Posts with the tag 'President Bush'
From last night’s State of the Union:
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.
So, how do the Democrats view America?
Barack Obama:
So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.
Hillary Clinton:
I know that we have to change our education program from the federal level and I know that we’ve got to create a better partnership between Washington and Connecticut and Hartford and all of the other communities here. We can do this. There is so much yearning in our country to be part of something bigger than ourselves again. We can provide a really positive view of our future together and we can ask everybody to be a part of it. It’s not just about electing a president and passing legislation through the Congress. It’s about what each and every one of us will do.
John Edwards:
We need a president who will take these powers on and fight to get you your voice back, and your government back. We need a president who is going to fight every day to make sure that all Americans can find good jobs, save for the future, and be guaranteed health care and retirement security. We need a president who is going to lift up the middle class. That is why today, I am proposing my Middle Class Rising agenda, a comprehensive plan to help hardworking families get ahead, and make sure that all Americans have a fair shot at the American Dream.
In a nutshell: President Bush says to rely upon the American people; Obama, Clinton and Edwards say the American people need a vast federal government to do it for the American people. These are the three Democrats who propose to replace President Bush - who propose, in the end, to replace a man who believes in America and Americans, with a man (or woman) who has no faith in the people to do for themselves. How are the 2008 GOPers in contrast?
Mitt Romney:
Republicans for Change believe in small government. Governments should be restrained so that the freedoms and vitality of individuals and enterprises can be unleashed. Compared to free markets and free enterprises, government is slow to act, wasteful, duplicative, bureaucratic, inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive. Have I left anything out? Other than that, government isn’t all bad.
John McCain:
My friends, I know we are facing challenging economic times, and we must be responsive to the concerns of Americans who fear they are being left behind in the global economy. But nothing is inevitable in our country. We are the captains of our fate. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage, and stand by our defense of free markets, low taxes, and small government that have made America the greatest land of opportunity in the world.
Rudy Giuliani:
Americans need tax relief as well, which is why I will eliminate the death tax, index the Alternative Minimum Tax to inflation and target it for elimination. I will simplify the tax code to an optional one-page form. I will also expand tax-free health savings accounts as part of a larger proposal to make health care more affordable.
I believe one of the reasons Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 was because of excessive spending in the years leading up to that election. Over the last decade, nondefense spending has increased 72 percent, and this year Washington spent nearly $24,000 for every household in America.
Controlling spending must be a chief executive’s priority.
So, the top three are also believers in the ability of Americans to make it on their own. Who do you want as your next President - someone who proposes to wipe your nose for you, or someone who proposes to get the heck out of your way?
Your choice, America - make it well.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, John Edwards, President Bush, Rudy Giuliani
January 29th, 2008
It never ceases to amaze me what the Associated Press considers to be newsworthy. They’ve recently reported about a study “by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.”
Who are the two so-called nonprofit organizations? The Center for Public Integrity, and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. And guess what? They’re funded by none other than George Soros. Imagine that.
As bad as it was that the Associated Press thought this was news, the actual “data” for the study is laughable. It might as well have been Media Matters who put the study out.
More at Right Voices.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I’ve been trying to find it over at their website with no luck…
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Yes, Mark… here’s the link.
Tags: George Soros, Iraq Campaign, media bias, President Bush
January 22nd, 2008
From Frank J over at IMAO:
I saw a brief bit of a Frank Luntz focus group for the last Democratic debate, and man was that a gaggle of morons. They were all going on and on about how Bush cares for nothing except making his rich oil friends richer. Do they understand they’re basically saying President Bush is a friend of monumental proportions? Basically they think that George W. Bush made the huge financial, mental, and physical expenditure to run for president, be president for eight years, and start a war to gain the hatred for the entire world all so he can make his rich friends slightly richer. And I thought I had a good friend if he’d drive me to the airport.
There are reasonable things to criticise President Bush over - but his most strenuous critics have, after nearly 7 years of Bush’s Presidency, yet to hit upon one of them. One thing I’ll do to entertain myself on January 21st, 2009 is write a list of the real criticisms the left could have made, and how monumentally stupid they were not to take up these issues. At any rate, Frank’s short hand of the focus group is right on - the critics really do sound like a pack of idiots. To even, for a moment, think that even the slightest part of Bush’s motivation is to make his already rich friends richer betrays a level of mental incapacity which should result in a revocation of voting rights. We often joke that we should have an IQ test for voting, but what all we need do is put out a sign in front of a bogus voting machine saying “Diebold-free voting” and we’ll elminate 90% of leftwing votes.
