Bush Policy's Newest Critics - Conservatives

newsmax ^ | 12/28/2002 | Carl Limbacher

[TLBSHOW]

Bush Policy's Newest Critics - Conservatives

It's not the left that is sounding some of the harshest criticism against the President's tactics in fighting the war on terrorism, it's many of the nation's most solid Republican conservatives.

So says Michelle Goldberg writing for Salon.com, claiming that "Rock-ribbed" Republican conservatives s are the "newest, most outspoken critics of the war on terrorism and Iraq."

While the administration isn't surprised when it's being assailed by left wingers for what liberals claim are increasingly draconian assaults on civil liberties, it has been surprised by a similar chorus from more and more members of the traditional right wing.

Goldberg cites such prominent conservatives as former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr who has joined liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a consultant - and former House Minority leader Dick Armey now negotiating with the ACLU - as two of the top GOP critics of what they see as the administration's dangerous slide towards big brotherism.

Also among those expressing similar concerns are such staunch Republican conservatives as Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who Goldberg reports is worried that some of the Pentagon programs are dragging the U.S. towards "Big Brother government as imagined by George Orwell.

"We don't want the government to monitor our daily activities," says Schlafly. "Technology is moving so fast. When they're able to combine our medical records, travel records, education records, gun purchases, credit card records, this is total information that I don't think the government should have about law-abiding citizens if we value freedom."

Goldberg counts Lisa Dean, director of the center for technology policy at conservative Republican activist Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation as another conservative critic. Dean, she reports, warns that the administration's expansion of domestic surveillance programs as "antithetical to everything we stand for.

"I never thought I'd see conservatives running to the government to solve problems like they do now. That's just not conservatism to me," she says. "People look at Homeland Security, the USA PATRIOT Act, national I.D. cards and say, if that protects us, we'll go ahead. I never would have thought I'd hear conservatives say that," she says.

Had Clinton been president, Dean told Goldberg, conservatives would have "pulled together and fought" these initiatives, even after 9/11. Dean explained that many conservatives accept Bush's incursions on civil liberties as a matter of personality, not principle.

"Conservatives trust Bush," she said. "They think he wouldn't do anything to harm them, that everything he's doing is for a noble cause," she says. This personal affinity for Bush, she says, blinds her fellow conservatives to the massive structural changes taking place in government.

"The groundwork we're laying now, we're laying for the next administration and one after that and one after that. At the same time, we're raising a generation of citizens on the belief that it's OK to give up all of our liberties in exchange for security. That's un-American."

Also in the anti-big brother camp is New York Times columnist William Safire, long known as a fervent hawk in foreign policy who now warns that "This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if [Iran Contra scandal figure] John Poindexter, who now heads the Defense Department's Information Awareness Office -- "gets the unprecedented power he seeks."

One of the harshest conservative critics is Phil Gold, a hard-nosed ex-Marine and long a right-wing stalwart. Gold, who Goldberg describes as a "former Georgetown professor who campaigned for Barry Goldwater, worked on Steve Forbes' presidential run, and has written for publications like the Weekly Standard and the American Spectator" complains that the new direction of the conservative movement is so disturbing that he recently quit his job as a senior fellow in National Security Affairs at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute because of his opposition to the war with Iraq. Moreover he said goodbye to the right in general in a Seattle Weekly article "Goodbye to All That."

"Over the last several years," he wrote, "I've become sadly convinced that American conservatism has grown, for lack of a better word, malign." That movement to which he has given most of his life he says "has gained the government, trashed its soul, and now bestrides the planet."

"We no longer have a commitment to limited government," he says. "I no longer recognize the movement. What I started out with isn't there anymore. The fact that mainstream conservatives are going along with [Poindexter's so-called TIA program - Total Information Awareness] and with TIPS indicates that these principles are no longer resonant in the movement."

"Power corrupts," he writes. "It corrupts especially when you've got it, but can't seem to accomplish what you set out to do, and you've jettisoned your ideals somewhere along the way but can't quite face the fact."

At the root of this conservative disquiet is the right wing's traditional distrust of government power. They recall Benjamin Franklin's warning that those who sacrifice liberty for safety's sake deserve neither liberty not safety.

