The Right State

For years Democrats have been critical of President Bush’s North Korean policy. As early as 2003 Dems like Carl Levin and John Edwards have called on the President to meet face to face with his North Korean counterpart. The goal: to push negotiations in an attempt to end the Stalinist country’s nuclear program.

The issue of President Bush not meeting with Kim Jong Il in face to face meetings became one of the signature issues in the 2004 Presidential election against John Kerry.

The issue gained more momentum as a group including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Perry chimed in by claiming Asia was heading towards a nuclear arms race if the Bush administration did not immediately meet with leaders in Pyongyang. Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader at the time, claimed the situation with North Korea had reached a crisis while President Bush did nothing.

In 2006 before the Congressional midterm elections Democrats took another opportunity to criticize George Bush’s North Korea policy after that country’s successful nuclear weapons test. John Kerry still smarting from his resounding defeat in the 2004 Presidential Election took another opportunity to attack the President.

“While we’ve been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.”

Kerry is absolutely delusional. US forces have performed a masterful job in Iraq with no help from the Democrats. Lets not forget the Dems have yet to apologize to President Bush or the troops for their inappropriate statements. Bush was right; we should have gone into Iraq where we are almost done. And who can forget how the Dems demonized the troops by calling them terrorists, murderers, dumb, lazy, etc.

Just as the Democrats have suddenly forgot about the successes in Iraq, they will forget about their statements against George Bush’s stance on North Korea. In the last few days North Korea has submitted declarations as to their nuclear weapons development and have blown up a cooling tower on its Yongbyon reactor. Both actions are to show the world North Korea’s commitment to nuclear disarmament,

So where are the Democrats? Where are their apologies? Obviously President Bush’s policy towards North Korea and the Six-party talks worked. They definitely worked better than Bill Clinton’s carrots with no verification debacle. His program was an abysmal failure as millions of dollars of energy assistance went to North Korea while they continued their nuclear program. The policy George Bush advocated and is still advocating will have verification procedures in place. As the Stalinist regime moves further and further from its nuclear program, they will receive more and more assistance from the United States.

Again, where are the Democrats? They are in denial. George Bush won again! This just shows the Democrats can not be trusted with this nation’s security.

Tags: Democrats, Nuclear Weapons, President Bush by Chuck
No Comments »

President Bush has given his last State of the Union speech before Congress.  This was not a particularly strong speech on areas like

President Bush wants to make the tax relief passed in 2001 permanent.  Unsurprisingly, the Dems sat on their hands.

President Bush said he veto any spending bill which included any more than half the earmarks passed last year.  He also stated that he would order his government through an Exectutive Order not to spend money on those earmarks added in committee and after the vote had already been taken in Congress.  Interestingly the Dems sat on their hands and they did not even offer an applause at this innovative plan.  Makes you wonder how serious the Democrats were when they came into Washington with the promise of ending the practice of earmarks—a promise they have not only failed to keep, but they plainly broke it by passing even more earmarks. 

An interesting objective of the President is to expand Pell Grants to help school kids leave failing schools.  It might just work.  Dems once again just sat on their hands.

Another interesting objective of President Bush is reworking Social Security.  In the past he has tried repeatedly to reform this failing entitlement program with little success because Democrats have continually blocked all his efforts.  During last year’s State of the Union Address, the Democrats obscenely stood and cheered their own success in blocking Bush’s efforts to fix Social Security.  So this year President Bush wants Congress to offer their own ideas on how to fix Social Security.  I wonder what the Dems will offer other than higher taxes.

There is one bit of political theatre which bore a striking contrast to that of the President—that is the behavior of the Democrats who tried (unsuccessfully) to walk a fine line between supporting the troops, but not their mission.  They say they support the US, but not liberty.  They say they support the sacrifice of our troops, but they do not want to give them what they need to win.  Time after time the Dems cheered the troops, but sat on their hands when President Bush talked about freedom, democracy, liberty, victory in Iraq, defeating al-Queda.  The Dems sat on their hands when the President talked about giving the troops what they need to win, the need to keep the terrorists on the run, telling Iran to stop funding the terrorists, and renewing the Terrorist Surveillance Acts.  I do not know how the Democrats can possibly believe there is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting their mission.  The two are irrevocably linked.  The Dems showed their asses and their lack of commitment to the troops. 

An interesting sideline to all of this political theatre is Hillary Clinton.  She looked absolutely bored.  When the cameras showed her standing, clapping, or just sitting there; Hillary looked like she wanted to be somewhere else.

