Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 13, 2007
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Conservatives Shouldn't Abandon Bush
by Mike Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Watching a steady stream of Democrats like Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer each take their turn delightedly pummeling President Bush over the war in Iraq today, I couldn’t help but think of fellow conservatives who are starting to give aid and comfort to these Democrat Party loyal oppositionists.

According to Byron York of the National Review, the Republican Party base has simply decided to throw Mr. Bush under the wheels of the bus. Since so many of us disagree with him on things like illegal immigration and Scooter Libby, York opines that a whole bunch of Republican loyalists are practically counting the days until Jan. 20, 2009, when a new commander-in-chief takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Other conservative voices are jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. The other night on Fox News, I saw a radio host proclaim that the president’s soft stance on illegals has cost him support for the war in Iraq.

Just what, precisely, is the point?

Why do conservatives believe that trashing the Bush Administration’s efforts on everything from this complicated war to a commutation of a vice-presidential aide will accomplish anything but give Democrats more ammunition against the GOP in 2008

Look, I’m as disappointed in this administration’s attempted amnesty for illegals as anyone. But I looked President Bush in the eye in the Oval Office and saw a man who truly believes in his heart that giving illegals a “path to citizenship” is the right thing to do.

I believe he’s wrong. But I know that this good and decent man believes he’s right.

So because of this issue, I’m supposed to abandon my president?

I’m expected to go on radio and TV and give miserable attack dogs like Dick Durbin more ways to say, “See -- even Republican supporters of Bush are defecting!”?

From the day the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, President Bush kept telling us that nothing about this war would be easy. Our nation has never attempted something as bold as installing democracy in this troubled part of the world and attempting to make a country like Iraq stable enough so that they can handle their own terrorists without our intervention.

Simply put, the vast majority of Americans supported our country’s pre-emptive strike. The longer this battle rages, the more we see impatient Americans start complaining. I guess that’s what a society in a Tivo/Iphone era does.

And I certainly expect that from Democrats who blame George W. Bush for everything from hurricanes to health care.

But I think it takes some guts to stand behind a president who is doing what he believes to be right, even in the face of enormous opposition.

Liberals are emboldened by Republican-fueled criticism. And if good folks like Byron York aren’t careful, we’ll be handing over the White House on a silver platter to Hillary or Barack. After all, just how far can Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson distance themselves from the Bush Administration?

Besides, who really wants to be on the same side of the political fence as Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy…or Betty Williams?

Betty Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped initiate peace talks in Northern Ireland. This week, she was the keynote speaker at The International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas. According to the Dallas Morning News, during her speech she told the thousand or so attendees, “Right now, I could kill George Bush.” The paper said she went on to demand his impeachment since “the Muslim world right now is suffering beyond belief” as a result of this administration’s foreign policy.

What a woman of peace. That’s some “peace conference.”

I’m not sure what would happen if an American traveled to Northern Ireland and expressed a desire to kill Mary McAleese, the current President of Ireland. I doubt that such an opinion would be met with cheers and a standing ovation, as was reported had occurred when the Nobel laureate said what she said in Dallas.

And when we tracked Betty Williams down and put her on my radio show, I was shocked to hear her claim that any published report that quoted her as saying, “Right now, I could kill George Bush” was lying. I reminded her that according to numerous published reports, she used the exact same phrase in a July 24, 2006 speech to schoolchildren at the Brisbane City Hall. At that point in the interview, she sounded totally defeated and said she not only “regretted” saying it, when I asked her if she was sorry for saying it, she said she was. In fact, the Dallas Morning News sent me the audio of the speech which confirms their reporting of Ms. Williams comments about the president.

You can hear my interview with this awful woman at www.mikeonline.com.

People like Betty Williams and Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi and Keith Olbermann and so many others on the left have made it quite clear what they think of George W. Bush. They teem with hatred and contempt.

They sure don’t need to get any assistance from us. Now, more than ever, we ought to stand behind President Bush.

But if people on the left OR right don’t want to support him these days, I have a heartfelt reminder: November of 2008 will be here soon enough.

Until then, how about getting off the president’s back?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

On a side note...
According to a story on Drudge the Dallas Police are HARD AT WORK investigating phone and email threats made against this woman.

Seems like I remember somewhere that threatening the President was illegal, but I went to Public School, so maybe it was actually "threatening the person who threatens the President" that is illegal...

Another Rush
Gallagher is another Rush. Boot licking for Bush. No wonder people are turning off these guys. 'A good and decent man' is hogwash. He is a smart aleck, privileged little brat. He has no concern for the citizens he represents. He could care less if men with two and three children are being killed and maimed in a conflict he doesn't have the guts to end.
We may need another Jimmy Carter president to drive the country further into the ground....to get another Reagan.

aid and comfort
Though I'll not give aid and comfort to the libtard enemy, I will never again support President Bush. We , conservatives, didn't abandon him, he abandoned us.

The war doesn't HAVE to be complicated, simply grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

I also don't think Libby should have been granted clemency, he should have been completely pardoned. So should have been Ramos and Compeon, and the Marines standing trial for various garbage charges.

Conservatives didn't vote Bush in TWICE to do easy jobs, this "isn't/wasn't easy" whine needs to have a rest.

One does NOT have to be a loony libtard to refuse support to a President who has turned against his base, I will NOT support him, nor the base stupidity I see coming out of DC daily.

Abandon Bush ??
"So because of this issue, I’m supposed to abandon my president?"

Mike, it's not just this issue. It's amnesty, growth of government, runaway spending, his pathetic response to Libby, his refusal to stop the Mexican invasion (and it IS an invasion)and build the fense he promised us and the way he has villified and trashed traditional conservatives that have opposed his policies. Bush is acting like a liberal elitist by thinking that he knows best and damn the rest of us! We did not abandon him, HE abandoned US!

We're not stupid...
As a conservative Republican, I've finally seen the light with the talk radio hosts I've been listening to all these years. They say money talks and it's become obvious that the media controls a lot of the money. I don't know what took me so long! Ron Paul has been waking up America to the truth and your consistent stream of stories covering for President Bush make it clear that he is correct. We're onto you.

Who abandoned who
Conservatives stuck with Bush for six years. We tolerated his big spending. We tolerated him through McCain-Feingold. We tolerated him through Kennedy education department expansion. We fought him through the port deal. We fought him through the justices appointments. He finally gave in while he was kicking and screaming. We stuck with him through thick and thin on the Iraq War.

It was Bush who turned on his base and joined forces with Kennedy again on illegal immigration. That's when we parted ways. He went to the Democrat Party winter meetings to congratulate them for their 06 win and declared it an opportunity for cooperation on immigration reform, calling conservatives obstructers as of progress. He called the border-conscious Minutemen vigilantes. He scolded all conservatives over and over again. He and Graham told us to shut up and let him do his job. He made clear to us that he wanted to leave the border opened, even when 85% of Americans wanted it secured, e.g. throwing the two border patrol agents in jail and throwing away the key. He refuses to give the agents a pardon, even after giving Libby a pardon. We all saw his distain and scorn of conservative Americans.

Darn Tootin'
If we conservatives abandon Bush, how will he get re-elected?

Who left who?
He left us. To say otherwise is nonsense which is what this article is.
Other than an overarching strategic objective of national security Bush has been wrong, no matter how much he believes in himself on Iraq. Wrong in WMD's, wrong on post invasion plans, wrong on deployments to support post invasion plans, wrong on Iraqi political motivations, and so on and so forth. So what he stridently believes falls apart upon investigation of the historical events. If he stridently believed in little green men from Mars would that make Martians a more tenable belief because George Bush as President believed it?
If we nominate someone who can make themselves distinct from Bush that person would have an easier time getting elected. Certainly, a clone of Bush is a guaranteed loser. There is little to no downside to a responsible break from Bush on Iraq in tactics and a small, controllable risk by making a differentiation on the strategic goals we should pursue in the middle east along with the way to bring about those ends.
We can no longer follow this president into 2008. It will be our undoing. It is time for him to represent us by following us.

NO! NO!
He DID abandon us!
Why would we stay with a traitor - not only to conservatives, but to the whole nation (to say the least: open borders, as of now, mean no country)???

Proof: http://www.spp.gov

Gotta second HalO
With whom I often disagree: "See you at the bill-signing" was the biggest **** you from a politician to his supporters that I can recall in my lifetime.

But I also think that's a separate issue from how to proceed in the war.

You've got it backwards
My party right or wrong. This is the major problem with the Republican party. The conservatives didn't leave Bush he left us. The RNC is just as bad and is largely a fraternity for RINOs.

z
z

Yes, throw him under the bus
Metaphorically speaking, of course (I have to throw that in, since I am not a Nobel Peace Prize winner.)

Sorry Gallagher, but your falsely premised either-or proposition doesn’t wash. Opposition to Bush does not equate to support for Reid, Kennedy, et al. That sort of short-term view may be popular with pundits and politicos who can’t see beyond the next election, but that’s not the way principled conservatives see it.

As a principled conservative, let me spell it out for you. I support the people and policies that advance conservative principles. I oppose those that don’t. Get it?

