuously distancing myself from the Republican/conservative chattering class...O'Reilly, Buckley and much of the National Review (can't he just retire already and preserve his legacy?), Noonan, most of the so-called 'neo-con' faction. This site and Hewitt (when not pot banging about immigration) and Medved are the steady guiding lights in this tumultous times.

Things can't be too bad when the top headline in our local bird cage liner reads, "Commute times affecting Charitable activities".

Xennady, I think you're missing the larger point. I agree with you about Bush and the surge. He should have done it sooner. However, Dafydd's point is that Noonan and the other Reagan lovers arent asking the right question. Instead of asking what would Reagan do, they should be asking what didn't Reagan do! Every president makes mistakes, including Ronald Reagan. So stop holding him up as some sort of paragon and instead, get behind this president on the war. If you want to be critical of a particular strategy, fine, but not the overall goal. We can't keep kicking him while he's down or we, not the Dems, will be handing victory to the enemy.

Dafydd -

I am impressed that you are one of the few to actually use the correct term "hirabah" instead of "jihad". The term "jihad" has positive connotations in the Arab world, and the terrorists do not deserve that kind of respect. The term "hirabah" better connotes the despicable killing of innocents that is not to be respected in Islam. Well done -- now help spread the word to the rest of the blogworld that we do not need to use a term of respect for these scumbags.

Also, did Peggy Nonoon and the other Reagan Conservative forget about the 1986 Amensty deal?

Also, did Peggy Nonoon and the other Reagan Conservatives forget about the 1986 Amnesty deal?

Nietsczhe claimed that Man formed God in Man's image. Self-proclaimed "Reagan conservatives" want to form Reagan in their image when they are nothing more than the echo of his voice. Reagan was a very intelligent and complex man. He brought down our biggest enemy in the least bloody World War. I miss him.

P.S. You don't let the enemy choose the battleground, or the weapons, or the rules of the fight, or even the fight itself. I wish President Bush were better at explaining that.

P.P.S. The Beirut barracks bombing was carried out by terrorists trained, financed and equipped by the Soviet Union. As a military maneuver, it was nothing more than a feint. Reagan was a good enough fighter to know that if your opponent feints at you with his left hand you ignore it and cut off his foot.

xennady,

Sorry, but Dafydd is definitely onto something here. I have only been paying attention to politics since 911, but it's been a close attention.

Voters seem to pick a 'favorite' issue, and all others issues can go-to-hell...so to speak. That would be fine, if we weren't fighting this Hirabah being conducted against us. Losing this war will send all other issues down the drain, along with much else that we Americans cherish.

Example: Stratfor has a Intel Brief out today, "The War Between Pakistan and its Ex-Proxies", which describes the standoff at the "Red Mosque". Make no mistake, the Pakistani military is very strong; however, the small group inside of the Red Mosque are holding off "some 12,000 well-trained, professional and heavily armed security personnel", and it has become obvious that this small group isn't a bunch of "seminary students".

If we pull out of Iraq in defeat (or even a 'hint' of defeat), then what is now going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at the Red Mosque will look like a flea on an elephant. The radical Islamist movement will explode in size, having an endless flow of volunteers and new recruits, and these irhabists ("jihadists") will enter into a new phase of their plan. Arab governments will be the first to go, followed by oil being basically cut off...it turns real ugly after that as oil prices explode, and then Western nations try to figure out how to get along without electricty.

'W' didn't create this mess, the irhabists and their supporters did. The irhabists had a plan, and ours was a decades old plan when 'W' took Office. 'W' has made mistakes, but not in regards to conducting this war...he has had to 'adjust', but being flexible is exactly what is needed. If the 'Reaganists', 'Noonanists', and anti-immigration/'Immigrationists' (whatever) had put as much effort behind this WOGT as they did on the immigration issue, then we would not be standing this close to defeat!

America has sent 'W' out onto-the-limb, and Americans are now sawing it off behind him.

Reagan did, in fact, respond forcefully to the Beirut barracks bombing. He invaded Grenada.

nk, you are correct, and I had forgot. ;-)

One more point: It should be clear to all by now, that the Irhabists (including Al Qaeda) and Saddam were very close.