The Democrat response to the President’s speech by the Governor of Kansas showed a severe disconnect with reality.  She seemed to insinuate that most Americans are too stupid to understand if it matters whether both Dems and Republicans stood when the President made an important point.  Let me make this perfectly clear–Governor, it matters and it matters a lot.  She then mentioned all of the Democrat talking points: minimum wage, global warming, and bringing the troops home.  She seemed to propose a global group hug to solve all of our problems with other nations and that big government is the answer to everything.  One really weird thing she said was that the greatest generation is the one to come, which will only come to some with the practice of abortion.  There were also veiled hints on raising taxes.  In spite of saying this was not going to be a Republican verses Democrat speech, it was just that—at very partisan speech.

All in all, it was a very good speech by George W. Bush.  Now all we need is for the Democrats to cooperate.  (Hey, quit laughing, it could happen)

Tags: Democrats, President Bush by Chuck
No Comments »

Susan Estrich has really lost it.  Either that or she is really believes the American people are stupid.  Like we will not see the difference between telling the press a lie and telling a grand jury a lie.  Look how she tries to equate the two.  Compare the first part in which the President Bush said about Donald Rumsfeld:

Since when is it OK for a president to lie to reporters?

Wasn’t it just last week that the president told reporters that both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were staying on their jobs for the next two years?

To what President Clinton said about Monica Lewinsky:

I recall another president who mislead people about his sex life, and my conservative friends went ballistic.

Is it somehow worse to lie about your sex life than about who is going to be defense secretary? Or are we all just so used to presidents lying to us that we accept it without blinking?

Huh?  Somehow and for some reason, lying to a federal grand jury is against the law Mrs. Estrich.  Imagine that.  And I thought you had a law degree?

But that is not what takes the cake in her article on FoxNews.com.

Corruption was the second reason, after the Iraq war, for the Republicans’ loss. But corruption doesn’t just mean taking money or coming on to young boys. It means not having any credibility because you don’t tell the truth. About things that matter. It means losing the confidence of the people who elected you. Which the Republicans have done.

Corruption?  Do the names Democratic Congressman William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson, Senate Minority Leader Harry ‘Free Boxing’ Reid, Ted (one for the road) Kennedy, Maxine ‘family saving plan’ Waters, Patrick (another one for the road) Kennedy, and Cynthia (radical racist) McKinney come to mind.  These are corrupt politicians who have gotten away with so much because they were Democrats.  The Republican Party does not have a lock on corruption, there is plenty in the Democratic Party as well.

Equating what George Bush said about Rumsfeld to reporters and what Bill Clinton said to a grand jury is extremely misleading.  Telling a misleading fact is the same as lying.  Such a comment should hurt Mrs. Estrich’s credibility (if she had any).

If the president couldn’t get his agenda through when his own party controlled the House and the Senate, does anyone honestly expect that he will accomplish more with both houses narrowly in the control of the other party, while the president is the lamest of ducks, his popularity in the toilet, not to mention the fact that every other senator (and even the occasional House member) is now running for president?

Another extremely misleading fact.  The President could not pass any meaningful legislation because of Democratic filibusters.  The Democrats have been obstructionists ever since the President won in 2000.  And now Mrs. Estrich will try to pin the lack of action on the President.  Open your eyes, Susan.

Remember ANWR, Susan?   Your total lack of objectivity and reason has made your credibility very suspect.  In fact, I would even go as far as to say you lied.  Credibility is one thing the Democrats do NOT have.

Tags: Corruption, President Bush by Chuck
No Comments »

According to Fox News, Robert Gates, currently the President of Texas A&M University, has been tapped by President Bush to replace Donald Rumsfeld as the new Secretary of Defense.  Obviously the President has decided to replace Rumsfeld in the aftermath of the 2006 elections when the Republicans lost the House and possibly the Senate.  This is either too little too late or an effort by the President to stave off hearings in Congress about the conduct of the war.  Most likely the later.  In the run up to the elections, the Democrats have continually called for Rumsfeld’s head and hearings as to what Bush knew about WMDs in Iraq.  Even calls for impeachment has been openly discussed.

This appears to be a President who is running scared.  He is caving into the demands of Democrats before the new Speaker even takes office.  He has already acknowledged that he will have to give in to the Democrats on multiple areas including spending and securing the border.

