Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Jimmy Carter- Lunatic or Just Full of Crap?: Jimmy Carter is spouting off again with more rubbish about making nice with terrorists. This time he wants us to cuddle up with Hamas- the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers. Some say he's really a lunatic, but personally I lean towards him being utterly full of crap. Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post that supports that hypothesis.
Source Link: Father of the Iranian Revolution
Jun. 20, 2007 0:14 | Updated Jun. 20, 2007 14:35
Father of the Iranian revolution
By MICHAEL D. EVANS
The Jerusalem Post
We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.
Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."
The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"
Let's look at the results of Carter's misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter's response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
WHEN CARTER entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the West killed God and wants us to bury him," Khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of Western culture").
Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.
Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter's military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: "The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'One cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden's call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world.
Jimmy Carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the West, hell bent on killing the soul of America. The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.
IN THE '60S it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of America with the "God is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the State Department, Congress, and Senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of America while the East attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the Democratic Party.
What is going on in Iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. The Iran-Iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam Hussein saw himself as an Arab leader who would defeat the non-Arab Persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his Islamic Revolution across the borders to the Shi'ites in Iraq and then beyond to the Arab countries.
Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what Iran is doing in Iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the Shi'ites across the border to remove Saddam from power and establish an Islamic republic like in Iran.
Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.
There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.
KHOMEINI HAD the help of the PLO in Iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder Iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder Yasser Arafat was hailed as a friend of Khomeini after he seized control of Iran and was given the Israeli Embassy in Teheran with the PLO flag flying overhead.
The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. But on April 1, 1979 the greatest April Fools' joke of all time was played, as Khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of God.
In February 1979 Khomeini had boarded an Air France flight to return to Teheran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "I will kick his teeth in" - referring to then prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar, who was left in power with a US pledge of support. He was assassinated in Paris by Iranian agents in 1991.
I sat in the home of Gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented Carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. He really believed that a cleric - whose Islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and Iran.
He could have changed history by condemning Khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of Iran.
The writer is a New York Times best-selling author. His newest book is The Final Move Beyond Iraq. www.beyondiraq.com
Source Link: Father of the Iranian Revolution
Jun. 20, 2007 0:14 | Updated Jun. 20, 2007 14:35
Father of the Iranian revolution
By MICHAEL D. EVANS
The Jerusalem Post
We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.
Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."
The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"
Let's look at the results of Carter's misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter's response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
WHEN CARTER entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the West killed God and wants us to bury him," Khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of Western culture").
Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.
Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter's military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: "The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'One cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden's call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world.
Jimmy Carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the West, hell bent on killing the soul of America. The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.
IN THE '60S it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of America with the "God is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the State Department, Congress, and Senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of America while the East attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the Democratic Party.
What is going on in Iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. The Iran-Iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam Hussein saw himself as an Arab leader who would defeat the non-Arab Persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his Islamic Revolution across the borders to the Shi'ites in Iraq and then beyond to the Arab countries.
Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what Iran is doing in Iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the Shi'ites across the border to remove Saddam from power and establish an Islamic republic like in Iran.
Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.
There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.
KHOMEINI HAD the help of the PLO in Iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder Iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder Yasser Arafat was hailed as a friend of Khomeini after he seized control of Iran and was given the Israeli Embassy in Teheran with the PLO flag flying overhead.
The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. But on April 1, 1979 the greatest April Fools' joke of all time was played, as Khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of God.
In February 1979 Khomeini had boarded an Air France flight to return to Teheran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "I will kick his teeth in" - referring to then prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar, who was left in power with a US pledge of support. He was assassinated in Paris by Iranian agents in 1991.
I sat in the home of Gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented Carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. He really believed that a cleric - whose Islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and Iran.
He could have changed history by condemning Khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of Iran.
