Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
(2) i continue to be baffled by the general conservative tendency (in this thread represented by ace, in fine fashion) of denigrating the representative/legislative body and fetishizing the Leader. it doesnt seem to square with the libertarian side of conservative politics, so it doesnt seem to follow logically. how does this work?
|
What is baffling about what I write? Nothing. The differnence between you (Bush and I speak the same language literally and figuratively) and me is I see things in black and white. You see things in shades of gray. In my view, it is far to easy for you and others who see the world in shades of gray to have positions that are not clear and then change those positions slightly without ever admitting a change. I think we fight to win, or we should get out of the fight. I don't know what the hell you think.
Here is the problem and it is based on what I know about how people like Bush and I think. We are "pitbulls" when we get our minds set on something we have a singular focus and won't let go. When Bush says he want the authority to wage war, he is going to wage war. When Congress says they want to wage war, to them it means only as a last resort, only after diplomacy, only after we have support of the world, etc, etc. Now Bush is saying he wants more troops and more money for the war. He will use the troops and spend the money. Congress will send him a letter saying don't send the troops, and give him more money because they "support the troops" or whatever.
The way to deal with people like me and Bush is to snap us out of it, look us in the eye and say no! If you give us Washington double speak, it is like white noise, we ignore it. I supported Bush, the war and removing Sadaam, now I say Bush no longer has the "authority" from the American people to lead, his plan will fail without that authority.
If Congress supports the troops and cares about the impact this war is having they need to act now. there is nothing baffling about that.