Truman Best Expressed Bush's Iraq Vision

Critics of the Bush administration in both parties argue that the president has done a poor job of explaining to the American people what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, why it is necessary, and how much sacrifice might be required to achieve victory and preserve Iraqi democracy. The president and his cabinet members have certainly made plenty of speeches in which these questions are superficially addressed, but it is clear that either through selective media coverage or a national epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder, Americans, particularly the anti-war Democrats, continually fail to grasp what is at stake in Iraq. President Bush is a plain-speaking man, but his speech writers have done him an enormous disservice by shunning Truman-like bluntness for nuanced platitudes that lost their effectiveness immediately after the president’s initial war address to the nation in 2003. This practice has only worsened as the president has sought to explain why America must continue in Iraq and why setting timetables for withdrawal is a dangerous idea. Phrases such as “embolden our enemies” and “fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them here” are true, but one can only use them so many times before repetition renders them rote and predictable.

It’s not as if the White House speech writers were lacking available material from which to draw inspiration or to be used as templates. Unfortunately, they overlooked a speech delivered by the plainest of plain-speaking presidents, Harry Truman to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947. President Truman had received urgent pleading requests from Greece and Turkey for military and economic assistance in the face of Soviet aggression and internal chaos and terrorism. The free governments of both nations faced overthrow by radicals (communists), and Britain, ravaged by World War II, simply lacked sufficient resources to support either nation. Truman came to the realization that if democratically elected governments in Greece and Turkey were to survive, and the peoples of those nations to remain free, America had to come to their rescue, with or without UN assistance. The similarities to the situations in Greece and Turkey and the status of Iraq are remarkably clear. President Bush’s speechwriters should have read Truman’s address to Congress in which he established what became the Truman Doctrine and substituted “Greece” or “Turkey” with “Iraq.” Had they done so, they would have discovered that the best explanation for why we must win in Iraq was offered in 1947 in far more bluntly eloquent language than any set forth by President Bush.

The Truman Doctrine address to Congress requested $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. I invite readers to substitute “Greece,” “Greek,” or “Turkey” with “Iraq” or “Iraqi.” If readers will do this, they will be armed with the most effectively communicated verbal defense of America’s continued engagement in Iraq. Of particular note, you will observe that both Greece and Turkey faced internal terrorism and concerted efforts to discredit and destroy their elected governments. Iraq faces those same perils and has pleaded for our continued support, but no one in 1947 claimed that Greece and Turkey were embroiled in “civil wars” and neither is Iraq today a civil war despite Democratic claims to the contrary. I want to draw out one sentence in case readers do not take the time to read the address; “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." That policy fits precisely what is occurring in Iraq.

And now, by substituting "Iraq" for "Greece" or "Turkey," travel back in time to 1947, when Truman explained, appropriately for this Memorial Day weekend, why we fight:

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:

The gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before a joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are involved.

One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. The United States has received from the Greek government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance. Preliminary reports from the American economic mission now in Greece and reports from the American ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek government that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation.

I do not believe that the American people and the Congress wish to turn a deaf ear to the appeal of the Greek government.

Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace-loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.

When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five percent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings.

As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible.

Greece is today without funds to finance the importation of those goods which are essential to bare subsistence. Under these circumstances the people of Greece cannot make progress in solving their problems of reconstruction. Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel and seeds. These are indispensable for the subsistence of its people and are obtainable only from abroad. Greece must have help to import the goods necessary to restore internal order and security, so essential for economic and political recovery.

The Greek government has also asked for the assistance of experienced American administrators, economists and technicians to insure that the financial and other aid given to Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy and in improving its public administration.

The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A commission appointed by the United Nations Security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia on the other.

Meanwhile, the Greek government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy.
The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid, but these are inadequate.

There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn.

No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek government.

The British government, which has been helping Greece, can give no further financial or economic aid after March 31. Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.

We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis. But the situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.

It is important to note that the Greek government has asked for our aid in utilizing effectively the financial and other assistance we may give to Greece, and in improving its public administration. It is of the utmost importance that we supervise the use of any funds made available to Greece; in such a manner that each dollar spent will count toward making Greece self-supporting, and will help to build an economy in which a healthy democracy can flourish.

No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. The government of Greece is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents 85 percent of the members of the Greek Parliament who were chosen in an election last year. Foreign observers, including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the Greek people.

The Greek government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States condones everything that the Greek government has done or will do. We have condemned in the past, and we condemn now, extremist measures of the right or the left. We have in the past advised tolerance, and we advise tolerance now.

Greece's neighbor, Turkey, also deserves our attention.

The future of Turkey as an independent and economically sound state is clearly no less important to the freedom-loving peoples of the world than the future of Greece. The circumstances in which Turkey finds itself today are considerably different from those of Greece. Turkey has been spared the disasters that have beset Greece. And during the war, the United States and Great Britain furnished Turkey with material aid.

Nevertheless, Turkey now needs our support.

Since the war Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of effecting that modernization necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.

That integrity is essential to the preservation of order in the Middle East.

The British government has informed us that, owing to its own difficulties, it can no longer extend financial or economic aid to Turkey.

As in the case of Greece, if Turkey is to have the assistance it needs, the United States must supply it. We are the only country able to provide that help.

I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time.

One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion. This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, upon other nations.

To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations. The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had totalitarian regimes forced upon them against their will. The government of the United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other countries there have been similar developments.

At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.

One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections and the suppression of personal freedoms.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.

Moreover, the disappearance of Greece as an independent state would have a profound effect upon those countries in Europe whose peoples are struggling against great difficulties to maintain their freedoms and their independence while they repair the damages of war.

It would be an unspeakable tragedy if these countries, which have struggled so long against overwhelming odds, should lose that victory for which they sacrificed so much. Collapse of free institutions and loss of independence would be disastrous not only for them but for the world. Discouragement and possibly failure would quickly be the lot of neighboring peoples striving to maintain their freedom and independence.

Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.

We must take immediate and resolute action.

I therefore ask the Congress to provide authority for assistance to Greece and Turkey in the amount of $400 million for the period ending June 30, 1948. In requesting these funds, I have taken into consideration the maximum amount of relief assistance which would be furnished to Greece out of the $350 million which I recently requested that the Congress authorize for the prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war.

In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such financial and material assistance as may be furnished. I recommend that authority also be provided for the instruction and training of selected Greek and Turkish personnel.

Finally, I ask that the Congress provide authority which will permit the speediest and most effective use, in terms of needed commodities, supplies and equipment, of such funds as may be authorized.

If further funds, or further authority, should be needed for purposes indicated in this message, I shall not hesitate to bring the situation before the Congress. On this subject the executive and legislative branches of the government must work together.

This is a serious course upon which we embark.

I would not recommend it except that the alternative is much more serious. The United States contributed $341 billion toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world freedom and world peace.

The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than 1 tenth of 1 percent of this investment. It is only common sense that we should safeguard this investment and make sure that it was not in vain.

The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.

If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.

Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.

I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.

The Republican Congress in 1947 united with Democrat Truman and approved the strategy and its accompanying funding, and the course of history for Greece and Turkey remained one of freedom and self-determination. Our current Congress has the same responsibility and opportunity with Iraq. Will they rise to the occasion? Their behavior since the November 2006 elections inspires little confidence.

Gore's Denials Are Evidence He Will Run

Al Gore will officially become a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination. He just hasn’t admitted it to himself yet. Although he attempts to deny to the media that he intends to run, his denials themselves actually provide the best evidence that he will in fact seek the presidency again.

Experienced interviewers/interrogators will recognize certain patterns in Gore’s responses to questions about his potential candidacy, patterns consistent with attempts to deceive himself and the interviewer. There are noticeable similarities between Al Gore’s denials of presidential ambition and standard denials of involvement by criminals undergoing law enforcement or intelligence interrogation.

For example, many murderers, when asked during interrogations if they killed the victims, offer the following responses: “I could never do something like that” or “I loved her, how could I hurt her?” While these responses give an outward impression of denial, when examined closely they actually contain no denial of guilt and reveal an avoidance of the actual question. Such answers also demonstrate the inability of the suspect to admit to himself that not only was he capable of murder, but he actually went through with it when the opportunity presented itself. In the minds of many who have murdered or committed violent crimes, there remains the faint hope that what happened did not really happen and that they must be innocent because they have no explanation how they could be involved in something so grave. They literally attempt to convince themselves with internal arguments such as, “that couldn’t have been me, I’m not that kind of person, I would never do that.” Yet these are merely conscious deflections from the unconscious knowledge of what they have done. The conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true, and the conflict is expressed in the attempted denial that contains a belief about them rather than an admission of what actually occurred.

Now, Al Gore is not a murderer or criminal (although there was that pesky issue of selling military and nuclear technology to China), but his responses when asked if he will enter the presidential campaign contain most elements of deception and denial commonly encountered by law enforcement and intelligence interrogators. In a mere two sentences, Al Gore's words confirmed for me that he fully intends to run but refuses to admit to himself or the media that he cravenly harbors that ambition. In an interview with ABC News this week, Gore was asked the question everyone wants answered: will he run for president in 2008? Gore’s response follows:

Gore underscored in the interview that he is "not a candidate," and that he is "not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics. I'm really not."

