Conservatives Shouldn't Abandon Bush

Townhall.com ^ | July 13, 2007 | Mike Gallagher

[Kaslin]

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?

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?

[laurie_d]

You’ll fit in here well.

They love liberals like you.

As long as you have DUmmie internet longevity.

Just keep bashing Bush. the phony FReepers will love ya.

[Hydroshock]

If I would have thought he would pushed for this amnesty I would never have voted for the worthless loser.

[hunter112]

Iraq is looking too much like Viet Nam to me.

It's looking like that to a lot of Americans, and not just the liberals, either. Politicians in both parties can read history, and the 1968 election is looming in their minds. In the Senate, the Rats only picked up two seats, Iowa and California, but they lost eight seats, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The Republicans made a net gain of five seats in the US House. This is in the middle of a period marked by a great shift towards liberalism in the US, yet the Republicans bucked that, because the American public held the Democrats responsible for the war in Vietnam.

Fast forward two years, and after Richard Nixon had promised to end the war with a "secret plan" ("Peace with honor" was his 1972 slogan) the Republicans were held accountable, losing 12 seats in the House, but did OK in the Senate, thanks to Nixon's reorienting the South away from the radicalism of the Democrats. This didn't last long, as the Republicans lost two Senate seats in 1972, even though Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern, and the Republicans in the House got back the 12 seats they lost in 1970.

Nixon had the advantage of being able to blame Vietnam on the Democrats, but President Bush does not have that option with Iraq. You can make all the case you want to about Bill Clinton going soft on Saddam Hussein, but the reality is that Bush, Sr. and Colin Powell were really the ones who had him on the ropes back in 1991.

If the President and his military advisers and leaders had really blown the holy hell out of Iraq in 2003, when there was massive American support for the war, we wouldn't be seeing a hundred body bags a month coming back from Iraq. Today, Americans have 20-20 hindsight to see that we didn't nuke Hanoi because of rational fears of escalating the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but who are we afraid of today? The answer: A bunch of hand-wringing, cheese-eating surrender monkeys in Old Europe. That's not leadership, that's just trying to suck up to the people that have been responsible for most of the 20th Century's wars.

Now, we're on the front lines of the next World War, and our so-called "allies" are in the same "nothing to see here, just move along" mode that we were at in 1940, when both Presidential candidates were talking about the need to keep out of Europe's war, AFTER Hitler had marched through the streets of Paris. We need to get out of the way of the Islamunists who are willing to kill each other, and we need to save our bullets and bombs for whoever survives that. A hot war inflaming all of the Middle East will draw European muzzies into the battle, and after Old Europe loses about 10,000 people to terror attacks, they will get on board.

Then we can finish the leftover business of the Crusades, and rid the world of the cancer of islammunism.

[Colorado Doug]

Most of you don’t deserve the title you’re given by birth, Americans.

Bush has tried to cheapen that title to something meaninless.

[MinuteGal]

She signed on March 10, 2007....about four months ago.

Yes, this banshee is a possible reincarnation of a very recent banee.

Leni

[Hydroshock]

Runaway spending, runaway growth of government an selling out our sovereignty is not a conservative plan.

[Designer]

"You sure do like to make a lot of declarations."

Why philman_36, Ah do declayuh!

[philman_36]

Can’t you see that your poor horse is dead? Be merciful! Stop beating it!

[indcons]

"You’ll fit in well here on Phony republic"

Phony Republic, eh? Is that's what you think of FR, why bother posting here?

[From One - Many]

you know not of what you speak, but go ahead and speak it...your time will be limited.

[philman_36]

Ah do declayuh!
Fiddle-de-de!

[Designer]

"There, that’s one."

LOL!!!

[Colorado Doug]

I thought you said you were leaving. I hate long goodbyes

[indcons]

"I’ve been told and I now KNOW it’s true, that most of you are DUmmie plants with internet longevity.

Continual residence in Minister Farrakan's space wheel mothership (TM) will do that to you.

[Designer]

"I’m watching liberals with YOUR help ruin this country."

Well, it's not only the liberals who are ruining this country, and except for the help in getting elected, we are NOT helping with any ruination.

[hosepipe]

[.. Just keep bashing Bush. the phony FReepers will love ya. ..]

Your not very liberal for a liberal..

[highball]

Why not, he abandoned us a long time ago.

Funny, that was the exact same reaction I had.

[nicmarlo]

“name one policy of Bush’s (and, specifics, please) that has changed?”

Simple. He said he’d veto CFR and he signed it.

There, that’s one.

LOL! How's about this one:

In 1995, the Texas Governor's [yes, as in George W. Bush] press secretary, Karen Hughes, issued a statement regarding Bush's support of a legal appeal by Texas Attorney General Dan Morales [Texas v. United States, B-94-228 (S.D. Texas 1995) 95-40721 (5th Cir.) (pdf file)], to recover $1.34 billion spent by his state on the incarceration and education of illegal immigrants.

"It's not fair to the taxpayers of Texas to stick them with the bill when the government fails to enforce immigration laws," Hughes said to reporters then.

Karen Hughes wasn't speaking without authority. In 1995, when Gov. Bush was suing the United States' Government for $5 billion, he said:

"If the federal government cannot do its job of enforcing the borders, then it owes the states monies to pay for its failure."

That's right, when George W. Bush was Governor of the State of Texas, he sued the federal government for reimbursement of the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, yet there are millions more illegal aliens in the United States now than when Bill Clinton was President.

* * * And, when campaigning for President in 1999, George W. Bush issued this statement:

[Federal expenditures would be more effective] "...at the front end, to stop people from illegally entering our country, not at the back end, by reimbursing states after it has failed to enforce the border." [I] "would allocate additional resources to enforcing the border, so states such as Texas and California would not have the huge expenses they currently do." (San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 9, 1999)

And, during his 2004 Campaign, the President said this:

THIRD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE, ARIZONA
October 13, 2004

SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.

I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know.....

How do you see it? And what do we need to do about it?

BUSH: I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.

We're increasing the border security of the United States. We've got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border.

We're using new equipment. We're using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.

And we'll continue to do so over the next four years.

---

If the President is as serious as he claims to be about securing our borders, and clamping down on illegal aliens coming by the droves into our country, then why do we have the following results from him and his Administration?

according to the Appropriations Committee yesterday [June 13, 2007], there's $864 million cash on hand in the Department of Homeland Security right now for building the border fence. Now, in seven months since the president signed this bill -- that's October 26 -- they've only built, according to the schedule we got yesterday, 13 miles...

I'd say he's CHANGED, in action and deed, from what he promised to do.

That's TWO.

[Designer]

"True, John Birch was RIGHT.."

I see by your post that you don't know anything about the John Birch Society.