Seaberry, I was not being sarcastic, just laconic. See my 8:42 a.m. comment above. The Soviets were at that time fully behind the Palestinian terrorists. Reagan was not going to let them entice him into another proxy war. He was going to bleed them to death anyway he could.

The irhabists had a plan...

Here are 14 'posters':

Iraq's Horror Movie Posters

At last - someone is talking sense.

Reagan was a great president, but not perfect. He made plenty of mistakes, and his legacy would be half of what it is if not for the actions of Bush senior. I can think of at least two examples off the top of my head:

1) The savings a loan crises. Directly caused by Reagan policies. After festering for years the problem was finally solved by Bush Senior. All but forgotten now.

2) The fall of the Soviet Union. Sure Reagan pushed them over, but the fall of empires is an extremely dangerous period. Bush Senior managed the disintegration of the Soviet Union like a master. Remember, it didn't have to end without a shot being fired.

The Bushes have always had one thing to their credit - they take out the trash. Look at W. He tried to reform entitlements and take on immigration! These are huge problems for the simple reason that no other politician was brave enough to try and fix them.

I think Bush's failing (both senior and junior) is being rhetorically challenged, not in bravery or vision.

Xennady:

Immigration is your "poor King Charles' Head." Not everything in politics is explained by one's position on the immigration bill.

Not implementing the successful COIN tactics of the "surge" until after your party loses control of congress was another avoidable blunder.

Name one prominent Republican who was calling, before the election, for switching to a counterinsurgency strategy similar to what we have now implemented under David Petraeus. Can you?

Here is a hint: I have found only one -- and his name is Sen. John McCain... the guy most associated with the immigration bill you hate. (Also the guy I hate because of the Gang of 14 and McCain-Feingold.)

There were plenty of Republicans saying we need to send more troops; but sending more troops into the same failed strategy of the "war of attrition" would have had no better effect than it had over the last two years. The necessary intellectual change was to recognize that we had the wrong strategy and to switch.

But our generals were split: Casey and Abizaid, the Commander of MNF-I and CENTCOM -- along with the SecDef, insisted what they were doing was going to work; those calling for a change were not as high up the chain... but clearly, in hindsight, they were right and the top brass were wrong. Yet how is the president, who is not an expert in military strategic theory (only one or two in history have been), supposed to know which group of generals is correct?

Consider how long it took Abraham Lincoln to find a general who would actually fight the Civil War effectively.

I can understand why Bush didn't want to make such a momentous decision as replacing his entire warfighting team right before an election: For one thing, it would be perceived as pandering to the Left, possibly undercutting the authority of whomever he put in their place.

He also didn't want to rush it; he knew he had only one chance to change leadership and switch directions... if he switched to the wrong crew, that would be the end of the war.

In hindsight, we've made a lot of mistakes. But hindsight is always 20-20; and virtually nobody was making the specific suggestions that we're now following back in 2004 or 2005, or indeed before the 2006 election.

After Bush made the decision, it's easy to say, "any fool should have known we need to use the classical counterinsurgency strategy!" Can you link to a post you made before it started being discussed where you explicitly called for such? The best I can do is point to some calls I made for a strategy of "whack a mole, seal a hole," that (more or less) tracks with the counterinsurgency strategy... but not very specifically, and certainly not by name.

Or can you link to a comment by a conservative Republican representative or senator -- someone who was against the immigration bill! -- making such an explicit suggestion? Mind, I don't mean someone saying "We need to send another 2,000,000 troops to Iraq and kill everyone!" or "We need to bomb Mecca!" but someone unambiguously discussing switching to a counterinsurgency strategy similar to what Petraeus has now implemented.

I can only point to one politician doing so... and he's my least favorite of the big four GOP candidates for president.

Seaberry, Nk:

The attack on the barracks was not a "feint," because it succeeded in its goal of killing hundreds of American Marines: A "feint" is a head-fake that it not intended to land; it's intended to distract, while the real attack comes somewhere else.

