May 29, 2007

Strange Betrayal

Hatched by Dafydd

Nowadays, it seems that whenever President Bush says or does anything, conservatives hunt like crazy for the most disreputable, disloyal, and cowardly possible interpretation -- then cling to it like a sick kitten to a warm brick, even when perfectly reasonable (and much more likely) interpretations are available.

Each excursion into spurious accusation becomes more "evidence" to buttress the next, until they build a gigantic "indictment mountain" of tapioca, which they treat like Mount Rushmore. Every absurd attack makes the next, equally absurd attack easier to hurl: Today, even a single word in a notoriously left-leaning newspaper is enough evidence to prove another Bush betrayal. Hey, where there's smoke...

This must be a relative of the normal Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS, suffered by lefties; Bush Betrayal Syndrome (BBS), perhaps. It is rapidly becoming an epidemic among American conservatives...

Rich in Iran-y

Case in point: Scott Johnson, writing on my favorite blog Power Line, sees the complete collapse and betrayal of the Bush administration position on one member of the Axis of Evil, Iran:

The Bush administration appears to me to have thrown [away] its stated policy for dealing with Iran in favor of beseeching the mullahs for "a decent interval" in which to withdraw American troops.... [To avoid confusion, let me note that Scott's term "decent interval" quotes Henry Kissinger, not President Bush or US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.]

Perhaps yesteday's meeting is to be followed by one in which we ask the mullahs politely to give up their beloved nuclear program....

I would love to know what the Bush administration has in mind for the mullahs' nuclear program. My guess is runs more along the lines of a whimper than a bang.

Scott bases this entire impeachment of the president's policy upon a single source -- in fact, a single line -- or rather, a single word in a single line of a single source... and that source is the Boston Globe. Here is the evidence of betrayal:

In the highest-level public talks between the United States and Iran in nearly 30 years, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker yesterday reached out to his Iranian counterpart for help in improving Iraqi security and asked that Iran stop supplying arms to Iraqi militia groups.

Note that this is not a quotation; it's is a characterization offered by the Globe reporter, Farah Stockman; based upon other articles of hers I skimmed, she seems to have the political viewpoint typically associated with that far-left newspaper. Yet this one word is the only one that could possibly give rise to Scott's own characterization of the exchange as "beseeching." Scott continues:

Is a story like the Boston Globe's account of yesterday's meeting between Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart to be taken at face value? The Globe reports that Crocker asked that Iran stop supplying arms to Iraqi militia groups. I trust that Crocker remembered to say "please."

Alas, Scott never answered his own question... and of course, the answer is No, a political characterization by the Boston Globe which just happens to fit perfectly with the Democratic agenda of making Bush look feckless and cowardly is not to be "taken at face value;" just as I wouldn't take at face value the declaration by an ardent Evangelical Christian that Mormonism is a cult.

But this accusation of pending betrayal against Bush is even more puzzling; further down on the very same page, the very same exchange is characterized very differently:

On the American side, Crocker reiterated the US demand that the Qods Force, an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, stop funneling weapons to Sunni insurgent groups and extremist Shi'ite militias, particularly factions of Madhi Army, which is loosely controlled by radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

US officials previously had been reluctant to make the claim that Iran supports Sunni as well as Shi'ite insurgents. But yesterday Crocker said he made the case forcefully.

Isn't demanding that Iran stop fueling the terrorists (on both sides) and stop killing Americans exactly what we want our ambassador to do? This seems a far cry from merely "asking" them to give us a Kissingerian "decent interval" in which to surrender. Why is Scott so angry?

But BBS appears to be a much larger problem than just this possible instance would imply:

A mighty hot wind

Conservatives now regularly refer to the "complete collapse" of the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.

This has been a Democratic talking point since before the hurricane even struck. It was fueled by monstrously misleading media messaging during the crisis -- crazy talk of dead bodies stacked like cordwood in the Superdome's freezer, of cannibalism, of roving rape gangs, of rescue workers being shot at, and of as many as 10,000 people drowned because of "Brownie's incompetence," referring to former Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response Michael D. Brown.