The most difficult task we conservatives face in the battle for victory this year is the mental density of our opponents - it just gets tiresome to have to continually restate the obvious for them, as they keep asking the same stupid questions, and keep making the same divorced-from-reality observations. It wears you down after a while, but we have to keep at it, as the fate of the nation is at stake.
Tags: President Bush
January 18th, 2008
President Bush is considering an $800 tax rebate for economic stimulus…
I’m all for it… but we still need to make Bush’s earlier tax cuts permanent.
Tags: Economy, President Bush, taxes
January 18th, 2008
It amazes that despite so much positive things going on in our economy, Democrats have constantly talked it down, even go so far as to say that the economy is recession.
As part of her successful closing argument in the New Hampshire primary, Clinton deliberately made news at one of her events by citing new unemployment data to declare Jan. 5: “I think the economy is slipping toward recession.”
Pocketbook issues are moving to the fore as gas prices go up and housing foreclosures increase. Indeed, strategists in both parties speculate that the economy could be a bigger issue than national security in next fall’s general election.
“Hillary believes we need real action now,” says a policy paper to be issued by the Clinton campaign Friday. “While economists may still be debating whether we’ve met the technical definition of a recession, for hard-hit middle class families that question has already been answered.
While arguing about the economic outlook is one thing, there’s no reason for anyone to be giving the impression that the economy might be in a recession right now. Since Bush’s tax cuts have taken effect, we’ve experience continuous job growth. Unemployment has been at or below 5% (which is considered full employment)… As for the GDP, we’ve experienced 24 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Hardly the sign that may have “met the technical definition of a recession.”
Hillary’s use of anecdotal evidence to claim the economy is in bad shape is misleading, and her so-called economic stimulus package would do nothing to strengthen our economy. You can’t improve the economy by just spending money under the guise of economic stimulus.
To keep our economy strong, the first thing that needs to be done is to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.
Tags: liberal lies, President Bush, recession, taxes
January 12th, 2008
Via Reuters:
President George W. Bush condemned the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, an act of violence that shredded U.S. hopes for democratic elections in the country that is a key ally in Bush’s war on terrorism.
“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice,” Bush said in a statement to reporters at his Texas ranch.
The president praised Bhutto’s courage in returning to Pakistan in October to participate in elections aimed at restoring a democratic government after eight years of military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Interesting commentary from John Podhoretz - The End of the Primary’s Holiday From History
The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate. In their place came the Christian identity-politics rise of Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and the “we need a nice new politics” rise of Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Republicans squabbled about sanctuary cities and sanctuary mansions. Democrats squabbled about how many uninsured there would be left if their various health-care plans were imposed on the country.
The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.
Very true words.
Tags: Benazir Bhutto, Democracy, Global War on Terrorism, Pervez Musharraf, President Bush, War on Terror
December 27th, 2007
“Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1:30-33
During the Christmas season, our thoughts turn to the source of joy and hope born in a humble manger on a holy night more than 2,000 years ago. Each year, Christians everywhere celebrate this single life that changed the world and continues to change hearts today. The simple and inspiring story of the birth of Jesus fills our souls with gratitude for the many blessings in our lives and promises that God’s purpose is justice and His plan is peace.
At this special time of year, we give thanks for Christ’s message of love and mercy, and we are reminded of our responsibility to serve. America is blessed to have fine citizens who reach out with a compassionate hand to help brothers and sisters in need. We also remember our brave men and women in uniform who have volunteered to defend us in distant lands. Many of those who have answered the call of duty will spend Christmas far from home and separated from family. We honor their sacrifice, ask God to watch over them and their families, and pray for their safe return.
Christmas is a time to rejoice and remember the birth of Jesus Christ. Laura and I pray your Christmas will be blessed with family and fellowship, and we wish you a day of glad tidings. Merry Christmas.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Tags: Christmas, President Bush
December 24th, 2007
That’s the interesting question I heard yesterday from a nondescript liberal-leaning fill-in host on a rerun of an October talk radio show. The host, who admitted that the democrat party has lost its once prominent base of white male voters, acknowledged that the democrat party wrote off the voting bloc 30 years ago, and hasn’t courted it since.
A quick google search suggests that the concept is not lost on many a democrat mind; some saying that the white male vote is a bloc forever lost in the democrat vest pocket; a prodigal son never to return to the fold. Others say that the white male voter is still a yet-untapped bloc of voters that if accessed, would assure a democrat juggernaut for years, if not decades to come.
