Category Archives: Bush

Deadly Decider

Bush, Government

Here’s what another, far-less dangerous, Decider had to say about war powers:

“No offensive expedition of importance can be taken until after they [Congress] have deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.” —George Washington

It goes without saying that having the cockroaches in Congress debate something, guarantees nothing.

The deadly Decider is still on the loose and dangerous.

Gene’s Healey’s paper, “The Arrogance of Power Reborn,” is well-worth reading, but will probably need to be updated with Genghis Bush’s exploits.

To paraphrase the French political scientist Pierre Rosanvallon, the Bushies speak like Tocqueville but think and act like Robespierre.

Bush Babbles About Government Job Creation

Bush, Economy, Government

From last Night:

The Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

Question: The Iraqi government has its own money? $10 billion of it?

In any event, government job creation schemes are predicated on government taxing, borrowing or inflating the money supply. Such programs are politically popular because they are visible. However, for every job “created” by government, an unidentifiable job will, tit-for-tat, be destroyed in the private sector.

Fox News, keen to hype this good-news story, may broadcast images of earnest Iraqi men and women put to work by Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (read the American taxpayer). Invisible will be those thrown out of work because private economic activity has been crowded out by taxing or borrowing to finance these job programs. Government borrowing (and Iraq is all about borrowing: American borrowing) serves to reduce capital available to the private sector (Iraqi, American—your choice, whoever you believe is really funding this latest scheme). A further diminution of assets occurs when government expands the money supply and causes inflation in order to finance job creation schemes.

Creating good, long-lasting employment lies in producing goods or services for which there is a legitimate consumer demand. A rise in consumer demand for a product, reflected in relative higher prices, galvanizes business to hire more workers and produce more of the commodity. Hence jobs in the private sector are real jobs because they are sustained by consumer preferences. Unsustainable government make-work schemes merely usurp the wishes and needs of consumers, and substitute them with the fancies of bureaucrats, who, in turn, are beholden to their political masters.

Sustainable jobs in Iraq will be created by the private sector. For that, ordinary Iraqis require peace and the rule of law. These preconditions are unlikely in the chaos of a civil war, created by Bush’s adventure in the region.

Bush remains oblivious to an immutable principle, once understood by conservatives: Top-down central planning—economic or political—is doomed to fail.

Updated Again: Webb Wallops W.

Bush, Iraq, Just War, War

Although “classless behavior” and George Bush are interchangeable (groping the German Chancellor was just one of many Bush vulgarities), the descriptive was applied, oddly enough, to his interlocutor, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). A “pathetic story of classless behavior” is how Webb’s recent retort to George Bush has been described by some. Reports the Washington Post:

“At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia’s newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn’t long before Bush found him.

‘How’s your boy?’ Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

‘I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,’ Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

‘That’s not what I asked you,’ Bush said. ‘How’s your boy?’

‘That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,’ Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.”

Let’s rewind. You’d have to be a dedicated Bush bootlicker to misidentify the ignoble savage in this interaction.

Give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that, knowing Webb’s principled opposition to his invasion of Iraq, the president was still sincere in inquiring after Webb’s soldier son. (Bush is known as quite a spiteful and petulant man, so it’s not unreasonable to consider that he may also have been pushing Webb’s buttons.)

Webb then answered in a manner that comported with his convictions, yet still addressed Bush’s query politely (he was careful to call him “Mr. President”). What does the president do in response? He upbraids Webb and speaks down at him.

Append “boy” to end of “That’s not what I asked you,” and you get my drift ‘and Bush’s’ loud and clear.

Update: Here’s a likeminded appraisal of Jim Webb’s worth from Tom DiLorenzo, a man who has had the courage to take on a far more blood thirsty leader than Genghis Bush. My Mother, who doesn’t live on this continent, marveled the other day at how militaristic Americans are. That’s how foreigners experience us. Other American friends I have were aghast to learn that I think that, while Americans are very concerned about the well-being of fetuses, they are callous about the lives of fully formed human beings. Having experienced a couple of cultures during my life, that’s certainly been my abiding impression — there’s a glorification of death for the fatherland in the US. Scary.

Updated Again: It appears I was right. Being the bully he is, Bush was simply pushing Webb’s buttons. So reports ThinkProgress, which obtained its information from Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA):

“Bush was told that Webb’s son had a recent brush with death in Iraq and was warned to be ‘extra sensitive’ when talking to the Sen.-elect. ThinkProgress yesterday spoke with Moran’s office and confirmed the congressman’s statement, first reported by hcc in VA: Not only did Bush know about it, he was specifically briefed on the incident before meeting with Webb, and was cautioned to be extra sensitive in speaking with Webb about his son.”

I’ve always been a good judge of character. I don’t need to look into those beady, dead eyes to see the barren soul. A survey of Bush’s utterances and actions will suffice. Once again, Bush was being Bush.

'Conservatives For Killing Terri'

Bush, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Neoconservatism

“I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.
The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a ‘Crunchy Con’ of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s ‘blind spot on the environment.’ (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)
The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.
Upholding rights to life, liberty, and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty. But, bless their cruel little hearts, this cast of conservative characters is at least consistent. It relished the launch of a bloody war in contravention of fact, law, and morality, and now, fittingly, it’s atoning for its incongruent attempts to forestall a killing…”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “Conservatives for Killing Terri.” Comments are welcome.