53 posts tagged “bush”

For the first time ever, I had to put down an Ann Coulter column. I did it because I was starting to feel that maybe it's better if she, herself, were put down - because she just won't give it up.

No, I don't mean give THAT up, I mean the McCain bashing. I mean, is McCain really the head of the Devil on the body of Kirstie Alley?

I understand that no one is thrilled with John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee, not even his black adopted daughter, but he's no Dole, and he's better than Nixon, and he happens to be the best candidate running.

Just to hear Hillary or Obama speak is so grating that I can't hit "mute" fast enough. Can you imagine having to listen to either for four years, much less having to look at them? Well then, how about eight?

Whether it's Hillary or Obama, for the first time ever I find myself hating a nominee before the election even takes place. I mean, I didn't hate Clinton for years, and I didn't hate Gore until he tried to steal the election, so I think it says something that I hate Hillary and Obama right out of the box.

Look, I realize that to the Coulters of the Republican Party, McCain is a lemon, but every inspirational book ever written says that when you have a lemon,, you exercise your rights under the Lemon Law and demand either reimbursement or a replacement. Or since that's not practical from a time standpoint, MAKE LEMONADE! For God's sake, in the same situation, Dole made pineapple!

Ann, I'm beggin' ya, and this is personal, find another note on that piano... or at least get it tuned. I only ask because when you become more irritating than Hillary, I'm not concerned about my eardrum shattering, I'm worried about knocking the Earth off its axis.

Today's column is (for about the fourth time in three minutes) all about McCain-Feingold. So I absolutely had to stop reading. But I did a search - not a single mention of George Bush as the McCain-Feingolder-in-Chief. It's too bad Spielberg isn't still doing Amazing Stories.

If McCain loses and Obama turns America into the world's newest socialist state with the help of a veto-proof Democratic Congress, I know conservatives won't blame Ann Coulter, just like they don't blame George Bush for the many and horrible things he's done. They'll just blame John McCain... as usual.

If there's one question I get asked way more than any other, it's this: "Ted, we absolutely love your relentless conservative bashing, but we'd occasionally like an article that showcases liberal stupidity in all it's glory, so when will you stop lambasting the good guys long enough to post something about Democrats that I, a conservative in my own mind, can enjoy?"

Well, I'm happy to report that your wait is nearly over... 3... 2... 1...

By Frank Cerabino

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Being a Democrat in Florida is like being the coyote in a Road Runner cartoon.

Things start out so promising, but in the end you just screw up everything in a comical way.

Beep, beep.

I've already got that Wile E. Coyote feeling, and it's only February, nine months before Election Day.

If we weren't so hell-bent on self-destruction, Florida Democrats would be looking forward to being a key primary state in the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle for the nomination.

The Florida primary, originally scheduled for early March, would be a real prize on the political calendar. But instead, state Democrats were led off the cliff by state Republicans, who came up with the idea for a unilateral assault on the primary calendar.

It was one of those arrogant, "we can make our own rules" moves, and just like the Iraq invasion, Democrats were swept along so as not to appear soft on state pride.

All Republican, all the time

The national Republicans were smart enough to allow their candidates to campaign in Florida and to have the rogue primary count.

The national Democrats were not. Democratic candidates were forbidden from campaigning in Florida, and state party leaders were warned that if they insisted on holding an unsanctioned early primary, the votes would be meaningless, and none of Florida's 210 delegates would be seated at the national convention this summer.

Naturally, Florida Democrats chose the path of self-destruction.

So the result was that Florida appeared to have only a single political party last month.

The national media descended on Florida, and the campaign signs were all Republican ones, the TV commercials were for Republicans and the only debate was for Republican candidates - this in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans.

Beep, beep.

How could we make this even more pathetic? Don't worry, we had that covered, too.

Florida Democrats, even though they were told that their votes wouldn't count, turned out in droves, about 1.7 million people, to cast ballots in the allegedly meaningless primary.

Hillary Clinton showed up in Florida on the night of the meaningless primary to claim meaningless victory, and the rest of the country looked ahead to actual primaries that would actually count.

Like the coyote, we haven't given up, though we're still smoldering from the blast of our latest miscalculation.

