Follow Sunlit Uplands by E-Mail

Showing posts with label President George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President George W. Bush. Show all posts

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Laura Bush: 'It's Good that Gay Marriage is Coming'


Comments made recently by Mrs. Laura Bush in support of gay marriage remind me of a school visit she made early in the administration of her husband. She asked a young boy of no more than 8 or 9, from where our rights come. The boy answered correctly, and said "God." Mrs. Bush then went on to create one of the first chinks between the administration and conservatives. She corrected the boy and instructed him that some rights come from our government. Apparently, she still does not know the source from Whom all our rights flow.

Laura Bush exemplifies why unelected family members of politicians should keep their views to themselves. Bess Truman and Pat Nixon understood that they were the President's wife, not a royal consort with public responsibilities and an agenda to advance.

Unfortunately, Laura Bush's secular, Kennebunkport worldview was reflected by the vast number of neocon appointees that staffed the Bush 43 administration. They were people decidedly more liberal than the views expressed by the President, and considerably more liberal than most of the grassroots Republicans that ensured his election. The volunteers from all over the country that I met working for George Bush in the snows of Manchester, New Hampshire in January 2000, were not the beltway insiders and consultants that got many of the key jobs.

Surrounded by Republicans more comfortable with the views of Christie Todd Whitman, than those of Ronald Reagan, Bush went on to trash the Republican brand with the largest big-government spending spree since the Great Society.

Ronald Reagan understood that one of the most important decisions he had to make as President, was his selection of a Director for the Office of Presidential Personnel. The extreme care taken by that office under President Reagan ensured an administration that was committed to conservative principles and of one heart and mind with the President. It is the key to why the Reagan Administration succeeded, and why two generations from the Bush family failed.

Monday, July 28, 2008

The President Sets A Record


T
he White House presented its Mid-Session Review of the Fiscal Year 2009 budget today
, and with it announced a new record -- a budget deficit of $490 billion. That is quite a record indeed, considering that during the President's first year in office the nation enjoyed a budget surplus of $236 billion.

Much was made of record deficits during the Reagan Administration, but the worst of those, in 1983, was $208 billion. That was a time when defense spending was high in what was ultimately a triumphant showdown with the Soviet Union.

President Bush, on the other hand, has presided over a 60% growth in the size of the federal government.

While the budget figures were being presented to the media, the President enjoyed an expensive lunch with the Prime Minister of Pakistan -- $115 million plus tip in promised aid to the country harboring Osama Bin Laden.


Monday, March 31, 2008

Let's Hear It For The GOP!


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin


I think it is time that we all stood up and gave the Republican Party a big round of applause. I mean, they have done us all a huge favor. By an overwhelming majority, the GOP has prevented a potential plague from enveloping these United States of America, and I think it is time that we acknowledged it. Yes, the GOP stopped a potential catastrophe. Without the combined efforts of millions of Republicans, there is no telling what kind of disaster might have ensued. Let’s hear it for the GOP! Hip Hip Hooray!

For a few minutes there, I thought the GOP might have lost its mind, but I am glad to report that all is well with the Republican Party. The international bankers and oil companies, and the military-industrial complex, as well as the presidents of Mexico and Canada, can breathe easy. With John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the globalist power brokers who have dominated the last three Presidential administrations can know that they are still in charge. There will be no changing of the guard this November.

It was scary there for a while. You see, there was this kook who was running for the Republican nomination that had the potential to upset the applecart real good. But thankfully, the fine people within the GOP rose to the occasion and beat back the attempts of his nutty supporters to vault him to the nomination.

After all, just think what would have taken place if this kook Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President. This nut case actually believes that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Imagine that. That means he would never take America to war except with a Declaration of War by Congress. Think how such a thing would prevent America’s meddling and interventionism worldwide. Think of the billions and even trillions of tax dollars that would not need to be spent overseas. Think of how much money Halliburton would lose. Think of how much money the Federal Reserve bankers would lose by not being able to loan money to the U.S. government. It is too ghastly to think about.

Furthermore, this Ron Paul nut might have actually insisted that the federal government declare unborn babies to be “persons” under the law. Think of it. This would mean that every unborn baby would have the immediate protection of law. And this would have happened without the necessity of appointing a single Supreme Court justice. Whew! The Republican Party dodged a bullet on that one. Now they can continue to talk about being “pro-life” for the next thirty years in order to fool Christian conservatives into voting for them without having to actually do anything about it.

