A Washington Post article today makes it clear that disgruntled Conservatives are turning up the heat on Bush. Yesterday's darling has become today's old hag with the President unable to satisfy anyone, it seems.
Many Conservatives bet against their own ideology of smaller government and limited foreign engagement when they supported Bush's forays into expanded federal oversight of education, the blurring of State and Church lines, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They seemed willing to try the Neo-conservative route for a spell because they liked the show of strength that foreign policy projected. But then Rummy wanted to do Iraq on the cheap and three years on we're bogged down in a bloody (and bloodier by the day) exercise in nation building, an anathema to the Conservative philosophy. It appears they're discovering the perils of leaving your beliefs to join a cult of personality.
One sure sign the movement is leaving their once Golden Child behind is frequent, boisterous complaints to the media. The age old enemy of the Conservative movement comes in mighty handy when you really want to make a point. The Post's article allows the movement's intellectuals (ironic, since one basic tenet of grassroots Conservatism is to marginalize the intellectual elite) to castigate Bush's latest foreign policy problems by calling him the worst thing they can: Kerry-lite.
"What they are doing on North Korea or Iran is what [Sen. John F.] Kerry would do, what a normal middle-of-the-road president would do," said Kenneth Adelman, a Reagan administration arms-control official who is close to Vice President Cheney. "This administration prided itself on molding history, not just reacting to events. Its [sic] a normal foreign policy right now. It's the triumph of Kerryism."
Professional told-you-so, Newt Gingrich can't help himself and has been on TV more in the last two weeks than the entire debacle of Clinton's impeachment he helped orchestrate.
Newt begs the question, "Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong Il?"
Why not? Seems the administration has lost its first dance partner.
Andrew Sullivan, a Conservative who saw through the Bush cult some time ago, weighs in on the disastrous foreign policy boondoggle in the Middle East.
Sullivan comes to the same conclusion as everyone else who doesn't have a White House nickname, and that is, "that Iraq is in a de facto civil war. I don't know what else to call a hundred deaths a day, and 6,000 every two months."
What's somewhat disappointing is that he still clings to the fairy tale neocon notion that got us into this mess in the first place—but just barely.
"...thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, the policy of democratization never had a chance of having a peaceful example in Iraq and has instead destabilized the region further - showing for good measure that Islamist parties who gain power democratically will use that power immediately to wage war."
The latter part of that statement was basically the argument many of us opposed to the invasion made BEFORE we shocked and awed the Iraqis three years ago. Of course, that theory was dismissed as fatalist and even racist, as if the fact that people in the Middle East have a darker complexion was the reason given.