People who make their living at the political trough like to act as if there is no political tomorrow beyond the next election. Thus, if the only two candidates for office were Hitler and Mussolini, you are expected to weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and then select the one who either best represents your views, or at the least, holds the least repugnant views. The implications of pursuing such a short-term maximizing strategy should be obvious to everyone but those who make their living at the political trough. By falling in line, holding your nose, playing along and supporting the status quo, we only entrench the repugnant and forego the opportunity for something better.

If Gallagher is suggesting that under the status quo my only two choices are Bush’s vision and Reid’s vision, then my response is to revolt against the status quo itself. I will do that by withholding my support from the GOP apparatus until it can put up a candidate worthy of my support. If that means the Republicans lose a few elections in the short term, then so be it. I am willing to bet that over the long haul, better and more responsive candidates will emerge to lay claim to my support. But if we show ourselves willing to accept any wretched politician merely because he sports a GOP button or opposes Democrats, then we will have only wretches to lead us.




Don't repeat mistake
Beware next time a candidate calls himself a "compassionate conservative".

Bush Walked Away From Us
Bush has done well on SCOTUS appointments. He has done much better on Iraq than he is credited with. He has also done well wiht the economy and tax cuts. However.... he has been a Ted Kennedy clone on the illegal invasion and on spending.

Amnesty will destroy the America we know, shutting down our prosperity and replacing it with a welfare state for all. This would have been Bush's legacy. He should be impeached for failing to enforce immigration law, especially in leting employers hire illegals.

para_dimz
Good post. Not only do I think that supporting Bush would have to come at the expense of my conservative principles, but I also think that following Bush at this point is a sure-fire path to electoral defeat in ’08. Given that the number of people supporting his way is minimal to say the least, and that I am one of the many who disagree with his handling of the presidency, I can think of no good reason why I should try to prop him up.

It is unfortunate that Bush's presidency is in collapse. But it is in collapse, he is to blame for it, and there is no reason to be standing under it when it falls. I say let it fall sooner rather than later so we can get about the business of putting together a viable alternative to the Demokratik Socialist Kandidate.

Abandoned by Republicans
President Bush stopped concealing that he abandoned us at the start of his second term. His push for illegal immigration over securing the border was the final straw for me. However, I continue to believe that loosing the war in Iraq would be the end of the USA, the biggest mistake ever made by the late great USA.

The Dems want to create the North American Socialist Republic, while the Repubs want to turn us into the North American Trade Union. Both parties want to throw our sovereignty into the trash. I'm surprised that we continue to hold together as a nation. (What the h*ll is "international law" anyway?)

All of the bums need to be thrown out in 08.

Conservatives...or RINOs?
I'm reading that the likes of Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel, among others, are deserting the president. These are your idea of "conservatives"?

Au contraire. They are despicable, annoying RINO opportunists and embarrassments to their respective constituencies.

Yes, the "all things to all people" joke that was the "comprehensive immigration" plan was a naked and cynical political manipulation along the lines of "No [well, a whole bunch actually] Child Left Behind" Tedward Kennedy love fest.

Any expected decency and cooperation from Tedward was an idiotic blunder: he is a senile, blustering tub of [feces] that should have done time for negligent homicide for putting his politcal career ahead of the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. He handled that in the same self-interested way that he handles everything else.

It is a poor reflection on the disloyal opposition that they give fatboy Tedward any credence whatsoever.

Fix our schools? Shut down the teachers unions. That would be a nice first step.

Iraq? The surge was judged a failure before during, during, and after it began!

Dems concerned for our troops? As if.

Under Clinton, we lost 7000+ troops, even with the "death from above" mission in Kosovo, which was of no particular concern to America's interests. Under Bush, we've lost 9000+...due to a war that Bush inherited from the utterly inept "Commander-in-Chief" Clinton.

Republicans (NOT conservatives) who are turning their backs on Bush may get some serious competition in the primaries if the surge continues to be as successful as it has been so far.

The September assessment has nothing to do with ending the surge because it's a failure: it's the fear that it WILL be successful that is driving the lunatic left. It is sheer spineless self-interest that motivates republican rats departing what they consider a sinking ship Bush.

We don't have statesmen: we have politicians. The deserters have political instincts that seem to be jammed by the leftist anti-war propagandists, the same types who lost Vietnam because they believed Walter Cronkite's 180 degree mistaken view of the Tet Offensive, which included LBJ. LBJ wasn't a leader. And I don't care for the way he became president: ultimate betrayal.

If Snowe, Hagel, and the annoyingingly cloying Susan Collins (she always sounds slightly retarded when speaking, inspiring no confidence whatsoever) were to be replaced by democrats, would the difference be large enough to be calibrated?

HELP
Maybe we should move the capital to the midwest?
Something happens in Washington. How about using the 100 acres seized for some ultra rich Mexican?
I personaly feel that anyone who is dumped upon like true conservatives have been is entitled to vent their spleen. Bush immediatly jump in bed with the swimmer, he kept the same crowd around him that made the same noises but were salavating at the chance to do him harm. Do look at his easy acceptance of Mineta, Tennant, et al.
Even Scooter Libby. He was too lazy or incompetent to search out real conservative people. Look at the lettuce head Chertoff and then read about Del Rio Texas. Real conservatives are there if someone wants to look.

Conservatives should support W
on those issues where he is "conservative" and oppose him on those issues where he is not. I have a long list of grievances regarding the President's policies and certain areas of incompetence, but I refuse to join with those who perpetually belittle or even demonize him.

May I remind you that we voted him in, knowing full well that he was far from being a consistent conservative (whatever that is)? As far as I can tell, except for signing McCain-Feingold, he has not deviated much from the platform he ran on in 2000 and 2008. If you are p-o'd at the president, and you voted for him, may I suggest that your anger is misdirected.

Like it or not, GWB is still our president. It is not in OUR best interests to hamstring him for the rest of his term; there is too much at stake. We are at war with Islamojihadist imperialists. We cannot afford a loss in Iraq. We need to confront Iran's quest to acquire nukes. There may yet be another Supreme Court nominee.

The president will no doubt continue to do things that will frustrate or infuriate us, but imagine how you would feel if it was President Gore or President Kerry. Perhaps you would not have had the same sense of betrayal with Gore/Kerry as with Bush, but your list of grievances would be far more extensive.

voxoreason
“…the annoyingingly cloying Susan Collins (she always sounds slightly retarded when speaking…”

You know the old saying “What happens in Maine stays in Maine”? Or is that Las Vegas? Anyway, does anyone know someone from Maine besides Collins, Snowe and Bush Senior? People always make jokes about southerners inbreeding. I think it is the same in Maine. That little village of lily-white liberals must inbreed alot. How else can you explain Collins?

gentlemanscholar
Well said and I agree. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater serves no purpose. It seems this country can no longer think objectively though. Makes me wonder if these same people toss their kids out on the street when they make a mistake.

Nobility
My husband swears it is the heat and humidity.

Material
Glad I was able to give you some material for your blog. I called your show and expressed my disapointment in all the criticism against our President. Especially that which came from Tancredo in the last GOP debate. You didn't have much to say then, but you must have had an epiphony.

Mike, please tell me.
Which "conservatives", and I want names, have abandoned Bush on the war because of immigration?

And which conservatives, again I want names, disagree with him on Libby?

I think you will find that whatever conservatives may think of Bush, very few want to surrender in Iraq. And even fewer think it was wrong to commute Libby's sentence.

I think you will find that when you actually get down to naming names you will discover that most of those abandoning the war and opposing the Libby commutation are "moderates" or RINOs.

voxoreason
Reading your post I was reminded of the 1980's, when the lib media (then it was truly a liberal monopoly because there was no internet and no Rush) constantly told us how Reagan's military build-up and intransigent 'diplomacy' with the Soviets was not working and could lead to nuclear war.

Then, in 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. In 1991 the Soviet Union broke up. And silence from these clowns was deafening.

Of course this blissful respite from their hectoring lasted only a few short weeks before they immediately began insisting that we defund the very military whose strength had just brought us our great victory, but that's another story for another thread.

Robert
He called the border-conscious Minutemen vigilantes.
"...aging thugs...or "wantabees" or well "developmental challenged"."

The Minutemen are only doing the jobs that presidents won't do. They just want to work.

Well, I've got to agree
with the majority here, Gallagher's all wet on this. But then, he's pretty much been a RINO apologist all along.

Bush left conservatism in the dust, only paying lip service as needed to get elected, then turning around and acting in arrogance and hubris for all to see.

Ramos and Compion rotting on prison; Sandy "Sticky Socks" Burglar basically getting a walk while Libby gets ruined; illegal aliens pouring over the border while Bush does nothing, lowering enforcement efforts by 35% from the Clinton era and allowing about 4.8 million into the country on his watch; signing McCain-Feingold into law; and on and on and on.

I can hardly wait for January 2009.

Support of the Pesident
Mike, I am not abandoning the President, he has abandoned me. From before 9-11, I have supported a strong response against terrorist actions, e.g. the lack of President Clinton's response to the USS Cole killings. Also from even before President Bush I was writing Governor Bush about the need to stop illegal immigration. The governor's response then, in a letter which I still have, was that those people were here, we must educate them and give them health care. The sealing of the border was not addressed. I support a strong military in Iraq, even more than President Bush. If he had levelled the village where our troops were beheaded I believe a lot of the terrorism would have stopped.

