Posted on 06/15/2007 10:02:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
“I submit that it would be a morale boost for both our soldiers and the public if we had more men who would stand for what’s right as opposed to what’s politically convenient.”
Public,not likely. They just want it over and done with. A protracted hearing re: Iraq would just exacerbate the public opinion of the war.
Troops, perhaps. It all depends on what a hypothetical Pace hearing would entail. It could be either good or bad for troop morale. As importantly, it could also boost enemy spirit or leave it at status quo (a good hearing isn’t likely to decrease enemy fighting will unless the public is visibly reenergized and recommitted to victory, not likely to happen).
Re: politically convenient, that’s not the calculus the President works on especially for this important an issue. It’s not a matter of principle, but one of opinion. The President view it as more costly to fight and you view it as more costly not to. That’s all it is.
His decisions do not designate lack of character, strength, or will. Neither does yours signify lack of patience, tact, or understandiong. It’s merely a different interpretation of a situation at hand.
And he would have done it irregardless of a veto proof majority or not. Unlike spending or other issues, this issue is way too important to not make a stand.
“...that upwards of 70% of the American people are vehemently against...”
Please. The immigration crew is not the majority nor has it ever been the majority. The proof is in the pudding because every time America had a real chance to curtail illegal immigration (Operation Wetback, 86 Amnesty, 96 immigration reform, sanctuary city laws) either the situation is worsened or it remained in status quo. Coupling this with the consistent failure of nativist and anti-immigrant movements in the past, it is clear that the majority of Americans are either lackadaisical or actually supportive on this issue. There is no outcry for reform. The only reason this bill got tabled is because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And boy was it squeaky. The average American couldn’t care less about this issue. It’s like the war protests. It looks large but only because most people don’t care enough to voice out strong support or condemnation.
” twisting arms”
That’s kind of what a party leader does. Nothing sinister.
“insulting opponents”
No, he insulted the intransigent and the fanatical. I read the speech, his ire is towards ““THOSE INTENT TO FIND FAULT” in the bill not “those who actually find fault”. If you cook a nice meal and all the food critic does is looking to criticize it rather than objectively judging it, well, that’s not very nice or productive is it?
There are a number of people who came to oppose the bill by examining it and finding faults, not by doing it in a prejudiced and unobjective manner. These people the President doesn’t have problems with.
And the insulting? It’s not like he called them traitors, racist in disguise, in bed with Buchanan, or any other equivalent of the popular catch phrases slung his way PRIOR to the “oh so aweful” speech.
“waiving tax $$ around”
The old saying about the sausage factory applies. A lot of this is like the Miers and Dubai fiasco, people reacting less on solid evidence and more on perception and cheap emotionalism, which is plainly evident all over the net. In the end tabling the bill might be a bad thing, but we’ll never know because accurate counterfactuals are God’s domain, not ours.
“and promising who knows whom goodness knows what (dumping Pace?) to get his priority passed.”
Not Pace, not even close. We wouldn’t even hear about Pace if it weren’t for the DEMons being invested in the failure of the war. Besides, what wouldbe the point of negotiating to remove Pace if he’s just going to be replaced by somebody just as dedicated/capable. For a guy who nominated Rice, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Roberts, Alito, and dozens of other justices and quality people, finding a suitable replacement for Pace shouldn’t be a problem.
“A little, just a little of that passion and effort could have been spent on keeping a good, solid JCS Chairman in place during wartime. But no, “wouldn’t be prudent” to tick off the Dems right now.”
An accomplish what? A Phyrric victory? Correction, it wouldn’t even be a victory. It would be a massacre. But hey, we made a stand! Pace is definitely not the hill to die on, esp with Mullens in the wing who could prove as good or better than Pace. Why have two hearings instead of one in a time of war?
“The war isn’t on Bush’s front burner these days. He’s on to other things.”
Through no fault of his own. Do you actually want the President to micromanage the ops in Iraq and Afghanistan? There isn’t much for him to do except leave it to the generals. Besides, it’s not like war is the only issue. He still has to contend with N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, this bill, and a thousand other issues. The war is pretty much on auto-pilot. Keep the DeMs away, let the troops and generals do their thing, lather, rinse, repeat.
