Who wrote this?

[TOVisitor]

Read it and then guess. No fair googling. Only guesses allowed.

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question. What he succeeded in doing was aborting a speech by Vice President Cheney which alleged a Saddam/al Qaeda relationship which had not in fact been established.

It isn’t that Tenet now doubts the lethality of the terrorists. What he disputed was an organizational connection which argued for war against Iraq as if Iraq were a vassal state of al Qaeda. A measure of George Tenet’s respect for the reach and malevolence of the enemy is his statement that he is puzzled that Al Qaeda has not, since 2001, sent out “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half dozen American shopping malls on any given day.” By way of prophecy, he writes that there is one thing he feels in his gut, which is that “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.”

But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, “I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.”

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

 

[Asterix]

OK, I didn't google. The language sounds British, though I can't imagine Tony admitting to this.

 

[TOVisitor]

I would say faux British instead of really British. Good guess, Asterix.

 

[Asterix]

Excellent guess. I might have said the same, but I thought he was dead.

 

[TOVisitor]

We;ll give the prize to both AE and Asterix for being such good guessers.

Now, what on earth might he have been thinking when he wrote this? That the Bush admin has been a total disaster for the Repubs and conservatism?

How far away is that from what many on this board have been saying?

Wake up, boys, or you are going down with Captain Queeg.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Excellent guess. I might have said the same, but I thought he was dead.

In many ways William F. Buckley has been dead for years....
I would of guessed it him also.
He's usually not this easy a read........

 

[TQM]

It's a little early

to proclaim Republicans as dead. Unlike in Canadian politics, the political parties in the U.S. by and large put forward completely different teams with entirely different views each election (except for the sitting President - who cannot this time seek a further term).

There are Republicans who remain personally very popular - Rudolph Guilliani is one such example. It remains entirely possible that a new ticket could quickly rid itself of Bush's baggage. (It certanly won't be the first time it happened.)

If the Republicans can survive Nixon, I don't see why they won't survive Bush.

 

[TOVisitor]

Not my opinion, just Mr Buckley's. However, in Nixon's days, there were Repubs with integrity: Howard Baker, to name just one. Where are those people now?

Answer: more loyal to party than to country. THAT's why Buckley is so upset.

BTW, we have a curious case of non-comments on this thread from our resident Kool-aid drinkers.

Too ashamed to admit Buckley might be right?