The writer is a New York Times best-selling author. His newest book is The Final Move Beyond Iraq. www.beyondiraq.com
Labels: appease, appeasement, foreign policy, former President, Hamas, Jimmy Carter, Palestinians, President, terrorists, worst, worst president
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Paris Hilton's Great Adventure: I'm fascinated by the coverage of Paris Hilton's Great Adventure, and in my mind I've been tossing over the so-called facts in the matter. Here's my take- for what it's worth (probably not much when all is said and done)
In my mind there are four elements to this saga. The judicial system, Hollywood celebreties, Paris Hilton, and a judge.
First, largely our judicial system has become a "process" where people have a brush with the law, they come into the process, someone in a black robe drops a gavel, some money is paid, and then the perpetrator returns to their life. The process continues on, and on, and on.
Second, you have the Hollywood celebreties that lead dangerously out of control lives that occasionally brush up against "the Process". They do something stupid, or dangerous, or both, then get on the "process-go-round", pay their fine and get on with their lives.
Then you have Paris. She is living that dangerous life, has her brush with the process, and expects to get kicked out the far end of the "process-go-round" and get back to her life. But.....
Finally you have the judge. This judge apparently resents the Hollywood types that play the process game and then end up killing either themselves or an innocent "passer by" on the celebrity road to self destruction. On top of that, celebrities tend to get high paid lawyers and then flaunt the system and the courts.
My guess, and that's all it is, is this judge looked at Paris, saw that no one in her life has ever said "no" to her, that she was on the Anna Nichole Smith Express, and that she merely expected to play "process-go-round" and get back to her life. I think the judge said "not this time". I believe he decided to do two things; bring some sanity and purpose back to the judicial system in the form of accountability, and intervene in Paris' life and try to give her that Life Lesson that may save her life.
Jail is supposed to be punitive; it's NOT supposed to be a part of process that "other people" experience. I totally believe the judge indended to send a wake up call to Paris that her life is way off track and to other Hollywood celebs that his court is not a part of "proccess-go-round".
In my mind there are four elements to this saga. The judicial system, Hollywood celebreties, Paris Hilton, and a judge.
First, largely our judicial system has become a "process" where people have a brush with the law, they come into the process, someone in a black robe drops a gavel, some money is paid, and then the perpetrator returns to their life. The process continues on, and on, and on.
Second, you have the Hollywood celebreties that lead dangerously out of control lives that occasionally brush up against "the Process". They do something stupid, or dangerous, or both, then get on the "process-go-round", pay their fine and get on with their lives.
Then you have Paris. She is living that dangerous life, has her brush with the process, and expects to get kicked out the far end of the "process-go-round" and get back to her life. But.....
Finally you have the judge. This judge apparently resents the Hollywood types that play the process game and then end up killing either themselves or an innocent "passer by" on the celebrity road to self destruction. On top of that, celebrities tend to get high paid lawyers and then flaunt the system and the courts.
My guess, and that's all it is, is this judge looked at Paris, saw that no one in her life has ever said "no" to her, that she was on the Anna Nichole Smith Express, and that she merely expected to play "process-go-round" and get back to her life. I think the judge said "not this time". I believe he decided to do two things; bring some sanity and purpose back to the judicial system in the form of accountability, and intervene in Paris' life and try to give her that Life Lesson that may save her life.
Jail is supposed to be punitive; it's NOT supposed to be a part of process that "other people" experience. I totally believe the judge indended to send a wake up call to Paris that her life is way off track and to other Hollywood celebs that his court is not a part of "proccess-go-round".
Labels: celebrity, Jail, judge, Paris, Paris Hilton, sheriff
Saturday, June 02, 2007
The Bush Administration Collapse: More and more articles and interviews are showing up that continue to highlight what may become the final collapse of the Bush Administration. I've located a June 3rd New York Times article (and I am NO fan of the NYT) which does a fair job of analysis on the situation. Before I get to that, I want to provide my own perspective.
In my view, President Bush has committed the unpardonable sin- he attacked those of us who have supported him since his 1999-2000 campaign. I don't even care anymore about what our disagreements might be on the issue of the pending Immigration Reform legislation. He attacked those who have stood with him month after month, year after year of relentless attacks from liberals and Democrats.
