Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Bush and his overemployed manliness

The first line of Ruth Marcus’ piece in the Washington Post: "I have a new theory about what’s behind everything that’s wrong with the Bush administration: manliness." I’ll get on this right after my class (Human Being and Citizen, we are finishing Booker T. Washington’s Atlanta speech). Read Marcus’ trifle. You’ll love it.

Discussions - 19 Comments

Marcus’ "trifle" is smarmy, nauseating. Nausea can be estrogen-induced. Could that explain our national and international discords? Hormonal imbalances? The Left is estrogen-driven? And Islam represents androgen toxicity?

To Tom Noell: Thoughtful. Thank you.

To quote a great philosopher:

"Ar Ar"

Tim Allen.

Ruth Marcus is one of the Post’s many embarrassments among its writing staff. She used to be a beat reporter, but was so bad they moved her to the editorial page with a column.

I loved it, just like Peter predicted. How could you not?

Was Jesus a manly man?

Is Fung a manly man?

Jesus was the ultimate man

Brian, let me offer a link to Carol Platt Liebau who explains why you should not. Ms. Liebau:

Well, speak for yourself, Ms. Marcus. When I have to choose a leader to defend me and my family and my country from Islamofascists who would love nothing more than to hack off our heads with butter knives, I’m not really looking for an "introspective" leader, plagued by "self-doubt", in constant search of "consensus." (What would reaching "consensus" with Al Qaeda look like, anyway? "Here -- you can enslave or chop the heads off the women, but only the blondes, ’kay?").

In fact, you could argue that some of the biggest blunders of the Bush Administration have come -- not from excessive manliness -- but from a misplaced desire for consensus. No Child Left Behind was supposed to build bridges to Teddy Kennedy. The Medicare drug bill was supposed to appeal to Democrats who had been decrying the drug burden on the elderly. All the spending was supposed to reassure those who feared that conservatives lacked compassion (as defined by the willingness to spend others’ money). The effort to forge "consensus" in the UN resulted in delaying the Iraq invasion, which in turn may have provided Saddam with the opportunity to hide his WMD’s in Syria.

Steve Malynn,
you were doing OK until you hit the NCLB and Medicare.
NCLB is the vehicle by which vouchers will be available in all failing the student districts. Teddy was snookered and it’s really unfortunate you an Ms. Liebau were as well. Fortunately, the students most affected will benefit! Regardless of the NEA!
As far as the Medicare drug thingy, all of the surrogate parentals, I’m in my 60’s, they’re in their 80’s, & they love that they are saving $400 a month or more!
Mike

Dear God, how can you buy such tripe?


No one is suggesting consensus building with the deranged. To assume that is simply stupid, or disingenous. However, it would be a nice touch with allies, or neutrals or nationally. I mean look at this juvenile drivel : "Here -- you can enslave or chop the heads off the women, but only the blondes, ’kay?").


Sure, someone is actually suggesting that.


Then this. : The effort to forge "consensus" in the UN resulted in delaying the Iraq invasion, which in turn may have provided Saddam with the opportunity to hide his WMD’s in Syria.


The bloodthirsty Saddam, on the eve of an invasion, spirits away the only weapons likely to give the enemy pause for thought? How can anyone be so myopic as to publish this tripe?


I had no idea what to think about the WMD prior to the invasion, nonetheless I was against it. However, I KNEW with certainty that there were none 4 weeks into the invasion. Why? Because they had not been USED. That is the most compelling evidence that they never existed.


Nope, the original article had it spot on. Bush is a stubborn ass.

Mike, I’ll hope you are correct about NCLB, but is the best way to get vouchers a larger federal footprint? I hope Medicare does not break us, what’s another entitlement among friends, eh.

Brian, can you say "Oil for Food" - we had a coalition, still have 30 plus allies on the ground in Iraq, just no cooperation from those who had been bought. Ms. Marcus earned the reducio ab adsurdum.

Regarding spiriting away weapons: Where did Saddam hide his air force in Gulf War I?

After the first go-around, Saddam knew he could not go toe-to-toe with a US-lead Western invasion. His strategy was specifically to hide his assets and make occupation too costly, really his only option. And our "friends" the Russians helped him.

But I’ll agree Bush is Stubborn. That’s how I like my warfighters.

Regarding spiriting away weapons: Where did Saddam hide his air force in Gulf War I?