This Ron Paul kook would also have put a stop to the incessant spying on the American people by their own federal government. Egad! This Paul character would have set America back two hundred years. Think of it. No more illegal wiretaps. No more reading private emails, letters, and telegrams. No more harassment by the BATFE of law-abiding firearms dealers for honest errors in paperwork. No more using the wars on “terror” and “drugs” to violate the Fourth Amendment. Think of the money that would be lost by the feds not confiscating the private property of the American people.

In addition, if this Ron Paul nut had actually become President, he might have succeeded in abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and overturning the Sixteenth Amendment. Holy Horrors! Can you imagine the tragedy that would have ensued? No more income taxes. No more tax forms to fill out. No more IRS agents arresting hard-working citizens for “tax evasion.” No more government tracking of our private financial transactions. Think of the US attorneys whose services would no longer be necessary. Imagine that. The federal government would actually be required to live within its means; it could no longer raise taxes, because there would be no more taxes to raise.

And if all of the above is not bad enough, this Ron Paul kook would actually demand that the federal government obey the Tenth Amendment. This, all by itself, would reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at least fifty percent. Imagine if the American people suddenly had the federal government out of their pocketbooks and off their backs? What would they do with all that newfound freedom? It is too scary to contemplate.

Do not worry, however. Thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican Party, John McCain will carry their standard into the November elections. Yes, my dear friends, David Rockefeller and his fellow travelers at the Council on Foreign Relations can rest easy. Should McCain win the general election, they will retain their influence in the White House. Indeed, we can all rest easier knowing that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President.

After all, John McCain will see to it that our borders and ports remain open to illegal aliens. In fact, a McCain Presidency will ensure that illegal aliens become permanent U.S. citizens. Or better yet, that the U.S. and Mexico will be merged into a North American Community, thus eliminating the need for U.S. citizenship altogether. This will greatly help the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business. Think of the money they can save by hiring cheap Mexican labor. Think of the plants and factories that can be moved to Mexico. Think of the cheap Chinese goods that can be loaded onto Mexican trucks from Mexican ports and shipped into the United States on the NAFTA superhighways.

And did I mention the advantage a John McCain Presidency will provide to incumbents in future elections? Because John McCain does not believe in the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment means nothing to him. This is good, because he can use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to promote his McCain/Feingold bill that would make it illegal for citizens to voice their concerns and opinions regarding the voting records of incumbents during a general election. That means those sinister organizations such as the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America will no longer be able to publicly promote their views regarding the anti-Second Amendment voting records of congressmen and senators.

That Ron Paul kook would never have tolerated such a law as McCain/Feingold. But thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican Party, we do not need to worry about these little inconveniences such as the First and Second Amendments (or any of the other articles within the Bill of Rights, for that matter), because they wisely selected John McCain to be their standard-bearer.

Furthermore, because the good men and women of the GOP decided to nominate John McCain, we can look forward to one hundred years of war in the Middle East. We can all anticipate the opportunity of sending our troops into harm’s way all over the world to promote the interests of international corporations, nation-building, and other U.N. machinations.

Had that nut Ron Paul been elected, he would have practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy. He would have sought peace with all nations. And, instead of preemptively invading foreign countries, he would have dealt constitutionally with terrorists, resulting in their capture or death, the protection of America, the absence of long-term war, and the respect of nations throughout the world. Furthermore, that nut Paul would have refused to use U.S. forces to do the bidding of the United Nations and other international entities.

However, we do not need to worry about old-fashioned, out-of-date ideas such as constitutional government, conservative principles, or common sense, because the fine men and women of the Republican Party wisely chose John McCain as their presumptive Presidential nominee. Yes, indeed. Let’s hear it for the GOP!


Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet [1]
http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.


Sunday, February 10, 2008

Bush Declares McCain "A True Conservative"



I don't know about you, but I am so reassured now that President Bush has declared John McCain "a true conservative." How could we have misjudged the man?