ACME White House giveaway

Our latest scheme is to consider a revote, with party caucuses throughout the state serving as a retake on the January primary.

But this probably isn't going to happen, because America has already grown weary of Floridians looking for do-overs and because the national party isn't willing to foot the entire bill for this.

So what's going to happen? Here's my sour prediction:

If we keep our coyote karma going, the Clinton-Obama primary battle will remain close enough so that the missing Florida delegates will be meaningful.

At the last minute, the Democratic Party will seat Florida's delegates at the convention, which will give Clinton the votes she needs to beat Obama, who will object, to no avail, that he would have done better in Florida had he been allowed to campaign here.

Hillary Clinton will have Florida to thank as the state that gave her the nomination.

And this would be fitting, because the national polls say that Obama is the more likely to beat the Republican's presumptive candidate, John McCain, in November.

And so, when America wakes up on Nov. 5 with another Republican president on his way to the White House, Florida Democrats will get the blame again.

Beep, beep.

By the way, that's pronounced -Lim-bo-. I think it's Olde English.

But coincidentally, Rush Limbaugh droned on today about how "pseudo-conservatives" are calling him a cry-baby when it is they who are trying to change the Republican party, while only yesterday, George Bush labeled John McCain a "true conservative."

It's enough to make a "real conservative" want to scream.

Let me put it in a nutshell - in fact, let me recycle an old nutshell: when Limbaugh brought up McCain-Feingold today without mentioning George Bush, he demonstrated (again) that he is not the all-seeing, all-knowing pundit he claims to be. Once again... John McCain is enormously less responsible for McCain-Feingold than George Bush is. I don't even need to say anything more since those who understand how a bill becomes a law can put the rest together themselves...

But apparently Limbaugh can't.

Just like he doesn't seem to grasp how he and Ann and Han are largely responsible for John McCain.

Every time Bush signed a bill or acted in a way that was not only contrary to conservative principles but anathema to conservatives themselves and this Big Three of commentators failed to excoriate the President and demand redress, they helped pave the road to a John McCain Presidency.

Did they lash out against Bush for signing M-F? How about the prescription drug program? Spending? The border? Did they scream bloody murder when Bush did nothing as a hundred soldiers died every month in Iraq? In fact, to my recollection, it was Ann alone who said enough is enough with the Harriett Myers nomination. What a time to take a stand, eh?

And even as Coulter recolied in horror at Myers, she specifically said that Bush was performing "magnificently' on Iraq. Others were simply not willing to draw any line - ever, as I recall.

Here's another nutshell - John McCain is as conservative as any major candidate the Republicans had to choose from, and again, I don't need to say more since if one is in control of his senses, he knows that's true.

Now that may not be saying much of John McCain, but that's another part of the problem which is best noted this way: Where have all the conservatives gone, long time passing...

Sure they're there... somewhere... but they aren't asserting themselves any better than the pundits did when Bush "acted up," or the conservative electorate is now. In short, conservatism is floundering, and there is no one to take up the mantle. Ann and I agree that Duncan Hunter was the best choice in the bunch, but that's only if one is choosing by the numbers and not a flesh and blood human being.

So I suggest that conservatives get behind McCain the way they did for Bush. But unlike the way they've been toward Bush, I suggest they respond to President McCain the way they should have toward Bush. Of course, I really didn't need to add that last part about criticizing President McCain because it's a given... unless... hey, you don't think conservatives will clam up again once he's President, do you?

No, I was just kidding. Their eyes are wide shut now. So the question for conservatives is: Why didn't you open them seven or so years ago? At this point, George Bush couldn't care less what you think, and John McCain may not need you. But it could be worse... I could be the nominee, and I'm brimming over with contempt for the Limbaugh Wing for screaming too loud, too late.

For Conservatives, Is MDS Really BDS?

Warning:

The following contains material that may be shocking to some people. Do not drive or operate heavy equipment while reading.

If you're like me, you write a lot of things that never get posted for one reason or another, but mostly because what you've written is so idiotic that it's too much to expect even people who read this blog to accept it. So it takes its place on the eternal clipboard, destined never to become a standalone piece, though still plenty good enough to be used in an engagement with liberals and other lesser beings.