I have no doubt that President Bush is sincere in his open border policy, but he is sincerely wrong. Except for my congressman, Ted Poe, no Republican wil receive any donations from me until we have National Guard troops on the border and until border agents Ramos and Compean are pardoned and compensated for all the losses cauesd by Bush's friend Johnny Sutton.

Charles Cody
Baytown, Texas
281-424-7060



Halo, RP & the Goldwater strategy
Halo writes, "But even if Paul lost for the GOP, he would have shown the way ahead, as Goldwater did for Reagan."

There was a 16 year gap between Goldwater and Reagan -- a gap which included three of the worst presidencies of the 20th century, i.e., LBJ, Nixon, Carter.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Goldwater for pointing the way ahead, and to Reagan for showing us the difference that a conservative approach to government can make. We do not need to repeat history to relearn those lessons, nor do we need to spend another 16 years in the wilderness, hoping that the libs and RINOs screw up so bad that the nation will look to conservatives again to clean things up. I love my country too much to consign it to such an unhappy fate.

You do not win by losing, you win by winning -- starting with the primaries -- and then supporting the most conservative of the two presidential candidates in November 2008 -- which at this point, will almost certainly be the Republican, however imperfect he may be.

Mutual abandoment
Bush thumbed his nose at conservatives. So he has earned being abandoned. He deserves abandonment for the scoundrel that he is.

wiseone
Actually, it just may after all. The best source for rouge nuclear material and technology is the former Soviet republic. Also Putin or someone worse could also be the result of the Reagan arms race that left the soviets broken, venerable and desperate. There is nothing in the world more dangerous than desperate people. But don’t worry when it blows up in our faces like that other Reagan gift, the Taliban, I’m sure there will be a Democrat to blame.

You know
what I am seeing on this board? The same cut off your nose to spite your face mentality that got the Dems the Congress in the first place. Change always comes from within as evidenced by the killing of the immigration bill. So what did electing the Dems get you? Chaos. They have accomplished nothing but obstructionism, and major tax increases with more to come. When your so taxed that you can't see or think straight, worry about tommorrow all the time you cave in and lose sight of the big picture. That is what the game plan is. Make you so beholding and over a barrel that you beg instead of complain. Bush may be wrong on some issues, but he is not wrong on the war which is still the most important issue. Keep cutting your nose off to spite your face and the terrorists will be more than happy to help you out by lopping off your head also.

Forget about it
Gallager.

Horribly mis-applied anology
quote:

"According to Byron York of the National Review, the Republican Party base has simply decided to throw Mr. Bush under the wheels of the bus."


York does not know the difference in the driver of the bus and who the pedestrians are.

Bus-h is driving the bus off the cliff with stubborn forethought and defiance to the will of the Citizens of the country.

He has committed political suicide with his horrible driving, and the wheels of the bus are running over all the rest of us.

Lolo
If we vote for RINOs just to keep from losing to the Dems, we will continue to get the likes of Bush and will NEVER get a real conservative. Sometimes, it takes hitting bottom before we can get back to the top. I for one am seriously thinking about voting for Hillary before I would vote for another RINO.

You got it wrong lolo
Many of us have awoke to the two party system and will never again vote for either one, democrat or republican.

The true powers behind them put up for the lessor of two evil choices they give.

Let's move past Bush
The fate of Iraq rests in the hands of people other than George Bush, and his successor will play a more pivotal role in the resolution of our Iraq policy than he will. I therefore reject the arguments of those who claim that a failure on the part of conservatives to “support” Bush will result in the failure of our Iraq policy. We are too far down that road and time is too short now to expect that our actions over the next 6 months will prove to be the tipping point with regard to Iraq.

Our Iraq policy may very well fail, regardless of what conservatives want or do, but if it does, it will have more to do with the actions of fifth columnist traitors operating within our own country and, not surprisingly, the Iraqi people themselves who if nothing else have shown themselves to be remarkably resistant to grasping at their opportunity for peace.

I believe that history will show that the tipping point in the Iraq War was reached as a result of the next presidential election and not whatever may happen between now and then. If a Republican wins, then an opportunity for success is still possible. His election will be interpreted as a signal that the U.S. is not done yet and the powers-that-be who have been betting against it will have to deal with that reality in a way that offers opportunity for an acceptable resolution. If, on the other hand, a Democrat wins, then history will show that the election was only the final moves in a bid for defeat that had already been decided with the election of 2006.

I think it is critical to our national interest to prevent the Democrats from gaining the White House and that in order to prevent it, conservatives cannot afford to squander their energies and credibility in support of a man as undeserving, and increasingly inconsequential, as George Bush.

Hound Dog
I absolutely agree. Bush HAS abandoned the right by trying to "work" with the Dhimmicrats AND trying to foist that Scamnesty crap on us. Bush's FIRST mistake was NOT firing every Klintoon appointee inside the Beltway. Freeh, Tenet, and many others worked against Bush from DAY ONE!

lolo
Loyalty flows UP as well as DOWN. Bush has done some good things but he has gone wobbly when fighting the Dhimmicrats. He is STILL under the bipartisan spell that he suffered from in Jan 2001. He can't grasp the fact that liberals DO NOT want to work with the right, they want to RULE from on high!

Blog Plug
Check out chapter 5 of The Prophet. Also a great poster of Red Nanny Peloser and Land Deal Reid.

I am not saying
vote for RINO's. What I am saying is don't wait until things get so bad that you decide to participate or not participate. It is more of constant vigilance than anything else. When politicians run amuck it is because we let them. We didn't let them on the immigration issue, so why don't we apply the same force to all politicians and all issues? You pay for the phone, the internet, postage...use it! However those who elected Dems and thought things were going to be better are just naive.

GunnyG
Just because one or the other side elects a president does not mean he therefore isn't a president of the entire country. He has to take into account everyone in this country. While I agree he has been a little too nice the war is too important to abandon.

GunnyG
Congratulation for finding a way to insert Clinton into this thread. I knew that in a debate that had absolutely nothing to do with any former president or any liberals or any Democrats that it had to be at least a little bit Clinton’s fault. And what was his other crime? That’s right, working with the duly elected representatives of 49% of the citizens of this country. Why should they have a voice in our government when it doesn’t agree with yours? This Democracy thing must be h*ll for you.

Sandman
I disagree with your timeline. The Dems with the help of the stupid RINO's will do whatever they can to end this war before the election so that they can get re-elected. Then when anything happens it will be blamed on Bush and like the cavalry riding over the hill they will save the day. Their base will not elect them in a pro-war mode. When they destroy completely what they seek to rule what will they have left. They remind me of the Romans.

HoundDog
Hound Dog writes: Friday, July, 13, 2007 2:14 PM
Lolo
"If we vote for RINOs just to keep from losing to the Dems, we will continue to get the likes of Bush and will NEVER get a real conservative. Sometimes, it takes hitting bottom before we can get back to the top. I for one am seriously thinking about voting for Hillary before I would vote for another RINO."

The way to get a "real" conservative is to nominate one in the primaries. If we cannot manage to nominate a "real" conservative in the primaries, whose fault is that? The RINO who won? Or the conservatives who either abandoned the GOP or who spent the primary season bashing every other class of "conservative" (social con, neo-con, libertarian con) with whom they disagreed?

You do not win elections by losing. Once the Dems are in power, you cannot simply assume that their tenure will last for only one or two terms.

I have lived through the liberal wasteland years of LBJ and Jimmah Carter, and I do not care to see that repeated simply because my party's nominee was not ideologically pure.

I will vote for the candidate that best expresses my conservative views and priorities -- i.e., a fiscal and social conservative. You vote for the one that best expresses your conservative values. If your guy wins and mine loses, I'll be voting for your guy in November 2008.

If we are having problems finding credible, consistently conservative candidates to put forward in the primaries, the answer is not to standby and let the Dems take over. It took 16 years from Goldwater to Reagan to build up the conservative base in the GOP. Rather than tear all of that down and start over, we need to expand and deepen our conservative base in the party. I would humbly suggest that you don't do that by tearing down every other wing of the conservative movement but your own.

Lolo
"I am not saying vote for RINO's. What I am saying is don't wait until things get so bad that you decide to participate or not participate."

My point exactly. I think we are thinking the same thing. We should have been involved from the beginning, and that means electing a conservative in the first place back in 2000. I was one of the few who saw through Bush's conservative mask and refused to vote for him, even after water boys Rush and Hannity kept teling us that this Bush was different from the older "new world order" model. In this coming primary, we need to shun the top-tier candidates and vote for a conservative, so we wouldn't have to go through this mess again.

Lolo, I beg to disagree
Bush is wrong on the war. Wrong strategy, wrong goals.

We are not in the business of exporting democracy. We are in the business of protecting our national self-interest, which means a secure and stable source of oil from the ME. IMO, Western-style democracy in the region, outside of Israel, is a pipe dream. Valid elections were held in Palestine, and Hamas won. Is that what we'd like to see in Iraq? Because there's sure no guarantee of an outcome we'd like.