“Having been a troop with my backside on the line”
Well God bless you, but doesn’t mean you are correct or beinf fair on this issue.
Here is the problem. Instead of chalking these things to matters of opinion, it always boil down to principle. That’s ridiculous. Just because the President doesn’t see things eye to eye doesn’t mean he has no character. I have plenty of libreral friends and they are by no means deficient in morals or character. Just because you disagree with him on how to do XYZ doesn’t make him or you a bad person. The tendency to associate character weakness or, worse, malicious intent to every move the President makes is grossly unfair. If the average person is put under the same “scrutiny” as the President, then it’d be quickly apparent how truly vile and ridiculous such a perspective is.
In fact, considering the fact that he has access to intelligence, black ops, links and leaks inside hostile countries, congressional insiders, aides and informants on the ground in the halls of government, I’d be hard pressed to assume that I know better than him what to do on a certain issue. Of course, he’s still human and can make mistakes. But with all that info available, the threshold for screwing up is most likely significantly smaller than the average person.
“Here is the problem. Instead of chalking these things to matters of opinion, it always boil down to principle. That’s ridiculous. Just because the President doesn’t see things eye to eye doesn’t mean he has no character. I have plenty of libreral friends and they are by no means deficient in morals or character. Just because you disagree with him on how to do XYZ doesn’t make him or you a bad person. The tendency to associate character weakness or, worse, malicious intent to every move the President makes is grossly unfair. If the average person is put under the same “scrutiny” as the President, then it’d be quickly apparent how truly vile and ridiculous such a perspective is.
“In fact, considering the fact that he has access to intelligence, black ops, links and leaks inside hostile countries, congressional insiders, aides and informants on the ground in the halls of government, I’d be hard pressed to assume that I know better than him what to do on a certain issue. Of course, he’s still human and can make mistakes. But with all that info available, the threshold for screwing up is most likely significantly smaller than the average person.”
Which explains why Clinton and Carter did almost everything right, of course. And that the very few mistakes those two fine statesmen made were due to their just being human (obvious, scathing sarcasm). Yes, the President has better information than you and I, but to say the President necessarily uses that information to the country’s best advantage is naive. History is replete with examples to the contrary. Which is why character matters. Greatly. Which is why the electorate should be able to trust that a candidate means what a candidate says on the campaign trail. Among the many campaign promises Candidate Bush made were the promise that under his command the US would not engage in nation building and that he would not grant amnesty to illegals. Hmmm...
To say that criticism of the President is unwarranted is contrary to everything this country stands for. Criticism of the government by the citizens is not only acceptable, it is essential. It is how free citizens keep their government in line without resorting to violence. I am simply using a modern forum, unknown to the Founding Fathers, to petition my government for redress of grievances. That you do not like my opinion does not delegitimize it in any way.
Hero-worship all you wish; it is your right. But when this or any other President is wrong, I will call him on it. That is my right and my duty.
The President is wrong as wrong can be on this immigration bill.
“Which explains why Clinton and Carter did almost everything right, of course.”
No. I said “But with all that info available, the threshold for screwing up is most likely significantly smaller than the average person.” This doesn’t make them a deity, although many people seem to think it does. What Clinton did in his disgraceful regime was no mistake. With the information at hand, he crafted the situation so that he and his “partner” directly benefitted. Carter is a soft headed liberal moron so what he thinks is a good idea and what’s actually good for the country tends to diverge significantly. At least with the President the point merges much, much more often than not. Of course he’s still beholden to big government policies (like he has since he became Governor), but so has it been with our Presidents and the American people since FDR came up with his stupid domestic programs.
And that’s the point. He’s not perfect, he made mistakes. But all of this was done in good faith. He looked at the renomination situation, saw what he saw, and said “I hate to let Pace go but he has no chance of renomination and the troops need another one like him ASAP. Mullens, up to bat.”