But on rare occasions, someone else with real brains comes along and demonstrates what can be done when the same idea is explored by someone more experienced in coherent thought.

This is one such occasion.

The other day, I wrote what some would call an expose. Others would call it a theory, and still others might call it practicing medicine without a license. I'll leave that for you to decide, and you're certainly free to apply your own label.

In the piece, I said this:

What explains another Coulter column in which this time she not only derides McCain, but Republicans who vote for him?

Granted a President McCain might sign some bills conservatives find abhorrent, but would it be that much different in comparison to what George Bush has signed or would like to dign? McCain might sign a stem cell bill, but you've gotta believe that he'd veto some of the spending George Bush was only too glad to plant his signature on.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest that McCain Derangement Syndrome is actually Bush Displacement Syndrome.

In other words, what if a lot of the anger and hysteria directed at John McCain is really about George Bush, and that conservatives cannot, for whatever reasons, bring themselves to recognize the true source of their angst and outrage?

Because there's no doubt that Bush has done infinitely more to undermine conservatives than McCain has, yet you don't hear a peep about, much less condemnation of, Bush policies, his signed legislation, his spending, and his profound neglect of both executive responsibilities and conservative issues.

There are both subconscious and practical reasons why conservatives don't criticize Bush, especially at this late date and in an election year, but all that rage has to go somewhere, and not only is John McCain the perfect "candidate," but he actually continues to invite it.

So conservatives may simply be redirecting their anger while trying to head off further, and possibly even greater, destruction of their causes and values. The only problem is, MCCain was and is the best candidate the Republicans can put up

 As I mentioned above, I said it... but you never read it. As insightful as that was, I felt it lacked substance. It lacked specific examples, and most of all, it lacked Charles Krauthammer.

Well all that's changed. Today Krauthammer, who's not just a brilliant paraplegic but also an actual medical doctor, addressed the problem and amazingly, he avoided plagiarizing any of my ideas.

Note:

If your children have been reading along, you might want to have them leave the room at this point, or if you've been reading this to them as a bedtime story, check to make sure they're asleep before continuing. I'm sure they will be, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Reddy...?

Charles Krauthammer in his own words:

McCain's apostasies are too numerous to count. He's held the line on abortion, but on just about everything else he could find: tax cuts, immigration, campaign finance reform, Guantanamo he not only opposed the conservative consensus but also insisted on doing so with ostentatious self-righteousness.

The story of this campaign is how many Republicans felt that national security trumps social heresy.

The other half of the story behind McCain's victory is this: There would have been a far smaller Republican constituency for the apostate sheriff had there been a compelling conservative to challenge him. But there never was...

Romney (was) the final stop in the search for the compelling conservative. I found him to be a fine candidate who would have made a fine president. But until very recently, he was shunned by most conservatives for ideological inauthenticity. Then, as the post-Florida McCain panic grew, conservatives tried to embrace Romney, but the gesture was both too late and as improvised and convenient-looking as Romney's own many conversions.

Conservatives are on the eternal search for a new Reagan. They refuse to accept the fact that a movement leader who is also a gifted politician is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.

But there's an even more profound reason why no Reagan showed up this election cycle and why the apostate sheriff is going to win the nomination. The reason is George W. Bush.

He redefined conservatism with a "compassionate" variant that is a distinct departure from classic Reaganism. Bush muddied the ideological waters of conservatism.

It was Bush who teamed with Teddy Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, a federal venture into education that would have been anathema to (the early) Reagan.

It was Bush who signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

It was Bush who strongly supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.

It was Bush who on his own created a vast new entitlement program, the Medicare drug benefit.

And it was Bush who conducted a foreign policy so expansive and, at times, redemptive as to send paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and traditional conservatives like George F. Will into apoplexy and despair (respectively).

Who in the end prepared the ground for the McCain ascendancy? Not Feingold. Not Kennedy. Not even Giuliani. It was George W. Bush. Bush begat McCain.

Bush remains popular in his party. Even conservatives are inclined to forgive him his various heresies because they are trumped by his singular achievement: He's kept us safe.