Further, we are not going to succeed in ending tribal and sectarian strife that's gone on for over a thousand years.

The Iraqis haven't even come close to meeting the benchmarks, and certainly have NOT stepped up to the plate. Our guys are doing the fighting there, under an absurd set of ROEs.

If we're going to stay -- and we should if we do it right -- we should fight to WIN, and we should install our own benevolent despot a la the Shah of Iran, and have done with it.

Otherwise we should get the hell out, and let them chew themselves up into little bits.

Huckabee or Hunter
I will vote for one of these two in the primary. I really like Hunter, but I think Huckabee, being a governor and a stauch conservative, has a better chance to win in the general.

Sandman
I agree with your assessment. The GOP abandoned principals of limited government and fiscal responsibility, and now, having lost an election, seem to be rediscovering them. How surprising. This would not have happened if they'd been rewarded by allowing them to continue in power.

The surge will work to the degree that it reduces violence. But what then? The election will hinge on that fact. Not the surge. It is the skepticism that many feel as to the liklihood that the Iraqi's will effect the compromises necessary to build a concensus that drives the skepticism towards the surge. After all, what's the point of continuing a war if those that it is supposed to benefit refuse to take the actions necessary to make it a success?

The reason there were no high fives after Bush got his defense appropriation bill passed, was that the next group of polls demonstrated that those supporting a draw down in troops in 08 had grown from the low 50's, to the low 60's. He had won a battle, but was increasingly losing his war. Then, following the loss on the imigration bill, that number moved up to 70%. These were not Democrats - but Republicans. Further, his own personal polls dropped into the mid-20's, which indicates that as much as 40% of his base decided that they'd had enough.

The GOP will either come back to conservative principals - or it won't. If it doesn't, then that will not change conservatives, but it will guarantee that the GOP remains a minority party for many future elections.

Brian R
you are right on this war. It was never about terrorism and has been a disaster. As for lolo and company. Whats wrong with Rino's and their ilk is that they don't let you know who they are until it is too late and they are in office. Thats what Bush has done. So many thought he was conservative and were lied to. I would not support the guy for dog catcher. These liers know that once they are in office guys like Gallagher Rush et al. will support them no matter what and so we get more of the same over and over. The only way to stop it is to say lie to me and you'll be swinging in breeze baby! To hell with 'em or you'll just breed more.

$.02
Sorry Mike, but Bush is on his own. I voted for this traitor twice. Shame on me. I should have figured something was wrong when one of the first things he did was have the Kennedy clan over for a party. Sure he wanted to reach across the ailse but I want a conservative who will reach across the ailse and slap the crap out of the liberals. My second mistake was buying into the notion that Bush was a conservative. He is a one worlder just like his father. He placed us into a war and like the Viet Nam let it turn into a politcal war where the military can't do anthing that might make the enemy mad or upset. He should have unleashed the full force of the military and flattend Flaluja, killed Sadar. The Shamesty bill was the last straw for me. He made his mess let him stew in it. Worst president in my lifetime, never thought anyone could be as bad as Carter.

BadBoy
Well I’ve never been too smart. I’ve never figured out how to take part in twisting history. I don’t deny that Reagan succeeded in pushing over the USSR over the edge and I don’t deny that it was a good thing for the millions of oppressed people. I can’t say that Reagan’s method was the only method possible. It certainly wasn’t the best possible, but everything we do comes at a cost. Sometimes the cost takes years to materialize. You know, a hammer can be used to kill flies but I don’t recommend it.

Yes, I am an ideologue. I have this idea that truth and honesty are important. It is not as common as one might thing. Hey, is that a fly on your head? Hold still…..

Hound Dog
Yes and No. I don't know that shunning will do anything. What we really need to do is keep hammering them once they get elected. No matter who it is. Keep the lines of communication open and busy at all times.

Val34 and BrianR
BLAH BLAH BLAH....same old tired stupidity and dribble out of the both of you. Your nothing more than rebels without a cause or a clue.

MikeR
Would you have preferred Reagan nuked them? He brought them down without a shot fired. What would you have done?

Hound Dog
To me Hunter is the perfect candidate. He was a grunt in Vietnam. He won in a liberal district in San Diego without sacrificing his conservative principles.

He has no sexual/morality issues, not even a divorce. He is as close to bullet-proof as a candidate can get.

And, most of all, he is a reliable conservative. He has been in DC for years without being affected by its liberal cocktail-party mentality. He has not defected on the key issues and will not go wobbly in the face of liberal media attacks.

Yes, Huckabee is better known, but don't be concerned. If the Republican Party nominates Hunter the conservative base will back him with enthusiasm and he will win.

Just imagine a general election campaign in which an honorable, ethical Duncan Hunter is compared by voters to all of the Clinton sleaze revisited. Hunter will win.

Two separate issues
Abandoning Bush and abandoning the war are two entirely different issues that we're being led to believe are one and the same.

Like all the other posters, I'm angry with his position on immigration--or, more precisely, colonization. I'm angry that he joined forces with the odious Ted Kennedy in a plan that placed the political interests of both sides higher than the security of our country.

I'm angry at the utter inadequacy of post-invasion planning in Iraq. However, they're finally getting it right, and I refuse to join the chorus clamoring for a pull-out.

In the aftermath of the invasion, outside Islamic radicals aided and abetted by Iran, Syria, and others moved swiftly into the vacuum created by the afore-mentioned lack of planning, and immediately proceeded to take advantage of the old Shiite/Sunni rivalry in the systematic terrorization of Iraqi citizens.

There’s no reason why we shouldn’t take these terrorists at their word when they say they mean to destroy America. As I recall, they took a stab at it on 9/11. If they succeed in driving us from Iraq, the sky’s the limit.

At this point, the full complement of troops that General Petraeus requested has been in place for only a few weeks. Even without this full complement, reports of the successes that his strategy was achieving began to come in. We need to get a grip, stop providing ammunition for enemies at home and abroad, and give it a chance.


BrianR
As to Bush's strategy it is you who is not seeing the bigger picture. A foothold smack dab in the ME sends alot of messages most importantly to Iran. His execution of said goals is what is questionable.

Hound Dog
I like Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. I think that would be a great ticket btw. The others have their plusses but they just don't outweigh their minus'. At least not for me anyway. However all of our candidates are much better than any Dem.

mamadoc
Well said, however without perceived support Bush will not be able to get the votes to proceed forward. That is why the issues are becoming confused.

lolo
What we have is a Quaqmire "smack dab in the middle of the ME." Great! Sends a message alright: GW don't know what he's doing!

Lolo
After Nixon successfully pierced the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, a golden opportunity was forming. If Carter was more of a man; we could have cultivated an economic hegemony that would have been just as effective as force. Let the Soviets stay in Afghanistan. I would have used manipulation and guile to open as many McDonalds in the USSSR as I could. I would have made sure they received all the blue jeans they could desire. I would have slipped our popular music and music technology in every chance I could get. All the insidious aspects of our culture would have been introduced like a dandelion seed on a lawn or garden. And like those weeds they would take root in so many places that before they knew it, they were hooked, overrun and converted. It’s actually a mean plan. I hate McDonald’s and pop music.

Warner-Lugar's Plan Today
This will provide grist for the mill.

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush to come up with a plan by mid-October to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.


The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.

"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said.

Warner, R-Va., and Lugar, R-Ind., are well regarded within Congress on defense issues. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee before stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.


Mike
i am sure you believe the president is sincere. But he has betrayed america by not listening to the people. We told him we don't want illegals given amnesty. We celebrate the process whereby legal immigrants gain citizenship and contribute to our society. You wanted to reward those who broke our laws and proceeded to steal our social services with amnesty and preferred status over those who follwed the law to enter legally. You have failed to uphold your oath to protect america from foreign invasion and we this you owe america an apology. It is not too late. Start by enforcing the laws on the books. Start protecting the border from continued invasion from illegals and talk to us about your plans to to see our laws are enforced.

MikeR
My fellow cons have gotten back to you before I could.

Let me summarize by congratulating you on your ability to find a cloud in every silver lining and a problem in every solution.

They must teach that in liberal graduate school.

One day, just once, I would like to meet a liberal that can understand the cause-and-effect relationship of carrying a big stick.

Reagan carried a big stick and defeated the soviets without firing a shot. What did the left learn from this? "Cut the military. Cut the military. Peace dividend. Peace dividend" So the left cut the military and we got 8 years of terrorist attacks against our civilians.

So then the Prez (it really doesn't matter who he is) increases military spending and goes on offense and we get no attacks for the next 6 years.

And what does the left learn from this? "We must 'redeploy'," just like we did in Somalia. (They don't even have the political courage to call it what it is - RETREAT).

But that's all right. You just go ahead and blame it all on Reagan. He's not here to defend himself, so just go ahead and re-write his legacy. I'm sure your hero Clinton will approve of that.

Just understand one prediction I am making. If the Democrats get what they say they want, if we retreat from Iraq, and if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, the new Democrat President will be given a free hand to use the military any way he wants. All of the complaints against the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, etc. will vanish like farts in the wind.

There will still be war against terror. The only difference will be that our new Democrat President will be hailed as a genius no matter how well (or badly) he fights it.