This much is certain, George Bush is no Ronald Reagan.  President Bush needs to grow a backbone.  Giving in to the Democrats will not work.  Bush should remember what happened to his father, George H.W. Bush, when he sought to give in to the Democratic demands to raise taxes.  Look what happened to him.  After pledging to ‘read my lips, no new taxes’  the elder Bush was lampooned by the Democratic Party for his failure to keep his promise.  His ‘read my lips’ became a huge joke for the other party.  All this when he expected the Dems to acknowledge his courage for raising taxes.  Bush’s pledge was then used against him successfully in the 1992 election by Bill Clinton.

This is a part of history the current President should remember.  Politics is war.  The other side will not acknowledge any compromise as heroic.  Their motto of ‘no good deed will go unpunished’ is the norm.  They see any kind of compromise as a weakness and they will go for blood.

It is only a matter of time before the Dems go after and attack Robert Gates.  After all, he just came from that ultra conservative campus of Texas A&M University.  And all the liberals know nothing progressive comes out of A&M.

The blootletting has just started, especially if President Bush is already caving in to the Democrats demands.

Tags: President Bush, Texas Aggies, Texas by Chuck
No Comments »

President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 today which authorizes the building of over 700 miles of fence between the United States and Mexico.  In his signing speech the President once again discussed the need to do something about the 12 million illegal aliens already living in this country.  Only this time instead of asking for a bill that is tantamount to amnesty, he says he is willing to work with Congress that focuses on some obscure middle ground between deporting 12 million illegals and giving them a free pass. It sounds very much like Bush is obfuscating.  This country either accepts the illegals or doesn’t.  They are sent back home or they are welcomed.  I am just not sure where the middle ground is on this issue, but at least he has dropped his demand for a comprehensive immigration bill.  The House Republicans rightfully blocked all attempts at giving amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens.

The MSM view the President’s signing of this bill as another political stunt by Republicans.

President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they’re tough on illegal immigration.

“Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise,” Bush said at a signing ceremony.

“We have a responsibility to enforce our laws,” he said. “We have a responsibility to secure our borders. We take this responsibility serious.”

He called the fence bill “an important step in our nation’s efforts to secure our borders.”

The centerpiece of Bush’s immigration policy, a guest worker program, remains stalled in Congress.

And a handful of House Republican are at the brakes, blocking negotiations with the Senate for a bill that includes the president’s proposal. (emphasis by TRS)

The AP in telling this story ignores years and years of illegal immigration into the United States by millions from Mexico.  The South has been begging for help for years.  The issue of illegal immigration has been a pressing issue of the South for many years.  President Bush has talked about a comprehensive immigration bill for years.  This is not an election year ploy by the Republicans to ensure the House and Senate remains in conservative hands.  The border will continue to be a problem until illegal immigration is halted or at least greatly curtailed.

When President Bush proposed his bill, the Senate led by Democrats and several liberal Republicans, passed the President’s bill.  The House led by a majority of the Republicans defeated the bill insisting on one step at a time approach wanting to focus on border security first and rightfully so.  The 1986 amnesty plan during the Reagan administration was supposed to be comprehensive.  The only problem is the plan stopped at amnesty.  Knowing this history, Republicans in the house insisted on securing the border and then work on other issues.

As far as a being a political issue, border security is a platform of the Republicans and not the Democrats.  The Republicans want to secure our borders and allow legal immigration.  The Democrats want open borders seeing potential votes and want to ignore the law which makes illegal immigration a crime.  But if the Republicans want to use this issue for political gain, more power to them.  Most Democrats do not want to secure the border and that is a political issue.

Tags: Democrats, President Bush, Immigration, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

Thomas Friedman writing a op-ed in the New York Times compared the current war in Iraq to the Tet Offensive. For the record I think he is right. All the parallels are there. The only problem is that so many people do not understand the Tet Offensive. This is a battle the US did not lose.

The Tet offensive was launched by the North Vietnanese Army (NVA) in 1968 in an attempt to catch the US and the South Vietnamese off-guard. Instead of a glorious victory as they had hoped, the NVA lost and lost big-time. The MSM, led by Walter Cronkite, saw the ferocity of the attacks and declared that the war was not winnable. In published memoirs by NVA generals, North Vietnam were ready to capitulate and sue for peace. The NVA stuck with the war only because of the American media who had already given up. Wikipedia says this about tet:

The Tết Offensive can be considered a crushing military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved any of their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war.[1] President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968. The Tết Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives.