Steve, each response is lamer than the last. Who sends up 15 year old Migs against top of the range US fighter aircraft? Only an idiot.


Chemical and biological warheads are another thing altogether. A few lucky hits and those whiny americans could be down 5 or 10K. Nasty.

Brian, I’m a retired USMC Infantry Officer. I’d suggest learning a little about the military before you call someone else lame.

Bio/Chem weapons are more a threat to civilians than the US military - we do not fight a static war.

Saddam’s Chemical and biological warheads were of use against Iranian human waves and Kurdish villages, not an armored advance with absolute control of the air.

The modern battlefield is not the trenches of WWI, Saddam’s use of chemical or bio gas against a US invasion would have been once, and the resulting damage perhaps dozens of GI’s injured or killed. The Coalition forces went in with full MOPP (mission oriented protection posture) gear and active counter battery plans. The threat of gas attacks causes prepared troops discomfort, not death.

WMD are a terror weapon, with the exception of atom bombs: only nukes are a serious military threat.

By the way, the most effecive gas shells are nerve gas - simply concentrated insecticide - once the technology is owned, anyone can make it, consider a Japanese cult’s terror attack; now consider a petrochemical producing country run by Saddam.

The concern about WMDs was never use on the battlefield, but use by terrorists.

Steve- I remember a story about the Poles fighting an armored German advance on horseback -- not because horses are effective, but because horses were all the Poles had.

I’ve got to think that, if Saddam had chemical weapons to slow or hamper the U.S. advance, he would have used them. I thought that was why our soldiers carried gear that would help them continue in case of such an attack.

Brian, I’m a retired USMC Infantry Officer. I’d suggest learning a little about the military before you call someone else lame.


Well I’ve been in the military too Steve, and I know enough to know that the Iraqi airforce, would have been completely decimated without ever getting within striking distance of the enemy.


Hence my comment.


All Saddam needed was a few lucky hits with his "WMD" to inflict some very serious casualties. I’m not suggesting he would have won the war, but the idea that he would give up these weapons, when facing personal destruction seems to be at odds with everything we know about him.

Brian, thats BS: All Saddam needed was a few lucky hits with his "WMD" to inflict some very serious casualties. to produce any "serious casualties" would require a barrage of gas shells, real live hundreds of shells - Saddam could not pull of a barrage of HE after the air war started.


Saddam’s Baathists were not suicidal, they melted into the populace, as per their plan to fight an insurgency.


The WMDs were a threat to neighbors and the subjugated - exactly how Saddam used them in GW I - again falsifying your unsupported "I’m not suggesting he would have won the war, but the idea that he would give up these weapons, when facing personal destruction seems to be at odds with everything we know about him."

What is "everything we know", after GW I tens of thousands of rounds of WMD identified, never used, catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors, but never accounted for.

So Saddam did not use them in GW I, and its inconsistant that he did not use them in GW II?

So Saddam did not use them in GW I, and its inconsistant that he did not use them in GW II?


I think thats consistent with the man. GWI was not more than a brief poke at Iraq itself, and never came close threatening Saddam.


With GWII, it was clear from the outset that total occupation was on the cards.


Who in that situation would not keep his most potent weapons?

More revisionism. Saddam’s military was done for after GW I. GHWB just caved for two reasons: he did not want to buck his chicken-s*** allies (the UN) and he did not want to pay for occupation. On a spectrum Carter - Bush(41) - Bush (43) you can see: failure - half a loaf - fighting for the whole enchalada. Are you saying Saddam knew Bush would stop short, and give Saddam victory? (Although I’ve Kuwaitii friends the think GHWB is a genius who ensured his son’s ascendency by keeping Saddam around for W to bring down, but they beleive its all about the Oil, too.)

Who in that situation would not keep his most potent weapons? Kind of the whole point - Saddam knew he could not achieve anything by using gas against the US, so save it as a threat against someone else, either by hiding it or shipping it.

Don’t just take my guesses, Iraqi General George Sada witnessed 56 flights to Syria: "My own knowledge of these transfers [WMD to Syria] doesn’t come from any of the published reports but from a man who was actually involved in the transfers - a civilian pilot who witnessed the commercial 747 going back and forth between Syria and Iraq at that time. And he has confirmed for me that it happened just this way." Sada Claims he saw the WMDs before they were loaded.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8286