Val,, Lolo
Val, that's right, and is why I won't vote for Giuliani no matter what. A Giuliani presidency would make Bush's look like the good old days.


Lolo, having spent over 5 years in Iran, and having written about this before on my blog in great depth as long as a year ago, this isn't something new from me. I've spent time in the ME, and in the Army, and I have a clue what I'm talking about, which is more than I can say for Bush, or frankly anyone else who thinks we're going to see Iraq turn into some lighthouse of liberty in the region.

It ain't gonna happen. Period.

All we're doing is chasing terrorists around from one stronghold to another, which reminds me very much of my time in Vietnam.

The current strategy will NOT work. And the stated goal is unachievable.

Further, if you'll re-read my earlier post, you'll note that I wrote that I think we SHOULD be there, but doing something that has a chance of succeeding, i.e.: new ROEs that take off the handcuffs, and set up a strongman under our control to rule the country.


Re: Warner and Lugar
Eben,

From your post:

"Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets."


I see. Two Senators have decided the President works for them. When was that Constitutional Amendment ratified? I seem to have missed it.

MikeR
Thanks. I had been growing bored with this thread until your 5:07 howler.

While acknowledging Reagan's roll in toppling the U.S.S.R. without firing a shot, still you accuse him of killing flies with a hammer. When Lolo asked what you would have done instead, your response was to build on the successes of the Nixon/Kissinger detente strategy.

If Reagan/You/Whomever were building on Detente, the Soviet Union would still be as strong as ever today. It was specifically because Reagan rejected the conventional thinking represented by the detente so beloved of pinhead intellectuals that forced the dominoes to fall backwards - and against all predictions of disaster proferred by the Beltway intelligentsia.

MikeR, my advice to you is to steer clear of factual analysis and stick to personal opinion. While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.


BrianR
I agree with you on the ROE. In my opinion we let a govt. form too fast. As to you spending time in the ME it does not make you a supreme authority. I, too, have lived in the ME. While I may know more than some it does not mean I know the most.

MikeR
You do realize that Kissinger's plan was appeasement? That would be why we were subsidizing things like grain at below market costs to the Soviets. In the mean time since they basically got their grain free among other things they were able to put all of their money into their military. One of the first things Reagan did was quit subsidizing them. That was when you started seeing all of the empty store shelves on the news. that was when the crumbling began.

Eben
Who made Lugar and Warner CINC?

Lolo, (((((((sigh))))))))
Please point out to me where in anything I've EVER written I claimed to be a "supreme authority".

Now you're arguing like a Lefty.

I am merely stating that background to illustrate that I'm not basing my opinion on some vacuous idea of what the region is all about, I've had some experience from which to draw in forming my opinions, and frankly I think they're better-informed opinions than Bush's, a man who hasn't -- as far as I can tell -- spent one minute in the area prior to becoming POTUS.


In THAT respect, I guess, Guilty As Charged, because I DO think my opinion is better-informed than that of Jorge Bush.

And, frankly, I also disagree with what I consider your disingenuous statement that experience living in the region doesn't mean you as a former resident there -- or I as a former resident there -- don't know "more than most".

I ABSOLUTELY think I know more than most people who haven't lived in the region. I woke up for years to the sound of the muezzin calling the faithful to prayers, and heard it several times throughout every single day. If that doesn't imprint on one the fact that you're living in an area of the world that is VERY different, nothing will; and if you HAVEN'T lived like that, you'll never really understand what's going on there.

So, yes, that is a very uniquely qualifying experience.


One more thing, Lolo
My Mom's Armenian, born and raised in Iran. I've still got family living in Tehran. I spent, as I said, 5 years there and that's where I went to HS, as a military brat (my Dad was career Army).

Yeah, I think I can safely say I know what I'm talking about.


Brian R
Your right on I think, about the prospects there in Iraq. I've never been there but it just seems to me that you can't beat al-quida when the're based in Pakistan and the prospect of building a democracy there is a pipe dream. Hell even our so-called allies the Saudis don't want that. It's either a strong man like Saddamm or break it up into three countries. If the Iraqies wanted democracy they would fight for it and get it for themselves, not for us, nor for the fact that we are there. If they don't want terrorists among them they can root them out and if they are sympathathic to them then there is no way 150,000 Americans soldiers dispursed over a large country will ever hunt them down.

BrianR
Maybe I misread you maybe I didn't. I did not say that we didn't know more than most, I said we basically don't know THE most. There are others that do know more than you or I. I noticed you ignored the fact that I too lived there. Your argument has a false premise. Just because Bush hasn't spent as much time in the ME doesn't he mean he knows nothing. By your way of thinking no one would ever be informed enough then because by that logic POTUS would have to had spent time living in every country in the world since he is in charge of the free world and the lone super power. I am thoroughly sure Bush has alot of scholars on the ME working with him not to mention ME diplomats. Trouble is since there is no overwhelming consensus on anything it is more difficult to make decisions without them being such a gamble.

Since you lived in Iran can you answer me a question? Is what I read about the Iranian people wanting freedom true? How long ago did you live there? I know that's a couple of questions.

BrianR
Just so you know I was not there as a military brat but as a civilian adult and it was in Saudi Arabia and I hated it thoroughly.

the biggest insult of all
DocNoleCat writes: "'See you at the bill-signing' was the biggest **** you from a politician to his supporters that I can recall in my lifetime."

No, that was only the SECOND biggest insult. The BIGGEST insult ever is when he blurted out that those of us who honestly oppose his immigration bill "don't want to do what's right for America."

Get it? He never said that about: Cindy Sheehan, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, or Nancy Pelosi. But he said that WE "don't want to do what's right for America."


Val, Lolo
Val, I agree, and that's why I wrote that it reminds me of Nam. Why are WE doing all the heavy lifting? It's well past time for these sorry MoFos to get off their butts and step up to the plate. Guess what? Their "Parliament" is taking the next 4 weeks off!

Huh??????? Is AQ taking the next 4 weeks off? Are our guys getting a vacation? No more sniper attacks or IEDs for the next 4 weeks???

Are you freakin' sh**ting me?!?!




Lolo, been to SA, Jiddah, and yeah, I hated it, too.

But a great example of what I'm talking about. Beirut used to be a beautiful city, known as the Paris of the Middle East, and deservedly so. It was gorgeous back in the late 60s.

Of course, it's a hellhole now.

To answer your questions, I lived there early 62 to late 66, when the Shah was in power. Further, from the data we get from our relatives still there, yeah, Ahmadinnerjacket's power is tenuous, and there's a strong pro-Western sentiment in the country. Hey, the kids get satellite TV, and want their MTV!

The IFs hold power because they hold all the guns. Great argument for the need for the 2nd Amendment here.

One last thing; you said "we don't know THE most", and I'm not sure how valid that statement is. Who holds more knowledge than those who have lived immersed in the population? Who haved lived on the local economy? Who are native -- in the case of my Mom -- to the country and still have relatives living there?

Condi Rice?????????


How hard should I laugh at THAT?




BrianR
No not Condi. Her specialty is actually Russia. Although she is smart and a quick study. No we have alot of former people who did live there advising and spying for us. I lived over there in the 80's. Your a little older than me.

BrianR
BTW the Ahmadin what ever(can't spell his name) comment made me laugh out loud! We call him here at home "I want a jihad!" It chaps my youngest hide that they share the same B-Day.

LOL, Lolo
I've wanted to write THAT for a while!

Yeah, anyway, you knw what I mean.

A "fast learner" just isn;t the same as someone who's been there up close and personal. Paricularly there!



Most people here find the idea of the way they live there simply incredible.

Mr. Gallagher
It is disengenuos of you to equate conservative disgust with Bush as providing aid and comfort to Democrats. It is no such thing. The Blue Dogs that were elected to replace the phony weasel Repubs have actually improved Congress' performance by re-introducing much needed gridlock. Bush's current predicament is not of our making. We still want to see victory in the war on terror in general and Iraq in particular. But Bush has essentially kicked us out of the GOP and it cuts no ice with me that YOU looked into his eyes and saw a man who means what he says. Intentions, good and bad, are irrelevant. Politics is about marshalling support and leading. We haven't changed. We still represent and support the very same things we always did including the Iraq War effort. No, Bush is in his current predicament because he miscalculated. There is nothing we can do to help him. Has he even ASKED for our help? He called us BIGOTS for God's sake! AND WHERE IS THE FENCE?

It's not that we won't help him but that he can't be helped. The only bridges he built were to his enemies who are now destroying him. He made a determined effort to burn all of those bridges that could have brought in this friends and allies to help him. Now we can't even get there to help him. This is one incredibly arrogant and incompetent adminstration.