We thoroughly debunked this Democratic fairy tale in 13 Ghosts. But that hasn't stopped a number of conservatives I've read recently from slapping it onto the gooey mountain of "Bush betrayal."

Miers-ed in betrayal

When President Bush nominated Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, conservatives went from "we don't know enough about her" to "she's a stealth liberal activist that Bush is sneaking onto the Court to undo the Reagan revolution" in about 2.4 seconds.

It was a perfectly legitimate point to say that Miers didn't have enough of a track record for us to be sure she would practice judicial restraint. Even Hugh Hewitt, who, alone among conservatives, defended her nomination, admitted that he was troubled by her lack of a paper trail.

But that is a far cry from the increasingly bizarre and unsourced accusations that she was a closet fan of expanding affirmative action, that she would "absolutely" vote to expand abortion, and that her main function was to overturn the Patriot Act. When I pointed out that Bush said he knew her well and she was a conservative, rather than partially exonerate Miers -- the response was to push Bush into the same quagmire... it proved he was the Great Betrayer!

The nomination was revealed to be part of Bush's secret plan to betray conservatism.

Bush is selling our ports to al-Qaeda!

The administration approved a deal for Dubai Ports World, an international port-management company headquartered in the United Arab Emirate nation of Dubai, to purchase the company that was managing cargo operations at most large American ports. Initially, the sale didn't even rise to the level of direct presidential decision-making.

The hue and cry from the Right was immediate and almost hysterical. At first, and for some time before it was finally debunked, conservative commentators and bloggers charged that Bush was "handing over port security" to the A-rabs. Once it was finally made clear this affected only cargo handling, not cargo inspections or any other aspect of port security -- and it only changed the managers, not the actual workers (who would remain American dockwallopers) -- then the same voices beavered away finding some obscure reason why this really was a terrible betrayal of American national security anyway. (The conclusion remained the same; they just jacked it up and ran a whole new structure of fact beneath it.)

Honestly, it seemed to me that proving another "Bush betrayal" had become more important to the disputants than than the truth: Evidence that the deal would not affect security at all was rejected out of hand, while even the faintest rumor that Dubai Ports World was infiltrated by al-Qaeda was cited with the same confidence that one might say the Taliban was infiltrated by al-Qaeda.

The rallying cry became 'American ports must be controlled by Americans, not by foreigners.' Lost in the cacophany was the fact that no American port-management company was big enough to take on the job... and also that the company that had been running port ops earlier, the company bought out by Dubai Ports World, was the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O)... chartered in Great Britain, not the United States.

Bush had to be guilty of yet another ludicrously "betrayal" (the most urgent task): this time, that he wanted to turn American ports over to jihadists.

The United States Attorney betrayal

Conservatives have searched high and low for occult signs of "Bush betrayal" in the case of the "fired" U.S. Attorneys (none was fired; the administration chose not to renew their contracts when they ran out).

At the beginning, the dextrosphere rightly noted that there was nothing illegal about the firing; and that the miscommunication by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his staff, while irritating, was also not a deliberate attempt to mislead Congress.

But the longer Sen. Pat Leahy's (D-VT, 95%) Judiciary Committee hearings pounded on Gonzales and on Pat McNulty, Monica Goodling, et al, and the more the elite media gleefully covered the fishing expedition (which has caught so few fish, they're already digging into the Spamwiches they brought along) -- the more conservatives, smelling blood in the water, turned on Gonzales and Bush.

Now we have the odd spectacle of conservatives using liberal code words to indict Gonzales and the president without actually having to produce evidence of wrongdoing: They say the "timing" of this or that non-renewal of contract was "suspicious," then cast a significant look, as if to say 'if you know what I mean, and I think you do.'

Thus again, conservatives, acting on a strange agenda of their own, lend gravitas and support to the wildest liberal charges against the Republican president. (How long until conservatives begin decrying the "stolen election" of 2000?)