The attack in 1983 was an attack, not a feint. And we could have responded forcefully by bombing Damascus and Tehran... exactly what Reagan did to Tripoli after the German disco bombing. Even a single bombing run against military targets in Syria and Iran would have demonstrated that when struck, we strike back.

Instead, Reagan made a mistake (because he was so fixated on taking down the Soviet Union... which admittedly was the bigger goal at that time); he responded to the Beirut barracks bombing by removing our troops from Lebanon -- exactly what Hezbollah had demanded.

In fact, most of the worst parts of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, including the ethnic cleansing of Christians out of that country, occurred on Reagan's watch. He chose not to do anything about it, a decision that doesn't look too intelligent now -- in hindsight.

But I don't demand that our presidents be prophets, so I don't hold it against Reagan or Bush that they don't have Magic 8-balls that actually work (mine seems stuck on "Reply hazy, try again").

Dafydd

xennady:

Bush is at least trying to deal with the immigration issue, over the years the right has not done a damn thing about it. They did nothing when Reagan was president and in the 90's Newt did nothing when he was Speaker of the House. As far as I am concerned it is just one more thing for these guys to bitch about...if it was not immigration, it would be something else.

And when all is said and done I doubt they will have accomplished anything but splitting their own party. And I don't blame Bush for that, his feelings on immigration have not changed since his days as Governor of Texas, if the right found those views polarizing they had a chance to debate it years ago.

Superb post, Dafydd, and an enlightening and thoughtful discussion by my fellow commenters, too.
At last I have some real insight into Ms.Noonan, the crew at NRO and the other country club Reagan (paleo-) Conservatives.
Let's hope our current crop of GOP Senators and our 2008 presidential contenders don't get the "Reagan as Prophet" fever any more than they already have.
The mere invocation of RR's name to this crowd is almost magical.
I loved Reagan, but this is scary and counter-productive.
Yes, RR brought down the Evil Empire but you have to wonder if we could have brought it down muxh faster had we gone ahead and fought the battles with Soviet proxies and acknowledged openly that we were really at war with the Russians?
Weren't we really fighting them in Vietnam? and Beirut? and weren't they the ones training, funding and equipping Arafat and the Paloestinian gang in Gaza and the West Bank?
Maybe it was a choice of facing them down defensively and economically, as Reagan did, or take the masks off and get into a full-scale shooting war in one of those places and Reagan made his choice.
But as someone above pointed out, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
It only puts the final battle off until another day and almost ensures that the war will be bloodier, bigger and more costly.
Maybe the Soviet Union shouldn't have ended without a shot, too.
Putin has made many moves that show he is more than willing to revive the old corpse and put it back on its feet.
What we can learn from history and wars like the Civil War and WWII with the Bomb is that such evil empires like the slavery-loving Confederacy and Bushido Japan/Nazi Germany have to be brought to a punishing, pointed and lastly, a very fatal end, if that is necessary.
This was the lesson we've paid for in blood in Iraq--meaning Gulf War I--, Korea and in the Paleostinian-Israeli conflict, and which the West also should have learned in WWI: Wars begun and waged by bad men (President Bush's aptly named "evildoers") aren't ended by
treaty or armistice; they are ended by punishing defeat followed by the definitive death or unconditional surrender (their choice) of those same bad men.
Accept no substitutes.
And I'm sticking by GWB to the end, because I think he's a great man and very good President, Reaganesque in fact! (LOL)
As for the '08 GOP Candidate, whichever man vows to prosecute this war to Victory gets my vote.
All other issues are almost "icing on the cake."
We can't take care of a single domestic problem if we're dead.

Hi Dafydd and Y'all
Interesting post and interesting comments..

Now this is funny...trying to resurrect Bush by trashing Reagan! With that attitude, the GOP is slated to become the next Whigs.

And comparing Peggy Noonan to MoDO? I dunno..

Let's have some clarity here, shall we?

Reagan was a real leader,who inherited a busted economy, a shrunken military, a nation in retreat from the Soviets and a nation that was disheartened and disaffected.

He changed all that. He wasn't perfect, but he left the country safer and better than he found it.

What's more, he did it with a Dem Congress most of his two terms...again, unlike the present occupant of Pennsylvania Avenue, who had a GOP majority until it was pissed away.