What a relief to know that we won't have to worry about massive new entitlement programs, a doubling of federal education spending, domestic snooping, unbridled government growth, runaway federal budgets, ballooning deficits, devalued currency, and Wilsonian foreign policy that would have Uncle Sam playing policeman, banker and Santa Claus to the entire world.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

"RELIGION OF PEACE" -- ONE DAY'S KILL


"Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."
Remarks by President George W. Bush
October 11, 2002

  • 1/3/2008 (Shopian, India) - The Mujahideen abduct and execute a civilian.
  • /3/2008 (Kurram, Pakistan) - Six people are killed in violence between Sunni and Shia.
  • /3/2008 (Yala, Thailand) - A 44-year-old Buddhist rubber tapper is murdered by Muslim extremists.
  • /3/2008 (Pattani, Thailand) - A local soldier dies from inuries suffered in a roadside bombing by militant Muslims.
  • /3/2008 (Yala, Thailand) - Islamists gun down a 57-year-old civilian in the street.'
  • /3/2008 (Basra, Iraq) - A woman is shot to death by fundamentalists for unIslamic activities.

LINE



Wednesday, December 19, 2007

"Most Pro-Life President In History" Skips March For Life Yet Again

President Bush Attending Meeting of the NAACP




How lucky we pro-lifers are to have a President who "cares" so much about advancing our cause. According to Presidential "faith" flunky Tim Goeglein, "George W. Bush is the most pro-life president in American history."

In an attempt to remind pro-lifers of his strong pro-lifeness, our pro-life President has decided to skip the annual March For Life in Washington D.C. for the seventh year in a row.

According to Robert Novak, our President will phone-in his support to the "participants," a practice established by pro-life champion Ronald Reagan, who could just never find the energy to make the five minute trip to address the marchers due to pressing concerns that helpfully popped up every year on the same exact date.

This President, who was voted for by less than 10 percent of black people in 2004, managed to make it in-person to the annual NAACP conference, yet does not seem able to go beyond a token phone call when it comes to thanking people who actually voted for him.

Perhaps the President would come if we put on hats and medals and said we were from the VFW?

He never seems to refuse an invitation from them, now does he?

I would hardly expect pro-life "convert" Mitt Romney to behave any better if he were somehow elected. Why waste time with those annoying pro-lifers when you could be starting fun wars in the middle east to help out our friends in Israel and the military industrial complex?

In the minds of neo-cons, wars and wasteful spending will always trump abortion on the priority list. The pro-lifers are counted on as useful suckers to help win elections, spurred on by phony promises that politicians like Bush just never seem to get around to addressing. Why should we expect any different from any of the power-hungry opportunists like Mitt Romney who are running to be his heir and won't dare to criticize him about anything?

Mike Huckabee attended the Arkansas March For Life every year when he was governor. When Mitt Romney was still trying to be more pro-abortion than Ted Kennedy, Mike Huckabee was standing up against it, as he has been doing his whole life.

Who would you rather trust?




Tuesday, December 18, 2007

BUSH SELLS OUT AMERICA AT UN CONFERENCE


By Cliff Kincaid

Our national "news" programs have been preoccupied with baseball players on steroids, but they should devote some attention to the Bush Administration's approval of a plan to put the United Nations on steroids. Apparently looking to leave office with the blessings of the "international community," the Bush Administration just sold out American interests at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.

Official conference documents speak of “a new global deal” by 2013, under which the U.S. dramatically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions under international supervision and transfers more money and technology to other countries. Marc Morano, who works for Senator James Inhofe and provides information that the U.S. media will not give to the American people, notes in a dispatch that the Bali conference featured a panel discussion of a global carbon tax to force U.S. taxpayers to cough up the money. An official U.N. report (PDF) prepared for Bali speaks of “a need for new and additional external sources of funds.” That’s U.N.-speak for global taxes. This is actually an old story I have been following for years. You can read more at my www.stopglobaltaxes.org website.

In a related matter, the Medical Journal of Australia has published an article advocating a carbon tax on a family having more than two children because every baby “represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions…” The author, a medical doctor, says that, as “citizens of the world,” populations need to be controlled “to ensure the survival of the environment.” He suggests “carbon credits” for those who are sterilized so they can’t have children.

This is where the global warming crusade is leading: an emerging world government with control over the most intimate details of our personal and family lives.

In addition to putting his stamp of approval on this suicidal course, President Bush is pushing the dangerous U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, which establishes another independent revenue stream for the U.N. Never mind that the evidence shows that the treaty’s International Seabed Authority is as corrupt as any other U.N. bureaucracy.