But he does leave some wiggle room for the possibility of running in 2008. "Look, we're a year and half away from this election," he said, "[I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'”

As the ABC headline provided by Gore proclaimed, “I Am Not a Candidate.” That was Gore’s initial response when asked if he was running in 2008. While this gives the impression of a denial, it is not a denial but is instead a deflection. In this response Gore is stating a truth: he is currently not a declared candidate. This does not answer the question as to whether he intends to become a candidate. By answering in this fashion, Gore clearly wants to give the impression that he does not intend to seek the presidency but his conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true: he has already made plans to run.

Gore’s expanded response is even more revealing. He claimed that he is not actively looking for exactly the right circumstances that would force his run for the presidency, such as adulation and begging from his party. He even reinforced this claim by adding “I’m really not.” This statement also bears some resemblance to a denial, but it is not a denial. It demonstrated that Gore cannot consciously admit to himself that he would hungrily seek the presidency if the door appeared open to him. He may not be looking for the open door, but he will walk through it when he comes to it on his own or his party beckons him toward it. “I’m really not” simply means “I really am, but admitting that would mean I am ambitious and power hungry, and I cannot admit that to myself or the media yet. Not until the door is open.”

He has made similar comments in the media. To Time Magazine, Gore stated:

…that he "has fallen out of love with politics" and that he was unlikely to run.

"I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen," Gore told Time, explaining that he considered the role he was now playing as a global spokesman for awareness on climate change to be an important one.

"If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis. And I'm not convinced the presidency is the highest and best role I could play," he said in the cover story for the Time issue dated May 28.

Gore, who has repeatedly referred to himself as a recovering politician, warned however: "You always have to worry about a relapse."

The problem with falling out of love with politics, or anything else, is that falling back in love is common and unpredictable. In fact, the phrase “fall in love” is entirely inaccurate. Love is developed over time, through experience, trial, and sacrifice. One can become temporarily infatuated, but that is not love. Gore’s lifelong pursuit of political achievement and high office was akin to love, while his obsession with global warming and propaganda movie making is an extended infatuation dedicated to one convenient truth (sorry Al): keeping Gore politically viable while he licked his 2000 election wounds in preparation for 2008. His statement about falling out of love, while giving an impression of denial, was not a denial. If shown sufficient adulation by his party and his pet cause, Gore’s love of politics would quickly rekindle to its normal flame of obsession. Likewise, he claimed that he was not convinced that the presidency was the best role for promoting his global warming hysteria. He did not state, “I can never be convinced,” thus if the right people whispered the right things about global warming and the “bully pulpit” in his ear, he would surely find that convincing enough to jump into the ring while claiming he was issued a call to duty rather than fulfilling the lifelong ambition he publicly conceals.

Al Gore loves politics more than Priuses, campaigning more than carbon offsets, and the White House more than greenhouse gas reduction. If you believe Al Gore would rather be the world’s global warming guru than the President of the United States, you do not know Al Gore.

ABC Warns Iran of US Covert Actions

If Harry Reid had referred to the War on Terror rather than the Iraq War when he stated “this war is lost,” perhaps he would have been closer to the truth. America faces the world’s premier terror sponsor, Iran, rapidly advancing toward nuclear capability, but neither the American government nor the American media have the collective will or discipline to win any war, let alone a war against terrorism.

The New York Times previously revealed the existence of the NSA domestic surveillance program that monitors communication between persons residing in America and known terrorists in foreign nations. That revelation resulted in terrorist groups altering their communication protocols, making it more difficult for American intelligence agencies to identify terrorists living in the United States and thwart potential attacks on the homeland. Now ABC and “anonymous government sources” are placing the entire world at risk by exposing a covert American intelligence program designed to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons without the U.S. resorting to military action. Keeping nuclear weapons out of Ahmadinejad’s hands; that should be something all Americans want, right? Apparently the “A” in ABC does not stand for American, as its decision to publish this story was anything but patriotic.

The ABC Blotter report posted last night exceeded the New York Times piece on NSA Domestic Surveillance in its audacity, poor timing, and potential consequences for global security. It is quite clear from the Blotter report that ABC has no sense of self-preservation, and is far more concerned about breaking an exclusive story than it is about Iran’s mullahs holding the threat of nuclear bombs over Israel and America. It is impossible to overstate this fact: If we are hold Congressional hearings about firing U.S. Attorneys and leaking names of “covert” CIA employees who were never covert (Valerie Plame), then heads should roll and charges filed over the “sensitive” (i.e. Top Secret/SCI) information revealed to and reported by ABC. Here are the salient points from the Blotter article:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region...