The information available to the President can be used for good or for ill. Clinton and Carter are bad because because they usedd the information to serve himself and an agenda, respectively. I have yet to see how the President personally benefits from anything he does in office, especially considering his future will consist of .... um...
brush clearing...
PSAs...
...and speeches. Yeah. I guess that’s what a corrupt oligopoloist master of the world does. He clears brushes. Which I suppose isn’t as bad as skydiving. Now that’s REALLY Bourgeosie.
Oooh. That’s so scary.
“the electorate should be able to trust that a candidate means what a candidate says on the campaign trail.”
Correct.
“his command the US would not engage in nation building”
And we see how well that worked after the Soviets left Afghanistan. It just adopted Jeffersonian Democracy and lead the Islamic world as a model of a prosperous nation that coexists peacefully with other peoples and religion.
No wait. It was taken by a bunch of scumbags who established one of the most despotic regimes the world has ever known and allied with other scumbags who think that the whole world should look like Afghanistan. Long story short, we lost 3000 people because “nation building is a bad idea, it’s better to let them kill each other”.
Right...
I guess we should have just left Germany and Japan to rot after the wars? It worked so well with the Treaty of Versailles. Adolf who?
Nation building is now an integral part of warfare. The security and stability of nations in the aftermath of wars isn’t just a humanitarian issue, it is a security issue. Anyone who said that nation building is unnecessary is not exactly thinking things through. And that included the President. 9/11 woke him and most of us up to the unpleasant reality before hand, but apparently some people keep turning the snooze alarm off.
Do you think if a violent gang moved into the neighborhood and the police succeeded in destroying the gang along with damaging a significant part of the neighborhood that the city shouldn’t at least pay for some of the damages and restitution? If the city doesn’t compensate for the property damage, the people living there will become resentful at the city and the police. And we all know how delapidated areas attract unsavory characters. Another gang will be back, possibly demagouging on the poor treatment on the police thus gaining sympathizers and recruits. The police come back, destroy gangs, break stuff, and leave without even saying “sorry for your ancestral home.” People get angrier and another gang moves in, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
This is the exact scenario in service in the real world. Leaving Iraq as is will result in a nation torn between two “gangs” (Iran and al Qaeda) and Iraqis won’t soon forget that when they needed help most, Uncle Sam just blow in, smash the bad guys (YAY!), left (Wait, wha’?), and left them to fend for themselves (%@#&*@%^&*!!!!). Now they can do two things, mine their business and barely survive, or join one of the two bad guys.
Can you say “terror central”?
” and that he would not grant amnesty to illegals.”
He believes it isn’t and no amount of screaming that it is will convince him. See, it’s like how the lefties keep screaming it’s a “war for oil!” and we ignore them because we “believe” that it’s not. (That, and the fact that oil executives aren’t any richer than before and that oil is still at a high price would promptly contradict that stupid thesis but I digress.) As strongly as libs “believe” it’s “for oil” and we “believe” it’s not, so is the President and his opponents “beliefs” on this issue.
Just as surely as you “believe” it’s amnesty, the President “believes” it isn’t. And to be honest, I’m inclined to “believe” same. The bill said that illegals would have to pay fines, apply for visas, get in the back of the line behind legal applicants, and even apply from their home countries.
The clearest definition of amnesty in this debate is automatic citizenship. This is nowhere near automatic. It’s not even close to amnesty.
The intent is clear. He wants them to jump through all the hoops and wave all the right bells and whistles. It hardly seems like amnesty. But to the opposing side, anything short of deportation is amnesty. Fair enough. This all goes back to what I said about “opinions not principles”. The President believes this is sufficient you believe it’s not. Whatever bakes your tortilla.
Most importantly, his idea of immigration reform was broadcasted since he was the governor of Texas. It hasn’t changed one iota. People always go on and on about how much they want a man of principle and character to stick to his guns, someone to fulfill his campaign promises. Except for the nation building part, he has pretty much stuck to his promises, on this issue and others. The same reason he’s fighting for this bill is the same reason he chose to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, push tax cuts, appoint the justices he did (including Harriet Miers), be pro-life, etc, etc, etc. He has beliefs, just like anyone of us. His core hasn’t change. He hasn’t changed. Just because they don’t mesh completely is no reason to crucify him. He actually stood by his promises and his principles, yet for that he gets nothing but grief from both sides.