Lets jump ahead thirty-eight years to 2006. The US launched a war into Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction and remove a dictator who defied UN resolutions and supported terrorists around the world. After removing Saddam Hussein from power, terrorists have poured into Iraq from neighboring countries to bolster the faltering insurgent attacks. As suicide attacks have killed both soldiers and civilians alike, the MSM have taken this occasion to switch sides and support those who are killing our soldiers. The media have declared this war all but winnable. There is no way for the terrorists or ‘insurgents’ to beat the United States military. The terrorists are losing and losing big-time, but the MSM in a move that can only be described as traitorous is supporting enemies of the United States. The American public led on by the treacherous media has been slowly turning against this war.

There is no doubt the war is polarizing the country. Most Americans either support the war, or they are against it. Very few are ambivalent. As such the President is losing support. He is given little credit for trying to beat back the terrorists and defend the United States of America from further terrorist attacks.

In an interview on ABC, President Bush said Friedman was right, but only as far as how the terrorists are trying to influence an election. Of course I would also add the parallel also extends to how the MSM is treating the war.

U.S. President George W. Bush says he sees a possible parallel in the increase in violence in Iraq and the 1968 Tet offensive that prompted Americans to lose support for the Vietnam War.

But the White House on Thursday said the president had not been making the analogy that Iraq had reached a similar turning point. Instead, he was saying that insurgents were possibly increasing violence to try to influence coming U.S. elections. (snip)

“Look, here’s how I view it,” Bush said. “First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence.

“They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw,” he said.

President Bush is absolutely correct. There are three distinct parallels between the Vietnam War and this War in Iraq: the reporting by the MSM and the efforts our enemies to influence an election.

The third parallel are the actions of the cut-and-run crowd. In the liberal blogosphere there is a chorus of voices actually hoping the US loses in Iraq. They have even found their very own Ho Chi Minh in the person of Osama bin Laden. The only thing not found in the news is another Jane Fonda posing with al-Qaeda members as they shoot at our soldiers.

For some reason the MSM are portraying George Bush’s comments as saying the US can not win in Iraq, which is not what he said. He was discussing the actions of the foreign terrorists in Iraq. Bush should have included the treacherous actions of the MSM in both this war and the Vietnam War in his discussion on ABC.

There certainly are parallels between the Vietnam War and this War in Iraq. But most noteworthy are the actions by the msm and liberals which constitute a fifth column in both wars. Forgotten in this discussion of the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in general is the fact that we must win this war to be safe from terrorist attacks. It would really be nice if the MSM could finally chose the right side and support both the United States and our troops as they combat terrorists.

Tags: TV, President Bush, Bias by Chuck
No Comments »

While the nations of the world have condemned the ‘nuclear’ test by the North Koreans, Kim Jong Il acts as if the United States is the only country to have a problem with it.  And now he is threatening war against the United States if the Bush administration continues to provoke his country.

“If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures,” the North’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. The North didn’t specify what the measures would be.

“We were compelled to prove that we have nuclear weapons to prevent the increasing threat of war by the U.S. and protect our sovereignty and survival,” the North said, criticizing an alleged nuclear threat from Washington and sanctions. “We are ready for both dialogue and confrontation.”

What Kim Jong Il seems to be trying to do is to make the failure of diplomacy the fault of the United States.  He is trying to capitalize on some of the anti-American sentiment in the world with the hope that some other countries support him in his struggle.

At the same time the North Korean dictator is fanning the flames of discontent against President Bush in the US.  The liberals led by moonbats in Congress are using the nuclear test to re-write history and to bash the President for Clinton’s failures.  The Democrats fail to mention how Bill Clinton’s appeasement of Kim Jong Il did nothing but to encourage further recalcitrance on the part of North Korea.

One of those who are trying to rewrite history is former President Jimmy Carter who in an op-ed for the New York Times places the fault of the nuke test not on this crazed dictator, but squarely upon the shoulders of George W. Bush.  He starts out his piece by patting himself on the back while discussing his role in appeasing North Korea in 1994.  Carter goes straight from there to the paragraphs below without any mention that Kim Jong Il violated the agreement.  There is no mention that the agreement left the North Korean government holding all the cards with no verification measures.  It makes no mention that military action was discussed by the Clinton White House.  I just wish Carter was just half as good of a negotiator as he thinks he is.

But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime.

Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices.

The next thing we will hear from Jimmy Carter is that he was personally responsible for the release of the Iranian hostages after their 444 days of captivity.  And then we will hear of the resurgent economy during the latter half of the 1970s.  And then we will hear how popular his administration was.  He had a failed presidency and most of his negotiations have been failures as well.  Carter can rewrite history only so far.  Bill Clinton’s North Korean policy was a failure of gargantuan proportions.

