...And he's fighting against the "true" Conservatives. Pat Buchanan wrote this story in the Conservative "Human Events Online" site:

"Bush Leaves GOP In Crisis".

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210

(Sorry to post the same link in two articles. Had I known this on-topic story was coming, I would have waited. My bad).

From the above link, Buchanan writes:

"Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.

Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders."

(Sorry to post the same link in two articles. Had I known this on-topic story was coming, I would have waited. My bad).

No need to apologize A, this link is appropriate on any topic here.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210

I hope it isn't considered un-american to speak out against the war in Iraq and the president on Veterans Day. I wouldn't consider it a "speech," he spoke, and he has many more than the troops to convince. Talking to the troops is the only place Bush can get applause aka; sucking up to the boss.

"Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans — 25 million vets who have used the uniform of the United States of America," the commander-in-chief said."

Who wrote this anyway, "W"? "Used the uniform"?

Lest we all forget, Libby, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowicz, Krystol, and the whole NeoConservative PNAC cadre have, since 1998, been strongly advocating for, and actively seeking to engage in the imperialist ventures Buchanan refers to.

So, why anyone is surprised they made good on their stated desires?

Lest anyone think this is just Left-wing (oh yeah...and Right wing) propaganda, check out the PNAC's source document yourselves:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

All quotes from the PNAC document of Sept 2000:

"America's global leadership relies on...a favorable balance of power in...the Middle Ease and surrounding energy-producing region..."

"American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century--which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example--maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes..."

They further discussed the need for "...conducting constabulary missions which perserve the current peace" and outlined the military's task to "secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace'" and "maintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces."

"...a permanent unit should be based in the Persian Gulf region."

"the value of land power continues to appeal to a global superpower, whose security interests rest upon maintaining and expanding a world-wide system of alliances as well as on the ability to win wars"

In discussing how they'll get there, the PNAC says: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

So, they've stated their imperialistic goals all along, discussed leveraging a catalizing event such as a "new Pearl Harbor",(read: 9/11), to gain control in the Middle East, and Bush wants us to believe they didn't do EXACTLY what they've been talking about doing since before 9/11? Clearly he doesn't have the true Conservatives bamboozled, nor the Lefties. Just tryin' to spread more of the same bunk around.

It's not un-American to disagree with the President. That's the beauty of this country.

It's deeply disturbing and extremely distasteful however to accuse those who fight for you to have this freedom of "sucking up to the boss". What an immature statement.

The fact that the Democrats have finally grown some balls and are calling the Bush administration on their deceptions pleases me to no end. The fact that the MSM is FINALLY asking the tougher questions and pointing out the inconsistencies pleases me to no end. The fact that alleged lies of a high-ranking administration official (Libby) has knee-capped the administration has me positively giddy. The fact that the GOP got trounced in the recent elections is wonderful.

I gloat over the fact that my prediction here on PME that the Bush administration would be mired in scandal for the 2nd term proved correct.

The fact that the Conservatives like Pat Buchanan don't trust the President pleases me to no end. The fact that most Americans don't trust the President pleases me to no end.

Now, WHEN the impeachment proceding begin, I'll be happier still.

Finally, America sees the reality of the deception and fundamental ineptitude that are the hallmarks of the Bush administration. Too bad they didn't see that before he was able to damage our country and destroy our credibility.

Buchanan is an Isolationist of the first order. He is hardly a "conservative" voice to listen to on these War matters. But that is what you libs always do. Roll out the trusty Pat Buchanan to prove EVEN conservatives are against it.

That's like us arguing that Zell Miller supports Bush...

In what is supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that he mislead this country by among other things trying to tie Saddam to 9/11, W tries to use Osama to justfiy invading Iraq.

Just how dumb is he? And you guys for supporting him.

"It's deeply disturbing and extremely distasteful however to accuse those who fight for you to have this freedom of "sucking up to the boss". What an immature statement."

Why do find this comment deeply disturbing? Are you so immature to believe all the GI's (that's government issue) that were chosen to be there (at "Ws" pep-rally) were not hand picked? Do you really believe all the military assigned to duty in Iraq believe in the war, that it's the right thing to do, and that we should be there?

