SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sylvester80 who wrote (34943)1/13/2004 2:55:01 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
LOL!

Too bad the article you posted does not support your "headline"....



To: sylvester80 who wrote (34943)1/13/2004 5:09:46 PM
From: Kip518  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Published on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 by the Toronto Star

Can PM Appease Bush?
by Thomas Walkom

Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.

True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

But overall, the comparison is far from exact, lending credence to Karl Marx's famous comment that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second, farce.

Still, for Canada and novice Prime Minister Paul Martin — currently trying to engage Bush in Monterrey, Mexico — there are certain similarities. Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do?

It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labeled racial profiling.

World leaders were wary and respectful. Canada's then-prime minister, Mackenzie King, confided in his diary after meeting Hitler in 1937 that the dictator was "one who truly loves his fellow men and his country and would make any sacrifice for their good ... a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot ... a teetotaller."

Yet even King, an ocean away from Germany, recognized that Hitler's ambitions could cause trouble. Consider the difficulties of Germany's small neighbors. Should they stay resolutely neutral and hope for the best (Belgium, Switzerland), sign onto Hitler's security agenda (Austria, Hungary, Romania) or rely on agreements with other nations (Poland, Czechoslovakia)?

These are the choices Canada faces with Bush's America. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien attempted the Swiss solution — stay out of the aggressor's wars but continue to sell him whatever he needs. Hitler was comfortable with that level of tacit support. Bush appears to want more.

Martin seems to be veering to the Romanian model of more active support for Bush's military aims. I say "seems" because, as usual, Martin's actions to date have been rhetorical and procedural — setting up new committees, making vague promises.

Indeed, those far more familiar with Paul Martin's thinking than I whisper that, at heart, the new Prime Minister is no different from Chrétien here. If so, rhetoric will dominate — plus one or two substantive measures.

Like Chrétien, Martin will offer up the Canadian navy and special commando units to the U.S. (those interested in the level to which Canadian maritime forces are already under U.S. command should read Kelly Toughill's masterful piece in last Saturday's Star).

Like Chrétien, Martin will almost certainly sign onto Bush's missile defense scheme. Canada's hope, like that of Russia and Europe, is that missile defense will be harmless (it doesn't work), will provide juicy contracts for industry, and will focus Bush's attention away from invading small nations.

Will Martin go further? Leftish Liberals hope he will simply be a politer Chrétien: Don't join the aggressor's wars but don't call him a moron either.

Those on the right, including many of Martin's business supporters, want a version of the Austrian model: Anschluss (annexation) in everything but name. However, the U.S. has little interest in this so it's unlikely to happen.

Martin has vowed to keep the Canada-U.S. border open to commerce. This is an easy promise to keep since the Americans want that too. He said he would persuade the Americans to "respect" the Canadian passport. He won't get that. He may get an agreement on softwood lumber (which isn't up to Bush; even Hitler wasn't all-powerful). But Martin will get a lumber deal only if he gives the Americans everything they want.

My guess is that if Martin wants the U.S. president to like him, if he wants those coveted invitations to the ranch so useful for winning votes in Alberta, he will have to offer something more — that Canada will have to be a little more Romania and a little less Switzerland.

Switzerland, of course, survived World War II intact. Romania did not.



To: sylvester80 who wrote (34943)1/13/2004 6:24:04 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Warmonger Michael Savage wants to impeach Bush. Not over Iraq of course but because of the Bush immigration proposals. The big tent of Bush haters continues to expand.

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
wnd.com

In the latest indication President Bush is having problems with his conservative core political constituency, Michael Savage, one of talk radio's biggest stars, tonight called for the impeachment of President Bush over his plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens.

"This is the worst betrayal of our country in my lifetime," said Savage, whose program is heard on more than 350 stations with an audience reaching some 6 million. His book, "The Savage Nation," last year was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller's list for five weeks. His follow-up, "The Enemy Within," out just one week, is already No. 8 on the list. Both were published by WND Books.

Tonight Savage called Bush a liberal and described him as part of the "enemy within" that is destroying the nation.

Savage created the phrase "compassionate conservative" in 1994, a term picked up by Bush during his presidential campaign – a campaign supported by Savage.

"This is much more serious than dropping your pants for an intern," said Savage. "This is a policy that represents a danger to national security."

Savage is hardly alone in his strong feelings of opposition to Bush's proposal to offer legal status to illegal immigrants. A new ABC News poll finds 52 percent of the nation opposes an amnesty program for illegal immigrants from Mexico, while 57 percent oppose one for illegal immigrants from other countries. Both results are roughly the same as when the administration floated the idea two-and-a-half years ago.

But today in Monterrey, Mexico, Bush reaffirmed his support of the proposal, despite its unpopularity at home. He said it could help illegal immigrants "leave the shadows and have an identity."

At a joint press conference with Mexican President Vicente Fox, Bush warned that his government will not allow the existence in the United States of an underclass of illegal immigrants, but claimed again his proposal is not an amnesty. Amnesty, he said, would only promote the violation of the law and perpetuate illegal immigration.

Bush said his immigration proposal would benefit both the United States and Mexico as it recognizes the contribution of thousands of honest Mexicans who work in the United States.

For his part, Fox embraced Bush's proposal.

"What else can we wish?" Fox said at the news conference with the president.

In the U.S., the latest poll on the controversy shows at least twice as many Americans "strongly" oppose the proposal as strongly support it.

Opposition peaks in Bush's own party: Fifty-eight percent of Republicans oppose his immigration proposal for Mexicans, compared with 50 percent of Democrats. For illegal immigrants other than Mexicans, 63 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Bush reportedly will disclose more details of the plan in his State of the Union address Jan. 20.

Meanwhile, the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 9,000 of the Border Patrol's non-supervisory agents, has told its members to challenge President Bush´s proposed guest-worker program, calling it a "slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States," the Washington Times reported today.

The agents were told in a letter from Vice President John Frecker that the proposal offered last week during a White House press conference "implies that the country really wasn't serious about" immigration enforcement in the first place.

"Hey, you know all those illegal aliens you risked 'life and limb' to apprehend? FAH-GED-ABOWD-IT," said Frecker, a veteran Border Patrol agent. "President Bush has solved the problem. Don't be confused and call this an 'amnesty,' even though those who are here illegally will suddenly become legal and will be allowed to stay here. The president assures us that it's not an amnesty," he said.

Last week Bush proposed the sweeping immigration changes that would allow the 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens thought to be in the United States to remain in the country if they have a job and apply for a guest-worker card. The immigrants could stay for renewable three-year periods, after which they could apply for permanent legal residence.

Savage cited a new report published in the City Journal by the Manhattan Institute suggesting there is a major crime wave in the U.S. caused by illegal immigration.

"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," the report charges. "Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gang-banger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law."

The situation is similar, the report says in New York, Chicago, San Diego, Austin and Houston. These "sanctuary policies" generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities, says the report.

"These people are destroying America," said Savage. "That's all I have to say on the subject. But you can talk about it. Talk about it while you can – while America is still a free country, because it's not going to last."
_____________________________________