Hey, Look at That. Pretty Cool, Huh?

Long-time readers know that I've sometimes been rough on Ron Paul (on e.g. "states' rights," the "paleo strategy," etc.). No apologies, all that is what it is, but it's also enormously flattering that Paul (and host Daniel McAdams) chose my latest Garrison Center column to riff on in yesterday's episode of The Ron Paul Liberty Report.

Election 2016 Handicapping: Key GOP Credibility Issue

The 2008 presidential election went to the Democrats in a walk. After seven years of losing ground wars in Asia, the Republicans just weren't in any position to compete, so they didn't. The Democrats didn't have to compete, so they didn't either. John McCain offered to serve George W. Bush's third term. So did Barack Obama. Obama won because McCain had an "R" next to his name.

The 2012 election cycle could have been competitive. In order to make the race competitive, Republicans had to present a contrast on ObamaCare, on foreign policy, or on both. Instead, they went with the Me Too Mannequin -- the father of ObamaCare, their most hapless and un-charismatic presidential nominee since Alf Landon, whose foreign policy positions alternated between deer in the headlights confusion and "just like the last two guys, I guess, but better because hey, it's ME" -- and lost again.

In 2016, it's the Democrats who will have to own the previous eight years of insane/idiotic foreign policy, with their most likely nominee having presided over a non-trivial portion of the insanity/idiocy as Secretary of State.

If the Republicans want to compete in 2016, or at least clear the board and set themselves up for victory in 2020, their best shot is to knock off the "yes, we too are mentally retarded and morally reprobate" crap and clear the board by acknowledging how abysmally stupid and corrupt the Bush/Cheney administration was on the foreign policy front.

Oddly enough, they're getting an assist in doing so from David Corn of Mother Jones. Here's the money quote from Rand Paul circa 2009:

There's a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush No. 1 [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War], and he goes on for about five minutes. He's being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it'd be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good idea to go into Iraq.

Most of the potential Republican candidates still seem to think, the contrary evidence of 2012 notwithstanding, that the road to the White House runs through Sheldon Adelson's checkbook (and, therefore, through Dick Cheney's rich capacity for self-serving fantasy).

They were wrong about that last time around and they're wrong about it now. Nominating a candidate who's sane and sage on foreign policy may not be enough to generate a Republican win in 2016, but nominating another whackjob or greedhead is almost certainly a recipe for Republican failure in 2016. Just sayin' ...

Iraq: The Never-Ending Story

From my latest piece at C4SS:

“Tonight,” US President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised speech on Tuesday, “I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.”

That claim was about as accurate as former US President George W. Bush’s announcement more than seven years ago on May 1st, 2003: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

At the time of Bush’s victory lap on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, only 139 US military personnel had died in the project of invading and occupying Iraq.

Even as Obama put the final touches to his own gloss on the same speech, the 4,278th American to die in Iraq since that speech fell to a sniper’s bullet in Tikrit.

Speaking of C4SS, its two-month fundraiser is not quite halfway to goal with 17 days remaining. Thanks to those of you who've pitched in, and pretty please to those who haven't yet. See here for more info.

Bush: Failure?

According to a CNN poll, 68% of American's regard George W. Bush's presidency as a "failure." Are they right?

Per the conventional wisdom, there's little doubt -- thinking of Bush administration from beginning to end, it's an eight-year stack of epic fails which, taken together, comprise perhaps the ultimate, the Great Pyramid, of Fail. Here's the criterion:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Fail, fail, fail from the original theft of the position in 2000 to the economic collapse of 2008, with two lost wars abroad and one fairly successful war -- on our civil liberties -- at home in between.

But ... "failure" presupposes an objective which has not been achieved, and it's by no means obvious that George W. Bush's objectives were those contemplated in the Constitution.

We know Bush's history, and it's a history of getting the things he wants through politics, often welshing on any repayment due.

He wanted to avoid Vietnam, and his daddy's politician friends obliged him by securing an Air National Guard billet for him (from which he subsequently deserted).

He bought into a failing baseball team and voila, Austin bailed it out and made it profitable for him with taxpayer money.

He decided he wanted to be governor of Texas, and the voters obliged. They even gave him a second term and he deserted them, too, because he decided he'd rather be president instead.

Is it really any surprise that after stealing the 2000 election (once again with the help of politicians of similar ... character), Georgie would spend the subsequent eight years doing the things Georgie wanted to do instead of the things the job required him to do? And can he really be classified as a "failure" if he got exactly what he intended to get out of his presidency?

IMO, the Bush presidency should be viewed as a (thus far) successful crime spree, not as a failed attempt at "public service." He's lined the pockets of his friends and campaign contributors well, even to the extent of trillions of dollars in new government debt. When he leaves office, he -- and they -- will continue to profit on the speech circuit, on the memoir-publishing gravy train, through gratuitous corporate board appointments, etc.

If Bush is a "failure," he's laughing all the way to the "failure" bank. Matter of fact, I'd suggest that he title his presidential memoir The Joy of Failure: How to Fail Your Way to the Top ... but someone else beat him to the title.

"It is the farewell kiss, you dog"

Not quite as over the top as puking in the Japanese prime minister's lap, but it's nice to see Baby Bush going out on an appropriately buffoonish note. Filing him under "really bad jokes" instead of "really evil dudes" is how the healing begins.