I cannot tell who is advising him anymore. If someone he trusted told him to fight back against the base and stand with Teddy Kennedy on this issue, then that person may ulitmately be responsible for the exit of the conservative base. I think Rove, the RNC, and the RNCC have all missed the lesson of the '06 election; that lesson is that conservatives stayed home in protest over a so-called Republican congress that was acting in cahoots with the Democrat minority.
They joined in attacking President Bush's nominees and cabinet members and helped throw good men over the side (Tom Delay for instance). Conservatives have not seen any resistence, any fight against the unending liberal attacks on President Bush. Conservatives fired the Republican Congress. Period.
Now, apparently even the President has joined with the liberals in Congress in attacking conservatives and THAT is unacceptable to the base. The shame will be if the damage is so deep, and so permanent that President Bush can no longer muster the support of his base to continue the War on Terror and push for victory in Iraq. Until this week, which included President Bush's remarks and Sen. Lindsay Graham's attack implying bigotry on the part of conservatives, the base was "die hard' on standing by the President. I don't get that sense this weekend.
And now that I've mentioned Sen. Graham, it is inconceivable that he cannot understand the sensitivity of the "bigotry" charge leveled against conservatives. The die hard base suffers this baseless charge from liberals day in and day out and now to have the charge leveled by a Republican demonstrates a clear "departure from reality" on Sen. Graham's part. To level the liberal charge of bigotry against the conservative base is, in my mind and heart, unforgiveable.
Now, I'll include the New York Times article of June 3rd for another perspective.
June 3, 2007
Bush’s Push on Immigration Tests His Base
By JIM RUTENBERG and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
"I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty," said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. "We are not all that stupid."
This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan "don’t want to do what’s right for America" inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, "I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security." He added, "But he might lose some of you."
Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.
White House officials said it had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.
The tensions, which have rippled through the Republican presidential field, are intensifying just as the Senate is preparing to renew debate on the measure next week. Opponents are seeking significant changes — or outright defeat of the legislation — and raising the specter of a filibuster. The battle has pitted the White House against a group that includes even Mr. Bush’s reliable supporters from his home state of Texas, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans.
White House officials said it was a debate they welcomed in pursuit of a long-sought presidential goal, but in interviews this week, they expressed frustration at what they described as ill-informed criticism that the bill provided amnesty for illegal immigrants when it in fact traded legal status for fines and fees — more than $6,000 for green card holders, officials said. They also noted that the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed 66 percent of Republicans supported its legalization provisions.
Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, said Friday he was confident that the White House would win over its critics as it explained the details of the bill and the administration’s continuing efforts to enforce existing border control laws.
Mr. Rove said he did not think that anger over immigration within the party would affect support for the president on the war and other national security issues. "People are able to say, ‘I don’t need to agree with anyone 100 percent of the time to be with them on the most important issue facing America,’ " he said.
But that same day, Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal opinion writer and former Reagan speechwriter who has supported Mr. Bush, said, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them," in a column under the heading, "President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder."
Democrats have their own serious differences on immigration, with many worried that the Senate plan is too punitive. Others who are closely allied with labor are fearful about the impact on job opportunities, and still others oppose any plan that allows illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. But the Democratic divisions have been all but lost in the loud and volatile clashes among Republicans.
Reflecting the division between the business wing, Congressional moderates and the rest of the party, the editorial board of National Review, which opposes the legislation, has issued a debate challenge to The Journal’s business-minded editorial board, which is more supportive.
Opposition to Mr. Bush’s immigration plan, which calls for a way to legalize illegal workers who are here now, has been stiff for years. But last year, when similar legislation was under debate, opponents were rightly confident that Republican leaders who controlled Congress would not let it progress. Mr. Bush, not wishing to intensify the fight in an election year, stayed behind the scenes and relented when the legislation died.
Not so this year, when Mr. Bush’s personal involvement in brokering a bipartisan immigration deal, and his clear determination to push for its passage, has intensified criticism from grass-roots and legislative leaders of his own party to the highest levels of his presidency. The criticism reflects a central tension between Mr. Bush’s pursuit of a defining domestic policy accomplishment and the party’s concerns about its 2008 prospects when base voters are so angry about immigration.