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community...

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq...

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran...

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program...

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders...

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams...

What did Iran learn from this ABC report? First, the general existence of the covert program and its intended goals; second, the U.S. has temporarily chosen to avoid military confrontation with Iran, which will surely lead to Iran further expediting its uranium enrichment efforts without immediate fear of military strikes; and third, the CIA is targeting Iranian monetary accounts which funnel funds to Iran’s nuclear program, which will surely lead to Iran altering the funding process and better disguising these accounts, much like al Qaeda altered its communications after the New York Times revealed the Domestic Surveillance program.

Each of these pieces of information was classified and revealing any of them is a criminal act. The Blotter report also contains important information about who knew about the program and its approval by the White House. This should help prosecutors, if Congress is interested even minimally in protecting national security, to compile a short list of suspects. Bruce Riedel, although hiding behind the moniker “retired CIA senior official” is not immune. Although many reporters speculate about steps America could take to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment, Riedel’s disclosure of the CIA strategy to target specific secret accounts used by Iran to fund its nuclear program was based on his personal knowledge of classified discussions and documents, and under federal law he was not authorized to disclose that information until official declassification, typically 25 years later. He should not have spoken to ABC until the year 2032 and should be prosecuted and professionally shunned for his participation in making it easier for Iran to build nuclear bombs and keep the mullahs in power. If he ever writes a book about his years in the CIA, boycott it.

In Intelligence, military, and law enforcement, the key to victory is “operational security” (OPSEC). It is universally understood that once the public knows about an operation, its effectiveness is virtually neutralized. For an illustration of effective OPSEC, we need look no further than the 9/11 al Qaeda cells. There were no sources within Bin Laden’s “government” who spoke to the media on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the plot information. There were no revelations to the media about methods al Qaeda was training to implement in hijacking operations. There was no advance warning, and in fact their OPSEC kept the cells from even knowing each other’s identities, locations, or itineraries so that if one cell were identified by the FBI, it would have no capacity to reveal anything about the other cells. If they, being evil, can be so good at OPSEC, why is it that we, being good, are so bad at OPSEC? There can be no covert “black” operations when they are exposed to media light before they can develop.

“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say…” should be the opening argument in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the sources and ABC officials who received classified information and published it. These sources should not be "saying" anything, and they know it. It also clearly illustrates why we will lose the War on Terror. President Bush, who is constantly accused of warmongering by the liberal left, has obviously worked along with the intelligence community to do everything possible short of military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs in defiance of international law. Yet even the non-military approach was leaked to willing accomplice ABC by leftover (or passed over) Clinton/Tenet liberals in the CIA and other agencies in an effort to undermine this administration even if doing so results in a nuclear Iran. America cannot win a War on Terror when half of the nation hates its president more than it hates terrorists. They would rather impeach or embarrass Bush than disarm Iran. They would rather see a liberal win the 2008 election than see the world’s democracies win the War on Terror.

France Doing Job Americans Won't Do

I never thought it would come to this. The more I observe America’s political state, I find myself wishing that our president and Congress were, well, more French. I do not refer to their culinary tastes or mandatory maximum 35 hour work week (that would require Congress to put in many more hours than they currently do!). Perhaps it would be more accurate to write that I wish our leaders had the courage of the newly elected and unapologetic pro-American French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. While President Bush and political opportunists in the House and Senate, such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy, attempt to sneak amnesty past the American people while insisting it is not amnesty, the French are taking steps to do what the vast majority of its citizens have demanded: Not granting legalization (amnesty) to France’s illegal immigrants and continuing to deport them at an increasing rate.

When did the French develop more backbone than Americans? Why is France becoming increasingly aware of the need to enforce its existing laws and adopting stronger new ones at the very time America’s elected officials are insisting that a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) should be provided to illegal immigrants? Is it possible that France, faced with the largest Muslim population of any European nation, realized that its very survival might depend on securing its borders and developing intelligence regarding who resides in France and why they are there? President Bush and vote pandering members of both parties claim enforcement and deportation are not realistic, yet France is stepping up its efforts to do both.

One of President Sarkozy’s first post-election moves was to establish a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which is charged with enforcing immigration laws and deporting violators. At Sarkozy’s urging, the new ministry is also concerned with helping legal immigrants better assimilate into French society, culture, and education. Sarkozy insists that immigrants learn the French language and that once legal citizenship is extended and family members from the native country seek to join the new French citizen, those family members must demonstrate French language proficiency as well. While the French require immigrants to speak the national language and integrate better with their new country, America cannot even agree that English is the national language, thus integration or assimilation are optional for immigrants, regardless of legal status.