Which brings us back to Kim Jong Il’s threats against the US.  It was Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter who have emboldened the North Korean dictator.  And why not, they gave him what he wanted without any consequences for breaking the agreement.  And now that President Bush is playing hardball, Kim starts to act like a spoiled brat and threatens to attack.  I say, Let him attack.  It will be one more Stalinist style dictator gone for good.

Some are suggesting that this may be the start of another Cold War which it is not.  The Cold War was between two super powers who did not want to test each others’ strength directly.  North Korea is like the ‘mouse that roared.’  It is a third world country led by a two-bit tyrant.  By threatening the US, Kim Jong Il is continuing his old mantra of threaten, withdrawn, come back to the negotiating table, gain concessions, and then start the process once again.  At the same time the tyrant is also hoping to gain some support from those who want the US brought down a few notches.  But I think this time he has gone too far.  By conducting nuclear tests and threatening his neighbors and the world, Kim Jong Il is further isolating North Korea.  Soon he will not have any friends.  I would expect the collapse of his communist regime soon afterwards.  And it will be about time.  For that we wil be able to thank George W. Bush, not the Clinton administration or Jimmy Carter.

Tags: Nuclear Weapons, President Bush by Chuck
No Comments »

While on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Bill Clinton flatly stated that the Bush administration did nothing for eight months before the 9/11 attacks.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has come out forcefully and angrily against charges made by the former President.

“The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that,” Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton’s claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration’s first response to Clinton’s headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

Rice pointed out that the administration did all it could to defend the country against terrorist attacks citing the 9/11 Commission Report as a reference.

“I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important,” Rice added.

Bill Clinton said that he did not think attacking President Bush was helpful, but then he went on to attack the President’s demotion of Terrorist Czar Richard Clarke as an example how Bush was not serious about terrorism.  Rice’s response set the record straight.

She also said Clinton’s claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country’s “best guy” - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

“Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later,” she said.

In looking at these two interviews, there is a marked contrast between them.  Bill Clinton reacted angrily at the mere suggestion that he did not do enough to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks.  Amidst much finger pointing and he accused Fox News of kowtowing to conservatives.  He accused Chris Wallace of asking unfair questions.  And over and over again he said, “I tried.”  Over and over again he stated he had plans drawn up to attack and kill bin Laden.  Of this Michelle Malkin says, He doth protest too much.

Condoleezza Rice gave specifics in her responses citing the increased use of Predator drones.  One of the more interesting contrasts between the two interviews is the books cited by both sides.  Secretary Rice cited the final 9/11 Commission Report while Clinton cited Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, which is nothing but a political hit book.

In comparing the two interviews, one glaring fact stands out.  Bill Clinton is desperately trying to protect what little positive remains of his failed legacy.

Hat tip: Captain’s Quarters

Tags: Terrorism, President Bush, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

Here I was, giving President Bush an A+ on his speech commemorating the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks five years ago and now I find out that his speech was partisan.

Bitter partisan squabbles engulfed Capitol Hill on Tuesday sparked by President Bush’s 9/11 speech Monday night that was not supposed to be political.

Eight weeks before elections that will determine control of the House and Senate, Democrats charged that the president was “playing election-year politics” with the memories of 9/11, and Republicans questioned whether Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than the country.

I listened to the President as he spoke.  There was not one thing partisan about it, unless you consider that he addressed the people on September 11^th.  The Democrats are so inept in keeping the country safe that they consider any speech given by the President on Afghanistan or Iraq as engaging in partisanship.  All the Democrats have to do to avoid the moniker of being weak on terrorism is to get serious about the defense of this country.

President Bush’s press secretary Tony Snow rightly pointed out that no political party was singled out.  The speech was only what President Bush said it was, the state of the US since 9/11.  The only party engaging in partisan politics is the Democratic Party.  Their goals are not so lofty.

“This was not a speech that was designed to single out anybody for partisan reasons, but gave the president’s honest reflections and reactions to what has happened since September 11, 2001,” Snow said, according to the AP. “The president decided that yesterday wasn’t a day for partisanship.”

The Republican response was swift, sure and denounced all those who questioned the President’s motives.  It seems most Republicans understand what this is all about, the destruction of the President.  The Dems are undermining a President at war.

“I listen to the questions today and I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people,” House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said “The fact is, these people want to kill Americans — they have killed Americans. And if we do not go after them and defeat them they are going to continue to kill and injure more Americans.”