Mr. Bush’s comments to federal law enforcement trainees in Georgia on Tuesday, in which he took the rare step of going after conservative critics in terms usually reserved for Democrats, has charged the Republican ferment, specifically his suggestion that those opposed to the plan "don’t want to do what’s right for America."
Presidential aides said later that Mr. Bush did not mean to impugn anyone’s patriotism, and that he had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.
But days later, Mr. Cornyn still seemed rankled. "I honestly don’t know whether it was scripted or unscripted," he said. "But I think it was uncalled for."
In its online editorial in which it challenged The Wall Street Journal to a debate, National Review referred to an Internet video on The Journal’s Web site of an editorial board meeting in which Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor, referred to what he calls "the degree to which the right isn’t even rational about this anymore." National Review wrote, "It shouldn’t be a problem for The Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t ‘rational’ on the question."
The debate has bled into the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, providing fodder for one of the sharpest exchanges so far, between Senator John McCain of Arizona, who supports the bill, and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who has come out against it.
Caught in the middle of the broader fight, the Republican National Committee has seemed to have taken less of a supporting role than on other White House initiatives, though Senator Mel Martinez, chairman of the committee and a strong backer of the compromise, said its support was unwavering.
(Republican Party officials disputed parts of a report in The Washington Times linking a decision to fire dozens of phone bank employees to a decline in small donations that the paper reported was partly caused by disaffection over immigration.)
The Republican vs. Republican debate has also played out intensively for lawmakers back home. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a critic of the measure, said he had heard from people who were upset not only with the legislation, but also with his Republican colleague from the state, Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the measure’s architects. "I discourage that kind of talk," Mr. DeMint said. "We are good friends, and he is a great senator. We are just in disagreement on this particular issue."
The Republican and conservative critiques on the Internet are not so polite. "Bush has turned on his own people, his political supporters," wrote a visitor to a message board on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com. Another visitor wrote, "Why have I cared that liberals not attempt to impeach this man? He’s gone crazy."
Mr. Rove and Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said officials would continue trying to persuade critics. And some White House allies were trying to cool tensions. Mr. McCain, who had a salty clash with Mr. Cornyn over the legislation when it was being drafted, said Friday, "The president, and all of us, feel frustrated sometimes by the criticism and the level of the dialogue," adding, "I wish we could lift up the level of discourse and dialogue."
The president’s brother, Jeb Bush, and his former campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, wrote an Op-Ed article in The Wall Street Journal pleading the case for the legislation, lamenting that the debate, "has led many close personal and ideological friends — people we respect and whose criticism we take seriously — to oppose new rules governing how people enter this country and how we handle those who are here illegally. But we hope our friends reconsider."
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Des Moines.
In my view, President Bush has committed the unpardonable sin- he attacked those of us who have supported him since his 1999-2000 campaign. I don't even care anymore about what our disagreements might be on the issue of the pending Immigration Reform legislation. He attacked those who have stood with him month after month, year after year of relentless attacks from liberals and Democrats.
I cannot tell who is advising him anymore. If someone he trusted told him to fight back against the base and stand with Teddy Kennedy on this issue, then that person may ulitmately be responsible for the exit of the conservative base. I think Rove, the RNC, and the RNCC have all missed the lesson of the '06 election; that lesson is that conservatives stayed home in protest over a so-called Republican congress that was acting in cahoots with the Democrat minority.
They joined in attacking President Bush's nominees and cabinet members and helped throw good men over the side (Tom Delay for instance). Conservatives have not seen any resistence, any fight against the unending liberal attacks on President Bush. Conservatives fired the Republican Congress. Period.
Now, apparently even the President has joined with the liberals in Congress in attacking conservatives and THAT is unacceptable to the base. The shame will be if the damage is so deep, and so permanent that President Bush can no longer muster the support of his base to continue the War on Terror and push for victory in Iraq. Until this week, which included President Bush's remarks and Sen. Lindsay Graham's attack implying bigotry on the part of conservatives, the base was "die hard' on standing by the President. I don't get that sense this weekend.