I guess people are okay with a principled person as long as they march lock step and not have any ideas of their own.
Before moving on to your next point, I need to say this re: immigration. Deportation and walls are overrated. People scale walls all the time and the famous walls of history have all been breached one way or another. Jericho, China , the castle fortifications of Europe, Berlin. You name it, someone found a way around it. Israel’s wall might be the only oneto stood the tests of time but that would make it an exception, not the rule.
For determined illegals, nothing, nothing is going to keep those deported from coming back in again. As long as America is better than their country, has more opportunities, or heck even allow them to say “This government bites!” without disappearing into the next world, people are going to come here, legal or not. When the average Mexican illegal gets sent back from El Norte, the next thing he’s going to do when he gets up is, you guessed it, go to El Norte.
If the Berlin wall, with landmines, gun turrets, dogs, and razor wire couldn’t stop people from coming over, what hope could our border wall, (no matter how tall, reinforced, or high tech it is) could have against equally determined people?
Fences and deportations are no panacea, especially considering the fact that illegals don’t just come in through the South. That big region north of Maine isn’t just Little America ya know. If you think the South border is porous then the North is nearly non-existent. Plus, 50% of illegals are OTMs who got here via other passages.
Before anyone could accuse me of being a supporter of a bill, I couldn’t care less about the bill, except for how ugly the debate has become. It could be good, it could be bad, I don’t care. Illegal immigration is the symptom of a disease (well, several) and while everyone’s going nuts over the symptoms, the true culprits are being ignored in the place of scapegoats. A complacent population, assinine labor restrictions/thug unions, poor quuality of life in other nations, liberal hate America/whitey suck/reconquista rhetoric, our dependence on welfare, DEMon party corruption and vote fraud; all of these and more are the reasons for our illegal immigration problems. Unless we fix these problems, the borders could be as tight as Fort Knox, it’s not going to mean a thing. Illegals will still come in, there’ll still be fraud, crime, demand for illegal labor, etc.
Moving on...
“To say that criticism of the President is unwarranted is contrary to everything this country stands for.”
True. But throughout this “debate” (I’ve seen more beneficial and useful autopsies of dessicated corpses, believe me it’s not pretty but it looks a hell a lot better than this ludicrous meltdown) the number of destructive criticism far, far outweighs anything constructive to be said on this issue.
Somehow, if somebody called me a “traitor, closet communist, or in bed with Mexico/Vincente” I’d probably not listen to what they have to say and continue on my merry way. Then again, if someone called your team “nativists, closet racists, and in bed with Buchanan” you’d be less inclined to litsten. Mas, non?
“I am simply using a modern forum, unknown to the Founding Fathers, to petition my government for redress of grievances. That you do not like my opinion does not delegitimize it in any way.”
Right. And the same applies to me. I see things I don’t believe are correct, and I “publish” my opinion in my attempt to persuade bystanders. If I convert a critic, great. But that’s not my goal, my concern is to persuade the uninitiated not to convert ideologues.
I hate arguments, which is depressing because my chosen field is politics. :e
“Hero-worship all you wish;”
If not denigrating a man in his time of hardship and need and not assuming the absolute worse about him is hero worship, then so be it. I rather “worship” this man then be one of the thronging masses frothing to run knives through his back when the very real enemies of this Republic are laughing at the thought of their mortal enemies tearing each other apart.
Hell, if being conservative means establishing purity tests, accusing allies of treason, alienating people, screaming that the President of an entire nation better heel to them and them only, then I’m a full blown socialist.
But I know better. This behavior is not conservative. It’s not American. It is the antithesis of these values. I can’t ever imagine Pres. Reagan would say some of the ugly things said against Pres. Bush in this ongoing lunacy.
But then again, Pres. Reagan did get his share of criticisms, objective and otherwise. Perhaps he’d have a better understanding than most what it means to be criticized unconstructively and unfairly.
