Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:44:53 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:


It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
ideal opportunity for them to break through, and the rest
of the administration looks distinctly weak, so it wasn't
overly difficult.

You should note that in a presidential system (as opposed to a
parliamentary), that the executive branch is quite distinct from the
legislative--which passes the laws that enable the executive to act.
While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis than
in a parliamentary government.

9/11 created a sudden awareness that we could no longer depend upon
our isolation and broad oceans to defend us from world terrorism.

If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment. (And maybe contrast
them to some of their predecessors in the previous administration.)

There is no way most of its policies can be described as
conservative.

Conservativism in America has certainly evolved. No disagreement at
all there. If there is a predominent concept in the current iteration,
it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
defense), but a moralistic perspective which (unfortunately) tries to
impose a basic form of Christianity on the nation. That's our domestic
debate and doesn't have a thing to do with the "neo-con" movement.

Exploding budget deficits?

It is very difficult to budget for wars that are thrust upon a nation
(unless of course, like Belgium, you establish a policy of
neutrality--I really liked your history lesson in a previous post in
which you described a 1940's Belgium ignoring the rise of Hitler and
depending upon France for your defense!)

Increased tax burden
on the middle class?

When the lowest 40% of wage-earners in America pay ZERO federal tax
and the top 5% of wage earners bear more than 40% of the total federal
tax burden, it is difficult to avoid having those who pay the most tax
reap the greatest benefit from a tax cut.

As for "increased tax burden on the middle class" I'd have to say you
are simply mouthing something you've heard, since the "middle class"
got a tax cut at the beginning of the Bush administration. A huge
segment of lower wage-earners got their taxes zeroed and mid-level
income workers saw their rates dropped by several percent.

If there is an increase for the middle class, it will come as the tax
cuts of the '01 legislation expire in the coming years. The Bush
administration has been lobbying to extend the cuts or make them
permanent.

Entering foreign military adventures of
their own volition?

After months of seeking assistance, after 18 UN resolutions, after a
unanimous vote of the Security Council.... Oh, and have you noted how
effective appeasement of the jihadists has been in Russia and France?

Expanding the power of the government?

Examples? Don't quote the PATRIOT act, unless you can give me an
example of some liberty that has been lost.


No real conservative administration would indulge in such
policies. These are the kind of policies true conservatives
accuse liberals of, often without good reason, but indeed many
neo-cons are former liberals. The few policies that can be
described as traditional conservative mostly relate to "family
values" such as opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

Actually those policies are referred to as "social" conservative
rather than "traditional". Neither social nor traditional
conservatives equate with neo-cons.

As a political movement the neo-cons cannot and should not
be described as traditional liberal or traditional conservative.
A conservative wants to decrease the power of the government;
a liberal wants to increase it to use it to cure the ills of society.

Generally true. No disagreement here at all. Except to note that to
win elections both liberals and conservatives have to become moderate
to gain support of the non-ideological.

Neo-conservatives want to increase the power of the government
simply because they believe that a nation should be "strong"
and therefore its government should be both powerful and
unfettered in its use of that power. That is, both internally and
externally, what this administration has done.

Ah yes. Now we get to it. Clearly you wouldn't like to see a strong
America. How terrible that would be. You'd much rather see a strong
Europe with a federal military capable of keeping you secure.

Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana". These people are
nationalist and, in the defence of their policies, populist. They
also have distinctly manicheist and authoritarian streak, but like
most far-right movements they can't be caught having much in
the way of actual policies.

Our far-right is distinctly moderate when viewed from the total
spectrum of political thought displayed in most European parliaments.

And, what is wrong with us being nationalist? I'm quite proud to call
myself an American first and a globalist about fifth or sixth on my
list of affiliations. And, I hope my government remains populist (even
when I disagree) because that is the nature of imperfect democracy.

While the name "neo-conservative" is a largely American
invention, the phenomenon is not limited to the USA. Aimilar
political movements are surfacing in many Western democracies.
Except that there such movements are described as "extreme right"
as (with a few unfortunate exceptions) kept from gaining power.

There you are stretching you interpretation of neo-conservatism.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org