July 17, 2007

run towards, not away...

Thanks to Harold Sutton for pointing this one out to me, from National Review:

GOP Hopefuls Keep Distance From Bush; Republican Candidates Run from Bush; Republicans Backing Away From Bush. These are the headlines we have and will continue to see again and again throughout the remainder of the 2008 primary campaign and after every GOP debate. With approval numbers in the high 20s and low 30s, the president cannot expect the GOP candidates for president to run toward him, and on any number of issues the candidates are well within their rights and judgments to put daylight between the outgoing administration and their hopeful one.

But on one issue, the candidates should not run from the president, in fact they should run toward him and close any distance or doubt between them: the battle of our lifetime, the global war against Islamic terrorism and its battleground Iraq.

We propose they do so as soon as possible, in one press conference where they all stand united in one voice and say: “On this issue, on the war against Islamic terror, in the battle for Iraq, we stand with one voice and one policy: Victory. We support both the troops and the mission and you cannot divide that support. The troops and their generals believe in what they are doing, that they can win if they are given the necessary support. We believe them, we believe in them, and will do everything in our political power to help see them through to victory. On this issue, there is no daylight among the president, our servicemen and women in Iraq, and us. We will not support premature withdrawal or surrender.”

Let the press conference happen soon, as the House has just voted to stop the war in April of next year; the Senate is debating the very same; other politicians are arguing for an even sooner withdrawal; and the media is making heroes of a handful of Senate Republicans who are distancing themselves from the president on Iraq.

Let it take place at Ground Zero in New York. Politicizing the war? Hardly. That has already been done by those who have stampeded to the Senate and House floors, rushing to be the first with a new withdrawal plan for Iraq; or by declaring the war “a failure;” or “a meatgrinder;” or the lives of our soldiers “wasted” or “squandered;” or saying the president lied us into war; or by the attempted rewriting of history from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (signed by President Bill Clinton) to what those who voted to authorize the war in 2002 did and did not say — did and did not mean — when they spoke in favor of and voted for the authorization of that force....
Posted by John Weidner at July 17, 2007 01:12 PM
Comments

Conservatism should distinguish itself from President Bush — even now, before he leaves the stage — by its unabashed rejection of “the religion of peace” falsehood; its equally unabashed embrace of skepticism toward the Islamic religion as a whole; and its unbending and unembarrassed hostility toward the Islamic doctrine of Jihad. (1) Restoration of the principle of limited government; (2) recovery of a healthy skepticism of war, especially modern total war; (3) principled antipathy for the Jihad---Paul Cella

Posted by: Bisaal at July 20, 2007 12:02 AM

I don't agree with Mr Cella.

I think "Religion of Peace" is a justifiable wartime falsehood, to try to avoid being or looking like we are "at war with Islam."

I think Conservatism is plenty skeptical of Islamic religion by now (and everybody rejects jihad), BUT, any conservative who becomes president will end up acting a lot like Bush has, for purely practical reasons.

Limited government? I'm for it too, but it isn't going to happen.

"Skepticism of war?" That's what Bush has, which is why we have not invaded countries that are openly hostile to us, like Iran, Syria, or Arabia. (And what Cella maybe does not have enough of, when he talks tough about "Islam as a whole." There's a billion of them Paul, so maybe let's not pick any fights with the bunch?)

"Total war?" Is he crazy? He can't possibly be so ignorant of history as to call anything we do now "total war." Total war is when ALL resources are committed to war, and to the defeat of the enemy. During WWII my dad was TOLD what crops he was going to plant on his own land, according to the needs of the war effort!

Posted by: John Weidner at July 20, 2007 06:50 AM
Weblog by John Weidner