One more thing
Those "conservative" pols who are abandoning Bush on Iraq are misguided. They are trying to save their own skins believing that it's Bush and Iraq that has their poll numbers down. It isn't. That is making us even angrier. It was immigration, the way they went about it and pushed us over the edge. It's too late for them to save their skins. They might as well do the right thing and support the war and then face simply step down. We've had it with EVERYONE. We want a new government. We want a CONSERVATIVE government.

lolo
i share my birthday with robt. Byrd. But then he gave a press conference claiming he gets lessons in life from popeye. I won't make that claim

wiseone & Lolo
I'll support whoever gets nomination, but we have a chance to pick a conservative in the primary. Don't vote for Giuliani, Romney, McCain or any other mushy moderates in the primary. As I have said many times before, in order to get a conservative in the primary, we will have to agree on ONE candidate. Spreading votes over two or three candidates won't work. It seems the short list is Hunter, Huckabee and Thompson. The jury is still out on Thompson.

One other thing
For the Tancredo and Paul backers, I like these two guys, but there is absolutely no way they can win in the general election. We have to be realistic. Hunter and Huckabee are proven conservatives and they can beat Hillary.

Bush is a traitor


It was written:

I believe he’s wrong. But I know that this good and decent man believes he’s right.

So because of this issue, I’m supposed to abandon my president?

My reply:

Good and decent? George Bush!!!! Are you nuts?

Bush proved what a traitor he was to this nation when he broke his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense when he signed campaign finance reform into law and stated he felt it was Unconstitutional but would leave it up to the courts. what type of "good" or "decent" man swears an oath, on a bible, to uphold the Constitution of these United States and then willingly and signs the bill into law while bragging he knows it cannot pass Constitutional muster. what type of decent man calls TRUE patriots such as the MinuteMen vigilantes. And what type of good or decent man allows a LEO to go to jail as in Ramos for simply doing the job that the President refuses to do (that he is Constitutionally obligated to do) and enforce the borders of this nation.

Bush is a traitor to this nation and a disgrace. He should be removed from office.

I am disgusted you wrote this rubbish.

Loyal to Who?
Dear Mr. Gallagher,

My loyalty starts with God, Family, and Country.
The GOP sneaks in at Number 19.
Bush doesn't even crack the Top 50.
Ron Paul? He's at number 7, and rising.

Peace be with you.

Hound Dog
I really appreciate your consideration of Rep. Paul. I, however, point out that no pro-Iraq War candidate will win in November 2008. That means Paul may be the only Republican who CAN win in '08.

Peace be with you.

BrianR
I find the way they live there beyond belief. I think that is why alot of people cannot understand this war and grasp how some(note the word some) of the mistakes were made. they think polar opposite to us. To me it's like taking your thoughts and intellect and projecting them at a mirror.

Hound Dog
There is no way I am voting for McCain, romney or Giulani. Rest easy. The funny thing is I kept trying to find reasons to like them, okay not McCain, but the others, and it was like going around in circles. If Romney had not done that stupid health care thing in Mass. maybe. Romney has got alot to like about him but I just don't think he's there and I don't think he can win.

FuwaFuwaUsaki
I have to laugh because you sound just like my father.

Amen, Lolo
It's beyond being foreign, and goes into the world of the bizarre (or bazaar -- LOL).


Bush is NOT a good and decent man.
We have not abandoned Bush, he has abandoned us. You call Bush is a good and decent man. Tell that to the Border Patrol agents and marines who are behind bars for purely political reasons. Good and decent men do not imprison people for political reasons. Even under Clinton I didn't expect to see political prisoners here in the United States. Bush is just as great an embarrassment to professing Christians as Carter ever was. The way Bush has betrayed the principles he professed when running for office, the wonder is that he has any supporters left.

There is enough fire power
reading TH to elect a real conservative as the Republican candidate, or at least prevent McCain and Giulani from being shoved down our throats. Heck, if we can keep the President and Ted Kennedy from shoving amnesty down our throats, surely we can keep the Republican Party from shoving a RINO down our throats.

Hunter/Palin 2008
Duncan Hunter is the complete package; the best candidate for President since Reagan. By the "Best" I mean the best Presidential material, AND the best of any of the candidates.

He should not be called a 'second-tier' candidate. His qualifications place him far above
any of the assorted weak-minded, highly ambitious aspirants. The field is a sorry group of ME persons. Hunter has merit; the rest have money, or have demagoguery. But Duncan Hunter has DONE things to help America, not just screech. Wiseone is right, conservatives will catch fire when he is nominated, and he will be elected over any Democratic candidate.

If you do not recognize Sarah Palin, please check her out. She is Governor of Alaska because she has princilpes and the fortitude to stand by them. I believe she and Duncan Hunter would bring dedicated and helpful service to America.
We have not had such since mis-day January 20, 1989.

Hunter has a website that tells us where we can send money, if we wish. I do, and will continue to.

typo
Sorry I meant "mid-day, January 1989".

A legacy of RINO failure
There is a difference between the ability to get elected and the capacity to govern-- Hubert Humphrey.

I voted twice for Dubya because I fathomed that he was the lesser evil, but he morphed into his true self, the RINO globalist neoCON Quisling-In-Chief Presidente Jorge, who ignored the best interests of Middle America to embrace the ILLEGAL alien invasion and engender a foolish folly foreign war.

Bush Lite, now more correctly known as Presidente Jorge for his threachery to his country in favor of Mexico, is chasing Nixon for highest disapproval level among modern presidents. As some have noted, 9/11 had set him up to be immensely popular, but he squandered it by starting a war of choice against a nation which had NOTHING to do with it.

He brought up S.S. reform only to kill it with ineptitude; BUT he did surreptitiously commit to send S.S. south to his amigos in Mexico! Swell job demonstrating concern after Katrina-- it was in the news, Jorge. And what was up with the Harriet Miers nomination?! (The only other person on earth who considers him "brilliant")

He deserves credit for tax cuts and court appointments, but that is more than offset by reckless spending and a shameful growth of the guvment. If you cannot pay for it, don't spend it! Somehow he never saw a spending bill that he would not sign. He partnered with Teddy to give us more unneeded, expensive guvment. Just buddying up with Teddy Homicide is prima facie evidence of treachery to traditional America.

After promising not to engage in nation building, Jorge did precisely that in Iraq. That war is getting WORSE and actually spawning animus toward us; a number of generals and experts had presaged this, but they were ignored. [NOW Jorge says he will listen to the generals-- why not before?!] We have simply destabilized the region and now the neoCONS ask vacuously: how can we just leave? The neoCONS came in with Dubya with Iraq invasion erextions. Jorge ran with those dogs and got fleas. WE got a staggering cost, horrible deaths and maimings, a sectarian civil war which will continue for another 10 years-- such a deal! The tab on that boondoggle is now $ 3/4 TRILLION and counting-- and we are worse off for having engendered it.

Most pernicious of all, Jorge decided that open border/NAU/SPP was the thing for America, so he has zealously aided and abetted the ILLEGAL alien invasion. He had the supercilious, simple-minded gall to suggest recently that Middle America (the most diverse nation on earth) was afraid of diversity. He has made eunuch shill Chortoff sit on building the wall and willfully refused to hire thousands of approved border guards. His ILLEGAL amigos read his welcome message loud and clear.

Middle America needs to keep sending the message to the remote elites in Washington that we WILL NOT TOLERATE the sell-out of America to a third world invasion so a relative handful of business owners can milk the "cheap" labor [which is actually EGREGIOUSLY expensive all-in to America]. And we need to cut our losses in Iraq and step aside from the mess the neoCONS spawned... there is no good end in sight; the real experts know this to be true.

Is "good and decent man" a RINO Mantra
I was removed from another website because I said I no longer supported Bush, that he was responsible for his own grief. The lady running the site kicked me off in huge black letters, after I'd posted the above to her post stating he is a "good and decent man".
Like Butteblack my hubby and I voted twice for him, but he began to lose me (took my husband a bit longer, likes to give the benefit of the doubt), when he called Minutemen 'vigilantes',
and Fox echoed him. The biggest was the railroading of the Border Agents and Deputy plus
the persecution of our military because of the stupid rules. We lived through the Viet Nam era too and we haven't forgotten. The invasion
by illegals is adding insult to injury especially when he is promising his Mexican constituents he will work hard to pass amnesty, then admonishes Americans, that these people have family values also. He doesn't deserve the support of Conservatives, he betrayed us and
his oath. I want no quarter given the terrorists, many people from my home state died on those planes (hate to admit it with Kennedy, Kerry, and Frank representing my home district, even though I've been free since '67) and I will
NOT forget. And Hunter has my vote.

Wrong on everything
"I believe he’s wrong. But I know that this good and decent man believes he’s right."

He cannot be a good and decent man; he badmouthed his countrymen in favor of the dregs of corrupt societies. He's a drunken internationalist without a shred of love for the United States.

He brags on the desert trash of Iraq, pretending that they're as capable of western thought as his countrymen; he would let the young men of his country suffer and die, not for oil, not for the defense of the U.S., and certainly not to acquire territory and power for the U.S., but so that same desert trash can have all the good that goes with our anglo-saxon values without the anglo-saxon values.

No, he is neither good, decent, or a man.

And why do *you* disagree with what he did regarding Libby? I oppose it because Libby should have gotten a full pardon. Instead that "good and decent man" played politics, and all but endorsed Libby's conviction, a member of his own staff, over the non-crime of "outing" a non-covert enemy operative (enemy in this context being liberal traitor and her cuckold husband.)