Boehner is right.  Democrats call the Iraqi war a distraction.  But how is it a distraction when it has occupied the terrorists for the last five years.  This country has not had a terrorist attack since September 11^th.  How is the war a distraction when our soldiers have killed thousands of terrorists attempting undermine the fledgling democracy in Iraq?  How is the war a distraction when the country of Iraq continues to be a terrorist magnet allowing US troops to kill them?

“The very people that planned the attacks are the people who are in Iraq — al Qaeda in Iraq — causing that sectarian violence,” he [Pennsylvanian Senator Rick Santorum] said. “Should we ignore that, I ask the senator from Nevada?”

The group al Qaeda in Iraq was actually formed after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and was headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by a U.S. airstrike June 7 north of Baghdad.

I was pleased with the neutral tone of the CNN piece until this line in which the authors are quoting from Democratic talking points on a point which is not true.

The group al Qaeda in Iraq was actually formed after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and was headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by a U.S. airstrike June 7 north of Baghdad.

This statement is not quite true since Zarqawi was being helped by Saddam Hussein.  The former dictator also allowed training camps to be set up in his country.  While everyone acknowledges the fact that Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, most credible sources concede that he did help terrorist groups including al-Qaeda.  A fact not readily admitted by the MSM nor the Democratic Party.

It is indeed interesting that a lot of Democrats are really getting tired of the term ‘cut-and-run Democrats.’  And yet I have yet to see one move on their part to dispel this name the Democrats have rightfully earned.  When it comes to protecting this country, the Dems are sorely lacking.  That is not to say the Republicans have all the answers, because they don’t.  At least the Republicans have some answers.  The Dems have none.  But to call this great speech by the President of the United States a partisan speech on one of the anniversary of one of the most significant events in the history of this country is not helping to keep us safe. But we already  knew the Democratic Party is not interested in forming solutions or in protecting this country.

Tags: Democrats, Terrorism, President Bush, Iraq, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The left-wing blogs are going ballistic.  ABC, not known for their conservativism, is set to broadcast a movie about what led up to the 9/11 attacks called Path to 9/11.

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

If this is true, it definately shows a tremendous amount of ineptitude on the part of the Clinton administration.  But if this did not happen, then maybe the liberals have a point.  Remember the CBS fiasco with the Reagan movie in 2003 that was so full of errors that it angered a great portion of the nation and was pulled from broadcast television?

Kos goes on to discredit the entire quote which he calls a ‘work of fiction.’

That ABC is airing the film is gross negligence. They are now no different than Fox News, and should be treated as such.

So what are the liberal blogs all upset about?  They are mad because ABC did not place most of the blame for 9/11 on President George W. Bush.  Liberals are so used to having the MSM marching in lockstep with them, they can not stand it when the MSM makes decisions on their own.  Judging from the information on the website dedicated to the movie, blame is equally placed on Bill Clinton and George Bush.  But that is not enough for the far left, they want the movie edited to the point to where President Bush is destroyed politically and publicly humiliated.  And if they can take some revenge for the elections they lost in 2000 and 2002 and 2004, so much the better.  The left could care less about the truth.  The truth be told, the left’s very own hero in Bill Clinton bares a goodly portion of the responsibility for the attacks that left over three thousand Americans dead.  The problem is these moonbats don’t want the American people to realize that terrorism started long before 9/11 and George Bush.  This country has been at war with the terrorists for many years.  Fortunately this country finally has a president who is willing to take the war to the terrorists.

I plan on watching the movie.  We will soon see whether ABC is willing to stand on truth or cave in to the liberals who are intent on hiding Bill Clinton’s corrupt legacy.  Sandy Berger may have had a larger role is stopping the arrest of Osama bin Laden than we realize.  But then again the movie is a docudrama with different parts highlighted to make sure the viewing audience understands the main points.  The movie also highlights the role of the Clinton administration in briefing the new Bush administration and how ‘W’ dropped the ball.  The White House has repeatedly said this never happened.  So where is the truth? Stay tuned.

Other blogs including these have more on The Path to 9/11 including:

BlackFive has more, including how the liberal blogs are launching a campaign to force ABC to either make drastic changes to the movie or to pull it from broadcasting all together.

Dean Barnett posting on Hugh Hewitt has some reservations on the accuracy of the film since it is a docudrama.  He fearing that too much might have been dramatized in the movie for it to be a historical document.  Dean says those who to back this movie “will mortgage their credibility.”

Tags: TV, President Bush, War by Chuck
No Comments »