When Reagan used bellicose rhetoric and identified a country as evil,he did something conclusive about it, unlike the present occupant of the White House and his `axis of evil'.Last time I checked, Iran was still exporting terrorism, waging a defacto war against the Great Satan and rumbling along the road to going nuclear with impunity, even after months of `diplomacy'. (BTW, rather different than the way President Bush treated the Iraq situation isn't it?)

What's more, Reagan knew when to fight and when to fold. That's why he got out of Lebanon..he realized that having US troops backing one side in a multifaceted civil war with no clear strategic objective was stoo-pid..and besides he had bigger fish to fry with the Soviets and repairing the damage left by Carter, and that's what he concentrated on.In hindsight, as Dafydd said,eliminating Hezbollah might have made some sense..but to what end, in terms of who would take over? The Israelis ran into exactly the same problem, when they tried to put a reasonable regime in power.

Reagan inspired the whole nation, could articulate his ideas and he was thus able to accomplish his goals.

Now, let's look at President Bush. After 9/11, the country was incredibly united behind him.So what did he do? He dissapated the country's natural rage and energy.

In his speech to Congress and the nation after 9/11, Bush told us that Islam was a religion of peace, and that Osama and his pals were a radical fringe element with no support from hardly any Muslim clerics. Both of those statements were out and out untruths.

He never asked Congress to declare war on either the nations supporting jihad or even on al-Qaeda and nations harboring them, or to invoke the War Powers Act,or to pass any legislation to enable the kind of surveillance on Islamists here in America we would need.Nor did he put the FBI in surveillance mode on the vast network of Wahabi mosques and madrassahs here in America, that are indoctrinating Muslims and exporting jihad here.

That still goes on, by the way. Why do you think the Pew Report shows that younger American Muslims are becoming more and more radicalized?

He went on and on about how much America respected Muslims, but he never even appealed to American Muslims to out the jihadis in their midsts. Instead, the president preferred to enable and legitimize people like CAIR and the Wahabi institutions here in the US...and he's STILL doing it.

He also said that..."we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Imagine...If Dubbyah had actually done that, this war would be over, his approval ratings would be huge and he'd be touted as one of our greatest presidents. But, that would have upset the president's `eternal friends' the Saudis, so he equivocated, and tried to please everybody - which is what got him into trouble in the first place.

Bush's low approval ratings didn't come from the Left metasizing..it came from the Right and the Center getting fed up with his mismanagement of the war, hypocrisy on Radical Islam and disdain and betrayal of the people who elected him.

Americans have a low tolerance for losers without a clear vision of what victory looks like. When Americans fight a war,they want to go all out and defeat the enemy, to fight to win, not to fight to not lose or to retreat.

The sad part is that General Petraeus finally seems to have something of a handle on things..but because of President Bush's incompetent leadership, the president lacks the political backing to do anything about it. Petraeus and the troops are going to be yanked out of there as the Left hands our enemies a victory they couldn't have won on the battlefield.

Trash Reagan if you want to..but it isn't going to extricate Bush from a swamp of his own making.

Although, I hope to G-d he manages somehow.

One More Thing: Dafydd, I appreciate the erudite use of Arabic, but I'll stick with jihad. Once again. we're making a western distinction our enemies never have, starting with the OG Mohammed. When he talked about jihad, he meant Holy War to conquer Dar Harb and bring it under the heel of Dar Islam, and a significant amount of Muslims still see it that way. They don't look at it as `killing innocents'. Or, to Quote Mohammaed `Their Women and children are of them.'

The concept of jihad as an `inner struggle' is a product of taqiyah,(dissembling for Islam) something for us to swallow while our enemies know EXACTLY what's meant.

Sorry this is so long...

Pam: Please note that I did not offer a defense of Reagan or express my opinion of him. I just noted that attacking him does not make the case that Bush is a successful president. Maybe I was unclear but when I wrote that I supported the Bush foreign policy that also included the war. My concern is that the political ineptitude of Bush has made the failure of that foreign policy including the war quite likely.

No one is attacking Reagan. I remember Ronald Reagan and the right has turned him into something he is not. It is not an attack on Reagan to point that out.

In fact I can remember the right calling the man senile and stupid and all kinds of things and his approval ratings during Iran Contra got down in the 30's.

I think the right is using Reagan and reinventing him in the process for their own purposes. So the attack is not on him.

Seabury: I completely agree with you about the importance of the war. But apparently George Bush does not. It wasn't the Reaganists et al that chose to put so much effort into the immigration fight instead of the war-it was him. If he had chosen to show more flexibility on the immigration issue and focus more on the war maybe congress wouldn't be attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory right now. Sorry, but I think Bush climbed out on that limb all by himself despite being warned that it was a bad idea.

Dafydd: I was barely aware that Peggy Noonan was still alive until someone else linked to her column about Bush and his recently deceased Great White Whale. Since your post was inspired by Terrye whom I've exchanged a few comments recently about the immigration bill I naturally suspected that the animus against Noonan had something to do with that. If I was wrong I regret it and I apologize. But that isn't really relevant to the meat of your response to me. First, I note that you did not dispute that pushing the immigration bill was a blunder. Second, the buck stops-where? George Bush is responsible for the success or failure of the war effort, not Casey or Abizaid. This responsibility is why there is an aircraft carrier named after Abraham Lincoln but not US Grant, WT Sherman, or GG Meade. Third, I flatly reject your assumption that one change of commanders would be the end of the war. Lincoln changed commanders of the Army of the Potomac several times-and even used the same one twice. Bush's primary area of expertise is (or should be) in the political arena. Firing a general today should be used politically to show the public that the president recognizes that mistakes have been made and we'll do better in the future-next question? Bush won't do this and he should. The goal here is ultimate US victory in the war, not being a stand up guy to some subordinate general- or avoiding bad press.

Dafydd:
        You're right, Reagan blew it with the Islamics.  But the former Soviet Union (OOH!  I just LOVE to type "former Soviet Union") had been a menace for thirty-five years, and had something like 40,000 nuclear weapons.  At the time, no one saw Islamism as in the same league, including me.  Live and learn.

Big D wrote:

        "The savings a loan crises.  Directly caused by Reagan policies.  After festering for years the problem was finally solved by Bush Senior.  All but forgotten now."

        Actually, caused by all the presidents and all the Congresses from Truman to Carter, who let inflation roar.  By late '79, almost every S&L in the country was bankrupt.  But rather than admit that and take action, everyone ducked, changed the rules, and tried to get the problem to solve itself.  When that didn't happen, they spent their time pointing fingers at each other.  No one did well on that one.

Terrye correctly noted:

"In fact I can remember the right calling the man (Reagan) senile and stupid and all kinds of things and his approval ratings during Iran Contra got down in the 30's.

I think the right is using Reagan and reinventing him in the process for their own purposes."

Here we are, almost 20 years out from Reagan's departure from the White House and, ignorant of history, certain elements of "the Right" are deifying him.

I'm sure, out in 2027, some "conservatives", spewing forth in their blogs, will be thrashing President Tagg Romney, and declaring themselves "true Conservatives"; "G. W. Bush Conservatives!"

xennady:

It was the right in Congress who tried to pass a law making illegal entry a felony, that in turn helped create a backlash that lead to that ridiculous march in May that pissed so many people off.

They spend half their time whining that Bush does not care about the issue and the other half whining that he cares too much. But if we want to look at what started this all, go back to 2006 and listen to some of the rhetoric coming from the right. And a lot of them lost in that midterm election too... it seems that making illegal immigration an issue did not work too well for people like Hayworth.

If the right really gave a damn about this war they would not be doing everything they could to weaken Bush on issues from Harriet Miers to Dubai to Immigration. And it is never their fault.

Tell me, in 1986 when Reagan signed that infamous immigration law, how do you think Ronald Reagan would have responded to people calling him Ronaldo and saying he was a traitor who was part of a conspiracy to sell out America? Not well I don't think.

Xennady:

First, I note that you did not dispute that pushing the immigration bill was a blunder.

It's a common rhetorical trick to spray a bunch of points; then, if your respondent focuses on one or two and ignores the others, you crow that he "did not dispute" them -- with the implication that he must agree with you.