You may not be responsible for the nastiness, but others are and it has gone way, way, out of control. The signal to noise ratio is overwhelming. You may be the signal, but there is a ton of noise out there, none of it good. And I aim to contrast the noise with some signal.
“But when this or any other President is wrong, I will call him on it. That is my right and my duty...The President is wrong as wrong can be on this immigration bill.””
As is your right. As is mine to point out that those attacking him unfairly are wrong as wrong can be.
Ya know, funny story. If you guys put as much fight in the renomination of Pace as you did in the Immigration reform bill, you might actually reverse course. I’m sure that if the President’s Congressional sources and the GOP politicos tell him that “We could win this!”, the President’s going to go “SWEET! I have a good chance of getting Pace back!” Then the renomination wouldn’t be such a lost cause.
Just a suggestion.
Ditto!
Two quick questions:
1) You accuse me of bashing the President. I’m not bashing him, I’m a citizen criticizing his policy decisions. I have, and put forth, substantive reasons for my discontent. I don’t just namecall. Why does my criticism of Bush bother you so that you would write a 34-paragraph response?
2) Is there ANYTHING Bush has done in the last 7 years that you don’t think is absolutely fanfreakin’tastic? So far you’ve applauded the Dubai Ports deal, Harriet Miers nomination, all aspects of handling of the WOT, and the immigration bill. I’m beginning to think you work in the WH basement.
“1) You accuse me of bashing the President. I’m not bashing him, I’m a citizen criticizing his policy decisions. I have, and put forth, substantive reasons for my discontent. I don’t just namecall.”
If I did accuse you of such when you did not, then I apolgize. My comments is directed more in general while addressing the points you raised. Like I said before, you may not be bashing him, but others are and I aim to address that. As you could see, I addressed other issues in addition to your comments because I believe that they are important and related, thus needing to be addressed.
“Why does my criticism of Bush bother you so that you would write a 34-paragraph response?”
It’s because I don’t write paragraphs, I write books. Been that way since college. Someone less verbose than me could probably nail it pretty short. When I comment to another person, I make sure that I address all of his/her points as clearly and concisely as possible and even at times, as you can see, bring in tangential issues that I deem are important and related.
“2) Is there ANYTHING Bush has done in the last 7 years that you don’t think is absolutely fanfreakin’tastic? So far you’ve applauded the Dubai Ports deal, Harriet Miers nomination, all aspects of handling of the WOT, and the immigration bill. I’m beginning to think you work in the WH basement.”
ROFL! I wish. I do need to get a job in politics and working for the President would be mondo awesome!
I guess I should explain the positions you mention a bit first.
1) Miers: From his record of appointing originalist justices (including a number on the lower appeal courts, not just Justice Alito and Roberts) I have confidence that shewouldhave been a good Justice. This is even more the case because she help the President vet everyone of these justices before he nominated them.
2) Dubai: Dubai is one of the freeest, most tolerant, and prosperous nation in the Middle East. Of course it’s not America but it’s much better than another Syria or Iran. It is also a good ally for the War on Terror, at least much more reliable than Saudi Arabia. The deal merely transferred port ownership (not security) form a British firm to the Dubai one. Then again, various nations own ports (again, not security, just ports) throughout America including China, European nations, Japan, etc.
3) Immigration: I neither support or oppose the bill, but I do agree with the plan the President outlined (this was in an address in 05 or 06) that I believe would address security, guest workers, and il/legal immigration. I’ll admit I don’t know if this bill is better or worse than what he outlined. So I’m still on the fence (heh).
One good thing about this issue though, I just left a job expo and the USBP booth is quite popular.
Now, on to the criticisms.
1) Big government - Like most Presidents after FDR, make that the MAJORITY of the American people, the President is beholden to the idea that a big government can be beneficial. He may not want government in most aspects of life, but he definitely wants them in the “core” areas, namely education, healthcare (not Hillarystyle though), and Social Security. Although his plans incorporate things that expand citizen autonomy (vouchers, private accounts etc), the best approach would still be to downsize these institutions.
