"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.

The National Review ^ | February 20, 2002 | National Review Editors

[rightwing2]

While we are at it this reminds me of the hand wringing over the SPY PLANE when people on this forum were so worried Bush was caving in.....BUT he didn't did he? No ! I suggest people take a deep breath and watch this unfold .....before they claim a BETRAYAL...

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but BUSH DID CAVE TO THE CHICOMS. He apologized not once, but twice to the ChiCom terrorist hostage takers saying each time that he was "very sorry." That was just pathetic and exactly the humiliation and deference to the Butchers of Beijing that they were looking for. Bush did a sorry job with his appeasement of Communist China then although he has done very well in other foreign policy areas such as winning the war in Afghanistan and dumping the ABM Treaty. His State Department has since lamely agreed to "compensate" the ChiCom kidnappers to the tune of tens and thousands of dollars to pay for the incarceration of our brave Navy airmen on Hainan Island. Now, Bush is praising Communist China for being a good strategic partner in the war against terrorism when Communist China is one of the prime supporters of terrorist state sponsors like Iran, Iraq, Syria and others and is busy arming them with nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology so that they can be used as proxies to hit the US with WMD attacks in the future.

[jwalsh07]

Did you call the White House today?

[rightwing2]

Good for you. So exactly which electable candidate IS a true conservative in your eyes?? (HINT: Reagan can't run again.)

Of those that ran for President in 2000, aside from conservative champion Pat Buchanan who has said he will not run again the true conservatives are Keyes, Bauer, Senator Robert Smith, and Howard Phillips--of these Keyes garners the most votes. Former Senator John Ashcroft was my second tier conservative candidate, but with his tainted performance as AG, he would not have nearly as much support from his conservative base to run for President. Other possibilities I would like to see--Senator John Kyl, Senator Jim Inhofe, Assistant Senate Republican Leader Don Nickles. Those are my dream candidates that I think would have a good chance of winning. Governor Mike Foster (R-LA) would be another excellent presidential prospect.

[jwalsh07]

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but BUSH DID CAVE TO THE CHICOMS

Bullshit. Isn't it enough that I have to listen to the leftists in this country rewrite history? Do I have to listen to it from the right also?

[rightwing2]

van you name a hard right president right wing cause reagan raised taxes three times.

Calvin Coolidge was our last constitutional conservative President. He understood what constitutional government was all about and serves as one of the best 20th century examples for 21st century Presidents to follow. Reagan was more of a moderate conservative although probably the best President since at least Herbert Hoover.

[Sloth]

If he signs this bill, I won't vote for him even if he's running against Hillary Clinton -- because then I will have the choice between someone who will gut the bill of rights and someone who did gut the bill of rights.

And I won't vote for either of those choices.

Agreed. Not even my top priority -- getting pro-life SC justices -- will be enough to make me vote for someone who has signed a bill he knows is blatantly unconstitutional -- or, indeed, any politician who defends such action. No veto, no vote. Period.

[rightwing2]

Bullshit. Isn't it enough that I have to listen to the leftists in this country rewrite history? Do I have to listen to it from the right also?

I guess the leftists are not the only ones that are not interested in hearing the facts after all. The truth is that Powell prevailed upon Bush to soft-pedal the ChiCom hostage takers and Rumsfeld who wanted to call them on their aggressive action lost out. As it turned out the hostage crisis did not proceed any differently than it would have if Clinton or Gore had been President. I challenge you to refute the veracity of this analysis. Just because President Bush is a Republican does not mean he does everything right policywise all the time. Far from it, he has continued most of the Clinton policies on foreign policy, immigration policy, trade policy, ChiCom appeasement policy and yes even much of the Clinton domestic policy agenda such as federalizing education and increasing Clinton's Americorps program since coming into office. You should not be surprised that he has done so. He went on record as supporting most of these Clinton policies while running for President.

[Teacher317]

I fail to understand why it appears that Congress thinks CFR is going to cure their admitted, proudly admitted in some cases, corruption and that the American people will believe this piece of stinking offal legislation is the best medicene.

The same way they believed that changing the Constitution would solve the problem in 1913. The Senate was so corrupt (especially in the selection-by-state-lawmaker process) that instead of punishing wrong-doing (as usual), they changed the process to a popular election. Note the rapid and totally successful way that the Seante has overturned any and all corruption ever since.

Of course, this was immediately after they 'solved' the problem of a small budget by ravaging the Constitution and making us all wage-slaves with the income tax, instead of trying some fiscal responsibility.

[Teacher317]

-or- he vetoes it and gets crucified by the press.

A true leader would not care what they said.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am always surprised by the Bush supporters. Bush has actually been quite honest about what he is up to. He said he was not going to pursue Clinton and he hasn't. His supporters came up with how this was masterful politics.
Bush is now saying that he will sign this bill. His supporters are coming up with all kinds of excuses as to how this is "again" masterful politics.
There ARE none so blind as those who will not SEE!

[jwalsh07]

The truth is that Powell prevailed upon Bush to soft-pedal the ChiCom hostage takers and Rumsfeld who wanted to call them on their aggressive action lost out. As it turned out the hostage crisis did not proceed any differently than it would have if Clinton or Gore had been President. I challenge you to refute the veracity of this analysis.

Sure, no problem. But first I'd like to see quotes attributed to Powell and Rumsfield.

Secondly, the spy plane flights resumed two weeks after the troops were returned. If you don't think thats different from what Clinton/Gore would have done, you're wacky.

Third, what was the alternative to what the Bush Admin did? Launch 100 nukes or 200 nukes?

