New White House Tactic: Let Bush Be Bush

reuters & nyt ^ | 4/2/06 | STAFF

[BigSkyFreeper]

ROTFLMAO!!

[Paul Ross]

Let's do some simple math here: You say the President is NOT protecting our borders?

"Simple" Math like the 20-to-30 million illegal alien squatters in the U.S. today?"

WHADDYA THINK THE WOT IS?

It appears to be a war to make the world safe for globalism.

So far, it appears to be a narrow response to the direct and immediate threat to our commercial interests of Al-Queda and its Ally, Saddam. The evidence was overwhelming, despite the 9/11 Commission's ambiguity on the issue, that Saddam was involved, thickly aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden. A lot of the new document dumps corroborate the tie-ins. From WMD Training, to Plane hijacking, at Salman Pak. But most tellingly, their secret service network. Which was absolutely crucial to abetting the success of the 9-11 operation. Stuff that the President would not, and could not allow to be mentioned by Colin Powell at the U.N. or by anyone else in the know. I surmise this is because it would burn our information sources. Some of them foreign governments still relied upon by Al-Queda...possibly the UAE?

Iraq, once Saddam had been toppled, and he had been captured, was then left with a provisional government which didn't want to govern. Remember the old story of the highest nail? It's the one that gets pounded first. But we couldn't just leave it, and let Al-Queda make Iraq its new H.Q. So we have tried to make the best of it, and recast the middle east by introducing something frankly alien to their religion. A religion which explicitly endorses despotism.

So we have been stuck there waiting interminably for the Iraqis to form a constitution (which sucks, frankly) and then a body of representatives, and then a central unified leadership. To no avail. As can be seen with Straw and Rice finally descending on Baghdad...

It is a noble effort, and we don't want to see our efforts...and the sacrifices of our soldiers...go in vain. We must not lose. But that means getting a whole lot tougher with the Sunnis. It's time to get Michael Savage on their butts, to be blunt. Time to vaporize some Sunni towns. The Sunnis need to know they were CONQUERED and they will then react accordingly pursuant their own religion.

Meanwhile, Long-range diplomacy to deal with the breeding grounds of Al-Queda are currently in a stagnant mode. Nothing is being done about Western Pakistan and the Saudi...and UAE... funding of the Madrassas.

If not protecting our citizens and our borders.

This is not full protection. It is distincly a filtered, blindered kind of protection. There is nothing wrong with going after the nests of the snakes. But actually do it. Don't play patsy with them. And don't fail to use sufficient force. We cannot be an army of occupation forever. And so when did going abroad ever mean we should leave the back door open? We didn't in World War II. And its a good thing we didn't. The Nazi's did send in trained saboteuers. You do know, don't you, that we have only captured a fractional amount, a percentage of the known Al-Queda-trained agents into this country? Still waiting in sleeper mode for the operational go-ahead of an assignment. And they have been reinforced right through the deliberately-porous, unenforced Southern Border. As Laura Ingraham has said, and did just this morning, it is willful malfeasance by the executive branch to refuse to make that border secure. And then there is the still-larger issues of maintaining our sovereignty as a nation, let alone as a nation under the rule of law, as Ronald Reagan always said, "A country which does not control its own borders, soon won't be one."

Must be kinda cozy in that fishbowl you are living in, eh?

So we get back to the "Simple" Math of the 20-to-30 million illegal alien squatters in the U.S. today. The culture of lawlessness promoted by those at the top is directly responsible for this. And they want to keep doing more of the same. As any conservative will tell you, if you don't change what you're doing, is get more of the same. McCain-Kennedy/Bush promises to just do more of the same...and do a reprise of the 1986 Amnesty...where none of the promised enforcement actually happened. The same corruption which prevented clean enforcement in the first place, will conveniently prevent those aspects from happening.

If the globalist 'world citizens' defying their oathes of office (bipartisanly, eh?) can successfully 'manage' the fire-storm of national righteous indignation at the betrayal, and extort an uninvited 'guest worker' program into the mix, the enforcement will then never happen. At least that is transparently their game plan.

Protect the Borders FIRST. THEN, we'll talk.

[Paul Ross]

the sky is only falling over you.

Hello. I was right on the UAE. Were you?

As for the illegal alien issue:

As Alan Keyes has noted,

"All of the national polls are very clear: Americans want to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, and REJECT any AMNESTY bills, no matter WHAT form they take to try to fool us."