And now that I've mentioned Sen. Graham, it is inconceivable that he cannot understand the sensitivity of the "bigotry" charge leveled against conservatives. The die hard base suffers this baseless charge from liberals day in and day out and now to have the charge leveled by a Republican demonstrates a clear "departure from reality" on Sen. Graham's part. To level the liberal charge of bigotry against the conservative base is, in my mind and heart, unforgiveable.
Now, I'll include the New York Times article of June 3rd for another perspective.
June 3, 2007
Bush’s Push on Immigration Tests His Base
By JIM RUTENBERG and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Postings on conservative Web sites this week have gone so far as to call for Mr. Bush’s impeachment, and usually friendly radio hosts, commentators and Congressional allies are warning that he stands to lose supporters — a potentially damaging development, they say, when he needs all the backing he can get on other vital matters like the war in Iraq.
"I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty," said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. "We are not all that stupid."
This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan "don’t want to do what’s right for America" inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, "I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security." He added, "But he might lose some of you."
Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.
White House officials said it had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.
The tensions, which have rippled through the Republican presidential field, are intensifying just as the Senate is preparing to renew debate on the measure next week. Opponents are seeking significant changes — or outright defeat of the legislation — and raising the specter of a filibuster. The battle has pitted the White House against a group that includes even Mr. Bush’s reliable supporters from his home state of Texas, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans.
White House officials said it was a debate they welcomed in pursuit of a long-sought presidential goal, but in interviews this week, they expressed frustration at what they described as ill-informed criticism that the bill provided amnesty for illegal immigrants when it in fact traded legal status for fines and fees — more than $6,000 for green card holders, officials said. They also noted that the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed 66 percent of Republicans supported its legalization provisions.
Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s top political adviser, said Friday he was confident that the White House would win over its critics as it explained the details of the bill and the administration’s continuing efforts to enforce existing border control laws.
Mr. Rove said he did not think that anger over immigration within the party would affect support for the president on the war and other national security issues. "People are able to say, ‘I don’t need to agree with anyone 100 percent of the time to be with them on the most important issue facing America,’ " he said.
But that same day, Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal opinion writer and former Reagan speechwriter who has supported Mr. Bush, said, "What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them," in a column under the heading, "President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder."
Democrats have their own serious differences on immigration, with many worried that the Senate plan is too punitive. Others who are closely allied with labor are fearful about the impact on job opportunities, and still others oppose any plan that allows illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. But the Democratic divisions have been all but lost in the loud and volatile clashes among Republicans.
Reflecting the division between the business wing, Congressional moderates and the rest of the party, the editorial board of National Review, which opposes the legislation, has issued a debate challenge to The Journal’s business-minded editorial board, which is more supportive.
Opposition to Mr. Bush’s immigration plan, which calls for a way to legalize illegal workers who are here now, has been stiff for years. But last year, when similar legislation was under debate, opponents were rightly confident that Republican leaders who controlled Congress would not let it progress. Mr. Bush, not wishing to intensify the fight in an election year, stayed behind the scenes and relented when the legislation died.
Not so this year, when Mr. Bush’s personal involvement in brokering a bipartisan immigration deal, and his clear determination to push for its passage, has intensified criticism from grass-roots and legislative leaders of his own party to the highest levels of his presidency. The criticism reflects a central tension between Mr. Bush’s pursuit of a defining domestic policy accomplishment and the party’s concerns about its 2008 prospects when base voters are so angry about immigration.
Mr. Bush’s comments to federal law enforcement trainees in Georgia on Tuesday, in which he took the rare step of going after conservative critics in terms usually reserved for Democrats, has charged the Republican ferment, specifically his suggestion that those opposed to the plan "don’t want to do what’s right for America."
Presidential aides said later that Mr. Bush did not mean to impugn anyone’s patriotism, and that he had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.
But days later, Mr. Cornyn still seemed rankled. "I honestly don’t know whether it was scripted or unscripted," he said. "But I think it was uncalled for."
