2007 May 29 Tuesday
Bush Lies On Immigration Amnesty
In yet another low of his presidency, George W. Bush attacks the conservative base that overwhelmingly opposes his immigration amnesty
GLYNCO, Ga., May 29 — President Bush took on parts of his conservative base on Tuesday by accusing opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress.
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said at a training center for customs protection agents and other federal agents here in southeastern Georgia. “That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”
He is lying. Converting illegals into legals is amnesty.
an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
Then he had to go lie again:
“If you want to kill the bill,” he said, “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.”
What is little about converting 12 million illegal aliens into legals and then allowing them to bring family members in as legals? That's huge.
Bush keeps widening the gap between what is good for the nation and what he tries to implement as policy.
I wonder at what point using the word "traitor" towards a president is acceptable. Why does GWB hate the American people so much?
By rights, his status would be much lower. He would be more deserving of a high position if the
quality of population were Central American.
On top of that, he appears to be influenced by the New Left doctrines, where rational arguments
are to be avoided and replaced with smears.
An implication of his statement is that we have nothing to fear from immigrants legal or illegal,
as if 9-11 had not, and could not, have happened.
You are selling fear, why don't you sell trust, trust in me?
When FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, in 1933, Hitler had come to power, and Stalin was in the middle of his terror-famine which killed- how many millions?
Trusting officials with no end of power is not reasonable or virtuous at all;
if it were, the American constitution would be wrong.
There are no rational arguments for increasing the level of aggression in our society by legalizing so many illegal aliens,
if there were, they would be used now, and it wouldn't be Bush saying anyone who opposes this
is a fearmonger, nor Linda Chavez saying that only racism can explain opposition to the amnesty,
nor any other such smear approach out of the Frankfurt school.
Also, if there's nothing to fear from having illegals and their relatives by the millions be amnestied/legalized,
why doesn't he have illegal aliens on his secret service security details?
That someone wants to live and die in America, is no indication that they mean us no harm.
There are hostiles, and trust does not take way from their hostility, but rather empowers it.
One can also read this as attempted diagnosis of opponents of S.1348 as having, or trying to trigger, 'xenophobia'.
Since there can be no rational arguments for picking the alternative which must result in hugely increased aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry, the proponents of the legalization can be expected to use the smears:
racism!, xenophobia!, and get the other side on the defensive.
Meanwhile no one is to notice that the burden of proof still remains with them, to show why we need this.
Already we had Linda Chavez, saying racism must be the underlying motivation of opponents of S.1348.
We had Sen. Lindsey Graham saying shut up bigots, because his constituents have sent messages of opposition to legalization.
Now we have Bush saying fearmongers, with the implication that there is nothing to fear,
and such that those who nevertheless fear the consequences of this legalization bill, which had to hide in secrecy,
and spring its mass of betrayals for a fast move; those who don't just trust anyway, must be xenophobic.
Again we see the new left leitmotif:
choose your issue so as to allow for smearing, then
do the smears, and never bother to make the case for what you want politically.
Bush really believes his own rubbish, America is run by a college fratboy. The elites, left and right, have united, and are conspiring in the downfall of America. Bush hails from a state which will soon be majority Hispanic, these facts appear to have inclined him to believe that all American can, and should, be the same. Mark Steyn was emphatically wrong, America is going under, not Europe. In Europe the TREND is overwhelmingly towards immigration restrictions, in America it is the exact opposite.
It appears that the American elite has accepted, hook, line and sinker, the doctrine of multiculturalism. There is no apparent debate anymore. In Europe politicians and journalists routinely denounce this doctrine, sometimes with tribalist language unheard of in the US. So there is much hope for Europe, but sadly little for America, which is being lead headfirst into the abyss.
It is a basic principle of justice that the wrong-doer does not profit from his own wrong. The bank robber does not get to keep the money. By the same token, those who are in this country illegally should not get to stay here. If they do, it's an amnesty.
Is a good thing that the Republicans are finally discovering that Bush is a liar.
The man has a very serious problem with the truth. This was evident from the get go of his administration, and Republicans have spent the best part of 6 years making excuses for him. As a result what could have been a strong and long lasting control of Congress by the Republican Party, instead evaporated in 06, and the slide looks very much like it will continue in 08. As the saying goes... "You can't fool all the people all of the time"... Bush's time as a credible leader is gone, and with that his reputation, and with that his place in history as one of the worst Presidents to ever lead our land is secured.
On Immigration Policy, and after September on Iraq, the Republican party better part ways with Bush or the party will follow him to permanent retirement.
Bush is the Republican's Carter. History will attest to that.
The Republican party will fracture over immigration (I hope). Hopefully this will provide a viable third party(I hope).