Conservatives have genuine fears of out-of-control federal power. They recall Ruby Ridge and Waco, where federal agents killed religious fundamentalists who tried to live outside government's prying eyes. Like Gold, they believe that the Bush administration has betrayed its principles by expanding the federal bureaucracy and authorizing vast new domestic surveillance programs, Goldberg explains, noting that "If big government spying programs are going to be defeated, such conservatives are going to play a major role."

After all, she writes, it was Dick Armey killed TIPS, the proposed Justice Department program that would have recruited mail carriers, meter readers and other workers with access to private homes to act as government snoops. Armey added language to the Homeland Security Bill specifically outlawing both TIPS and a national I.D. card.

"The leadership of Congressman Armey was very important," Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program told Goldberg.

"Elements of the conservative movement and of the Republican party have held to their principles of limited government."

"Both Ashcroft and President Bush have departed from their earlier emphasis on protecting privacy and have really become statists, who want to impose the power of the state on us to surveil us and also to prevent any dissent," says Steinhardt. "They're certainly not conservatives when it comes to wielding the powers of the state."

In fact, says Steinhardt, the ACLU are now the real conservatives. "We think of ourselves as the most conservative organization in America," he says. "We're dedicated to preserving the values of an 18th century document."

[Jean S]

Let me get this straight. A liberal from salon.com is telling us that conservatives are criticizing other conservatives. Are we supposed to take this seriously?

Whatever.

[Howlin]

And not only that, but our "friend" Carl is the one spreading the good news. Some friend.

[Dominic Harr]

So says Michelle Goldberg writing for Salon.com, claiming that "Rock-ribbed" Republican conservatives s are the "newest, most outspoken critics of the war on terrorism and Iraq."

Conservatives are critics of the 'war on terrorism' as being fought at home.

But I'm not aware of any that are critical of our war on Iraq.

[dts32041]

You are quick, just found this getting ready to search and bam there it is.

For comment, the Kool aid drinkers are going to go crazy.

Bush is as sainted to the Kool aid drinkers as Lincoln. Of course, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arrested a supreme court judge, instituted an illegal income tax, violated the constitution right of states to peacefully leave the union and started the draft.

On second thought maybe the current occupant of the white house and the 16th occupant of the office deserve each other.

[Jean S]

I like Limbacher for the most part but this title is very misleading.

[sinkspur]

In fact, says Steinhardt, the ACLU are now the real conservatives. "We think of ourselves as the most conservative organization in America," he says. "We're dedicated to preserving the values of an 18th century document."

Yeah. Sure.

The ACLU is in no sense conservative.

The article turns out to be nothing but a crock.

[TLBSHOW]

Bob Barr I believe is mentioned. Freepers best friend I believe!

Outgoing Rep. Bob Barr cautioned Americans on Tuesday about letting fear of terrorism allow them to give up their constitutional rights to privacy.

"Fear is the great justifier of government power and citizen acquiescence," Barr (R-Ga.) said during a talk to about 300 people at the Homeland Security Summit in Atlanta.

"No matter how much power government gets, it is always going to want more," he said.

Speeches by Barr and Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) opened the four-day Homeland Security Summit, which will include a counter-terrorism drill today, speeches from local and national officials and experts, and an expo featuring booths by businesses and organizations involved in homeland security.

Tuesday's talk was one of Barr's first public speeches since he lost the Republican primary for the new 7th Congressional District to Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.).

Barr has been a longtime advocate for maintaining rights to privacy. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, he has become more vocal as President Bush and others have tried to increase governmental powers in the name of homeland security.

He pointed to the Terrorists Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, in which truck drivers, mail carriers and others are encouraged to report anything they see that might be suspicious or terrorism-related.

Barr warned such a program could lead to someone being reported to the government because of what they read or say to a friend.

As Congress debates more anti-terrorism measures, Barr said it was important for "both Republican and Democratic members of Congress to have the backbone to address [privacy] issues" without the fear of being labeled "soft on terrorism."

Barr said that last Friday's terrorism scare involving a tip based on an overheard conversation in a Calhoun restaurant is an example of how quickly an accusation can gain momentum and lead to a huge expenditure in time, money and manpower.

Chambliss, who is chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, spoke in support of Bush's effort to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, an issue being debated in the Senate.