So the President who doesn’t want to raise domestic taxes on the American people will leave a legacy of global taxes.

“The United States joins the consensus Decision of the Conference of the Parties in Bali that is a critical first step in assuring that the U.N. negotiation process moves forward toward a comprehensive and effective post-2012 arrangement,” declared the Bush White House press secretary in a statement released on Saturday. This is bureaucratic jargon for letting the United Nations and the rest of the world decide the fate of the U.S. economy.

It was a story the media had to cover in some form. The U.S. “concession” at the end of the conference, in agreeing to the final document, sidetracked charges that the U.S. had been “obstructionist,” the New York Times reported.

So the Bush White House got some semi-favorable press from the leading liberal paper in the U.S. But at whose expense? As usual, Americans will pay and get nothing in return. This time, it is worse―a U.S. administration is giving away our sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats and global elitists. It’s quite a reversal―from rejecting the first U.N. global warming treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, to endorsing a much tougher and “comprehensive” treaty. It demonstrates, once again, how Bush has lost control of his administration and allows renegade bureaucrats at such agencies as the State Department and the CIA to set policy.

The media noted the turnaround when the State Department decided at the last minute to support a document that not only commits the U.S. to another treaty that will dismantle even more of the U.S. industrial base, but will plunder American taxpayers for more of their hard-earned tax dollars to be sent to the rest of the world. This is called, in the words of the White House press secretary, “financing the deployment” of “clean technologies” in the developing world and “assisting countries in adapting to climate change.” Another term for it is “foreign aid.”

Americans oppose additional foreign aid. But when it is presented in terms of saving the planet, it sounds more palatable. It is also popular to promote more foreign aid in the name of fighting AIDS, except for the fact that the U.N. has been caught exaggerating this problem, too. It is not fashionable to say―and even Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has jumped on the global warming bandwagon―but plenty of experts note the evidence that climate change is a natural phenomenon that we can’t do anything about. However, the U.N. sees the “problem” as another means by which it can increase its power. The scam is getting rather old, but people keep falling for it.

If there ever were a time for Republican presidential candidates to break with Bush and stake out a position against the U.N. and for American sovereignty in foreign affairs, this was it. And yet, at the December 12 presidential debate, as the Bali conference was underway, Senator John McCain said that while he thought the climate was changing because of human activity, it didn’t really matter whether humans were a factor or not. “Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we’ve done is given our kids a cleaner world,” he said. McCain seems oblivious to the prospect of giving the U.N. more power and authority and reducing our living standards in service to a lie.

“I agree with John. Climate change is real. It’s happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it,” declared Rudy Giuliani. “I think the best way to deal with it is through energy independence.” But how can American “independence” be achieved when politicians are making our economy subservient to the dictates of a global elite operating through the corrupt U.N.?

Where does Giuliani get the idea that human beings are “contributing” to global warming anyway? The U.N. says so, and that’s apparently good enough for him.

Alan Keyes, the new entry in the race, had the best answer on the topic. “I’m in favor of reducing global warming, because I think the most important emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don’t deliver,” he said.

It is tragic to watch America decline while corrupt international bureaucracies grow in power and influence over us. It looks increasingly like Al Gore did win the election and is president today.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Pat Buchanan: An American Prophet

A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.

I am convinced that in fifty years Americans will look back on Pat Buchanan as a prophetic voice and patriot who could have saved America had we the wisdom to listen to him -- that is, if those dedicated to the U.S. Constitution are still in a position to write our history.


The Scramble for America

By Patrick J. Buchanan


What is it that distinguishes Bush Republicanism from the Coolidge, Taft, Eisenhower and Reagan varieties? Four major issues come to mind.

Bush is a "Big Government conservative" who repudiated the "government is the problem" philosophy of Reagan. His No Child Left Behind program, doubling the size of the Department of Education, and his vast expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs so testify.

Second, Bush believes in Wilsonian interventionism, including the use of military force, to advance a "global democratic revolution" and "end tyranny on earth."

Third, Bush believes in open borders, amnesty and "a path to citizenship" for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, and smoothing the way for untold millions more to come and "do the work Americans will not do."

Fourth, Bush is a NAFTA-CAFTA man who believes in throwing America's doors open to goods from all over the world, regardless of the protectionist practices of our trade partners. To Bush, free trade is an article of faith and faithful observance its own reward.