Immigration immolation

The obsession with finding some way to declare that Bush is the Great Betrayer has hit its apocalyptic apogee -- so far! -- in the response by the Right to the immigration bill. There are certainly elements of the compromise that could be changed for the better; but good heavens, conservatives have accused Bush of everything from wanting "completely open borders" to plotting to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico into some fantasy nightmare called "the North American Union" (whose currency, tied to the peso, of course, would be the "amero").

The most common wild exaggeration is to say that the bill contains "no border security provisions whatsoever;" this utterly discounts the triggers, including the fence, the doubling of the Border Patrol, the tamper-resistant SSN card, and the increase (by orders of magnitude) of employer penalties for hiring illegals... none of which evidently counts. Some of those who oppose any comprehensive bill whatsoever argue that these programs would be good; but it is a "fact" that they will never be implemented. Bush plots not to enforce them, allowing "a hundred million" illegals to swarm in for "amnesty."

The word "amnesty" itself is conveniently redefined to include a plea bargain with a legal penalty -- while still retaining the frisson of the original meaning of forgiveness without any penalty. Argument by redefinition is a tactic pioneered by leftists, who routinely say, for example, that we have "murdered" 30,000 civilians in Iraq... redefining "murdering civilians" to mean "undertaking an invasion to which terrorists respond by killing civilians."

Just a few moments ago, Carol Platt Liebau, sitting in for Hugh Hewitt, accused Bush of saying that anyone who opposed the bill doesn't "want to do what's right for America." Translation: Bush has become as great a betrayer as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ, %), to whom she explicitly compared the president.

Perhaps she didn't read very far into the AP story before her blood began to boil and her vision clouded up; what the president actually said was this:

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

One may agree or disagree with the compromise bill; but there is no question that the subject of the paragraph is "those determined to find fault with this bill," not everyone who doesn't accept it or is skeptical that it can succeed. Plenty of people oppose this particular bill but are willing to consider other realistic solutions, rather than making demands they know are impossible. They are not included among those who "don't want to do what's right for America," according to President Bush.

He attacks those for whom no bill is acceptable -- other than pure enforcement and deportation, which they know very well will never pass Congress. He castigates people who want to see any regularization plan crash and burn, even if it takes the entire Republican Party with it, leaving the Democrats with total power. "At least then," such bitter-enders say, "we'll know who to blame when the country is destroyed!"

Feeding the energy creature

This is not simply a distasteful and vulgar repudiation of a man who has done, on the whole, a very good job making very tough decisions in response to a terrible national threat. It is also a tragic example of political self-euthanasia.

Conservatives appear determined, if unknowingly so, to put the GOP out of the Democrats' misery: They act as if they can surgically destroy George W. Bush and the "neocons" (however they define them), while leaving the rest of the Republican Party intact. In fact, they seem to believe that once they thrash the president to death, the country will rally behind a "true conservative."

I'm not sure who they have in mind, and I don't think they know, either. The only option offered is to exhume Ronald Reagan.

"Politics is the art of the possible" -- a saying often attributed to Otto von Bismark, though I doubt he ever actually said it. If one rejects that, one is left saying that politics should include elements that are impossible... which, by definition, is impossible. For whatever reason (and I think it likely that BBS played a great role), we lost the 2006 elections; Democrats captured both the House and Senate, albeit narrowly.

But however narrow their majority, they still control both the committees and the agenda; and they can stop cold any of the GOP's remaining agenda items... unless Republicans stick together and peel off a few Democrats. Republicans alone, without a single Democratic defection, can prevent Congress from enacting a Democratic agenda: But they must rely upon a presidential veto (from the man they are determined to call the Great Betrayer); and again, they must stand firm and united, retaining even the votes of moderate Republicans, who are easily disgusted by the disloyalty of their fellow party members.

We court catastrophe when we join the Democratic dogpile atop the president; and we make fools of ourselves when we imagine we can isolate the damage just to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, without having it slop over onto the 2008 Republican nominee for president and Republicans running for election or reelection to the Congress. You don't win a fight by clubbing your own head.