Here are just a few examples:

According to the Washington Times, a new Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80% of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration.

A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62% oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72% in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses).

Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75% favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70% believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57% would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59% opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71% would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92% saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73% of Republican and 77% of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation

[Paul Ross]

The world is still not flat.

Tell it to the administration, which has its entire staff worshiping at the feet of globalism-guru Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, "The World is Flat"

Newsweek reported back on March 6th that the entire staff of the White House was seen toting copies of his book around.

To get some perspective on Friedman, I suggest as a starting point reading a critique, from the New York Press, "Flathead"

Here is an appropriate snippet thereto:

On an ideological level, Friedman's new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit. If its literary peculiarities could somehow be removed from the equation, The World Is Flat would appear as no more than an unusually long pamphlet replete with the kind of plug-filled, free-trader leg-humping that passes for thought in this country. It is a tale of a man who walks 10 feet in front of his house armed with a late-model Blackberry and comes back home five minutes later to gush to his wife that hospitals now use the internet to outsource the reading of CAT scans. Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism, says we're not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we're not in Kansas anymore.) That's the whole plot right there. If the underlying message is all that interests you, read no further, because that's all there is.

[Paul Ross]

Pinging regarding Friedmaniacs.

[Paul Ross]

Pinging FYI

Thomas Friedmaniacs Flat Earthers need debunking. Hence we start at Post #204

And then continue, noting that even Indians, while benefiting from the offshoring, have some bones to pick...such as Siddharth Varadarajan find that Friedman dramatically overstated his case in his extravagant claims of "win-win-and peace too", "I'm sorry but thge worlds still round"

[AmeriBrit]

"I'm just trying to get the conservatives to do something about immigration."
+++++
What you need to do first is educate yourself on the difference between 'open borders' and 'illegal immigration'.

---

"I don't care if it's legal or illegal--just stop it."
+++++
Do you have any idea how much like Pelosi you sound with this line which only goes to show how ridiculous your statement is. Why would you even entertain the idea of stopping LEGAL immigration?

[AmeriBrit]

Perhaps if your senator drippy reid and clan would stop their childish games and 'no,no,no,' chants to everything that comes out of the oval office and right side of the house, it would leave President Bush time to do something constructive.Just about every second of his first term was taken up with mopping up clinton and the dummicrats mess they left behind. Your another of the gang who think GWB has a big 'S' on his underwear.

[Paul Ross]

...another of the gang who think GWB has a big 'S' on his underwear.

You mean like this?

Just about every second of his first term was taken up with mopping up clinton and the dummicrats mess they left behind.

Yeah, he was cleaning it up...but not the way you think. If only it were. He was covering for them. Think Men in Black after a UFO incident.

I am willing to be persuaded however. When the White House cleans up Sandy Hamburglar...and puts him in an orange jump suit right along side Hitlery with ankle chains... then you can talk.

BUT OH MY, IT'S TOO LATE!..he didn't, and won't... and he has let them both off...actively interfering in the background.

Or how about Joe Wilson's multiple security breaches...and lies? Or Richard Clarke and George Tenet, or Louis Freeh, kept ON interminably by this White House... AND ALL of them failing to EVER brief Rice, Hadley, Rumsfeld, or the President on Al-Queda's prior to 9-11?

Or how about getting out of the way and letting Able Danger get fully released for testimony?

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

[AFreeBird]

I think if everyone stood back and just looked at the BIG picture instead of just the US picture a lot of Bush criticism would subside.

We are the lone Superpower, we will automatically have everyone else gunning for us.

Well, I understand the geopolitical big picture.

What I don't understand is why we're letting millions of illegal aliens into this country, some of them "guning" for us, and the president doesn't seem to care. In fact he wants them to stay, even though they wave their mexican flags and tell us that its their country, and they will not learn our language or assimilate to our ways.

Well okay, I guess I can understand it if the geopolitical big picture is to turn the western hemisphere into some American Union along the lines of the EUrinals, with no more borders or national identities.

Nope sorry, either way, Jorge has lost me on this.

[Alia]

You think the WOT terror is:

... a war to make the world safe for globalism.

Tommyrot.

That the world is made safer and because terrorism is being halted does not justify your comment.

I've just finished reading the remainder of your post: You are without a doubt clueless about macroeconomics, the economics of your own country's wellbeing, and lastly, you are of an isolationist ideology.

