I would be more convinced of this if I thought Trump himself really took fiscal discipline seriously; I’m not really sure that he does. But on the other hand, at least we can say that he has a tangible first-hand knowledge of what concepts like insolvency, budgets, payroll really mean. To the average Congressdweeb, who seems firmly convinced that 2 + 2 really can equal 7 if you just shout loudly enough, those must be such light and airy notions. But even that little bit of sense of reality that Trump must have is better than the pure fantasy that we get from most of those creatures.

As to conquest of one nation by another, does that extend to overthrow of one government and installation of another, more favorable one? Or restitution of the latter? If so, see Iraq, Afghanistan, Crimea, Grenada! Even Syria! We’re not just talking of seizing and holding dirt.

“So we rescued Kuwait for the Kuwaitis and for the EU, which needed their oil?”

Not at all. We rescued Kuwait to demonstrate our support for geopolitical stability. Conquest of one nation of another is no longer considered legitimate. Even the U.N. declares that to be an inviolable principle.

You cite examples of weaknesses taken completely out of context.

None of those men were “weak” just because you do not agree with decisions that they made. In the case of the two Bushes, I will never buy an argument that they did not do what they thought was best for the country at the time the decisions were made. Never!

As for McCain, there was much about him that I thought inexplicable, and characteristics that I did not care for. But, weakness was not one of his failings. Do not insult his memory with that label. As a Vietnam era Naval Aviator myself, I have tried to project how I would have behaved under the conditions that McCain and the others endured. I cannot. Nor can anyone else.

I am not sure if we should welcome it or fear it, but eventually “Stein’s Law will intervene; … if something cannot go on forever it will stop.”

Not all conservatives will agree, but I believe that if the Republicans were to gain the House, Senate, and Presidency, then the GOP should push for a Convention of the States, while our stars are ascending, to resurrect the Constitution we were meant to have. Some risks with this, yes, but also probably our best opportunity (short of CW 2) to more fully shackle the progressives/ Leftists and their concept of a “living Constitution”, hopefully thereby regaining/ retaining liberty for our posterity.

Caca happens. Once again I prove that I’m only human 😉

Cicero,

I did indeed say that, which in no way is trying to have it both ways. There was reasonable suspicion that if successful with Kuwait, Saddam would at some future point look to Saudi Arabia next. There was also reasonable certainty that the Saudi’s were extremely reluctant to allow a strong US military presence on S.A. soil.

Bush Sr. concluded that the only way to reassure the Saudi’s and get permission to use their bases was to impress upon the Saudis that America did not have territorial designs and that all we wished was to protect national borders from invasion. That pushing Saddam out of Kuwait and degrading his military capabilities enough that he couldn’t repeat his aggression was all that we desired. That was a position that the Saudis could get on board with…

“Other than the fanatical [Wahhabists], what other ‘assets’ were available to fill the power vacuum that a revolt against the Saudi rulers would have brought?”
I agree, but have sometimes entertained the fantasy that the US et al. might set up the Hashemite regime in Jordan as rulers of SA. I believe they lost out in some past conflict and thus would probably be happy to recover their previous ruling position. But, again = pure fantasy.

Of course, there is also the fairly obvious play for the sentiments of Minnesotans as a factor.

Geoffrey, what happened that you lost a consonant?