Bush has to earn my support
Bush is not a conservative and he has proven himself and his administration to be incompetent. I don't support him. Give me one real reason why I should.

Conservatives Shouldn't Abandon Bush
Since GWB and his adminstration have shown monumental incompetance, why should anybody stick with him? Isn't that a little like re-aranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?

Texboat said it
These two short paragraphs say it all, I just want to add Deputy Gilmer Hernandez to the last sentence:

Support of the Pesident
Mike, I am not abandoning the President, he has abandoned me. From before 9-11, I have supported a strong response against terrorist actions, e.g. the lack of President Clinton's response to the USS Cole killings. Also from even before President Bush I was writing Governor Bush about the need to stop illegal immigration. The governor's response then, in a letter which I still have, was that those people were here, we must educate them and give them health care. The sealing of the border was not addressed. I support a strong military in Iraq, even more than President Bush. If he had levelled the village where our troops were beheaded I believe a lot of the terrorism would have stopped.

I have no doubt that President Bush is sincere in his open border policy, but he is sincerely wrong. Except for my congressman, Ted Poe, no Republican wil receive any donations from me until we have National Guard troops on the border and until border agents Ramos and Compean are pardoned and compensated for all the losses cauesd by Bush's friend Johnny Sutton.

Charles Cody
Baytown, Texas
281-424-7060


Bush & Me
In case anybody's interested in a Democrat's point of view: 1) I didn't start out hating Bush because of the irregular election. 2) But I did always think he was a naive man who would be controlled by his handlers, and that's turned out to be true. 3) I did not originally oppose the Iraq War, since I am not an expert in Middle Eastern policy and did not know what we should do there, but took a wait-and-see attitude. 4) The pivot point for me was when the looting started and was not immediately controlled. Up until then I truly believed in US know-how and it was then suddenly clear that we didn't KNOW HOW. We couldn't stop the looting and we didn't control the borders. Then to make things worse Rumsfeld kept feeding us BS about the people just having "high spirits" as they carried the operating tables out of the hospitals. Are we stupid?

But what really did it for me was when Bush started his campaign of subverting the law and the Constitution. I don't know what we should be doing in the Middle East but, having once passed Junior High School Civics, I know what we should be doing in the United States of America, and what we should not be doing. Bush acts like a Divine Right monarch, under Cheney's tutelage. I have been appalled by the concealment of actual news while substituting partisan propaganda. And we hear many, many credible reports of science research reports being rewritten so that they will support Bush's ideology, and of partisan people controlling the work of career civil servants.

I am old enough to remember the last twelve presidents, roughly half Democrat and half Republican. Mostly life hasn't been that different under one or the other party. Under Bush, the world has been turned upside-down. Some of you applaud what he has done, but I don't see how anyone could applaud publishing propaganda instead of the truth, or laws being written in secret by outside business executives while Congress is kept in the dark, or the suspension of habeas corpus, or the establishment of secret prisons where prisoners may be tortured as long as you call it something else. This isn't the United States I know. Thanks to GW Bush. I don't see how anyone could call his presidency "decent".

Gallagher's Logic
"Sure, the president has promoted policies that would hurt this country, but he's a decent man. Therefore, we should support him."

That might well be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Jeez, Gallagher, how many angels can dance on your head?

I mean, seriously
Surely there are awoved liberals who are just as decent as Bush is--assuming Bush is decent. Should we support an openly liberal president because he's a decent man? I'd say no; a president should be supported only if he's promoting policies that are good for the country, which Bush is not doing.

I of course don't believe for a minute that Bush is decent, anyway. For one thing, he's a liar. Anyone who voted for him because he'd restore integrity to the White House must have been mighty disappointed all those times he said he was against amnesty.

I'll tell you why they are leaving him
Because it's almost election time. Dont you get it? These are the worst of the worst politicians. Stand on your principles if you're man enough to do so. Why is it that they change up now that their political lives are on the line? It kinda sucks to have politicians that vote in such ways. The truth is Bush can't be elected again. That's why he does what he does. Dont you people realize that the purpose of the first term in office is to get to the second? Once you've made it to the second term, you can do what you want because you can't be re-elected again. Do you think this war would be conducted in such a way if Bush could run for a third term in office? No. I promise you it would be different. That's why Repubs are jumping ship. Because they are the ones who have to face the voters in '08. Make it to a second term, then you can pay back all the big industries who've contributed to your campaign, plain and simple. Name one Repub who's come out against the war who isn't up for re-election in '08? Just one. I guess there truly is no honor among thieves.

maliki
How many troops more have to die? This a**hole had the nerve to tell us, the american people, that we aren't needed. Why should we, the american people, support this Iraqi government when they don't even want us there in the first place? Not just the Iraqi citizens, but the government, whom we the USA, have put into power. If it wasn't for American sacrifice, no one would even know who Maliki is. If he *maliki* isn't concerned about the aftermath of an American withdrawal, why should we waste one more American life? Someone please give me an answer to that. That's like a police officer being posted in front of your house taking bullets from someone trying to kill you and you saying "hey, we dont need you here". Why dodge one more bullet when that officer can be at home protecting his own house? This guy *maliki* doesn't even have the guts to say "thank you" to those who make it possible for HIM to be in power. But our soldiers are the problem? Bush surely has to see this and it has to come as a slap to his face. All the crap he's taking at home *whether right or wrong* just to be crapped on by this guy. If i was Bush, I'd tell him to go to hell, to sink or swim on his own. But that wont happen. Because there's some underlying reason to stay there. It's not Iran. It's not bringing democracy to the Iraqi citizens who obviously dont want it or us. If I were a troop on the ground fighting for his freedom and his ability to be prime minister, I'd tell him to kiss my a**. The nerve of this guy. The point about whether or not we should have gone in, whether we should stay to avoid a bloodbath there should be a mute point. Obviously Maliki isn't too worried about it, so why should we?? Someone please tell me after hearing this guy say, "we can go home anytime we want" why we should waste one more brave American life there?? Answer me that with a straight face.

Conservatives Shouldn't Abandon Bush
Did he protect us from the reach & province of the International Criminal Court? Yes.
—Did he keep us from the Kyoto mess that is currently tying up Europe? Yes.
—Did he create a workable alternative to Kyoto that other countries have embraced? Yes. Bet you didn’t know that!
—Have US Carbon Emissions decreased on his watch, without Kyoto? Yes.
—Did he submit a comprehensive energy plan that got killed by a weak congress? Yes.
—Has he lowered the deficit ahead of schedule in time of war? Yes. Even the NYTimes admits it!
—Did he cut taxes? Twice? Yes. And yes.
—Did he try to get the cuts made permanent? Yes. Congress dropped that ball.
—Did he stop government funding of EMBRYONIC stem cell research? Yes.
—Has he kept the promises he made as he held a dead cop’s shield before the Joint Houses? Yes.
—Did he go after the Taliban and AlQaeda in Afghanistan barely a month after 9/11? Yes.
—Has he been unflagging in his efforts to subdue terrorism, worldwide? Yes.
—Has be been the consistent voice for human liberty around the globe? Yes.
—After some serious missteps, is the surge working? Yes.
—Has he been a staunch friend to Israel, the only stable democracy in a frantic region? Yes.
—Did he end the farce of world-wide Arafat admiration? Yes
—Did he remove Saddam Hussein, whose state supported terrorists, from power? Yes.
—Did he invade Iraq at a time when the whole world believed Saddam had and “would use” WMD? Yes.
—Did he bring a much-maligned coalition with him? Yes. Some are still there.
—Did he liberate 50,000 people in keeping with the ideals of the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act? Yes.
—Has he inspired the Iraqi people to finally believe enough in freedom to fight AlQaeda with us? YES!
—Has he figured out that a free and engaged Middle East makes America safer? Yes.
—Has he kept you safe since 9/11? So safe that you’ve almost forgotten to fear? Yes.
—Did he remove “the wall” between the CIA and the FBI? Yes.
—Did he go to the UN before invading Iraq? Yes.
—Did he tell the UN that the US would never ask permission to defend herself? Yes.
—Didd he inspire Libya to surrender it’s WMD without firing a shot? Yes.
—Did he appoint excellent SCOTUS and Federal Judges to the bench? Yes.
—Did he implement the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program? Yes.
—Did he immediately move to freeze assets and make terror funding more difficult? Yes.
—Did he reform Medicare? Yes.
—Did he reform Social Security to give you more power over your money? He tried. See Congress.
—Did he manage an economy thru recession, terror attack & war w/ consistent gains for over ten quarters? Yes.
—Has he kept unemployment between 5.5% and 4.4% for an impressive period? Yes.
—Does he say what he means and mean what he says? Yes.
—Did he try to address immigration last year, when the houses in his party? Yes.
—Does he support the second amendment? Yes.
—Does he support school vouchers and school choice? Yes.
—Did he sign the ban on Partial Birth Abortion? Yes. It went to court, but he signed it.
—Did he reverse Clinton’s intent to kill Reagan’s pro-life Mexico policy? Yes.
—Did he support the Defense of Marriage Act? Yes. That used to be vitally important to you.
—Did he expand the roles of faith-based organizations in social programs? Yes.
—Did he prosecute the white-collar criminals like Ken Lay who ran riot through the ‘90’s? Yes.
—Has he handled himself with enormous courage, dignity and grace in the face of world/media/hate? YES
—Is he a man with a creed before he’s anything else? Yes.
—Did he establish Health Savings accounts? Yes.
—Did he have the Border Patrol installing monitoring devices along the borders? Yes.
—Has he made mistakes? Yes. Some undeniable beauts.
—Has he been an imperfect president? Yes.