I have worn the uniform and I earned the right to speak out. Maybe the term "used" pisses me off because I believe that's what "W" did. If something should disturb you DT, it should be that the asshole used the day of rememberance to do a political stump. His time would have been best served at Arlington.

Re: "That's like us arguing that Zell Miller supports Bush..." and "He is hardly a "conservative" voice to listen to on these War matters."

OK, fair points. But, there is a little more to this. In Buchanan's case, he's not simply bashing Bush as Miller bashed Kerry in the polarized manner of good person/bad person. Buchanan's, focus is on the issues that are responsible for Bush bringing this current state of crisis on the GOP. His points regarding the fallacy of the case for war and the subsequent (negative) outcomes are poignant, principled, and consistent with the values of true Conservatism. His arguements are in line with the writings of other true conservatives such as the late Russell Kirk, who also decried the ideology of NeoConservatism that has hijacked the White House. Where Zel Miller has little credibility among Liberals, Democrats, and Republicans alike (other than as an election year poster child for Bush), Pat Buchanan is widely considered a standard bearer for true Conservatism.

In this case, however, it's not just Pat Buchanan. Many conservatives have expressed similar sentiments. Cons and GOP alike are distancing themselves from the Bush administration as they begin to seriously raise the same questions we Libs have been raising for a while now regarding their (lack of) integrity and ability to run a nation. As one might have expected, the spotlight put on the Bush administration by the Libby indictment has turned the Bush administration into political kryptonite.

so who are the "cons and GOP alike" you are referring to? Your post is just wishful thinking.

Come now Lisa, do you lie yourself to sleep each night? It's mid-winter at the White House and the Big Chill is arriving. Try a Google and see for yourself.

1)Conservatives and GOP distance themselves from Bush.

2)Conservatives and the GOP gather to support Bush.

#2 is old news

Re: "So who are the 'cons and GOP alike' you are referring to?"

Lisa, that is a fair question. Try Russ' suggestion for Googling. I did so using his exact verbiage and the results were exactly as he indicated. But to more specifically answer your question:

_Pat Buchanan derides the policies of the Bush administration on the budget, on spending, and especially on Iraq.

_Sen. John McCain of Arizona is tweaking Bush for his budget-busting spending binge.

_Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a hero to grass-roots conservatives, threatened to oppose the Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

_Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska assails Bush on Iraq, contending that the White House is "disconnected from reality."

_Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee scoffs at Bush's suggestion that perhaps the Pentagon should be the lead agency handling natural disasters.

_Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, contends that the current GOP establishment, mired in scandals, has betrayed the small-government reform agenda that congressional conservatives brought to Washington 10 years ago.

_Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo of Colorado charges that Bush is soft on illegal immigration and hasn't done enough to secure our borders against terrorists.

There's plenty more. I was just lazy in only providing these. Have a good rest of the weekend.

OK, I couldn't put it down. Here's some more for you Lisa:

_Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff at the State Department from 2001 to '05, assailed the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that has hijacked U.S. foreign policy, saying, "The case that I saw over four-plus years was a case I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process."

_Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, dismissed Bush’s Social Security plan as something to be shelved until after the 2008 Presidential election.

_Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, opposed Bush’s requested $7 billion to fight bird flu.

_Jerry Kilgore (R-VA) conspicuously neglected to enlist Bush's help on the stump.

_Wanna see REALLY pissed Conservatives bashing Bush? Check out: http://www.steinreport.com/cgi-bin/movetype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=8549

-Article in the "Weekly Standard": "The Party of Sam's Club: Isn't it time the Republican's Did Something For their Voters?": http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/312korit.asp

I found an excellent blog where a Navy Seal spells out exactly what we all know - liberals are anti-American, unpatriotic jackals. This is a very good thread complete with a few abrasive Um Yeah'ish and pathetic Androdouche trolls slithering in for a righteous beatdown.

Check it out.

I checked it out, cant say im impressed.

Way to suck RR.

I checked it out, cant say im impressed.

Your first fuckup is expecting your opinion matters.

Way to delude yourself. Great use of apostrophes too.

Jizzbag.

Whats an "Apostrophe"?