In its online editorial in which it challenged The Wall Street Journal to a debate, National Review referred to an Internet video on The Journal’s Web site of an editorial board meeting in which Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor, referred to what he calls "the degree to which the right isn’t even rational about this anymore." National Review wrote, "It shouldn’t be a problem for The Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t ‘rational’ on the question."
The debate has bled into the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, providing fodder for one of the sharpest exchanges so far, between Senator John McCain of Arizona, who supports the bill, and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who has come out against it.
Caught in the middle of the broader fight, the Republican National Committee has seemed to have taken less of a supporting role than on other White House initiatives, though Senator Mel Martinez, chairman of the committee and a strong backer of the compromise, said its support was unwavering.
(Republican Party officials disputed parts of a report in The Washington Times linking a decision to fire dozens of phone bank employees to a decline in small donations that the paper reported was partly caused by disaffection over immigration.)
The Republican vs. Republican debate has also played out intensively for lawmakers back home. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a critic of the measure, said he had heard from people who were upset not only with the legislation, but also with his Republican colleague from the state, Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the measure’s architects. "I discourage that kind of talk," Mr. DeMint said. "We are good friends, and he is a great senator. We are just in disagreement on this particular issue."
The Republican and conservative critiques on the Internet are not so polite. "Bush has turned on his own people, his political supporters," wrote a visitor to a message board on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com. Another visitor wrote, "Why have I cared that liberals not attempt to impeach this man? He’s gone crazy."
Mr. Rove and Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said officials would continue trying to persuade critics. And some White House allies were trying to cool tensions. Mr. McCain, who had a salty clash with Mr. Cornyn over the legislation when it was being drafted, said Friday, "The president, and all of us, feel frustrated sometimes by the criticism and the level of the dialogue," adding, "I wish we could lift up the level of discourse and dialogue."
The president’s brother, Jeb Bush, and his former campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, wrote an Op-Ed article in The Wall Street Journal pleading the case for the legislation, lamenting that the debate, "has led many close personal and ideological friends — people we respect and whose criticism we take seriously — to oppose new rules governing how people enter this country and how we handle those who are here illegally. But we hope our friends reconsider."
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Des Moines.
Labels: Amnesty, Bush, Graham, Immigration, Lindsay, Lindsay Graham, President Bush, Republican National Committee, republicans, RNC, RNCC, Rove, W.
Friday, June 01, 2007
The Collapse of The Bush Administration: That "whooooosh" sound you heard was the bottom falling out of the Bush Administration. It has become apparent that there are no conservatives left in the "advisory" circle and The President has opted to try for a "bi-partisan" legacy. The final straw for me was his attack on conservatives that don't trust the Immigration Reform bill. It's not so much that I disagree with him, it's that he felt compelled to attack his base as if to say "hell with the base, I've got friends on the liberal side of the aisle on this one". Not any more. I think he's used his last "good will" chips with the base.
If I was asked to pin point the beginning of the actual, final collapse it would be several days after the guilty verdict in the Scooter Libby trial. Many conservatives expected The President to step in and pardon Mr. Libby, especially since even most of the media seems to agree that he was convicted on a process crime that did not exist until the Prosecutor created it. It appears there are no "true" conservatives the President is willing to fight for.
Don't take my word for it. As usual, I'm providing a source that supports my opinion and it is below. (Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
By Peggy Noonan
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.
They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!
If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal
If I was asked to pin point the beginning of the actual, final collapse it would be several days after the guilty verdict in the Scooter Libby trial. Many conservatives expected The President to step in and pardon Mr. Libby, especially since even most of the media seems to agree that he was convicted on a process crime that did not exist until the Prosecutor created it. It appears there are no "true" conservatives the President is willing to fight for.
Don't take my word for it. As usual, I'm providing a source that supports my opinion and it is below. (Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/)
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
By Peggy Noonan
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.
They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!
If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal
Labels: Bush, Bush Administration, conservatives, Immigration, Republican National Committee, republicans, RNC, W.