It is time for conservatives to focus on the areas where they agree with the fellow Republican in the White House, and on areas where a change can make a compromise bill better, yet not act as a poison pill to kill it altogether. I beseech you, in the bowels of Oliver Cromwell, to leave the Bush bashing to the professionals in the other party.

Unless, that is, conservatives actually crave the freedom from responsibility of the New Deal era!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 29, 2007, at the time of 5:28 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Pam

Dafydd, great article as well. I respect the President, but think he is wrong headed on this Immigration Bill. But by no means do I think he's lost his way; he ran on this. The Conservatives voted for him and now are ticked off that he has changed. He hasn't changed. I won't send any money to the RNC until they make the changes in this Bill. My mind was made up by of all people Bill Kristol; when he came out against the Zcard or whatever it is, I said this must be bad. I mean after all he's a NEOCON and if he thinks this is bad it must be really bad:)

The above hissed in response by: Pam [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2007 6:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

THe problem goes beyond Bush I hate to say. Republicans and conservatives are eating their on. I had a huge wake up during the Dubai Terminal lease deal. One day somebody is going investigate what was really going on their. It all seemed arise out of nowhere to quickly.

ANyway, Since then I have recieved far more emails calling everyone under the sun "rinos" than attacking democrats. I see people blaming the religious right and saying they are destroying the party. I see on this immigration bill and how people proclaim that business is selling out the party. Look at Derbysire's screed against the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago on the Corner. Thankfully JOnah at the Corner tried to counter that.

I see Libertarians oriented Republicans blamed elsewhere. It seems that we forgot the Coalition that got us here and we think everyone is not of any great importance except our group. It is insane

Bush is the poster child right now of trying to hold this coalition together. He actually speaks for its various elements I think quite well. But doing so does not make him likeable for those that engage in purity test.

I don't think it has sunk in yet to conservatives that we are not in power anymore and we can't do things like we did just last year

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2007 7:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian

I think it also sad that too many of our own don't give a moment to consider a radical notion: *Maybe he's doing the right thing!*

I seem to recall a similar reaction from fellow conservatives against Reagan after one conference with his USSR counterpart that also turned out to be a case of the critics being misguided. Holding office carries responsibilities that carping from the sidelines does not so if the President thinks talking with Iran worthwhile then I'm willing to give it a try and support his efforts.

The above hissed in response by: Towering Barbarian [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 29, 2007 8:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: TBinSTL

In the fine Blogospheric tradition of making up names for every definable group, I nominate "Absolutist Republicannibals" as the new title for this core group currently having great success in ensuring that the Democrats stay in power for the foreseeable future

The above hissed in response by: TBinSTL [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 12:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: WGPu

Dafyyd, Your blog is the first I read each morning, and this post is one of the best. I do not understand why so many "conservatives" want to destroy George Bush; an honorable man who has done great things in hard times. Perhaps we have our own "Nutroots."

BTW, why isn't Big Lizards linked on other sites like Powerline, Townhall Blog and Real Clear Politics? You should get much broader coverage since what you say makes so much sense. Thanks.

The above hissed in response by: WGPu [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 3:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I voted for Republicans because of George Bush's leadership after 9/11. I felt the left was just living in a fantasy land.

Now more and more I think the right is living there with them.

I remember when the right went after Reagan. They can try to make a saint of him now, but when he was president they had plenty of bad things to say about him.

But like Dafydd, I wondered why it was that Republicans went ape over Miers and Dubai and even immigration. It seems to me that moderate Republicans can win elections, but after they do the conservatives think they are supposed to run the country. Well then they should run Buchanan and stop trying to bully the rest of us. But they won't and can't do that.

The Republican Party is a political party, it is not a political movement. Conservatives are not a political party, they are a political movement. They need to understand the difference before they destroy the Republican party and the Democrats win by default.

As for immigration, well these guys had their chance for years and did not do anything but bitch, so now we need to deal with the problem and still all they want to do is bitch.

