From: John Cuccia 

says The American Conservative magazine, whose editors are appalled by the
venality and amorality of the creatures who run the Republican Party today.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html
It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America
and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is
the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to
jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the
assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting
terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept.
11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to
understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for
crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and
he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not
want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are
now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen
Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for
themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a
broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of
thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge
against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion
failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s
calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the
result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf,
with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the
most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason
than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting
defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little
from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran
and Syria.

Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others
that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in
memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this
country—which once symbolized hope and justice—to be humbled. The
professionals in the Bush administration (and there are some) realize the
damage his presidency has done to American prestige and diplomacy. But
there is not much they can do.

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which
will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of
recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in
the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result
that is seen—in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to
Kuala Lumpur—as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression
he launched against Iraq.

We have no illusions that a Democratic majority would be able to reverse
Bush’s policies, even if they had a plan to. We are aware that on a host of
issues the Democrats are further from TAC’s positions than the Republicans
are. The House members who blocked the Bush amnesty initiative are
overwhelmingly Republican. But immigration has not played out in an
entirely partisan manner this electoral season: in many races the Democrat
has been more conservative than the open-borders, Big Business Republican.
A Democratic House and Senate is, in our view, a risk immigration reformers
should be willing to take. We can’t conceive of a newly elected Democrat in
a swing district who would immediately alienate his constituency by voting
for amnesty. We simply don’t believe a Democratic majority would give the
Republicans such an easy route to return to power. Indeed, we anticipate
that Democratic office holders will follow the polls on immigration just as
Republicans have, and all the popular momentum is towards greater border
enforcement.

On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to
ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a
disastrous course. Posterity will note too if their collective decision is
one that captured the attention of historians—that of a people voting,
again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic
direction. The choice is in our hands.

November 20, 2006 Issue




http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html
It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen—in America
and the world at large—as a decisive “No” vote on the Bush presidency is
the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush’s failed effort to
jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the
assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting
terrorism or his administration’s endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept.
11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to
understand who had attacked us and why—thus ignoring the prerequisite for
crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and
he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not
want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are
now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen
Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for
themselves. Bush’s decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a
broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of
thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge
against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion
failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration’s
calculation—as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides—the
result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran’s hand in the Persian Gulf,
with a reach up to Israel’s northern border, and the elimination of the
most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason
than the feckless president can’t face the embarrassment of admitting
defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little
from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran
and Syria.

Meanwhile, America’s image in the world, its capacity to persuade others
that its interests are common interests, is lower than it has been in
memory. All over the world people look at Bush and yearn for this
country—which once symbolized hope and justice—to be humbled. The
professionals in the Bush administration (and there are some) realize the
damage his presidency has done to American prestige and diplomacy. But
there is not much they can do.

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which
will stain our country’s reputation for a long time. But the process of
recovering our good name must begin somewhere, and the logical place is in
the voting booth this Nov. 7. If we are fortunate, we can produce a result
that is seen—in Washington, in Peoria, and in world capitals from Prague to
Kuala Lumpur—as a repudiation of George W. Bush and the war of aggression
he launched against Iraq.

We have no illusions that a Democratic majority would be able to reverse
Bush’s policies, even if they had a plan to. We are aware that on a host of
issues the Democrats are further from TAC’s positions than the Republicans
are. The House members who blocked the Bush amnesty initiative are
overwhelmingly Republican. But immigration has not played out in an
entirely partisan manner this electoral season: in many races the Democrat
has been more conservative than the open-borders, Big Business Republican.
A Democratic House and Senate is, in our view, a risk immigration reformers
should be willing to take. We can’t conceive of a newly elected Democrat in
a swing district who would immediately alienate his constituency by voting
for amnesty. We simply don’t believe a Democratic majority would give the
Republicans such an easy route to return to power. Indeed, we anticipate
that Democratic office holders will follow the polls on immigration just as
Republicans have, and all the popular momentum is towards greater border
enforcement.

On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to
ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a
disastrous course. Posterity will note too if their collective decision is
one that captured the attention of historians—that of a people voting,
again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic
direction. The choice is in our hands.

November 20, 2006 Issue

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5