Chambliss said the lessons from Sept. 11 are that the United States needs to make sure that it has a superior intelligence network in the Middle East, the United States and elsewhere, and that the information gathered is distributed among all necessary departments.

He pointed to the FBI memo out of Phoenix that Muslims were enrolling in flight schools and other clues that were discovered before the Sept. 11 attacks but never made it to the right people.

"They did a great job of gathering intelligence," Chambliss said of all the agencies involved. "But they did a terrible job of sharing that intelligence."

Both Barr and Chambliss applauded the security summit as a good venue for sharing ideas and debating the issues.

http://www.saxby.org/media/news/newsdetail.asp?n=209

[Howlin]

For comment, the Kool aid drinkers are going to go crazy.

You aren't, by any chance, putting yourself forward as being far and balanced on all things Bush, are you?

*Snort*

[Darling Lili]

Misleading titles are a Limbacher specialty.

[Howlin]

He despises Bush, so he's more than happy to pass on any little tidbit that makes Bush look remotely bad.

It's just odd to me that he's using SALON as one of his sources now. Go figure.

[Torie]

The desire to corral the label "conservative" by such a gaggle of disparate groups sort of brings to mind that it is akin to an internet stock during the bubble.

[habs4ever]

Hey, Ronnie got it in the neck from NYC-DC based right wingers all during his presidency.They knew better, as he went from one win to the next.They also never offered any mea culpas.Most conservative pundits/advocates go bonkers when faced with intuitive, visionary leaders.They are too impatient and spend their days moaning why they have become so irrelevant.

[Jean S]

It's just odd to me that he's using SALON as one of his sources now.

I agree. As I said before I like Limbacher and his site, NewsMax.com, but for him to use salon.com as a source is disgusting.

[deport]

Misleading titles are a Limbacher specialty

---

Along with copying and parroting another news article from some other source.

[dts32041]

Of course I am fair and balanced, every time I look at his ranch in Crawford, I realize he is a real rancher at heart.

Only a real working ranch has dilapidated buildings on the grounds, with a grain truck with its box up in the air to let the water run out.

I also support the T ball games he runs on the white house grounds.

[MJY1288]

Salon know what concerns Conservatives have? ROFLMAO

This is nothing but the old "Divide and Conquer" technique. Lay the bait for the crybaby .02%rs, And they bite everytime. It's how we got Clinton

[Howlin]

I wish I knew how to type a raspberry. I'd sure post one to you.

Whatever you're selling, nobody's buying.

[sinkspur]

Bob Barr I believe is mentioned. Freepers best friend I believe!

FReepers are FReepers' best friends.

Bob Barr never posted on this website. The dummy could still be in Congress had he decided to remain in his district, instead of moving and taking on Lindner.

If Barr becomes a face for the ACLU, he'll be much less of a friend to Free Republic than we thought. Who needs enemies with those kinds of so-called "friends."

[Howlin]

This is nothing but the old "Divide and Conquer" technique.

As if they have something to "conquer" us with. HA!

[dasboot]

Is this the early rumblings of an issue upon which the Democrats can obtain traction against Bush and the Republicans in 2004, 2008?

I must admit my own concerns about the application of internal privacy abridgment--as opposed to border and international prophylactic measures--as a prudent anti-terror program. I'm willing to concede that some attenuated action is necessary, as the result of nonfeasance by the Federal Government under the stewardship of Democratic congresses and administrations; but I watch carefully to be sure the remedy does not exceed the ague. Bush should move carefully, prudently, with advice and counsel of these Republican curmudgeons. My vote is contingent upon this very issue.

[TLBSHOW]

I personally have gone on record that Bush is doing a A+ job on the war on terror, I did not support Tips as most freepers here didn't. Other than that this is carls story again another freeper here. Ask him why he is using Salon when he could use other sources for this same story. There are plenty out there.

[Howlin]

Evidently Carl isn't the only "friend" who's "helping out" the conservative cause lately.

[deport]

[dts32041]

Not selling anything, was offering a couple of points I like the current occupant of the white house, and you think I am being disrespectful.

Or were you upset at my bringing up some of the high points of the 1st Republican president?

[MJY1288]

Unfortunately many of these constant whiners around here still fall their tactics.