For seven years now, consistent with these beliefs, Bush has crafted national policy to conform to his convictions. Thus, any verdict on the Bush presidency must also render judgment upon his philosophy.

With his own and his party's approval at the lowest levels since Watergate, one may conclude then that America is not only rejecting Bush the man and his record, but the philosophy behind both.

This should be a matter of grave concern to a Republican Party that has lately embraced all four pillars of the Bush-Republican philosophy.

For consider the fruits.

Interventionism gave us Iraq, the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. Big Government conservatism wiped out the surplus, fattened the federal bureaucracy and enlarged its share of GDP, and destroyed the Republican reputation as America's bastion of fiscal prudence.

The Bush immigration philosophy was repudiated by Middle America, which rose in righteous wrath against his amnesty plan and demanded he enforce the law and secure the border. Americans are unreconciled to the idea that the America they grew up in will be morphed into some mammoth multicultural Mall of Mankind.

Now, the returns have come in from the Bush policy of free-trade globalism. According to a lead story in The Wall Street Journal -- whose editorial page still champions Iraq, the Bush Doctrine, open borders, NAFTA-CAFTA and the WTO --- Republicans, by two to one, believe free trade has done more harm than good to America.

"With voters provoked for years by such figures as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot," writes the Journal's John Harwood, citing Romney adviser and former Rep. Vin Weber, "there's been a steady erosion in Republican support for free trade."

While one appreciates Harwood's compliment, it is undeserved. What killed the free-trade consensus in the GOP was not provocateurs, but proven failure.

Since 2002, America has run five consecutive world record trade deficits. Three million manufacturing jobs have disappeared. The euro has almost doubled in value against the dollar. The Canadian dollar has reached parity. Plants have been shutting down across this country for years. The wages of Middle Americans have stagnated. The trade deficit with China last year reached $233 billion, a world record between any two nations.

Where Alexander Hamilton's economic patriotism, pursued by Washington, Madison, Clay, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, T.R. and Coolidge, created the greatest manufacturing power the world had ever seen, producing 42 percent of all of the world's goods when Silent Cal went home, America's industrial plant has been ravaged by free trade.

And we are only beginning to see the damage done by the "trade-deficits-don't-matter!" Republicans.

The trade deficits America has run up in recent decades have helped give rival nations $5 trillion in cash reserves. They have now begun to transfer this enormous cash hoard into sovereign wealth funds -- to buy up America.

China, with currency reserves estimated at $1.3 trillion, used petty cash -- one-fourth of 1 percent of its cash pile in May -- to buy a 10 percent interest in Blackstone, America's second largest private equity firm.

Huawei Technologies, a firm linked to the Chinese military, now seeks a merger with 3Com, a company that provides the Pentagon and U.S. Army with intrusion detection equipment to keep hackers out. In July, Chinese military hackers were discovered trying to break into a computer system close to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Treasury should veto Huawei's bid, even if Goldman Sachs, which claims one alumnus as treasury secretary and another as White House chief of staff, has been greasing the deal.

Yet this is not the end -- this is only the first of the foreign raids on vital U.S. assets.

At the 1884 Congress of Berlin that carved up the continent, "The Scramble for Africa" began. The Scramble for America, thanks to our trillions in borrowing to finance consumption of foreign goods, is about to begin. Because of the free-trade folly of this generation, foreigners, not all of them friendly, are about to buy up our inheritance.

They are about to buy up America.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "The Death of the West," "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Sunday, October 7, 2007

George W. Bush: Holocaust Denier

by Baron Bodissey


The Armenian GenocideFor the last ninety-two years, the Turkish authorities have been denying that the events that occurred in Anatolia in 1915 constitute a genocide against the Armenians.

First the Ottomans denied it, and then the Turkish republic under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his successors took the same line: there was no genocide. There may have been some excesses, and several thousand people got killed, but that was because a few Armenian provocateurs instigated a rebellion during a time of war. The Turks did what they had to do.

We’ve written about the Armenian Genocide several times. The political battle over the official recognition of it has been waged almost since the last of the Armenian corpses were buried in their mass graves. There are extensive eyewitness accounts, many of them by non-Turks and non-Armenians, mostly American aid workers who were present in Anatolia before the United States joined the war against the Central Powers.