It is a dangerous situation when law enforcement or other first responders cannot communicate with citizens in entire sections of American cities because learning English is not required for driving, shopping, obtaining government services, or citizenship. France is moving to correct this; America is afraid of offending immigrants by imposing American civilization upon them.

The Senate immigration bill put forward by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Kyl, and others late last week and praised by the president, is rightfully under assault as amnesty by another name. 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney spoke out forcefully against the bill, and was joined later by 2008 GOP expected candidate Fred Thompson in that assessment. The 2008 DNC candidates are avoiding this issue like the plague, as they cannot pander to Latino voters and appear tough on homeland security simultaneously. Romney and Thompson appear to grasp that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty or any policy that offers anything similar to it. Over time, Americans will embrace candidates who, like Sarkozy, recognize that the existence of national culture and identity are threatened by illegal immigration and legal immigration without integration.

Sarkozy’s election victory sparked rioting in French suburbs populated in large part by Muslim immigrants living on government subsidies who feared Sarkozy would follow through with his promises to slash welfare programs and make immigrants work to support themselves. When French voters see this unrest, it only assures that they will continue to ask pertinent questions of their political leaders: Where did these immigrants come from? Are they here in France legally? Why aren’t they trying to become French? Sarkozy offered the desired though controversial answers and the French elevated him to the presidency to restore order and preserve France from a perceived invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal.

Jokes about French retreat are becoming stale and do not apply to Sarkozy’s France, while America’s government is replacing France as a punch line. It is the American government that wants to retreat from Iraq, retreat from confronting near-nuclear Iran, retreat from securing its borders, retreat from establishing English as the national language, and retreat from enforcing existing deportation laws. In coming years, the French may boycott American cheese, American Airlines, and all things American because America, particularly through its elected officials, increasingly symbolizes cowardice.

Carter's Lie Not "Misinterpreted"

For a man touted as a devoutly Christian, bible-thumping do-gooder who happened to serve a term as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter lies with astonishing ease when confronted by the media. His comments over the weekend about the current Bush administration were very clear:

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

I have attended church services and “bible lessons” my entire life, but I cannot recall anything in the Bible about comparisons of foreign policy among U.S. administrations. Former President Carter’s comments drew immediate criticism from the White House, with Spokesman Tony Fratto firing back at Carter by labeling him as “increasingly irrelevant” because of such remarks. The GOP, anchored by its conservative Christian base, took issue with the platform Carter used to level attacks at President Bush:

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Rather than apologize for his remarks or stand by them with dogged determination, Carter chose to do what far too many public figures do when they find themselves in a political firestorm: lie. Carter appeared on the Today Show this morning and when asked about his statement that the Bush administration was the worst in history, Carter responded with the following whopper:

"They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

When pressed by NBC’s Meredith Vieira as to whether he was saying his remarks were careless or reckless, the former president said, “I think they were, yes, because they were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations."

Carter said he was answering a question about the foreign policy of former President Richard Nixon, as compared with that of the current administration. He said he wasn't comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history. But in comparison to Nixon's, the Bush administration's foreign policy "was much worse," Carter said.

Why is it that whenever a political figure is recorded saying something that causes uproar, the knee-jerk response is to say they were misinterpreted, or in this case, taken out of context? If Carter was truly responding only to a question asking him to compare the foreign policies of the Nixon and Bush administrations, why did he not answer that he believed the Bush administration to be worse than Nixon’s? Instead, he used hyperbole and extended his evaluation of the Bush administration to include a comparison with all administrations in U.S. history.

It is impossible to misinterpret or take out of context a statement such as “this administration has been the worst in history.” It is an inherently universal comparative remark that does not limit itself to any narrow contextual limitations. For a Nobel Peace Prize winner to blatantly lie about the intent of his remarks is shameful. It would have been far better for him to stand behind his remarks, as historically ignorant as they were, rather than lie about his intent when faced with criticism. But then, if Carter were courageous and capable of standing up for himself, Americans might not have been held hostage in Tehran for 444 days.

When it comes to casting stones labeled “worst foreign policy administration in history,” Carter should beware the glass house of history in which he dwells. Carter was not misinterpreted or taken out of context. He was simply caught lying about political history while he was supposed to be promoting his "bible lessons" audiobook series. Better dust off commandment #9, Mr. Carter.