There you have it - straight and objective, and (regrettably) with none of the hatred I have for George Bush. I never thought to frame it in terms of "begetting," but that's exactly it. McCain is every bit as conservative as Bush, and maybe more so. But people have had more than enough of Bush, they just can't admit it. Because they're deranged... and I'm anything but sure Bush caused it..

But not voicing their displeasure for George Bush early and often did serve a purpose... it begat John McCain.

I made a point of tuning in Rush today because of the Dole Letter, and at first, I was surprised at what I was hearing. I didn't think the letter would cause Limbaugh to do an about-face, but I didn't expect him to step up hostilities.

Lambasting McCain for most of the first hour, Limbaugh brought up everything including the kitchen sink to use against the Senator, and I'm happy to report that the majority of it was accurate... which is to say, much of what Limbaugh was accusing McCain of was either not accurate or not the whole story.

It seems to me that a lot of conservatives can only see things from their perspective. They can't fathom that something may appear one way and be another. For example, Dole said in his letter that John McCain has supported conservative issues on every important vote. I've heard that flatly denied by Hannity and Limbaugh  The problem is, they didn't hear what Dole was writing. Either that or they didn't read what Dole was saying.

For example, and this is something everyone can understand, McCain is accused of not supporting the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't. But what's overlooked is his support wasn't critical. So Bush got his cuts, and McCain bolstered his reputation as fiscally responsible. But conservatives only see McCain as a traitor. Dole was saying that he remembered McCain as being supporting of Republicans whenever his vote was critical.

Now it's the second hour and Limbaugh is still droning on. Does Rush know how off-putting he is if you're not a blind conservative? And how well it plays to moderates, independents and even some liberals as far as setting McCain apart from those horrible Republicans?

So while it's hard to listen to Rush, much less the idiot callers (which, thankfully, he hasn't had yet today) I hope he keeps it up. If it's real and McCain wins, he will not be beholden to many conservatives, and certainly not to any of the big yappers. And if it's all a ploy to increase McCain's viability with the middle-left, then it's brilliant.

But as I was looking to wrap this up, Limbaugh went off again on McCain and amnesty saying that McCain would still sign McCain-Kennedy if he were President. That, of course ignores two very important facts:

1) If McCain-Kennedy had actually passed, you couldn't contain George Bush's delight at signing it, and...

B) If McCain were President, it would ever so slightly reduce the chance of seeing McCain-Kennedy II.

Have you seen Ann Coulter lately. she looks like I've never seen her - frazzled and frantic, and her voice seems to have risen several octaves.

As John McCain closes in on the Republican nomination and polls say he's the only one who's competitive with Clinton and Obama, the most prominent conservative to actively oppose the Senator is becoming more and more strident.

Today, Ann said she'd vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. That's not the sort of comment one can backtrack on very easily, and it's as outrageous as it is impractical.

We understand, Ann, that you really hate McCain, but there are far more important issues than the ones you and other conservatives cite in denouncing him, and even if they were equally as important as security and spending, why haven't you been demanding that the President get tough on immigration and spending?

What we're now seeing is a prime example of why I say I don't like conservatives much better than Democrats. McCain is not an ideal candidate. He's just the best of those who've run. I know you think Romney is far better, Ann, but he's had plenty of time to demonstrate that... and he hasn't.

So I hope you read that column in the Wall Street Journal today. If you had already, you wouldn't have said what you did about voting for Hillary. Either that or you're blinded by hate and thus merely typical of many conservatives.

McCain is The Man. He's the only choice for Republicans and the country, and if you were not to support him, you would do your country a disservice for which I would never forgive you if it came to pas that McCain lost and Hillary won.

By the way, would you vote for Obama over McCain?

John McCain is a known entity. You can predict where he'll be unpredictable. Romney is an unknown entity, one in which it's impossible to predict where he will fail you. Or do you think he won't?

If so, did you think Bush wouldn't either? Because I don't know about you, but I expected George Bush to become more conservative, not less, once he took office if for no other reason than simply because he'd be grateful for the support conservatives had shown him.

So I'd advise you to be very careful, Ann. You've already turned me off, and it's time to prove you're not a blind ideologue - something I'd never thought you were. if you can't find a reason to endorse McCain, then at least take a cue from Al Sharpton's suggestion for Bill Clinton and shut up.