Turkey’s German allies sent their observations of the events back to headquarters in Berlin: how’s that for a reliable source? Here’s a quote from the files of the German Foreign Office: “The final result must be the extermination of the Armenian race.”

In the ensuing decades much of the eyewitness material was recorded on audio and film. The last living eyewitness account I read was an interview in 2005 with a very old Armenian woman living in Israel. She had been a small child in 1915, and both her parents had been killed before her eyes.

But to the Turks all of these peoples are liars and exaggerators, and the attempts to designate the unfortunate affair as a genocide is the work of Turkey’s longtime enemies.

The political issues over the Armenian Genocide intensified after 1945, when Turkey became a member of NATO, home to an importqant US Air Force base, and a stalwart ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union. The genocide was relegated to the sidelines, an annoying trifle to be swept under the rug and forgotten in the interest of pragmatic statecraft.

The USSR is no more, and the Cold War exigencies are gone, but the impulse to suppress discussion of the Armenian Genocide has never died. And now the administration of George W. Bush joins the ranks of the holocaust deniers. According to the AP:

Turkey, Bush work to block House resolution on Armenian genocide

Turkish and American officials have been pressing lawmakers to reject in a vote next week a measure that would declare the World War I-era killings of Armenians a genocide.

On Friday, the issue reached the highest levels as U.S. President George W. Bush and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan talked by telephone about their opposition to the legislation, which is to go before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Armenian supporters of the measure, who seem to have enough votes to get approval by both the committee and the full House, have also been mustering a grass-roots campaign among the large diaspora community in the United States to make sure that a successful committee vote leads to consideration by the full House.

One interest group, the Armenian National Committee of America, has engaged about 100,000 supporters to call lawmakers about the issue, according to Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

Similar measures have been debated in Congress for decades. But well-organized Armenian groups have repeatedly been thwarted by concerns about damaging relations with Turkey, an important NATO ally that has made its opposition clear.

Lawmakers say that this time, the belief that the resolution has a chance to pass a vote by the full House has both Turkey and Armenian groups pulling all stops to influence the members of the committee.
The lobbying has been most intense that I have ever seen it,” said the bill’s sponsor, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.
The dispute involves the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. Armenian advocates, backed by many historians, contend the Armenians died in an organized genocide. The Turks say the Armenians were victims of widespread chaos and governmental breakdown as the 600-year-old empire collapsed in the years before Turkey was born in 1923.
Though the largely symbolic measure would have no binding effect on U.S. foreign policy, it could nonetheless damage an already strained relationship with Turkey.
And why is our relationship with Turkey strained? What have we done to offend them?

Is it strained because of that nasty little business in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, when the Turks denied the United States permission to enter northern Iraq via Turkey?

That little bit of diplomatic hanky-panky caused a logistical nightmare for the US military, lengthened the war, generated numerous additional American casualties, and allowed thousands of Baathists, criminals, and terrorists — who otherwise would have been interdicted by a northern front — to escape.

That’s Turkey, “an important ally in the war against terror, and a friend of freedom”.

In Turkey’s defense, it has to be said that the diplomatic disaster in 2003 was a piece of European mischief. The French and the Germans dangled the prospect of EU membership in front of Turkey in return for the Turks’ betraying the Americans. This was pure Gallic cynicism on the part of Chirac, who never had any real intention of letting Turkey into the EU. But all is fair in love, war, and sticking it to the USA.

However, it’s the Turks’ fault that they fell for the ploy. They made their bed, and now they should have to lie in it, but we won’t let them. For some reason they remain a “staunch ally”.

The French, indifferent to such niceties, have no such compunctions:
After France voted last year to make denial of Armenian genocide a crime, the Turkish government ended military ties.
Many in the U.S. fear that a public backlash in Turkey could lead to restrictions on crucial supply routes through Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan and the closure of Incirlik, a strategic air base in Turkey used by the United States. Lawmakers have been hearing arguments from both sides about those concerns.
I’m no military expert, but don’t we have strategic air bases now in Iraq and Afghanistan? What would happen if we call the Turks’ bluff and told them to stuff it? Who has more to lose by the closure of Incirlik, us or them?