Welcome to the bad side of "you're either with us or against us." I've been on that side since the 2003 Iraq Invasion, and now the crowd is pretty thick. Eventually, it will just be George, Laura and their dog on the side of "us," and the 6 billion remainder of humanity on the side of "against us." Let me know when you think the time is right for impeachment. Maybe when their dog defects?
I've been thinking a lot lately about what motivates Bush.
The most likely explanation is that he has a severe personlity disorder. In general, I'm against questioning politicians' psychological states and believe they should be judged by their words and actions. But Bush's are so bizarre, so out of touch with any ideas other than his own and those of a few apparatchiks hand-picked to tell him what he already "knows," that it is is hard not to think some kind of pathology is at work. The man simply cannot learn from experience, does not perform any reality testing, is incapable of changing his mind. He has never, as far as I know, given the least hint of ambivalent feelings about anything. Yes, politicans must role play to a certain extent, and don't want to seem wishy-washy, but I can't believe he would be rejected by the public for admitting once in a while that that he had trouble deciding between alternatives but on balance he believed one was better.
Otherwise, I'm almost ready to give some credence to the crackpot idea that he is being blackmailed for some youthful indiscretion committed in Mexico.
I find it funny when the old conservatives, who are sick of the way their ideals have been run over by their own people that they begin to call bush a neo-liberal. It's all BS, you elected him, you loved him while he lied through his teeth. He is a neo-con. Which means he is a liar who will lie to justify his own ends. Neo cons have no credibility or integrity and definitely feel they have no personal responsibility or accountability for their actions. All for the sake of money!!! Got I love watching them implode, is it another episode of "Republicans eating their own"?
Well, as ole' Pug Boyden would say, we all choose our own hell. As the over-flowing cesspool of this administration is starting to even wrinkle the probosci of it's staunchest supporters and media bend-over buddies, the pointlessness, nay, absurdity of life is becoming more of a blinking neon sign in the desert of our shared existence somewhere outside of Barstow with the warning- "Last water, 100 miles." So with the finger-popping insouciance of a hormonally challenged teenage dickwad, I protect the remaining scintila of my sanity as I behold these pompous assholes and greet each day with- Duh!
But it confirms what I always assumed about my character. That is, Apollonaire rather than Dionysian it be. Far too reflective and analytical, I ain't jumpin' in the mosh pit of hurled invective and colored confusion. Be it Woodstock or Lollapalooza, I'd be concerned about the mud and lack of sanitation in the Port-o-Potties, as the naked girl danced by me, otherwise wearing a winsome smile and plum-colored nipples. Foghat or Red Hot Chili Diarrhea bleeting out it's best, each performer with four stacks of Marshall 4X10's peaked out and rattling my fillings, what was left of any objective energy blasted outside the skull like the afterburner of an F-16.
>>Rick Darby said at May 30, 2007 09:59 AM:
I've been thinking a lot lately about what motivates Bush.
I have been pondering this subject for several years. Has there ever been another politician who worked so hard to alienate his base?
For a while I tried to decide whether he is stupid or crazy, but neither seems exactly right. If he were merely stupid, he might have a Forest Gump-like common sense. Instead, he believes in policies that are so separated from reality that only an intellectual could come up them. As far as the craziness, I think it's more likely he is in the grip of a religious mania, probably Christian Zionism. If he believes that he and his friends will be Raptured up soon that would explain his indifference to the mess he's leaving behind.
Keep in mind that much of my readership decided Bush is a bad President years ago. I said in October 2004 we'd be better off if Bush lost his reelection attempt:
The likely effect on the Supreme Court of a Kerry win strikes me as the strongest argument for Bush to win reelection. However, I still think the Republicans would be better off on the long run if Bush and the necons were seen to have pursued policies (immigration amnesty, in favor of racial preferences, big social spending increases, the Iraq Debacle, etc) that so alienated the Republican base that Bush lost. Regardless of whether Bush or Kerry wins America will lose.
I think I argued that on other occasions in 2004 as well.
Points are all well taken. We would probably be better off in '08 if the Democrats win the White House (and Hillary would be the best) but the Republicans take control of Congress. The congressional Republicans would all hate Prez Hillary so much that nothing would get passed, and the country would be much the better for it. The last time this happened (1997-2001), federal spending plateaued, the budget went into surplus and the economy boomed.
Randal, bush didn't "win" any election, the RNC, Karl Rove and others conspired to steal the election.
Currently Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush to not get sucked into the vortex that will
be his regimes downfall. And get their numbers up so that in 08, they can steal another election and
not have it look like a swindle.
Or maybe they realize just how lame he has become.
I still find it funny that the only people to protest and seethe with hate at Jerry Falwell's funeral,
were fellow baptists who thought he was to lenient on gays. Those are the people that Bush Panders to!