Everytime there is an issue that is heavily debated among conservatives, The New York Times or some other Liberal RAG like Salon.Commy are the first to declare a huge split on the right. It's only the weakest links here that fall for this age old liberal tactic

[Howlin]

Only you...

Good to see you. I'm SWAMPED with holiday "visitors"....I'm in between one group and another tonight. Hope you had a good Christmas (that is, if that doesn't offend you; if it offends you, then I hope you didn't have a good Christmas :-)

[sinkspur]

I also support the T ball games he runs on the white house grounds.

You ole Birchite fart, you!

[GOPJ]

I'm with you. It's too big a streach to believe these liberals "feel" for us. What a load of bull.

Let me get this straight. A liberal from salon.com is telling us that conservatives are criticizing other conservatives. Are we supposed to take this seriously?

[Howlin]

Friend, when you start a post with something along the lines of "Bush Kool Aid drinkers," you know what's coming.

[Lloyd227]

"Are we supposed to take this seriously?"

Well, I think about as much of Salon.com as you do, but.....

The answer to your questions is, YES, We should be taking this more seriously, and yes I agree with most of this article. Especially "The groundwork we're laying now, we're laying for the next administration and one after that and one after that. At the same time, we're raising a generation of citizens on the belief that it's OK to give up all of our liberties in exchange for security. That's un-American."

How many of the 9/11 highjackers were American citizens?
What is the connection between "fighting terrorism" and tracking every detail in the lives of American citizens?

Fact is, Poindexter and his entire entourage are very dangerous men and it's the American way of life that they're a danger too.

These actions being taken under the guise of "Homeland Security" are aimed at achieving far different goals. I am about as right wing as anyone you've ever met, but I absolutely do NOT trust this administration to "lay the groundwork" for the next administration, and the one after that..."

Just pause and think about what these "Homeland Security" powers would mean in the hands of ...... hmmmm..... Hillary Clinton?
Would THAT scare the bejesus out of you?

[deport]

Hello yourself.... Yes Christmas and the Holidays have been great... Sounds like you've done a good job entertaining or else they'd leave.... lol.

Have a Happy New Year.

[dasboot]

I think you may have blinkers on. The weakening of fourth and fifth amendment protections has been a long-time goal of the nannies on the hill. There is legitimate concern, among the many conservatives I speak with, that Bush's domestic security measures will be advanced beyond intention by regional, state, and municipal executive and judicial machines of the liberal pursuasion. This near-universal concern pre-dated any of the late liberal rants.

[Howlin]

I seem to be halfway to everywhere........LOL. And this does appear to be the year that every person I said, "Come anytime" to, took me up on it. :-)

[dts32041]

Hi ya Sinky haven't talked with you in ages. Are you doing well family OK, Have a good holiday so far, I have, your little missive to me is greatly appreciated.

[Fred Mertz]

Are we supposed to take this seriously?

Yes.

Bush is no conservative, in case you haven't noticed.

Carl is pretty much a reliable barometer for conservatism.

[Jean S]

Fred, As I've said twice now, I think alot of NewsMax but Carl could have written this without sourcing an author from salon.com.

[dts32041]

Of course I do, they come out of the wood work.

But they won't admit, that we need to control our borders, or the federali's don't need to know all my Credit Card transactions, or how many weapons I do or don't own, or what books I read,

The federali's don't need to make it illegal for me to criticize a politician, CFR.

The federalis actions have pretty much determined I won't fly again.

[Sabertooth]

I don't have any problems with the WoT internationally, but on the domestic front I have concerns. The snooping on citizens while a blind eye is turned on the activities of many of the foreigners already here, and still coming here, has left me puzzled. Why did it take so long to thet the Saudi's visa express killed? Why was bin Laden's family allowed to leave the country immediately after 9/11? Why haven't we deported students from terror states? Why are more still coming? Why are we celebrating Ramadan at the White House?

I understand that in wartime, sacrifices will be asked of the citizenry. But afterwards, after we win the war, things should go back to normal. I don't see the exit strategy domestically.

Are these privacies and civil liberties to be permanently sacrificed? Are we to be permanently at war? Do we not expect to win?

To me, victory is defined by returning to our normal lives once it's over. I don't see the endgame which achieves that outcome.

This is one of the reasons I always felt that the War on Terror should be officially declared. States of war are definite, as are their ends.

