My Response to "Jane Galt"

My response to Jane Galt/Megan McCardle, who was lauded by Andrew Sullivan for her "thoughtful, thorough, and cogent argument" in support of George Bush.

Bush's military adventurism in Iraq represents a failure of imagination in foreign policy, not proof of it. In light of the intense animosity we have generated in the region, the worst consequences of Bush's "quagmire" most likely have yet to unfold. We've been here before, when we needed to "stay the course" in Vietnam lest the dominoes tumble and the world be overtaken by Communism. Next thing we hear from the Bush camp will be that there is "light at the end of tunnel." Perhaps we need to have a statement of goals that will either let us ascertain when we have achieved victory or when further loss of life is pointless. However, if Bush really has made a ghastly mistake, he should not be allowed to persist in it for another four years.

On the home front, the consistent thread in Bush's policy has been to consolidate his base by institutionalizing increasing wealth for the wealthiest Americans. This is not what America is or ought to be about.

Why does it make sense to argue that since both parties are bad on civil liberties, it does not matter if the Republicans are worse?

Who seriously thinks that Bush the Texas oilman would support emissions taxes?

Bush was a mistake. Let's not repeat it.

Incidentally, I do not know the origin of the moniker "Jane Galt." However, it sounds suspiciously like a play on "John Galt," the hero of the best known novel of the shallow materialist Ayn Rand.