Because if you continue, you're not going to bury John McCain, you'll only be marginalizing yourself, and I'd hate to see that happen. You've taken your best shot, you lost, move on... before you start to sound like that group of the same name.

What's the biggest problem Republicans face?

You want it in a nutshell? The problem Republicans face is; they have no face.

We're all familiar with the "Reagan Republican:" Does anyone reading this regard him or her self as a Romney Republican? If so, would you kindly describe than animal?

I've been characterizing Romney with words like: mechanical, rehearsed, robotic, stiff, mannequin-like, and probably a few others that aren't as flattering, but there's a fellow named Green (sorry I didn't get the first name) who was talking about the "heated" exchange between McCain and Romney in last night's debate when McCain accused Romney of backing a timetable for Iraq - the irritated Romney, Green says, "spoke in the same tone he'd use when ordering fine wine in a restaurant."

So there it is, would Reagan even order fine wine? A Martini with a jelly bean, maybe.

Republicans haven't embraced McCain, but they haven't embraced Romney either. And he hasn't embraced them. In fact, I dare say John McCain has made more overtures to the base than Romney has, and with time growing short for Mitt to turn things around, he still doesn't seem to understand what he needs to project. He's actually more like Fred Thompson than Ronald Reagan.

I keep hoping Romney will take that spark he showed after his Michigan win and turn it into a wildfire, but as Charles Krauthammer put it, he hasn't up to now, so there's no reason to think things will change.

What's even more interesting is how right-side commentators have responded to the McCain surge. I didn't hear anyone savage the Senator the way they did in 2000 except, well, Savage himself, which could only mean that for whatever reason, pundits felt they needed to keep their options open.

And now that John McCain is the clear frontrunner, those options have narrowed considerably. Rush Limbaugh has been more tempered than I've ever heard him. Sean Hannity still doesn't accept McCain, but he's sure not mounting a counter-offensive. Only Ann Coulter got tougher, and her column yesterday was one of the worst she's ever written, utterly devoid of humor and as shrill as a Hillary stump speech.

So Republicans had better not just resign themselves to McCain if he's still on top after Super Tuesday, they'd do well to swallow hard and embrace him in the hope that he'll embrace them.

Why? because they'll need him more than he needs them. Some people have said they won't vote for McCain, that they'll just stay home. What a great way to render yourselves irrelevant. McCain hasn't needed you much to win what he already has, why would he need you at all if he wins the election?

I like to talk about the conservatives who are being driven mad by McCain's success, but when I do, I'm really referring to one in particular. She's an otherwise lovely young woman who quite literally becomes insane when talking about John McCain.

We parted company two years ago when Missy labeled McCain a traitor, not to conservatives, but to the country. I felt badly because one has to be crazy to say what she said, but I didn't want to entertain that kind of talk, much less indulge her on it.

So here we sit with no perfect candidate. The Dems think they have two - but that's another liberal illusion. The fact is that John McCain simply cannot be worse than George Bush, and 70 percent of Republicans still think the President is just fine which makes the case that Missy may have been merely the most visible crazy conservative.

Let's get some things straight once and for all, since I'm just as tired of right-wing nonsense as I am left-wing nonsense. John McCain's name is on the title of McCain-Feingold, but the name that appears where it really counts is that of George Bush. McCain introduced a bill. That bill had input and agreement from a majority of the Congress, and they are every bit as responsible as McCain is. But again, in the end, the sole responsibility lies with Jorge Whatsaveto Bush who signed it - and every other bill that came across his desk save one rather insignificant bone he tossed to conservatives.

And regarding McCain's lack of support of the Bush tax cut, what part of McCain's "Hey, where's the spending cuts" question don't you self-described conservatives understand? Especially because seven years later, your President still hasn't seen an expenditure he didn't like? And why aren't you outraged that Bush now threatens to veto spending when he never did it even once before?

The bottom line is that if John McCain is the nominee, if you don't get behind him at least as much as you did and continue to do for George Bush, McCain isn't the traitor, you are... and you can add "hypocrite' to that.

I know that's tough, but it's about time you heard some straight talk.