2) New Tone - The President STILL hasn’t learned that Texas has Democrats. Washington has DEMONrats. I wish he would start treating them as they really are, not the loyal opposition but a fifth column.
Both his big government tendencies and new tone stance goes to his third flaw...
3) Spending - Congress sends him pork laden bills and the President either:
a) Signs it because he doesn’t want to upset Congress so that he would get their cooperation on more important issues. - New Tone
b) Signs it because he actually thinks some of the pork is good. - Big Gov’t.
c) Signs it because the lousy critters attach their malarky to defense spending bills, security bills, and other important appropriations legislation. - Not Speaking (more on this later).
I don’t know how much pork/spending he disapproves off but there is definitely a breaking point. In addition to the cut and run amendments, the massive DEM pork really teed him off. In any case, the least he could do is come out and tell the GOP critters to stop being so wasteful and stop attaching completely unrelated malarkey to important bills.
4) Not speaking more often - Clinton turned the White House into a personal war room and turned it into a partisan institution. This desire to clean the White House of its partisan taint combined with his NT creates a perfect cocktail of disaster where the Presidetn would not speak to the American people until it reaches a boiling point. We see this time and time again, “SPEAK DUBYA!” we scream when a crisis is brewing and just when the clock is about to run out, he finally steps forward and does so.
But then again, with all the garbage thrown at him, he might not even manage to get anything done if he has to address all of it. Still...
5) CFR - It’s great he acknowledges that CFR is bad. Not so great when he passes it to the Courts. Very bad when the courts didn’t resign it to the garbage bin it belonged. In any case, he should have vetoed it just to send a message to Congress that this is unacceptable even if it was a veto proof majority. This brings us to another flaw...
6) Veto Record - I wouldn’t mind his veto record so much if there isn’t anything lousy enough for a veto that came down his pike. But there were some doozies (including CFR) that came down and should have recieved a veto but didn’t. This is also connected to his other flaws such as NT, BG, Spending, etc.
I agree with all your criticisms, and I agree with you about the Dubai ports deal. I remembering arguing with people back in the 80s who thought it was a sign of the Apocalypse when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach. Huge overreaction.
I also think Bush hasn’t gotten one one-thousandth of the credit he deserves for the economy. He inherited an economy in mild recession, and his deft handling made it the shallowest and shortest recession in history. I do wish he’d pushed harder while he had a Republican Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, though.
I also applaud his staunch pro-life stance. He’s been stellar there.
He’s appointed great judges. My only objection to Harriet Miers was that she was an unknown quantity and I wanted someone with a public track record. Roberts and Alito and his lower court nominees have been excellent choices.
“I agree with all your criticisms,”
There might be a couple I missed but these are definitely my main gripes.
“I agree with you about the Dubai ports deal. I remembering arguing with people back in the 80s who thought it was a sign of the Apocalypse when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach. Huge overreaction.”
Yep. Like my dad said, “if everyone’s doing something, they are probably wrong.” :) Glad to fined another person who didn’t get swept up by the hysteria.
“I also think Bush hasn’t gotten one one-thousandth of the credit he deserves for the economy. He inherited an economy in mild recession, and his deft handling made it the shallowest and shortest recession in history. I do wish he’d pushed harder while he had a Republican Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, though.”
Absolutely. Bush’s economy beats CLinton’s by a mile but it’s “slow” or “jobless” or a thousand other lies thrown out by the leftists in the media and elsewhere.
“I also applaud his staunch pro-life stance. He’s been stellar there. He’s appointed great judges...Roberts and Alito and his lower court nominees have been excellent choices.”
Indeed.
“My only objection to Harriet Miers was that she was an unknown quantity and I wanted someone with a public track record.”
See, that’s understandable. But when she was nominated, hundreds of people came unglued and started accusing her of everything nasty under the sun. It’s the difference between your “unknown quality” than some idiot accusing her of being an “ugly lesbian.” Conservatives can be their very own worse enemy. I’m very glad you argued from an objective stance unlike some of the others lobbing vicious smears against her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.