Bush, like Truman, has had to deal with some really tough problems and like Truman he has done with a knife in his back.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 4:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


BTW, why isn't Big Lizards linked on other sites like Powerline, Townhall Blog and Real Clear Politics?

Power Line does blogroll us. As for Townhall, back when Hugh Hewitt was independent, he repeatedly swore that he'd told his people to blogroll Big Lizards; however, it never materialized. I can only conclude that Hugh, the old PR guy, was just trying to spare my feelings...

As for Real Clear Politics -- are you joking? They've always only blogrolled big-name blogs with heft and bottom... like Firedoglake, Wonkette, Atrios, MyDD, and the Daily Kos!

(I doubt that John and Tom have any but the vaguest idea who we are, and probably wish they didn't even know that much.)


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 6:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: slarrow

Very well done, Dafydd. I've grown increasingly frustrated with some of my more favorite conservative thinkers because of some of these tantrums. Disagreement I can handle; it's the oblivious self-righteousness that gets on my nerves (oh, and the victimhood that goes with it: Bush's side is calling them names, which of course they never do.)

On the plus side, I haven't wasted nearly as much time lately on my typical political site roundup. I can only handle so much immigration whining. There's a reasonable way to talk about this (which you've done), but I just ain't seeing it a lot of places. Pity.

The above hissed in response by: slarrow [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 6:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

EXCELLENT post, Dafydd, but you should not allow yourself to fall into despair. No matter how insanely rightists behave in the throes of BBS, they will always be (and appear to be) stone cold sane in contrast to leftists in full BDS display.

If worst comes to worst and BDS sufferers actually win in 2008, they will rather quickly be out of office and if they are very lucky, NOT in front of firing squads for the horrendous, but by no means crippling damage, their insanity will cause.

If this generation of Americans REQUIRES more than one Pearl Harbor, then they will GET more than one Pearl Harbor.

Sooner or later the message will sink in, and if it costs us a few million lives in predominantly BDS inhabited urban areas, well, there is occasionally a price to pay for being blindingly stupid. But even the blindingly stupid can learn...

that is the SURVIVING blindingly stupid.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 9:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

By the way, the National Review's Corner is taking this on in its usual balnce way-NOT-

We Want to Frighten People [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

The president's dis to critics of his immigration is both unfair and unnecessary, albeit unsurprising. Does he really think Jeff Sessions and George Will want to frighten people?

05/30 06:44 AM
Bush and the F Word [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail I got this morning from someone the president has been glad to have on his side and really shouldn't so rudely dismiss:

"If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill. That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
- PRESIDENT BUSH, on the proposed immigration bill.

This is the beginning of the Final Act for the Bush Presidency.

I'm so over him, I may get a bumper sticker for my car that says 1-20-09.
Confession: I own a 1-20-09 clock. It sits next to the novelty Bush bobblehead. Fair and balanced.

I waiting with baited breath foer them to tell their readers of the Presidents qualifer

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 9:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

This is why you are the best site on the net Dafydd. When the "conservatives" start to stray from common sense, you are there to point it out. Ya know, years ago I became a conservative because I realized that they were truly the thoughtful and logical ones. We love to point out the groupthink on the left and the clinging to a narrative no matter what the facts are, but there are times that we conservatives do the exact same thing that we decry of the left. In this case it is the borders and Bush. Conservatives should be stallwart in their defense of Bush. We have known his motives and his intent for the war in Iraq from the beginning, it is the media who hasn't understood. Bush has never been anything but stallwart in EVERYTHING he does, whether or not ANYONE agrees with it. It angers me to see day by day conservatives start to succumb to that leftwing narrative and back away from the President that has done more to keep us safe from terrorism than any President in the history of this country against a vicious smear machine the likes that have never been seen before. It angers me, and makes me sad.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 11:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


Wait... did the Corner actually cite Sen. Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III (R-AL, 92%) as a stand-up Republican whose opinion should carry the day on immigration?

Would this be the same Sen. Sessions who said "the handwriting is on the wall" about the "surge;" and that after Gen. Petraeus reports, we'll have no choice but to withdraw our troops?