I respond to those points that I find interesting and worth response; like the Supreme Court deciding not to grand certiorari, no approval or disapproval of the underlying issue is implied or should be inferred.

George Bush is responsible for the success or failure of the war effort, not Casey or Abizaid.

Xennady, try being realistic: The president may have the "responsibility" for success or failure, but he has no plausible means to determine which general and which plan is best until he tries them out. Very few presidents have been longtime combat commanders who attended the Army or Navy War College, and who have commanded troops in the very war they're administering as Commander in Chief.

The level of military understanding you demand is ridiculous. And in any event, Casey and Abizaid did graduate from the Army War College, did command troops in the field, and were fighting in this very war... yet both were wrong about post-major combat ops strategy.

So what does that tell us? That fighting a war is so specialized an occupation that the best any layman -- including the president -- can do is try a plan and a commander for a while and see if it works. If it doesn't, you change... which is exactly what Bush did.

And I notice you did not dispute my suggestion that you, yourself, cannot find a single prominent Republican (or Democrat) who called for a Petraeus/Galula style counterinsurgency strategy until after it started being discussed in the news... which I can only suppose, by your own logic, means you admit you cannot.

I flatly reject your assumption that one change of commanders would be the end of the war.

That is not what I said; this is:

He also didn't want to rush it; he knew he had only one chance to change leadership and switch directions... if he switched to the wrong crew, that would be the end of the war.

What I mean is that, had Bush put the wrong commanders in for Casey and Abizaid, they would (by definition) have done no better; had they done no better, then in September 2007, enough Republicans would defect to allow Congress to override Bush's veto of their surrender bill.

As it is, that's still a possibility; but it grows more remote every day, as things are looking better and better in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reports, the "facts on the ground" will be so much better than they were in 2006 that Bush will be able to direct Defense Secretary Bob Gates to begin drawing down the troops.

This will completely undercut the Democrats' high-pitched keening for withdrawal: In fact, Republicans can run against Democrats on that very point: Democrats they wanted to surrender when the going got tough; but because the GOP held firm, we can now begin withdrawing our troops in victory, not defeat. So Democrats = defeat, while Republicans = victory, a syllogism so simple every voter can get it.

But all would have been different had Bush screwed up and appointed the wrong successor to the previous crew. Thank goodness he took his time, didn't allow politics to dictate the decision, and appointed the right two men for the job.

Firing a general today should be used politically to show the public that the president recognizes that mistakes have been made and we'll do better in the future.

You want him just to fire a general at random? Whom do you have in mind -- Petraeus? What do you have against the current team?

Dafydd

Dafydd: It isn't George Bush's lack of military understanding that is causing congressional support for the war to crumble-it's his poor political judgement. Bush spent far more effort on the immigration bill than he has maintaining support for the war. If he can twist arms to get senators to vote for that bill than he should be able to do the same to keep the GOP in line in favor of the war effort. Either he hasn't bothered to or he is so unpopular that he can't. And with the recent GOP senate defections the Republicans=Victory syllogism you imagine is gone. It doesn't matter how successful our troops are in the field if congress pulls the plug on the fight. Thanks to Bush that is now quite possible, even likely.

Terrye: The immigration bill is dead, dead, dead. Get over it. And if Bush really gave a damn about the war he should stop making ham-headed political blunders like the Miers appointment, the Dubai ports debacle, and the immigration disaster.Those were his fault and his alone.

Xennady:

And if Bush really gave a damn about the war he should stop making ham-headed political blunders like the Miers appointment, the Dubai ports debacle, and the immigration disaster.Those were his fault and his alone.

"Look what you made us do!"

Dafydd

"Xennady" claims:

"It isn't George Bush's lack of military understanding that is causing congressional support for the war to crumble-it's his poor political judgement." Bush spent far more effort on the immigration bill than he has maintaining support for the war. . . Either he hasn't bothered to or he is so unpopular that he can't. And with the recent GOP senate defections the Republicans=Victory syllogism you imagine is gone. It doesn't matter how successful our troops are in the field if congress pulls the plug on the fight. Thanks to Bush that is now quite possible, even likely."