The radio host went on to observe that all is not well in republican-land; that white male voters were becoming disaffected with the Republican party; and went on to cite the war in Iraq as the major factor in white male disaffection within the GOP.
I would submit that there may indeed be a growing disaffection with the GOP among white males, but the war in Iraq would be the least, if not nearly the least of the reasons. If anything, the disaffection of the white male voting bloc with the Republican party is due to the fact that the Republican Party, rather than governing under the principles that swept it into a decade-long majority, actually forgot who it was that brought them to the dance; and instead started acting like the two-bit tart that flirts with all the other guys while her frustrated date looks on.
The white male voting bloc signed on first with Ronald Reagan, then with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America; and not for democrat lite. President Bush received a hefty majority vote among the white male voting bloc, not because we were ecstatic over his expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs for seniors; not because of his endorsement of No Child Left Behind; but rather because between him and Jean Francois Kerrie, he was the only one that could be trusted to be a stalwart against the terrorists, and the one who actually gave a damn about protecting this nation.
So, back to the original question, what would it take for me, a white, middle class male, to be able to vote for a democrat as President of the United States?
Here is a non-inclusive, though important list of the top four traits that would make it so:
- 1. First and foremost: The democrat must put America first, not blame America first.
If your rhetoric panders to the European intelligentsia, go and run for German Chancellor or President of France.
If you put the "rights" of terrorists above the safety of the United States, its citizens, and its defenders in harm’s way, just so you can beat your chest atop your soapbox and claim that you’re a morally-superior, caring, sensitive, feeling metrosexual, forget about leading the U.S.
Go and apply as a houseboy for OBL, sing kumbaya with Kalid Sheikh Muhammed; but get the hell out of my face and leave the leading of the Free World to the big boys, okay?
You want to know a secret? If the presidential race were between Ron Paul on the Republican side, and Joe Lieberman on the Democrat side, I’d vote for Joe Lieberman in a heartbeat, based on the above principle alone.
- 2. National security is serious business. Quit screwing with it.
The notion of National Security embodies the very fight for our survival as a nation and as a people. It is not a political-point vending machine placed there for your convenience.
When you go and treat Iraq as a political football game to be won, rather than what should and must be a critical strategic victory over a deadly geopolitical enemy; going so far as to actually lay obstacles in the way of our victory, and putting those who put their lives on the line in additional and unnecessary risk as a result, that tells me you don’t give a rat’s posterior about the security of our nation, and that as such you have no business leading it.
There really are people and even nations out there who mean to do us harm.
9/11 should have given you a clue.
- 3. The democrat must quit showing contempt for America and that for which it stands!
Trust me on this. You may get a pat on the back from your fellow limousine liberals over at the Yacht club, but you won’t score a single vote among the "Joe Sixpack" crowd if you refuse to wear a flag on your lapel because you have contempt for the nation for which you are asking for the privilege and honor of leading.
It’s OK to say you love America, that it is the greatest nation on earth, and that Americans have spilled more blood and have given more treasure to help the downtrodden than any nation in the history of the planet.
It’s OK. Really, it is.
- 4. Don’t tell us what our problems are. We know what they are.
Running a grocery-styled bitchlist of everything that’s wrong, and portraying everyone under the sun as a victim isn’t going to make any white guy run through a wall to get you elected.
Here’s a novel idea: Present a vision of what is right about America, and an accompanying vision of how to work with what’s right so as to become an even greater nation (and–this is important– believe in it!).
Ronald Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill vision eventually garnered him two landslide terms as President. Jimmy Carter’s "malaise" speech, along with his inability to proffer a positive vision of America’s future is arguably what lost him his second term, and what sealed his fate as one of the most ineffectual presidents in history.
Again, this list is far from inclusive as to what it would take for me to vote for a democrat as President, but it’s a start. I offer this in the knowledge that the suggestions put forth in this screed will be summarily dismissed as hogwash, and also in the knowledge that some leftwinger will no doubt leave some "clever" comments about how wrong I am. But it was a democrat that asked the question, and since I am the world’s leading authority on what I think and feel, I answered it to the best of my ability.
Fire away.
(Cross-posted at The Ice Palace)
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Iraq Campaign, Joe Lieberman, Liberal hypocrisy, liberal talk radio, NIE, President Bush
December 23rd, 2007
Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, are trying to strong-arm President Bush by refusing to clear a slate of appointees to the Federal Election Commission.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just announced that the Senate will not clear four new appointees for the Federal Election Commission, meaning the panel that acts as a watchdog on political campaigns cannot function during the critical election-year period.