You and I might both agree that the illegal immigrancy NEEDS MAJOR REFORM: But I believe our grounds for discourse go no further, in this matter. Going step by step through your post would require that I provide you with an education.

But perhaps you do indeed have a higher education; it's just your ideology which is so narrow. Your lens.

I know Michael Savage. :) Like him, too.

However, you and others might need reminding that sitting aloft and afar calling the shots is far different from actually standing in the position in charge of calling those shots.

When Judge Phaelzer rescinded the will of the people in re Prop 187 (repealing benefits to illegals), the hue and cry from people was angry. The loudest cries came from those who beat the drums for an insurrection -- "Take out the Dems: Somebody arrest them!" The answer was: And who might you think has the power to actually do this thing?

Next what was heard was: "Those Chicken*()& Republicans should charge in there and kick the Dem Butts!"

Here's where the rub is: We pay those elected to office to represent us. Some voters mistakenly believe it means that those elected become our proxy acting on orders at all times. Getting elected to office requires no small skill. Had, say, Republicans done what angry voters said to do? Those Republicans would have been arrested, and nothing would have been changed about the specific matter of 187.

Sitting in an armchair deciding what would be "personally most gratifying" does require much skill at all. It requires a will; but not necessarily skill or knowledge. And "saying" what you would do or would not do, is.. cheap. It requires no proof as to your assertion or intent to carry anything out.

And if you really think our military and our military leaders are playing "patsy" with the enemy over in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've got some black bands I wear on my wrists that would shame you to your core.

There's a reason we are winning the war. And because "hothead" and cheap-shot generals or CIC aren't running it. We've got the best running this War and Our Country.

Yes, we do need to deal with the issue of Illegal Immigration. Far past time. But your blathering on equating our military with fighting a false "war" damns you.

Why don't you just come-on our and say what I perceive you are saying: "Pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and place them on the border." And because your entire, well written, opinions surround that very thought. Comes through loud and clear.

[RepublicanHippy]

I have no idea what you are talking about but I suspect you have not done your homework (nothing to do with Friedman's book).

[the invisib1e hand]

Hello. I was right on the UAE. Were you?

youwererightyouwererightyouwereright If you say so!!!

There, feel better?

This reply seems to state the obvious -- that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and should not be allowed to.

Don't think anyone really contests that -- certainly not the president. The issue isn't whether they're breaking the law. The issue is how to begin to properly turn them into American citizens, should they choose to step up to the plate. Because, only in your dreams are you going to pack them onto planes, trains, and automobiles and send them all back, or put them all in prison. Nor would any reasonable person with a grasp of the big picture that is within the reach of anyone who seeks it want to. Operative word: reasonable.

Reality calling. Operative word: reality.

[B4Ranch]

No, I think GWB has a big 'Q' on his underwear.

[B4Ranch]

Q for Quisling

[John Filson]

We may all find reasons to laugh at Thomas Friedman. He seems blisfully unaware that people like Siddharth Varadarajan could hate us for the very kind of thinking Friedman does. Apparently Friedman's job is never in danger, no matter how wrong he is.

[Alia]

You raised a point, in this "illegal immigrant"-hijacked thread, about the President's "spending". And this is why you were so disappointed in him.

You might recall, President Bush inherited the legacy of a recession from the former administration. There are two ways to stave off a recession: cut taxes; increase government spending.

Oh yes: "Increase government" spending.

Perhaps I've missed THAT discussion (you know: a thread not about "illegal immigrants). However, the spending matter does deserve attention.

When an economy is going into a recession, that means money supply is tight. That means investments stop. That means people get laid off or not hired. That means they have "NEEDS". If the government spends it keeps the economy flowing while market corrections can be made. If a tax-cut is also offered therein, that means not only is a "staving off of the recession" accomplished; BUT money vis a vis "the invisible hand" is put into the hands of EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL to spend, save, or invest as they will. This not only recedes the recession it blast starts an economy.

And yes, I think both were done very well by the Bush Admin. Had he NOT increased government spending.. guess what? Folks would have been out of work. Need I really lay out for you exactly what the "hate Bush" crowds would have done? They would have furthered the recession through their usual brand of "MSM-inspired" pessimism. And then, of course, the actual concerns of unemployment, lowered GDP, exchange rate markets. etc.

So, no. I am not as concerned about the "spending" as you are. I see a long-term effect of it all. And it's a good one. Short-term, sure... it can be of grave concern.

But when I figured out, a month or so back, what the Dem Strategy was -- I knew they were doomed. Their strategy is one of growth! Of brave new directions!

They've gone from me! Me! ME!

to

The three "I"s: Immigration, Inflation, Imhotep.

President Bush has done exactly what he promised he would. And he's been stellar on the economy which! ALSO happens to involve other countries in this mutual feedback thingee we all have called "trade". I know it's hard for some to understand "money" to other countries. But the truth is? It ends up coming back to the United States. So, there ya are.

[isthisnickcool]

Good reply! Thanks!

I wonder what we do with the 9 trillion in debt?

[Paul Ross]

You are without a doubt clueless about macroeconomics, the economics of your own country's wellbeing, and lastly, you are of an isolationist ideology.

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong again. Do you classify Teddy Roosevelt as 'isolationist' or 'clueless about macroeconomics' etc.?

[Paul Ross]

Yes, we do need to deal with the issue of Illegal Immigration. Far past time.

No kidding. So stop wasting time and energy, handwaving and misleading on the issue.

I also note you fail to 'tommyrot' your way out of the globalistic nightmare that is being 'bipartisanly' advocated...from silence on China's Axis-of-Evil sponsoring, proliferating and protecting at the UN, all the way to the President suddenly supporting resurrection of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Complete indifference to the trade deficit. And why don't you learn what Isolationism really meant, while you're at it.

But your blathering on equating our military with fighting a false "war" damns you.

"False"? Really. You are fraudulently misrepresenting what I said. Recall, I fully supported invading Iraq, before, during, and after. Saddam was behind a good portion of all the Mideast terrorism. And 9/11. His regime needed to take a dirt nap.

And we needed pacification post-Saddam too. Democratization was the preferred...but not only way...to reach that objective. But the objective, not the democratization, was the essential . Can't have the same folks...or worse... just step into his shoes. And the nature of that pacification is where I am having questions about the game plan. Not our troops integrity, skill, valor or execution. And hence, your perversion and misrepresentations only damns you. As an intellectually dishonest debater. You haven't come to grips with any of my points.

Then you come out with this cavil and aspersion:

Why don't you just come-on our and say what I perceive you are saying: "Pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and place them on the border." And because your entire, well written, opinions surround that very thought. Comes through loud and clear.

You are tone deaf. Because that is not at all what I believe. I believe we need to return terror for terror.

And it is not a simple 'gratifying' gesture of simple retribution that I am calling for. [Although the incident of today's crashed Apache crew violation makes it tempting]. But I am thinking more of a calculated campaign to erase the base of Baathist-Sunni support. The terror regime that they still have in place in their bastions. They have to know they were defeated. They don't accept that currently. They still think they should rule. They need to internalize that they were defeated...and get some gratitude at not being squashed like their neighbors down the street.

And Iran is also in the mix. It is constantly preaching throughout the Middle East 'the last helicopter' thesis, which means they think they can just 'outwait us'...and the WOT was just an aberration. We need to increase their pain level to where they finally scream "uncle" in every quarter of the Sunni Triangle.

There are a number of military commanders who wanted to do just that...but that Foggy Bottom has been allowed to block them from going forward. Paul Bremer, much as I personally like him, has apparently a lot to answer for in that regard. This was mentioned just two weeks ago on Hugh Hewitt interviewing one of our intel people.

I will never countenance seeing our soldiers sacrifice made of no account. I don't approve of George Will's 'loss of will' or William F. Buckley's 'buckling' or Francis Fukuyama's flip-flops. If I can help it, I intend to make sure that this thing is won and stays won. But squeamishness won't git r' done.

The reason you misidentify where I am coming from is because you fail to see the bigger picture...or to take me at my word. You limit yourself to just one person, letting that guy define you and your beliefs, when a truly conservative philosophy is not so dependent or limited.

As for my surmise that the WOT has devolved into simply making the world safe for globalism, take everything we have seen and heard with this Administration's religious fervor for globalism and free trade... Exhibit "A" being the UAE ports debacle....and what does it really translate into when you see not just the actions taken...but the grotesque inaction? Incompetence? No, I hardly think so.

But it is a huge policy disconnect that needs to be explained. And the best explanation is that the administration doesn't mean the same things we mean when the talk turns to saving civilization...and doesn't want the exact same ends. Two ships passing in the night.