I’m not defending Part D.

I keep reading this comparison of GWB to LBJ regarding spending. It is very misleading.

Discretionary spending during GWB has averaged 7.4% of GDP(pdf file). This is quite modest when compared to LBJ’s 12.4%. Just to be fair, Clinton averaged 7% and Reagan 11%.

Til you do that, anything is is still a lie. And men who tell lies, even the Liberals, are liars.

Simple enough, Stephen. Now be a man and take care of the apology.

(I mean, Bush’s domestic policies are more or less disastrous, but at least he has the power to implement them… unlike petty old men who have nothing more to contribute than deranged rants on weblogs.)

And remember a couple of weeks ago, when the media came out early in the week witha HUGE over-hyped story that “Bush knew the levees would breach and he let people die anyway because he’s incompetent and he wanted black folks to die.” They pumped that story all week. Then, Friday afternoon, just when people stopped paying attention, they issued a tiny, quiet retraction. That’s how the media handles their “Mistakes.”

Come to think of it, that’s similar to how the MSM has handled all their Iraq reporting. Bad news gets hyped all week. Good news gets a twelve second “but there’s some progress in Iraq, too” story every other weekend on those lame Saturday morning shows nobody watches.

Two problems with that, Sy — 1) Now that FoxNews is on the scene, American media is no longer completely dominated by leftists. 2) Unlike Europeans, Americans tend not to accept blatant editorializing from our media (which is a major reason FoxNews is held in fairly low esteem). I suspect that Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina were the two major turning points in American popular opinion on Iraq, and that the latter was much more important than the former.

Mind, I don’t claim that American media has not played a role in shifting public opinion. But it’s awfully easy to overestimate their impact.

Here’s what I think will happen with the Iraq documents. The raging Lefty moonbats will tell themselves, and their followers, that they are all forgeries. Being such experts at lies and forgery, and still smarting from one of their big forgeries being exposed (the Rather-Mapes documents), it will be “on the brain”, so to speak, and something they badly want to get even for. They will use their standard echo-chamber tactics to prevent a drop of reality from ever seeping in on them.

“Stephen, the NRO articel and Townhall are the same op ed pieces, you schmuck.”

I can’t believe Stephen tried to pull that shit – as if NO ONE here would have picked up on it.

Jesus Hairy Christ, my man! This would be funny if it weren’t so damned typical.

Eric in Hollywood

Buckley went on: “The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous… This isn’t to say that the [Iraq] war is wrong, or that history will judge it to be wrong.”

At Buckley’s 80th B-day party at the WH, Bush paid tribute to this great American –someone who Russell Kirk would have identified as a “Root of the American Order” if still alive and writing. The warmth between Bush and Buckley and the 200+ attendees was obvious. Buckley and Bush are fondly held Yale alums.

You Stephen, on the other hand, are a flat out liar of the first order. And to clothe yourself in some comfortable affectation of intimacy with Buckley, conservativism, or American honor is false.

Buckley didn’t indict Bush’s Administration as a failure. You know it. Others know it. Buckley knows it. Buckley underscores what we all know: Iraq will not succeed unless its people take to heart the fight of progress from dictator to democracy –a messy, imprecise, bloody journey for Iraq just as it was for America.

So, nice try at more lies. But that dog don’t hunt.

Care to offer some penance for your sins, Stephen?

Oh, and the Buckley comments can be found at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

I have no idea what WFB’s comments on Townhall.com have to do with anything, but again, it is consistent. Shouldn’t put up references that aren’t really references. People can check them.

Bill’s been pretty distant for quite a while now. I’m sure his retirement’s coinciding with GWB is purely accidental, but after reading the dude for some thirty years, I get the strange feeling he’s not real happy with GWB.

Thinking about WFB’s conservatism including limited government (so how come the budget under GWB has increased more than under LBJ; that’s a feat)? I can’t imagine he’d endorse federalization of education. Nope, never. Yes, cutting taxes would typically be conservative, but certainly would not be conservative if spending is increased. That causes deficits, and conservatives are appalled by deficits. And these religious wingnuts? Yes, Bill is a conservative, Council of Trent kind of Catholic, but he must be shaking silly over GWB’s endorsement of (UN)intelligent Design, cut-backs for the poor and disabled (Jesus was kind of emphatic about those things), and the theocracy that has inhabited the White House and Congress. Catholics, after all, are at least intelligent. They’d never accept something so silly as “the Bible is the literal, inerant Word of God, which alone is sufficient for salvation.” That’s simply nuts. Sullivan, another Catholic, has resorted to calling the wingnuts Christianists, so that they don’t tarnish Christianity. Good move, I think. No, I think Bill’s retirement could not have come at a better time. Oh, he’d have supported the Iraq invasion, but he might be a tad bit displeased with how incompetent the war has been blotched. Three years into the war, and yesterday was the first day Iraqis were involved in the fighting? And, most notably, “the Pentagon was caught by surprise.” What does Rumsfeld do other than pontificate? He certainly hasn’t a clue about warmongering. So, Bill, enjoy your retirement. Stop gritting your teeth, or you’ll bite your tongue. At worse, only three more years.

Of course, there are two problems with that analysis:

1) What earthly good would it do the Iraqis to release documents showing them colluding with a group that everyone else in the civilized world despises? What exactly did they intend to manipulate people into doing?

2) Why is it that “Saddam always lied” is used only as an explanation when he’s shown colluding with al-Qaeda, NOT when he’s trying to show himself as ideologically opposed to bin Laden?

In short, what liberals want us to believe is that Saddam was telling the truth in public and lying in his private documents. That’s bizarre even for them.

Sean Gleeson is brilliant. Thanks!