It's hard to know where to start refuting this sort of "stream-of-consciousness" presumptuous ranting. So full of vitriol and so lacking in fact.

If I recall correctly, GWB has done a pretty good job of maintaining congressional support for the war; particularly in the face of a Democrat controlled Congress that started in January with the intent of killing funding for it. As I recall, Mr. Bush has won two, three, fights with Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid on this. Not bad when the President's party is the minority .

"Xennady" insists that Mr. Bush spent "far more effort on the immigration bill than he has maintaining support for the war." How does he know this? Does "X" work in Congress and see the work that is done behind closed doors? This is so presumptuous its sickening. I know of no previous President in my lifetime (53 yrs.) who has suffered the "slings and arrows" of hateful criticism on any topic, like GWB has because of his unwavering commitment to the war in Iraq. In addition, perhaps Pres. Bush has labored so hard for the immigration bill, because he, gasp, really believes in it. What so many on "the Right" seem to have a hard time with is the idea that this president stands on principle, not simply political expediency. GWB simply thinks that it's wrong to leave 12 million illegals "in the shadows" or to just round them all up and throw them out (with their U.S.- citizen children who were born here).

xennady:

I know the bill i9s dead, so why don't people like you shut up about it. Every frigging day we hear someone yammering about how Bush betrayed them.

And as for Miers, well I guess this means that the next time our country gets in a war, we can count on the right to hang in there just so long as the Commander in Chief kisses their butts. Nice to know that.

And it is sheer stupidity to say that Bush spent more time on immigration than the war. In fact if I remember correctly when he Rumsfeld go and chganged direction in the war most of the right was pissed off about it.

WGPu: You think I'm full of vitriol? Read what you wrote about me if want to see vitriol, bud. I stated my opinion as I see it. If you don't like, fine. But keep in mind that those victories over Pelosi and Reid occured before the immigration fight that so enraged conservatives and damaged Bush's standing with them.Take note of those GOP senators that are giving up on Iraq. Notice how poorly GOP fundraising is going. Don't think the fight over war funding is done.You should have written "Bush has done a good job maintaining support for the war so far".It remains to be seen how he does going forward, and I suspect not as well.As for immigration-why should I care if Bush supported the bill because he-gasp-really believed in it? So friggin what? The public hated the bill and it split the Republican party. It was stupid of him to force the issue the way he did. He should have dropped the bill the way he dropped social security reform when he found out it wasn't as popular as he thought. And I'm sure Bush really believed in that too- but he gave up on it anyway. What happened to his strong stance on principle then? Social security is still heading towards bankruptcy and Bush is working diligently to fix-no, actually he yielded to political expediency and isn't doing a thing about it.Spare me the crap about Iron George and his Steely Principles.It doesn't wash anymore.And he could have had all the amnesty he wanted for those poor 12 million illegals if he was just willing to do what was necessary to convince the public that the border would be secured.Instead he chose to attack the base of his party as bigots and nativists.I'm done with him.

"Xennady"

By the tone of your last post, it appears I touched a nerve. "Vitriol" appears to have been an appropriate word. So is "Fluoxetine."

"WGPu" Is that the best you can come up with? Here a word for you- "lame". Typical that you have no reply other than a fresh insult.

I don't wan to interfere when people are having a good donnybrook.

I will just say that I think the George Bush has the true grit and determination that is necessary to the Job of a good president. And he has been a damn good president bu tnot necessarily a good politician.

I myself thought that GB would need to bend a bit after the September report, and vow that its such a success that we can start withdrawing some troops in the Spring, in order to continue his policies. It appears that he is setting up a situation to wage the Surge through the New Yearand inot the Spring; and then consider a draw down. In the Summer and just before the elections.

But not a withdrawal.

He will then hand the next president the opportunity to fight on, quit, or muddle through to a victorious conclusion. that is indeed if we have not won outright by then and I think this Iraq campaign in the GWOT has a good chance of being about over by then.

Not bad at all. Lincoln didn't think he would be able to be in that position. Lincoln privately said he would "lose and lose badly" and would have to win the War before the next Inauguration.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)