I read the article and YOUR question still stands. You asked if Buckley, NOT Bush is conservative. I’ve already answered that.

Also, regarding post #33, Hugh said “The true Americans need to be more vocal.” Hugh, would that be the white anglo bigotted Americans who spout ridiculous, unproven, unsourced, UNBELIEVABLE conspiracies in virtually every post?

Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – The liberals and tin-foil hat crowd need to be reigned in!

Did you know the article is about Bush not being cosevative via his policy in Iraq?

Re your post #26 above. The question is whether Buckley is a conservative, not Bush. Obviously you forgot to read your own question.

Buckley is a conservative.

Al

Do you have some inside info that Patraeus will lie? Please provide you SOURCE for this assertion. I suspect you can’t, but will continue to rant irrespective of your comments veracity.

Maybe he’ll report things are going well, maybe not, but let’s at least keep things factual.

By the way Al, again we agree on something….Politico runs right up there with the DailyKos and moveon.org for creepiness.

Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – A return to traditional American values is the way!

Politico is a creepy place…my opinion. Lots of ‘Page 6′ material, too much for my tastes.

Hey, everybody ready for Patraeus? He’s going to lie his a*s off, and the right-wingers will eat it up like cheesecake, get all fat and happy over it.

Political diabetics…

While I do believe Pakistan is a huge problem in “the war on terror,” it still doesn’t eliminate the commitment we made to support the new government of Iraq after we won the war against Saddam and agreed to rebuild Iraq (probably if they would continue to sell oil in dollars).

I think we are doing as much, if not more harm, to the new government by staying but, that is the commitment we made and hopefully, Iraq will ask us to leave rather than just say we can leave. But, if we do leave, they could lose to the radical side, or they could align with Iran and sell their oil in euros which would really hurt the value of the dollar.

Whether they have civil war or not, we need to have the sale of their oil in dollars if we want to help prop the dollar up by keeping demand for the dollar high.

Pakistan, being an “ally” that doesn’t police its own nation is a huge obstacle because we can’t get “authorization” from the U.N. or other allies to attack the area al-Qaeda or Taliban operates from at this time.

Should we “declare war?” Use limited force? Seek U.N. authorization? What exactly would those who believe Pakistan is the problem have us to do?

Either fight the opposition to the new government in Iraq to win, or ask them to request we leave. If they will do neither and won’t allow us to fight to defeat their opponents and won’t ask us to leave, but keep us in limbo, then I don’t have a problem with Congress and the President authorizing a withdrawal. Maybe that threat would cause the Iraq government to act more decisively. I don’t think they can act more decisively though, because they like us, have a split government.

We had a specific goal when we resumed the war. Remove Saddam, return sales of oil to dollars, and put a new government in place. We did that.

However, when we completed that mission we set about with a new one where rebuilding the nation and supporting the new government had no clear cut goals. Instead, we said we would let the new government set the goals even though we really didn’t know what they would be. We agreed to support “unknowns.”

I believe it was the lack of goals and a strategy, therefore, to reach specific goals with measurable steps and and defined end, that has led to this mess that allows politicians to each set their own goals or lack of goals as a talking point.

Some of us wrote to our representatives, the party and the President when this began and warned this would happen with our politicians. It happened in other “limited actions,” and will happen again should we attack Pakistan or Iran or some other nation without a clear goal that is Congressionally approved of.

Too many have protested this action in Iraq as if it is the same action that involved the removal of Saddam. This is an entirely different mission and one without a clear end point because we let Iraq’s new government set the terms with a “split” government which as a vague goal of “peace” between Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. We don’t secure the borders. We don’t secure neighborhoods adequately, and we can’t usually, even attack a mosque filled with terrorists. We can’t reach agreement on oil wealth issues, a republic or single nation type system of government, or other issues that would allow defined goals for our military.

This like many things, is often a series of “compromises.” I support this if you support that. However, once the support for that “something else” is no longer needed, our politicians often stop support what they agreed to support.

Is that what we are going to have a reputation as a nation as, also? Are we going to be a nation who makes commitments and then doesn’t live up to them when things get tough? I think we are.

I think that like many socialist nations we will back down on commitments when they get tough or threaten to pull money away from social spending. That belief is why some opposed the war and the following support for the new government. They feared it would require spending that would decrease spending for social programs. So, this President decided to do both. Spend on the military and spend even more on social programs as a compromise. And, “we the people,” through our Congress allowed that to take place and passed the legislation necessary for “both” to take place.

A nation “divided” against itself, is what we have ended up with and that weakens any nation that is like that until it “unites” again with common goals and policies to reach those goals. That doesn’t mean either side is right or wrong but, it does mean the nation will suffer as long as it is split between the two views of “what is best.” It does mean we may make commitments we aren’t really prepared to keep for long.

This is from William F Buckley!

Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative!

(CBS) President Bush ran for office as a “compassionate conservative.” And he continues to nurture his conservative base — even issuing his first veto this week against embryonic stem cell research.

But lately his foreign policy has come under fire from some conservatives — including the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley.

Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.

In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.

“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley says.

Because that is what end many in the inudustry call them.

That is why you should answer if you think Buckley is conservative so I understand what you think is conservative.

You Do know about William F Buckley ?