Fourth, Bush announced to all of China, while in China, that we would defend Taiwan. That is 180 degrees different than Clinton/Gore.

Get back to me with Rummies feelings on the matter though, I'd sure be interested.

[jwalsh07]

And who did you support?

[Beenliedto]

And I won't vote for either of those choices.

Welcome aboard!

[rightwing2]

Sure, no problem. But first I'd like to see quotes attributed to Powell and Rumsfield. Secondly, the spy plane flights resumed two weeks after the troops were returned. If you don't think thats different from what Clinton/Gore would have done, you're wacky. Third, what was the alternative to what the Bush Admin did? Launch 100 nukes or 200 nukes? Fourth, Bush announced to all of China, while in China, that we would defend Taiwan. That is 180 degrees different than Clinton/Gore. Get back to me with Rummies feelings on the matter though, I'd sure be interested

History teaches that the appeasement of dictators in the vain hope that they will leave you alone in the short-run is a self-defeating policy in the medium to long run. Instead of following Powell's advice to appease the ChiComs by issuing a humiliating formal apology to the ChiCom hostage takers, he should have followed Rummy's advice by making the case to the world that the ChiCom hotdog pilot was to blame for the entire incident and threaten the PRC with heavy sanctions and perhaps even military action if China did not surrender the 24 American servicemen. Rather than launch nuclear strikes as China as you said, Bush could have announced the immediate cutting off of all trade between the US and Communist China for the duration of the crisis along with a permanent loss of taxpayer subsidized MFN trade status which has slowly been building Communist China into an economic powerhouse and major nuclear and military threat to the United States. He also could have announced withdrawal of US support for WTO membership for Commmunist China. He could have prohibited the sale of supercomputers to Communist China due to this incident.

Instead, let us review what Bush has done to reward the Communist Chinese for threatening our cities with nuclear incineration, arming the Taleban and other terrorist states perhaps including ChiCom help for the Al Queda 9-11 terrorists according to the book, Seeds of Fire, available from WorldNetDaily.com and arming these same terrorist states with the ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons technology with which to strike us in the future as ChiCom proxies. Bush has recently restored US-China military exchanges which disproportunately benefit the PLA and help them better strategize how to defeat the US military. He has championed permanent MFN trade status and WTO membership for Communist China. This permanent MFN trade status is facilitating the transfer of $100 billion a year in US-China trade dollars which Communist China is using to build itself into the best nuclear superpower enemy that US trade surplus dollars can buy. Bush has lifted the pitifully mild sanctions imposed on the PRC for shipping nuclear and missile technologies to their ally, Pakistan.

Bush has issued an executive order which allows the legal sale of US supercomputers which are 50-100 times as powerful as those sold by US companies with Clinton's permission during the Chinagate scandal. These same 600 Clinton permitted supercomputers have allowed the ChiComs to make their nuclear missiles aimed at US cities much more accurate according to GOP Rep. Chris Cox and given them more computing power than the entire Department of Defense according to Rep. Henry Hyde. Yet have we heard a peep from the hypocritical pro-Communist China Republicans in Congress about this outrage which is far worse than that perpetrated by Clinton's allowed sale fof 600 relatively low computing power "supercomputers" to Communist China? Nope! Just some mild protests from Frank Gaffney and other conservative 'superhawks'.

Finally, to add insult to injury, Bush has praised the Communist Chinese terrorists in Beijing for their alleged cooperation as a US strategic partner in the war against terrorism, despite the fact that the PRC may well have assisted the terrorist perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks!! So for you to bury your head in relation to the Bush record on appeasing Communist China in the sand and say Bush can do no wrong and is some kind of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy is just unbelievable. Again, I ask what is the difference between the Clinton-Gore appeasment policy of Communist China and the Bush one other than some as yet unkept promises to help Taiwan defend itself against a potential ChiCom attack?

[jwalsh07]

LOL, I'm still waiting for the quotes rightwing2, not your "feelings". I know how you feel. I'm glad that you don't occupy the White House because even if you managed to start a war with the Chicoms over our sending spy flights over their territory you would have to kill two million a week just to get to neutral population growth.

Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time for those quotes, eh?

[harpo11]

Thank you for your response. I'm in need of far more education on the history of the Senate. I'm thinking it is business as usual. They are corrupt, so punish the people they are supposed to represent. Seems like one big time senatorial frat party. The jokes on us.

[rightwing2]

LOL, I'm still waiting for the quotes rightwing2, not your "feelings". I know how you feel. I'm glad that you don't occupy the White House because even if you managed to start a war with the Chicoms over our sending spy flights over their territory you would have to kill two million a week just to get to neutral population growth. Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time for those quotes, eh?

LOL! Obviously, I hit a sensitive spot with my articulation about the facts about your hero, ChiCom appeaser George W. Bush. The truth hurts, doesn't it. Unfortunately, it appears that you are still a recovering supporter of Communism and pro-Communist policies and that you are too blind to wake up out of your endless slumber until it is far too late and you are a slave to the system. Sadly, it appears that you are one of those "blind, deaf, dumb mutes" that Lenin prophesied would sell the Communists the rope with which to hang themselves. Lenin did not realize how right in assuming that the dupes and appeasers in the West would gladly commit suicide rather than fight or oppose their would-be Communist conquerers.

[gunshy]

I, George W Bush, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." President G.W.Bush (2000-2004)

Read my lips, no new taxes
President G.W.H. BUSH (1988-1992)

Integrity runs strong in this family

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT