Bush Proved Me Right: White House Is Stupid and Arrogant

Human Events ^ | May 18, 2006 | Michael Reagan

[llevrok]

I suggest the reason so many are so strongly opinionated on Mr Bush's immigration position is due to a failure of him to answer this question -

Why fight for Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait's sovereignty and not defend our own?

[FairOpinion]

While I am sure Michael Reagan is sincere, but Republican in-fighting only helps the Dems, who are the party for open borders, the party of sympathizing with the terrorists, blaming American first.

Bush's plan is the best possible UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

People need to try to put their emotions in check and start using their heads.

[goldstategop]

Any proposal sponsored by Ted Kennedy is a non-starter with me. Even if it finds favor with RINOs, it deserves to go nowhere.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[djf]

Over and over I keep hearing the same old tired argument from the Bushbots.

"If we don't support Bush, the Dems will gain power".

So my question is "What difference does it make if the pubbies are just "Democrat Lights" anyways"?

As far as immigration goes, it seems peculiar to me that this is now a tremendous national problem. Kinda all-of-the-suddenly.

[Cobra64]

For many here, this is not an issue for concern, and we should just move on...

[Panerai]

Then why don't you "just move on", for many of us this is an issue of concern.

[TheCrusader]

"Ignoring what a majority of Americans demand is just plain arrogant."

Sums it up perfectly, the President is as aloof and arrogant as they make them. The American people are strongly united on illegal immigration reform, yet even this powerful unity doesn't move the President to take any serious action. I've never seen anything like this before.

The President has before him a huge opportunity to do the right thing for America by strengthening our borders against illegal invaders, terrorists and criminals. He can also shore up the elections for Republicans in November by dropping his amnesty obsession and giving the boot to illegals. Instead, he gives us some NG troops on the border who will be without any authority to arrest or even detain illegals; and he shoves his AMNESTY obsession back down our throats again. It's just unbelievable to me how narrow this man's thinking is.

[RodgerD]

Bush's plan is the best possible UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Absolute nonsense.

Doing nothing is far superior to Bush's plan to vastly INCREASE the numbers of poor unassimilating third world migrants into our country?

Why is adding 84 million more migrants the "best possible" plan under any scenario?

[FairOpinion]

"Why fight for Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait's sovereignty and not defend our own?"

====

Here is a very good answer for you, posted by

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634181/posts?page=19#19

Interesting you say that. After the Russian Afghan war, the CIA told the Majhadeen that they would help them set a Government up. They started and a couple tribal chief stood up and the Taliban stood up and a civil war began. The CIA cut and run because they didn't want blood on their hands. Well, we all know that the Taliban won and we had to go bust up terrorist camps in Afghanistan. If we cut and run in Iraq, we better be prepared to go back again one day. God bless out Troops



19 posted on 05/17/2006 10:07:51 PM PDT by do the dhue

====

If we hadn't stopped fighting in Afghanistan back whenever, the Taliban wouldn't have gotten into power, Al Qaeda couldn't have gotten themselves a country as a base and get strong, and we most likely wouldn't have had the 9-11 attacks.

THAT's why we have to fight the terrorists "over there", not wait until they show up on our doorstep.

[fantom]

News flash . The Dems have gained power. Or rather , have been given power.

[Rastus]

Having no plan is the best thing possible under the current circumstances.

And if, as usual, someone wants to bring up the fact that Mr. Reagan's father granted amnesty, do we want to now repeat that mistake?

[Cobra64]

People need to try to put their emotions in check and start using their heads.

And you solution is to just wish it away like in a cartoon?

[Lurker]

Bush's plan is the best possible UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES

No it isn't. The Presidents plan needs to die a speedy death in the House.

L

[Mr. Mojo]

but Republican in-fighting only helps the Dems

Not as much as the GOP establishment's pro-amnesty position helps the Dems. Not only is the Pubbie base po'd but the tens of millions of new voters this amnesty will create will, despite the GOP's best pandering efforts, undoubtedly be voting Donkey in very high percentages.

[Cobra64]

Any proposal sponsored by Ted Kennedy is a non-starter with me.

[FairOpinion]

It is utter nonsense for you to say that Bush's plan INCREASES the number of illegals coming into the country, and that doing NOTHING is better, than securing the border and bringing some order to those who are coming here to work.

It is such an irrational statement, that it defies common sense.

[Nova]

It's was referred to as Hubris by those that understood it much more completely than the modern American does.

[CheyennePress]

"Bush's plan is the best possible UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES."

It really isn't. You can bet that Senate Republicans would be forced to get in line with an Executive Branch that spoke out against the proposed amnesty plan the Senate is mulling over. Well, honestly, Democrats probably would, as well, or risk getting roasted from the right.

The Senate wouldn't have a choice. The people would get behind such a President, and he'd be capable of speaking with a much more unified voice than they could ever muster.

At that point, the House's message would take a more central stage, as well. The Senate could be made an example of as a body out of step with the rest of the country.

Bottomline: if Bush spoke out firmly against illegal immigration and actual solutions, we'd be in better shape. I'm not delusional in thinking that he's done nothing: he's done more than any President has in decades.

That said, this is becoming a major issue, and Bush could (and in my opinion) SHOULD be doing more.

[FairOpinion]

What difference does it make if the pubbies are just "Democrat Lights" anyways"?

====

If you can't see any difference between the Republicans and Democrats, I guess you can't tell the difference between fighting the terrorists vs. appeasing them, between tax cuts and tax increases, between private healthcare and socialized medicine and so on.