Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The interesting problem for the GOP

CNN had picked up what had become a political furor but only disclosed the cat fight between GW and Senator Barack Obama, not the rest of it as found in this report: "Bush: Obama misinterpreted remarks." But did not go on to disclose some other rather interesting news; GW signing a memorandum of understanding with the gvt of Saudi Arabia over the "civilian" use of nuclear power. Okay. And that was after he told the Israeli Knesset what he thought of "appeasing" enemies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda. Indeed going so far as to attack Democrats as "appeasers" of terrorist organizations equitable to what was said about Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Well, Saudi Arabia is only the home of extremist sects. Saudi Arabia only produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia only dragged its feet when it came to the U.S. pursuing justice for the deaths of dozens of American members of the U.S. Military in the Khobar Towers incident. Saudi Arabia was the home of Osama bin Laden. How certain is GW that the transfer of nuclear power to Saudi Arabia would be used for "peaceful" purposes? Of course CNN didn't pick that up, it might make GW look bad and cause problems for Senator McCain as well. Yeah, it might make him an "appeaser" you see.

What did make the news was this exchange between NBC's "Today" show and GW. The White House (as reported by CNN) sent a harshly worded letter to NBC for "deceitfully" misquoting him: as actually aired on NBC. As picked up at the above link and in the same article, the exact quote: Engel: "In front of the Israeli palm at the Knesset, you said that negotiating with Iran is pointless—and then you went further, you saying—you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were."

The President: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calender has. People need to read the speech. You didn't exactly get it right either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. But I also talked about a vision of what's possible in the Middle East."

Right, and Saudi Arabia is a "proven friend of Israel." So let us remind GW that one of Al Qaeda's own aims is to punish anyone who allies with Israel and punish its people for daring to occupy what ought to be regarded as Islamic territory. No he won't "negotiate" with Al Qaeda, he'll just hand the Saudi gvt a means of nuclear proliferation that can very quickly become the dirty bomb in a jihadist's hands. Way to go GW!


On the domestic front, Cal Thomas gets a bit hostile toward the GOP as having abandoned "conservative" principles. Well, I'll agree with less government any time. I'll agree with fiscal discipline. I'll agree that we should be discussing individual rights. I'll even agree with personal responsibility. On the last issue in particular, "personal responsibility," it actually isn't up to the gvt to strengthen the American family, esp. if the whole idea of "strengthening them" is to force women to have babies. Force women to stay home with their kids. Force women in bad marriages to highly abusive husbands to stay married to them. I can think that in society religious organizations could do the work that would help strengthen the family. No? They spend more of their time demanding that gvt "do something about it." Much like Bryan Fischer of the "Idaho Values Alliance." The GOP aren't the only ones to have abandoned Reagan's "conservative" principles post their 1992 convention platform; so did the religious special interests.

Speaking of Bryan Fischer, Huckleberries on-line (Spokesman-Review hosted blogs) featured an I'll get mad and take my toys home with me article for discussion. Fischer saying that the GOP can't hope to win without the "religious right." In my own rebuttal to Fischer, I'm very prepared to say that the GOP would more likely have my vote if they got rid of the more gvt more, more, more religious radicals. See above commentary on Thomas. I am a believer in limited gvt. Too bad Fischer doesn't believe in it as well.

What Mr. Thomas doesn't seem to get is that "reform" isn't "conservative." Conservatives do not believe in reform. Conservatives believe in not fixing what works well (if only for them.) So, if "reform" is on the mind of Thomas in his republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial on this 20th of May 2008, then he should call it what it is: liberalism. Only liberals support the idea of reform.