Ron Paul Statement on Iraq


Ron Paul Statement on the Iraq War Resolution

Do you agree with Ron Paul the biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops?

Statement by Ron Paul

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-statement-on-the-iraq-war-resolution#more-2122


it's personal
Now it's personal. The breaking point for me was the President's total support of the henious immigration bill. I called the White House, something I had never done before.

We (the little people out here in the wastelands) were supposed to just hold our collective noses and take our medicine on immigration. All the pap about the illegals being in the "shadows" and not being able to find and deport them was just too much for me to take. I got mad as hell and wasnt' going to take it anymore!

I live in Texas and have supported the President against nay-sayers for years but not now. He abandoned the very people who were his staunchest supporters...but wait...we don't count.

I am soooo over most of the people in Washington. I do give props to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn for their parts in defeating the God-awful bill....

Bush's War is our War
War is not pretty. It is about death and destruction. If Bush really wanted to win the U.S. would have taken over Iraq by now, but no our boys are in the middle of a Civil War like sitting ducks unable to trust anyone. The powers running the war will be there for 20 years at the rate things are going. Not one of the previous comments made here are by anyone who has a loved one over there fighting, for you it is all about politics.

Every time Bush speaks on the War there is a different reason we are over there. Now it is because “we need to keep the fight in Iraq and not here on the U.S. soil”. First, it was about democracy now it is about terrorism. The fact that we continually have to be convinced to stay the course is telling. Our military is maxed out. We need a draft and a major military build up. That will never happen because there are too many trust fund babies out there with no real courage. Draft = instant peace movement. If we are not willing to go all the way with a War, than we should not go it at all. If we cannot go all the way, we at the least need politicians that know something about diplomacy in the east. Not one of you has any real idea what it means to be in an alien land killing people that you have not a thing to do with you.

This war is an experiment, just wait until oil supplies become scarce. You think the Middle east is a mess now. This war is an experiment, just wait until oil supplies become scarce. You think the Middle East is a mess now.

wiseone
I expected so much more out of you because you usually take time to read. There is always going to be a blemish somewhere on everything that comes short of perfection. So unless you believe that Reagan and his plans were perfection on earth, you will have to agree with me. I don’t know what they teach in liberal graduate school since I’ve never been; but perhaps you can tell me where you learned to close your mind and worship man instead of God?

One day, just once, I would like to meet a conservative that can understand the cause-and-effect, because that was my point. Everything comes at a cost and some times the cost doesn’t materialize for years. That is cause and effect! Your statement about the peace dividend and military spending demonstrates how little you understand it. There is not necessarily a connection between the events you described.

You reinforce this by your assurance that Clinton is my hero. Once again, no understanding of cause and effect. I say Reagan isn’t perfect and you think that means Clinton hero worship.

PS. If the Democrats take the Presidency, it will be through the will of the people. That too will be cause and effect.

SandMan: Of course it’s a howler. That’s what you get when someone asks you for a solution to a massive geo-political problem boiled down to a paragraph. Seriously, blue jeans and Big Macs? And of course it was my opinion. What else could it be? That’s what Lolo was seeking.

I appreciate your advice and don’t worry. The only folks around here who are entitled to their own facts are the ones that agree with the crowd. Otherwise, I’ll stack my factual analysis against anyone in here. While there is much howling against higher education at TH, there really is very little intelligence put in to commenting. Consider BadBoy’s response to me. Pride in ignorance.

Here’s one for you. Though B-grade, Reagan was an astute actor who knew his audience. He knew that détente produces no heroes and that the conservative movement spends a great deal of energy worshiping the mythical good old days. Well he sold it and you bought it. Why are we in Afghanistan?

Lolo: Economic power takes a long time to bare fruit. My over simplification does not do it justice. Another problem is it gives people the impression that nothing is being done. Communism was doomed from the start because it just doesn’t work. Many strategies could have sped it too its grave. I don’t advocate appeasement. I want economic avarice. It works every time.


BadBoy: My my, you really are off on a strange trip. I worry only about my own honest and sincerity. I haven’t learned how to call other people bad yet.

Did you really laugh out loud at my anarchism’s? Do you take such pride in your ignorance that you display it so proudly?

The term “Bamboo Curtain” was very popular when I was in public school in the late 50s and early 60s. Do you understand? It is well that you don’t dishonor yourself by violence. It a shame that you lack the ability to see how you dishonor yourself with such ridiculous, juvenile rhetoric. It strikes me as a waste of effort to explain to you how stupid and immature you appear in my eyes. Is this how you think a man of any worth addresses his response? Why do you visit a commentary thread if you have no intention of considering what is written. If you think military force is better than economic power, then say so and why you think that.



So What?
Who cares WHAT the Prez believes?

He is supposed to subordinate his own opinion
to the will of the people.

That means, too bad he likes illegals.
WE DONT.

That means we win.

Yes, he can stall another two years,
and maybe The Dems wont do anything either.

But they sure as hell will raise taxes,
and that is fair revenge upon those who
insist on not closing the border.


Abandonment
It is the Bush administration and the Republican hierarchy that has abandoned conservatives-by supporting the path to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens,and for failing to secure victory in Iraq.Bush has forfeited this Conservative Republican's support on anything!

Tivo/IPod Generation??!!
Are you kidding?! This war has dragged on for longer than all of world war II, and with a lot less to show for it. And we are using a far superior Army, with wildly superior weaponry, and yet, 5 years later we still can't seem to get control of one city in the entire country!

Don't give me any bull about my being incapable of supporting my country in war time because of a short attention span. I am completely supportive of WINNING this damned thing. Unfortunately, Bush seems to be too busy trying not to hurt anyone's feelings over there to actually risk dropping a bomb, or firing a weapon at any bad guys.

Our Soldiers did there thing in under 30 days! What the heck has he been doing in the five+ years since?

Selling us out to Mexico is just bad faith, and he will get no slack from me on that one. I don't give a rat's a** what his heart is telling him to do. He has a JOB to do, and that JOB is to protect this country from foreign threats. Invasion from a foreign country is in fact a very real threat, and one which he should be lying awake nights trying to combat!

Until that goal fills his heart, I couldn't care less what he "feels". He knew what the JOB was when he asked to be hired. HE decided - alone - that he wanted to change the rules of the job - NOT US!

Get real!

I am not giving up on the President!
I have defended the President on many issues, not the least of which is Iraq. But I don't walk in lock-step with the man either.

I felt he should have vetoed the McCain Fiengold bill because it steps on our right to speak out on political issues.

While I applauded the motives behind the No Child Left Behind bill, I felt and still feel that Education is primarily a State Responsibility. I'd like to see the federal government keep its distance, working more as an outside observer.

I am totally with him when he talks about the reasons we need to stay engaged in Iraq. That doesn't mean I think that we did everything right over there.

What I do know about war I learned in the Marine Corps. I know that wars are fought until one side or the other loses the will to fight. When that side loses their will to fight and quits then the other side wins. It is that simple.

I also know that wars of this sort can go on for decades. History tells us that. The Vietnameze war wasn't just our war, it had been going on for years prior to that with the French.

World War II had been going on for some time before we got involved. We also stayed in Germany and Japan for a long time after the main hostilities ended. We didn't do that for our health.

If only people had a better perspective of history, I think we would be better off.

I am glad that the President commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby. I am sorry that he didn't go all the way and pardon him. That was a political prosecution from the beginning. The President had to know that he would get criticized no matter what he did. I wish he would take off the gloves.

I wish he would pardon the two border patrol agents, Compean and Ramos and I have told him so, if any get through the WhiteHouse comments email.

I am with him on taxes, but wish he would go further and promote the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.

I think he gave up too easily when he tried to take on the Social Security mess. The present system is a Ponzi scheme if ever there was one.

I agree with him that something needs to be done about immigration, but I think he has his head up his a## on the process. I wish he would put more emphasis on just Border Security and uphold current laws more effectively.

So what do I do? When I disagree with him I let him know as best I can. I also tell him when I think he is right.

I tell people who attack him as stupid or dishonest that, that kind of language hurts us, the country, more than him, because our enemies are listening. I tell them that though they may not realize it, they are doing the bidding of the enemy, that they are useful idiots.

I think their rhetoric tells us more about the accusers than the President.

Boosh
Let's see guys.

1) Bush failed to protect us from Osama bin Laden and 9/11
2) After 9/11 he failed to catch Osama bin Laden
3) Bush led us into the stupidest, most disastrous war in American history, over absolutely nothing
4) He is responsible for a One Trillion Dollar deficit, the largest in American history
5) He did this while cutting taxes for the rich
6) He is personally a coward
7) As are his kids
8) He has been a failure all his life
and
9) He dodged the draft and went AWOL

What should I like?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.