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a prominent conservative and supporter of the war in Iraq, yesterday said lawmakers "have to be realistic" about the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq and most likely will begin withdrawing those new forces after September.

Mr. Sessions, Alabama Republican, told CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday that "by September, when General Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down...."

Mr. Sessions said that "unless something extraordinary occurs," a withdrawal was almost certain, adding that lawmakers "have to be realistic" about the progress being made. When asked whether he thinks President Bush would support such a strategy, Mr. Sessions said, "I think he is coming around to that."

Yes, we've learned a hard, bitter lesson about playing at empire. We must accept it, go home, and just hope that a few Republicans somehow survive the massacre in Congress. We must accept the inevitable -- President Hillary -- with whatever grace and goodwill we can muster...

Yeesh. Sen. Sessions sounds like Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE, 100%) on a bad hair day: Not exactly the guy we should turn to for courage and steadfastness... and also not exactly the sharpest bulb in the socket, either; I reckon he's one of those who sees the counterinsurgency strategy as just a "surge" of a few more troops into Baghdad.

He's also the product of the post-modernist 60s, which almost invariably confuses pessimism with "realism."

So when Jeff Sessions says a comprehensive immigration bill can't be done, is it similar to his obvious belief that the "surge" cannot possibly succeed, and that Petraeus's report in September will be so gloomy and negative and Bush will be forced to withdraw?

He supported the war in 2005; he appears to be on of those for whom the expression was coined that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going -- home."

And this is the man that the National Review believes we should rely upon anent the immigration bill?

I'm actually not surprised; the founder of NR, William F. Buckley himself (according to my friend Brad, who is personal friends with him), has fallen back into his paleoconservative, isolationist fantasy of "fortress America." Oh, if only we hadn't gone adventuring in the Middle East, and gotten involved in all those "foreign entanglements."

Why don't we just pull all the soldiers back home and, I don't know, put them on the Mexican border? How could these Mohammedans attack us anyway? There's a whole ocean between us and them!

I wonder: If Buckley lives long enough, will he turn into Pat Buchanan?

This is so sad. Too often, when brilliant conservatives grow old, they turn to the old bromides they learned as teens and young adults. But however much they wish the world would just stand still, the fact is you cannot step in the same river twice.

The world has moved on. You can't go home again. That is the actual "difficult lession" we must accept: That the old tried and true just doesn't work today.

I thought the Cold War and especially its endgame should already taught us that; but judging from Buckley's Blackford Oaks novels, his worldview seems a lot closer to John Le Carre's than to Ronald Reagan's.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 1:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan


Yep that is one one. I did not know that Sessions said that. I am pretty shocked.

BY the way Check this out
Bush Fears for Nation's Soul

You are right about this paleoconservative, isolationist movement. I think many of us thought it was gone when Buchanan left. Boy did it arise and gain power and influence when no one was looking.

BE sure to check out the extensive interview with Bush that is here

That interview shows me again why I am proud we have Bush as President. IF he can get that sentiment into THE SPEECH that he will give to the nation on this he might and we might win. IF not well.

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 2:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

George Will??? I remember last summer he was talking about how the hardliners were oblivious to what deporting this many people would actually entail. I guess he has decided to jump on the antihispanic train.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 4:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Lately I've realized that it's not just moonbat Democrats that can wander into a self-righteous curiosity-free closed-mind bubble over some issue. Some of our own opinion leaders have gotten trapped in the bubble too. They're convinced that the only barrier that can work is a continuous fence, that forge-proof is not possible, and that once issued, Z-visas are forever--can't be revoked. None of these things are true, but they don't care. They "know better." It's very depressing to argue with people that have no curiosity about modern technology.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 30, 2007 10:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: leftnomore

As usual, a genius observation by Dafydd. Conservatives are becoming the nutclass, and we apparently need a few election cycles to get over ourselves. I don't see any major Republican victories coming for many years, and it's our own fault.

The above hissed in response by: leftnomore [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 31, 2007 6:22 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved