amnesty, Political wind

Whose Country Is This?

by  • 

Cal Thomas asks an interesting question after writing in the NY Sun this morning:

A former senator and probable Republican presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, brought Virginia Republicans to their feet last Saturday night in Richmond when he said the public no longer believes in politicians who promise to secure the U.S. border as part of a bipartisan immigration bill.

“You’ve got to secure the border first, before you do anything,” Mr. Thompson said. “The members (of Congress) say it’s right here in this bill: the border. The response is, ‘We don’t care what’s on a piece of paper — secure the border.’ The piece of paper doesn’t secure the border.”

Mr. Thompson claimed the bill now being debated in the Senate is “the same deal” offered in the 1986 amnesty: legalization of aliens in exchange for border security. He said the public won’t be fooled again.

When Mr. Thompson speaks of distrusting Washington politicians, he is including Republicans and President Bush, who in recent weeks — in company with members of his administration — have taken to labeling opponents of the bill xenophobes and nativists, even suggesting some are racists.

Read the rest and his question then ask yourself the same thing.

I agree that the public will not be fooled again. Yet it remains to be seen if they just stand on the track announcing a train is coming until it passes or step off in sufficient numbers to derail it.

[Ed. — A later thought: Better still, every state holds a primary and there are 520 days until Election Day. I think we need to stop voicing our displeasure and send something a whole lot larger back down that track.]

Political wind

The Dems debate: An NRO Symposium

by  • 

National Review Online asked a group of commentators who sacrificed their Sunday night to CNN and the Democratic presidential lineup to comment on the debate. Here are Debra Burlingame’s comments:

Hillary Clinton’s difficult predicament on the war in Iraq was painfully evident. Now we learn that prior to her vote to authorize the war she was “thoroughly briefed” by the DOD, the CIA, outside experts, and “members of the previous administration.” It was a sincere vote, she said, based on her belief that the president would send the weapons inspectors back in to determine “once and for all” whether Saddam had WMDs. Bush misled her and everyone else, she said, because he had no intention of allowing the inspectors to “finish their job.” If he had, said Sen. Clinton, “we would have known that Saddam did not have WMD and we would not have invaded Iraq.”

Presumably, one of those who thoroughly briefed Mrs. Clinton was her own husband, who on December 16, 1998, went on national television to announce the launch of a massive military attack on Iraq after the breakdown of the inspections process, declaring that, “even if the inspectors could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.” Certainly Mrs. Clinton remembers that her husband called the inspections failure “a clear and present danger” to the stability of the Middle East and the safety of the world. “[I]f Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it,” said President Clinton, “he would conclude that the international community — led by the United States — has simply lost its will.” The attack had to be launched immediately because a delay of even a few days would allow Saddam to hide, destroy or move his stockpiles.

Whether or not her strained explanation for her Iraq vote gets her safely through primary season, pointing to the previous administration for authority on national-security issues could ultimately be a big mistake.

Also read the comments of John Hood, Terence P. Jeffrey, Angela McGlowan, Yuval Levin, and John J. Pitney Jr.