Androminos: . . . Don't forget: _Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.)who is charging that their is a major coverup with respect to "Operation Able Danger". He believes 911 could have been prevented. . . .

(And yes, both the Clinton and Bush administrations are in the line of fire here.)

RR: Heh, heh. Trolls, douchebags, pathetic Liberals we may be, but it doesn't change the fact that Cons and GOP are distancing themselves from Bush, nor the fact that the deceptions of the Bush administration are being exposed for what they are. I appreciate the comment about the righteous beatdown, however. It's nice when someone recognizes they've been beat down--even if in the context of an ad-hominem attack. Even more entertaining is a rebuttal that centers on a link to "Froggy Ruminations". Nice. Glad I didn't have to go up against you on the debate team. Ribbit.

Stop_George: yes, that's a good one I missed. Thanks.

Yowza: 95 Bishops from President Bush's church said Thursday they repent their "complicity" in the "unjust and immoral" invasion and occupation of Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1111-08.htm

Androminos, thanks for bringing up PNAC. They don't get mentioned enough. Funny how they didn't mention 9/11 back in '98. Funny how Bush ties invading Iraq into 9/11. Would anyone care to defend that? To me, that's always been the most egregious argument in favor of occupying Iraq, that it somehow has something to do with 9/11. Didn't Bush publicly disavow a linkage between Saddam and 9/11? He must be getting desperate to be returning to that rhetoric. Why is this speech supposed to be considered "firing back"? I don't hear any actual arguments, just a bunch of tired cliched rhetoric and unjustified claims. Seriously, if you showed me this speech three months ago I would have thought it was current. The guy never says anything new.

Democrats fight back against Bush:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006989.php

What I liked best about this were the points about nuclear weapons and the 9/11 tie-in. Overall, a lot less nebulous than Bush's meandering speech.

Sen. John McCain says that prisoner abuse harms our war effort, "W" blames the Democrats. Anyone notice the bizzare twist the GeoDick twins use to cover their torture tactics.

Fella: nice link. And I totally agree about the PNAC. It's the most underreported news story for about 4 years running. Even fellow Libs don't get it, despite the fact it's right there in front of them. Somehow it smacks too much of conspiracy theory for the average person. Or perhaps it's that it's not in bullet point, sound-bite format, and that makes it too much to handle. God forbid the average American actually have to READ something, huh? Friggin' apathetic Americans.

*Sigh*

What can you do?

""What can you do?""

A, I agree in regard to american apathy, and it seems they return (primarily by not voting) for more poison on a regular basis to reinforce an attitude of "there's nothing I can do about it."

SF, Thanks for the input and the Howler link. I was thinking about A's comment and the PNAC as I watched the story on the 168 tortured in Iraq. This along with the secret prisons, the President and VP pushing to exclude the CIA from the anti-torture bill. It's a sad day in american history when we need to pass legislation banning torture.

When apathy has just about gotten the best of your day, "Smile." Cara goes straight to the heart.

http://www.carascissoria.com

And I totally agree about the PNAC. It's the most underreported news story for about 4 years running. Even fellow Libs don't get it, despite the fact it's right there in front of them. Somehow it smacks too much of conspiracy theory for the average person.

Dead right. I love how conservatives will put "neocon" in "quotes", as though they are condescending to talk about your little theory. Some of them really seem to think that it's just a cover word for "Jew". Somebody told them that once.

If anyone wants to learn why we went to war, you are missing a giant part of the puzzle if you don't learn about PNAC and the OSP (Office of Special Plans) under Douglas Feith. Neocons have been at the center of this before there was a this.

You know what pissed me off about Farenheit 9/11 more than anything else? Moore spent more than half the movie talking about Saudi Arabia, which is meaningless, when he should have been talking about the neocons. I mean, what was he trying to say about Saudi Arabia? Should we invade? Should we stop buying their gas? Should we alienate a strategic ally in control of the world's largest oil reserves?

Flag on play! This is what I don't like about liberalism, when it spirals off into pure nay-saying and self-righteousness without giving any kind of real world alternative. So what should we do about this nefarious thing, Mr. Moore, where people in power form alliances? Bah, I say.