Dear Master Lenny,

I'm afraid I've done you a disservice because I have been largely responsible for creating a belief that you and other liberals seem to now have that I'm interested in entertaining your nonsense. So please allow me to correct that misconception right now and spare you any further wasted effort.

I don't want liberals to get the idea that this is like every other place they go... I am not, repeat, NOT willing to read the assorted disjointed ramblings that constitute liberal thought, those streams of consciousness you people think are so profound, none of which has ever solved anything in the history of the world.

So how much less am I not interested in debating them with you? And since you're liberal, I want to to be sure to emphasize that was a rhetorical question.

Now I'd like to be more specific and tailor my answer to your profundity in my Bush in Middle East thread, which is different from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by the way . I was left wondering if your comment was owing to your deep fundamental ignorance of the history of the Jewish State, or whether it was a polite manifestation of anti-Semitism? I suspect it was a little of both and probably more of the latter.

Now before you protest, I want to explain where I'm coming from: it's that the Palestinians have, long ago, forfeited their right to exist, and so they do solely at the mercy of Israel - which is not only considerable, it is absurd, but more on that in a mo.

And lest you think I am also displaying anti-Semitic tendencies, mine are simply a matter of fairness as opposed to the "fairness" you advocated. I mean, would we be "fair" to Mexicans if they bombarded us with rockets on a daily basis? I don't know about you, but I sure hope not. But then I live near the border, and not in some some East Coast ivory tower, much less a trailer park in Fantasyland, not that I'm saying you reside there, and if you do, it was just a lucky guess.

Anyway, I have never found a better approach than the one detailed by Klaatu, now and forever after to be known as The Day The Earth Stood Still Doctrine, or TDTESSD if you'd prefer an easy to remember acronym, and it goes something like this, and feel free to sing along if you know the words, or just join in at the chorus...

Simply stated, it's that if you (the Palestinians in this case) want to fight amongst yourselves, feel free, but, of course, do be "fair." However, if you threaten to export your violence, you face...

What?

Sanctions?

Violence in return?

Do you know, Lenny?

Well wait no longer, it's -obliteration-.

Say it again to make sure you have it...

See, that's been the trouble with every war since '44, we simply don't destroy people into submission. I have long advocated that Israel reduce the number of Palestinians to a more manageable number, say 25, although I'd be open to a somewhat larger figue to avoid inbreeding, like maybe 50, but that's tops!

I think the entire world would quickly come to understand that the idea of them having their own state would be absurd. Then Israel could give them a nice plot of land with an abandoned gas station and a gaming license. They could call it (to pull a term out of thin air) a "reservation," and everyone would be happy. And if they built a hotel, I'm sure you'd be willing to make your own reservation?!?

Unless you think that reservations are prisons too?

And I think you might, because you think that Palestinians are people too, right? And I concede that some probably are, though we'd likely disagree on the ones who were dancing in the street after 9/11.

But this whole problem has gotten as big as it is, I believe, because because Israel's approach has been based on the old Jewish slogan of "An eye for an eye." I'm sure someone as astute as you sees the problem with that because you're smarter than the average Jew, but it's simply that it requires that you be attacked before responding and then you retaliate only to the point of parity.

Even as a young man (and I'm sure you'll realize this too when you get to that point), I realized that to be an effective slogan, it required a slight modification to: "Two eyes for an eye." Now I'd be the first to admit that wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, and it may even increase Palestinian hatred, but they would realize there's a big price to pay for their terrorism, and eventually, that terrorism wouldapproach zero because they'd all be blind!. Then maybe Israel could give them their state, and they could put the boundaries in Braille? Which, if you think about it, isn't that what the fence is now?

So I'd like you to take what I've said in the spirit in which it was given, and if you feel a need to respond, I suggest you give it very careful consideration as I have here, and if you come up with something you think makes sense, don't post it, because it doesn't, and I'm not going to listen to any more of your ideas of "fairness."

Now this:

JERUSALEM - Israel sealed all border crossings with the Gaza Strip on Friday, cutting off the flow of vital supplies to the besieged territory in an attempt to stop Palestinian rocket barrages on Israeli border towns.

The killing stops when the Palestinians stop killing.

