I thought I was hard on the Bush Admin!
Here's Kevin Drum on the NRO. It's always interesting to see what they will come up with. The gang over there seem to hold Ron Paul in contempt, Kaine in deep suspicion, and only really get excited about Fred Thompson who isn't even in the race, yet. Drum himself doesn't seem to enchanted with any of them, but wonders how they will deal with a Bush admin "that is disintegrating before our eyes?" Good question. Here is a taste of his thought:
Most of us - OK, maybe not the Ron Paul "blame America first" crowd, but most of us - support the foreign policy goals of the Bush administration. But ironically it is the Bush administration itself that is now doing the most damage to its own stated goals: first by its poor execution, not just of Iraq, but of the larger war on terror - and now, second, by abandoning its goals altogether. The president who pledged in 2002 to prevent the world's most dangerous regimes from acquiring the world's deadliest weapons will leave office with North Korea a nuclear weapons state and Iran soon to follow. The president who promised to support democracy throughout the world is yoking US policy more closely than ever to the unstable, unreliable nondemocracies of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
At home, the situation is even worse.
Like I said, it might be an interesting primary season after all.
Labels: election, politics, Republicans
posted by Clemens @ 5:47 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
It is too bad Ron Paul is a total nut in believing that the US is to blame for 9/11 because I agree with him on most other issues.
--Joey
Actually, I don't think Ron Paul said what he is supposed to have said. He was trying to make the point that our foreign policy decisions have consequences. Which is not a bad point. And causation is not justification.
And btw the two most prominent blame America for 9/11 twits are both right wingers: Jerry Falwell and Dinish D'Sousa (and perhaps Pat Robertson).
It is interesting that the Repubs seem to want to shut Ron Paul up as fast as possible. Andrew Sullivan thinks it is because he is forcing them to deal with 'real' conservatism.
I myself am not sure. Any opinions?
To be honest, at first I didn't think Ron Paul said that either. When I rewatched that portion of the debate I thought he was suggesting that our foreign policy made it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit members and find sympathy among the people.
That is a statement I could probably agree with. However when it was suggested/interpreted that he said our foreign policy caused 9/11 he didn't address it.
Even extending to him the benefit of the doubt... When you are making a rather narrow philosophical point about something like this he had to be aware of how it would be interpreted and if he didn't he should have addressed it.
All that said Ron Paul's conservatism a lot closer to my own than the 'twits' you mentioned. So even if he returns to being a truly bit player he may force a little more traditional conservatism among the candidates.
--Joey
People should be held accountable for what they say. Not what other people portray them as saying.
And there are lots of other things candidates are saying that they should be held accountable for. Everything Mitt Romney has said up to the exact moment he decided to run for Prez, e.g.
People should be held accountable for what they say. Not what other people portray them as saying.
If someone says "The reason why there were riots in Europe was because of publishing cartoons of Mohammed" they would be absolutely accurate. If they follow it up with suggesting that not publishing such "offensive" cartoons would allow us to avoid similar riots, they may be right but that sounds awfully close to blaming the victim.
His campaign refuted that much better after the debate than during it.
--Joey
Post a Comment
<< Home