Reid is blaming the White House for refusing to withdraw to allow a majority vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the commission. Republicans want von Spakovsky approved as part of a slate of four FEC nominees or they will refuse to consider any of the nominees.
Von Spakovsky was recess appointed by President Bush to the FEC, but his term expires at the end of the year. Democrats have refused to allow his nomination to move forward, arguing that his actions while at the Justice Department disqualified him for the post. Bush, though has not backed down, and the matter has been at an impasse for the last four months.
Now, with the Senate moving toward adjournment until mid-January, Reid signalled that Democrats will not move any FEC nominations if they include von Spakovsky, meaning the commission will only have two of its required six members. Reid said he offered the GOP a straight majority vote on all the FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, but the White House refused to accept that offer.
How convenient that the FEC could be effectively shutdown during a presidential election year. Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles and appease their extreme liberal base, or is it also a way to protect Democrat candidates in an election year?
Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction…
Tags: Democrat hypocrisy, Democrat obstruction, Harry Reid, President Bush
December 19th, 2007
Sometime I wonder if Harry Reid has been auditioning for the part of Al Qaeda’s spokesman:
Tired of Republican crowing about winning on Iraq funding, the budget battle and the energy bill, Reid (D-Nev.) shot back on Tuesday afternoon.
“We hear a lot of Republicans boasting … because of their unprecedented obstruction,” Reid said.
Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.
“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”
Sounds like Harry Reid is saying Al Qaeda is winning. Of course, his comments completely contrast the assessments of generals on the ground and even some of Reid’s fellow Democrats, including Jack Murtha, who have admitted that the surge is working and significant progress is being made in Iraq.
I also can’t let this go without noting just how ridiculous Harry Reid sounds when he complains about Republican “obstruction.” Harry Reid lead his fellow Democrats in Senate in blocking many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He even threatened Bush with a potential filibuster if he did not nominate a “consensus” judge to replace Justice O’Connor following the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. The fact is, when Democrats were in the minority, they supported all sorts of obstruction, with so many of Bush’s highly qualified nominees never getting the vote the deserved. John Bolton was never given a vote when he was nominated to be ambassador to the U.N., even after his recess appointment expired, and his performance was praised by many, Democrats stood firm in their baseless, partisan obstruction.
And Democrats have no right to blame Republicans for the majority’s incompetence. As the majority party, Republicans were able to pass tax cuts and the partial birth abortion ban, (just to name a few) despite the minority party’s rabid opposition to them. The Republicans could do this because they had leadership and the support of the American people on their side.
Tags: defeatism, Democrat hypocrisy, Harry Reid, Iraq Campaign, Jack Murtha, obstruction, President Bush
December 18th, 2007
If Democrats were as interested in fighting the war on terror as there are interested in protecting the so-called rights and civil liberties of terrorists then I’d be a lot more confident in the outcome of the war on terror. But instead, Democrats use these alleged civil liberties issues to undermine President Bush and the war on terror.
So, my first reaction when I heard about these interrogation tapes that were destroyed I thought “Good, now we don’t have to worry about some Democrat leaking the video.” I mean, imagine the outrage if liberals across America saw that a terrorist was being interrogated in a room that was below room temperature, or was wearing prison clothes that wasn’t 100% cotton, or some other horrible torture like that.
Democrats predictably called for an investigation.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects - including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in CIA custody - to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.
“But that excuse won’t wash,” Senator Kennedy said Friday. “Does the director believe the CIA’s buildings are not secure? Would it be beyond the agency’s technical expertise to preserve the tapes while hiding the identity of its employees? Does the director believe that the CIA’s employees cannot be trusted not to leak materials that might harm the agency?
Of course they can’t… and why should they? Does Teddy forget all the other examples of intelligence leaks in the past few years? Does he forget the infamous “Rockefeller Memo” which outlined a strategy for politicizing pre-war intelligence on Iraq? Or how about the secret “black ops” CIA satellite program leaked by Senators Rockefeller, Durbin and Wyden that severely compromised national security? Does Teddy also forget the leak of the NSA terrorist surveillance program? The Democrats have shown previous interest in politicizing intelligence and leaking classified information, both of which severely undermine the war on terror, that my only conclusion from the Democrats’ reaction to this story about the destroyed tapes is that they are furious they didn’t get to leak them first.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Global War on Terrorism, Iraq Campaign, leaks, President Bush, torture
December 8th, 2007
I don’t have a lot of time to post tonight, but just a few thoughts on the day…
First, when I heard the NIE’s report the other day that Iran hasn’t been seeking nukes since 2003, it hit me as just a little bit more than a brain disconnect. After all, it flied in the face of everything I’ve been hearing, since 2001 (this year included).
