Category Archives: 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.

'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.

Bush 43 to 41: ‘Daddy Help!’

Bush

President Bush has a lot of problems. That’s obvious. One of them is his father. It’s not that Bush 41 was so wonderful, but he was better than the man who’s distinguished himself as “the worst president in U.S. history”?

Bush junior has become quite prickly in the past, when quizzed about whether he sought his dad’s advice. As Christopher Buckley has written:

“Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted ‘a higher father.’ That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, ‘Go for it!’ There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)

George Bush is all about one-upmanship, which is a good thing if you can do it honestly and self-reliantly. He can’t.

So what do you make of the runt appointing Robert Michael Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Gates is daddy’s man through-and-through. He served under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence and is a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III (another of the former president’s men) to study the Iraq campaign.

I think Baker and Gates, Daddy’s Big Guns, will direct Bush, the shrub, out of Iraq.

Bush 43 to 41: 'Daddy Help!'

Bush

President Bush has a lot of problems. That’s obvious. One of them is his father. It’s not that Bush 41 was so wonderful, but he was better than the man who’s distinguished himself as “the worst president in U.S. history”?

Bush junior has become quite prickly in the past, when quizzed about whether he sought his dad’s advice. As Christopher Buckley has written:

“Bob Woodward asked Bush 43 if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq. The son replied that he had consulted ‘a higher father.’ That frisson you feel going up your spine is the realization that he meant it. And apparently the higher father said, ‘Go for it!’ There are those of us who wish he had consulted his terrestrial one; or, if he couldn’t get him on the line, Brent Scowcroft. Or Jim Baker. Or Henry Kissinger. Or, for that matter, anyone who has read a book about the British experience in Iraq. (18,000 dead.)

George Bush is all about one-upmanship, which is a good thing if you can do it honestly and self-reliantly. He can’t.

So what do you make of the runt appointing Robert Michael Gates to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense? Gates is daddy’s man through-and-through. He served under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence and is a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III (another of the former president’s men) to study the Iraq campaign.

I think Baker and Gates, Daddy’s Big Guns, will direct Bush, the shrub, out of Iraq.