Warmest regards,

Ted

As you may know, I've had ambivalent feelings about George Bush for about, oh, 4+ years now, but something happened recently that changed all that. So now, it's no more Mr. Nice Guy for me.

But before I get to the heart of the matter, let's dance around the edges for a bit - you know, like Bush did in Saudi Arabia the other day? I mean, am I the only one who is seeing his trip to the Middle East as surreal?

In Israel, Bush wasn't just clueless, he was profoundly and sanctimoniously clueless.

And I think those two words characterize his whole Presidency - Sanctimoniously Clueless. The only trouble is, if I leave it there, it absolves him - and conservatives of responsibility, 70 to 85 percent of whom apparently think Bush has done at least an OK job. You wonder, do they think that way about Republicans in Congress as well? Because the truth is, there are probably no more than five decent Republicans and Bush sure ain't one of them.

Here's a guy who has spent the last X number of years selling out conservatives and his country, and he's not even content with that, now he's busily selling out Israel. Right now, we stand at the precipice of another Carter-like recession, and do you see Bush doing anything besides dancing with Saudi royalty?

But that's just what he's doing in public. Jeff Jacoby asks today, "Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11?"

What is he referring to? It's the fact that the Bush Doctrine is dead

Its demise was announced by Condoleezza Rice last Friday... aboard Air Force One en route with the president to Kuwait from Israel. She was explaining why the administration had abandoned the most fundamental condition of its support for Palestinian statehood - an end to Palestinian terror (and it) was as striking for its candor as for its moral blindness:

"The 'road map' for peace, conceived in 2002 by Mr. Bush, had become a hindrance to the peace process, because the first requirement was that the Palestinians stop terrorist attacks. As a result, every time there was a terrorist bombing, the peace process fell apart and went back to square one."

"Neither side ever began discussing the 'core issues': the freezing of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the outline of Israel's border, and the future of Jerusalem."

Are you grasping that, you 85 percent of conservatives who think Bush had a successful 2007?

The core issues have nothing to do with killing Jews. Do you think that's just Rice's idea?

And she wasn't done:

"We haven't really been able to move forward on the peace process for a number of years is that we were stuck in the sequentiality of the road map. So you had to do the first phase of the road map before you moved on to the third phase... which was the actual negotiations of final status... What the US-hosted November peace summit in Annapolis did was 'break that tight sequentiality. . . You don't want people to get hung up on settlement activity or the fact that the Palestinians haven't fully been able to deal with the terrorist infrastructure..."

So you need to make a choice: Bush or morality? Unless you think Jeff Jacoby made that up?

Jacoby:

Thus the president who once insisted that a "Palestinian state will never be created by terror" now insists that a Palestinian state be created regardless of terror. Once the Bush administration championed a "road map" whose first and foremost requirement was that the Palestinians "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism" and shut down "all official... incitement against Israel." Now the administration says that Palestinian terrorism and incitement are nothing "to get hung up on."

Maybe conservatives don't want to get hung up on it either? If not, then truly, as Greg Gutfeld says, they're worse than Hitler. For as Jeff Jacoby says, "(Bush) is hellbent... on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists.

There was our leader last week, standing there in his flowing robes of naked absurdity, saying, "I believe there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office,"

There's your bumper sticker for this election year: "A Palestinian State in 2008" - or bust.

Whenever something seems too convenient, I get a little skeptical, and when it involves Bush-haters, I can get downright dismissive...

In that light, the Wall Street Journal reports today that: "the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,' according to an intelligence source."

Israeli intelligence and even the International Atomic Energy Agency are not convinced by the report, but more important, neither am I.

As one Israeli official characterized the report, "Oy vey!."

It's not only better to be safe than sorry in matters of this nature, it's the same situation that resulted in the ouster of Hussein - if they aren't completely open, assume the worst and take appropriate action.

As for the authors, the government is infested with liberals, and there's not a single one that's any good.

"'High confidence' judgment is not a fact or a certainty" states the report summary. "Low confidence generally means that the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable."

That latter part is doubtless intended to apply to the authors and their report.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to see the IAEA's reaction, because if they (and Europe) don't have the old USA leading the charge, it means they have to think and act for themselves - and we're all a little worse off because of it.