The Turks are playing the same card the Arabs do, and pulling the old protection-racket technique: Do as we say, or you’ll get more terrorism.
According to one congressional aide, Turkey’s military chief, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, has been calling lawmakers to argue that a vote will boost support for Islamists in Turkey. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Foggy Bottom has long been known for squishiness on the issue of the Armenian Genocide. But now the White House has finally come out in the open with the same line:
The Bush Administration has been telling lawmakers that the resolution, if passed, would harm U.S. security interests.
I’m willing to accept this idea provisionally. But somebody tell me: besides Incirlik, what “interests” are realistically likely to be threatened by official recognition? Which of Turkey’s threats are of real significance, and how likely are they to carry them out if their bluff is called?
Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman said Friday that Bush believes the Armenian episode ranks among the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, but the determination whether the events constitute a genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation.
I’ve got news for the smart set in the White House: the Armenian disaster of 1915 has been a matter of historical inquiry. Historians have studied it extensively for decades, and — outside of Turkey — have overwhelmingly concluded that a genocide was deliberately committed. But that’s not good enough, is it?

And to put the icing on the cake, Mr. Bush is ready to cut deals with Satan herself:
White House staff have also spoken with aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with hope that she will stop the measure from coming to a vote.
The Administration has reached out to the speaker’s office and made our position clear,”he said. “We’ll see what happens.”
Now that’s a marriage made in heaven… or somewhere.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Even the Special Relationship is in Tatters

One is inclined to wonder if a President who has managed to bungle every aspect of American foreign relations isn't at least partly responsible for damaging the noble and historic alliance of the United States and Britain; a relationship that has endured since before the Second World War. But the situation described by Melanie Phillips will be mended by the good will and good sense of the British and American people when they replace the big government, big spending, socialists occupying Number 10 and the White House.

When Britain and America stand together, the world is a much safer place. The words of Longfellow, that Roosevelt sent to Churchill, are as true of today's crisis as they were then:

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!


No Longer So Special
By Melanie Phillips

You read it here first: Britain’s relationship with the US is no longer so special, and France and Germany are filling the gap. The Telegraph reports:

The White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office and is instead increasingly turning towards France and Germany, according to Bush administration sources. ‘There’s concern about Brown,’ a senior White House foreign policy official told The Daily Telegraph. ‘But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone’.

…Privately, White House aides accept that Mr Brown would not support military action against Iran. There is also disquiet about what US officials view as double dealing by special advisers briefing an anti-White House message in London and a more favourable one in Washington. ‘That sort of manoeuvring is not appreciated,’ said one diplomatic source.

Indeed; and it is not appreciated by the British electorate, either, which if it really believes that Gordon Brown has drawn a line under the era of manipulation and spin is in for a very rude shock indeed. Brown’s spinning makes Tony Blair look like a rank amateur, because Brown does sincerity so much better. However, scales fell off eyes only yesterday with the Prime Minister’s cynical stunt in Iraq, which committed the unforgiveable crime of using British troops in a theatre of war as mere election fodder – and also betrayed his promise to tell Parliament before anyone else about troop dispositions in Iraq.

Such cavalier disregard of the most critical issue of our time is all of a piece with Britain’s precipitate withdrawal from Basra, at the very time that the US is battling its own domestic quisling tendency in order to stay the course and win in Iraq, even if this takes many years (which it will). The consequences of America shouldering this burden without Britain will be very grave indeed — for Britain. In his deeply irresponsible attempt to buy off the baying British mob, incited by its media and intelligentsia to an unprecedented pitch of hysteria, prejudice and irrationality over Iraq, Gordon Brown is acting against British interests—as well as taking a shameful position on the most fateful issue facing the free world.

If Britain stands aside over Iran, leaving America to take alone the decision to use military force — surely inevitable, as John Bolton said in Blackpool this week, given the conspicuous failure of the vacuous diplomatic approach pursued by Britain and Europe which has only strengthened Iran and weakened the west — the consequences for Britain will be immeasurable. It will be marked for all time as having turned away from what needed to be done to defend the west; by its spinelessness it will have betrayed its own history and signalled the inescapable reality of its own cultural and moral decline; and it will achieve the lasting resentment of America, with an end to any British influence over its activities and the possible eclipse of Britain on the world stage.


Wednesday, August 15, 2007

"It Was Cynical Politics, And It Backfired"


The following reflection by Pat Buchanan on the departure of "Bush's brain," Karl Rove, is the best summary I have read on the "cynical politics," tragedy and failure of the Bush Administration. It is a poignant reminder that we cannot afford to settle or compromise on the person we choose for the Presidency in 2008. The fate of this nation depends on that decision, and greatness will be required to put things right.