What is the definite end of a state of "sorta war?" "Sorta surrender," by our "sorta adversary?"

Seems to me that will lead to "sorta peace."

[TLBSHOW]

How about world net daily? Not to be mean here but I want to keep Bushes feet to the fire. He either is on our side or not.

President Bush has brilliantly sold himself to America's Christian and conservative population as their hero and standard-bearer. Unfortunately, his walk does not match his talk. It pains me to point out the following realities:

1. President Bush became the first Republican president to turn his back on biblical morality by giving homosexual activists and programs the full support and backing of the U.S. government. Democratic administrations had made similar attempts to normalize sexual perversion, but this is a first for a Republican administration.

2. Bush became the first Republican president to support embryonic stem-cell research.

3. By creating his new Office of Homeland Security and ramming through Congress his so-called anti-terrorism bill, Bush has accrued new power to the federal government not seen since the FDR administration.

4. Bush has become the first president to create a military-tribunal court system without a declaration of war from Congress, thereby subverting the U.S. Constitution and setting himself up as a de facto dictator.

5. Bush has turned his back on the millions of suffering Christians in Indo-China by leading the effort to grant Red China permanent Most Favored Nation trade status and by paving the way for China's acceptance into the World Trade Organization. He continues to promote trade (even cross military training) with the communist regime, its miserable human rights abuses notwithstanding.

6. Bush has turned his back on the people of Israel (and the Word of God) by promising to carve up the land God gave to Israel and give it to PLO terrorists. If Christians in the United States sit back silently on this issue (like they have on virtually every other issue since Bush became president), we will forfeit the right to ask God to bless America.

7. In an embarrassing act that must be regarded as sycophantish, Bush invited some 50 Muslims to come pray at the White House yesterday. This was done in spite of the fact that Muslims worldwide began their celebration of Ramadan by praying for America's destruction. Furthermore, last Thursday, Bush issued well wishes to Muslims by referring to "the holy Koran." As a Christian, Bush should know that there is only one holy, God-inspired book, and it is not the Koran. For Bush to attribute divine authorship to a false religious system borders on the blasphemous!

The one bright light in all of this is Franklin Graham. Over the weekend, he rightly identified the Islamic religion as "wicked, violent and not of the same God." He further said, "Islam, as a whole, is evil." He also correctly pointed out, "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, and it wasn't Lutherans. It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."

As you can imagine, Mr. Graham has been vilified and demonized, not only by liberals in the media, but also by cowardly Christians and conservatives. However, Franklin Graham has thus far demonstrated the kind of grit not seen in a long time on the national stage: He refuses to surrender or apologize for his convictions. God bless him! He is a breath of fresh air, and he gives me something for which to be thankful because the record shows that Christians and conservatives (not to mention the Constitution) have been Bush-whacked.

[Howlin]

[Jhoffa_]

"I never thought I'd see conservatives running to the government to solve problems like they do now. That's just not conservatism to me," she says.

Had Clinton been president, Dean told Goldberg, conservatives would have "pulled together and fought" these initiatives, even after 9/11.

Dean explained that many conservatives accept Bush's incursions on civil liberties as a matter of personality, not principle.

This personal affinity for Bush, she says, blinds her fellow conservatives to the massive structural changes taking place in government.

Right on the money.

Bump for Lisa Dean, finally a real, live female conservative.

[Jhoffa_]

Are we supposed to take this seriously?

I am.

[lizma]

They recall Benjamin Franklin's warning that those who sacrifice liberty for safety's sake deserve neither liberty not safety.

He also said "It's a republic if you can keep it." I don't think we are gonna make.

We have deemed political correctness more important than freedom. We've gown fat, sassy and apathetic, now we will pay.

I thank God Bush is president but he's not the answer. Evolution of a democratic based government dictates otherwise. We're hosed. All we can hope is that we rally enough to delay it.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[NittanyLion]

What's the source of this rant?

[foreverfree]

bump

[Torie]

It is not so much as a dead horse as a fictional horse. The punch list so distorts what Bush is about, it makes the chap a fictional character generated by the poster's projections of his own fixations.

[dasboot]

"He [Franklin] also said, 'It's a republic....'"

Side note: That republic was fatally smitten in 1860 and committed to the deep in 1913. We didn't make [it].

But what's left is still worth the effort.