Architectural Failure
by


If one had to sum up the legacy of Karl Rove as political adviser to the 43rd president, it could probably be done in four words: tactical brilliance, strategic blindness.

Though George Bush was not given the natural gifts of a Ronald Reagan, his victories in Texas, followed by successive victories in the presidential contests of 2000 and 2004, put him in the history books alongside Reagan, who won California and the presidency twice.

None of Bush's wins were nearly so impressive as the Reagan landslides in the Golden State and the nation. But it is a testament to Rove that he and Bush never lost a statewide or national election in the four they contested from 1994 to 2004. Rove has two Super Bowl rings. How many political advisers can say as much?

But if Rove's contribution to the career of George Bush will put him in the Hall of Fame, the Bush-Rove legacy for their party is worse than mixed. Rove wanted to be the architect of a new Republican majority. Instead, he and Bush presided over the loss of the Reagan Democrats and both houses of Congress.

The house Nixon and Reagan built, Bush and Rove tore down, leaving rubble in its place. Rove's failure was a failure of vision. He and Bush believed the future of the party lay in adding to the Republican base the Hispanic vote, now the nation's largest minority, approaching 15 percent of the population.

They went about it the wrong way.

Pandering to that voting bloc, Bush stopped enforcing the immigration laws and offered amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and the businesses that hired them. Bush and Rove were going to lure the Hispanic vote away from the Democratic Party by putting illegals on a path to citizenship.

But as we saw in June, when the nation rose up in rage against the Bush amnesty, the pair did indeed unite the GOP -- against themselves, and they severed themselves from the Reagan Democrats and the country.

It was cynical politics, and it backfired, crippling the presidential candidacy of John McCain in the process.

But even before the disastrous immigration reform bill, Bush had become a zealot of NAFTA, GATT and most-favored-nation status for China. These have left his country with the worst trade deficits in history, put the United States $2 trillion in debt to Beijing and Tokyo, cost Middle America 3 million manufacturing jobs and arrested the income rise of the middle class, as our capitalist pigs and hedge-fund hogs have happily gorged themselves at the capital gains tax trough.

Bush's original idea of "compassionate conservatism" was a fine one. But under him and Rove, compassionate conservative turned out to be code for a cocktail of Great Society Liberalism and Big Government Conservatism. How could professed admirers of Ronald Reagan think that by doubling the budget of the Department of Education the tests scores of school kids would inexorably rise?

Even earlier in the Bush years, the president, after the trauma of 9-11, had a Damascene conversion to neoconservatism, a neo-Wilsonian ideology and secular religion. Among its tenets: that we are a providential nation whose mission on earth is to liberate mankind and democratize the planet; that we are in a world-historic struggle between good and evil; that our triumph is to be accomplished by the robust use of American military power -- beginning with the benighted nations of the Islamic Middle East that represent an existential threat to America, democracy and Israel.

Sometime between Sept. 11 and his axis-of-evil address, Bush sat down and ate of the forbidden fruit of messianic globaloney. Consuming it, he got up and committed the greatest strategic blunder in American history by ordering the invasion of a country that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us.

The Bush-Rove rationale: For our survival, we had to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction that we now know it did not have.

The great political architects of the 20th century are FDR and Richard Nixon. After the three Republican landslides of the 1920s, FDR put together a New Deal coalition that controlled the White House for 36 years, with the exception of two terms for Gen. Eisenhower.

After the rout of the Republicans in 1964, Nixon pulled together a New Majority that held the White House for 20 of 24 years, racking up two 49-state landslides for Nixon and Reagan, even as FDR had won 46 states in 1936. In his re-election bid, Bush won 31 states.

In seeking a new GOP majority, Bush and Rove rejected the Nixon-Reagan model. Instead, they embraced the interventionism of Wilson, the free-trade globalism of FDR, the open-borders immigration ideas of LBJ and the budget priorities of the Great Society. It was a bridge too far for the party base.

Now, Rove walks away like some subprime borrower abandoning the house on which he can no longer make the payments. The Republican Party needs a new architect. The firm of Bush & Rove was not up to the job.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and
author of "The Death of the West,"
"The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."