The report concludes that Iran “bowed to (international) political pressure” in its decision to supposedly halt its nuclear program in 2003.
My question: If Ahmawhackjob did indeed bow to international pressure in Iran’s decision to halt its nuclear ambitions, ostensibly to give the message, “Hey, don’t invade us–we’re really not all that bad!” then why the even-recent rhetoric to “blow Israel off the map?” If one abandons nukes because they’re afraid of international pressure, then wouldn’t it be defeating the purpose by continuing to talk as if you had nukes or were still looking for them? Wouldn’t that be the same kind of denial that ultimately got Saddam into trouble? Wouldn’t a government wishing to avoid an invasion rather take a Qaddafy-like approach?
The more I look into this matter, the more putrid-smelling it becomes.
My main man Fred Thompson makes the most sense of anyone I’ve read or heard on the subject.
______________________________________
Next on the agenda–the long-awaited Romney “JFK’esque ‘Don’t be afraid of my religion” speech.
Truth be told, I was never afraid of Romney’s Mormonism. I was more (and continue to be more) afraid of his having been a “successful” governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union. The perpetual home of Sens.- for- life Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, for cripe’s sake!
For all we know, a Romney candidacy will be George Bush v. 2.0 in terms of social spending and lack of immigration enforcement, and without George Bush’s lifelong convictions on the abortion issue, to boot!
As far as I’m concerned, Romney’s got a lot more ’splainin’ and cowtowing to do in those departments than WRT his possible allegiance to the ideals of Joseph Smith.
At the very least, Romney sucked up all the political oxygen for the day, which was a brilliant move on his part in keeping his name at the forefront of the news cycle.
When it comes down to it, I truly suspect that’s what it was all about to begin with.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, abortion, intelligence, Iran, President Bush
December 6th, 2007
I love how Barack Obama is claiming the moral high ground on the issue of negative ads and attacks by launching what can essentially be called an attack website against Hillary Clinton.
Seriously. Every campaign season we get candidates claiming they don’t like negative campaigning, making self-righteous pledge not to go negative, then suddenly everyone is shocked–shocked that they are getting criticized for something, and thus launches everyone into negative attack mode… as if we expected differently.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Everyone says they’re against negative ads, but saying you’re against negative ads is really just talk because eventually something happens that “forces” that candidate to go negative… but in self defense. In the end, everyone does it because, like it or not, negative ads are quite effective… even thought candidates claim they aren’t when they oppose negative ads.
The worst is how Democrats pretend like it’s the Republican Party that is the party of negative ads and attacks. This is the same Party that can’t speak a sentence without blaming something on President Bush, and they act as if no one in the Democratic Party has ever had anything to do with a negative ad before.
Tags: negative campaigning, President Bush
December 4th, 2007
The New York Sun reports…
With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush’s war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush’s presidency.
The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.
“The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That’s very good news. But it won’t have to stand alone,” General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.
Since my lunch hour is just about ending, I’ll give my thoughts on this later. In the meantime, please discuss.
HAT TIP: Right in a Left World.
UPDATE: Press briefing.
Tags: Iraq Campaign, Middle East, New York Sun, President Bush, U.N.
November 27th, 2007
From inviting Teddy Kennedy for movie night, to allowing the democrats to write his education plan, President Bush has bent over backward to enact the “new tone” he set out to implement in Washington.
Say what you want about Bush, but he has been gracious in all things, resorting to criticism of his opponents in only the most dire of situations. Despite attack after virulent attack, President Bush, honoring his office, has again and again taken the high road, not allowing his office to wallow in the pit of hyper-partisan politics. Such was the case when Bush graciously hosted Al Gore at a gathering today at the White House…
Yes, the very same Al Gore who was the progenitor of this tirade; yet the very same Al Gore who at one time (in 2002) had this to say:
In a speech February 12, his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
The former vice president spoke in New York City before a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, the think tank that publishes Foreign Affairs and has long exercised important influence on foreign policy, whether the occupant of the White House was a Democrat or Republican.
Gore specifically solidarized himself with the “axis of evil” rhetoric in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Bush’s bellicose language—particularly his singling out of Iraq, Iran and North Korea—has been widely denounced in Europe and criticized even by several congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.
“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.”
And yes, the same Al Gore who made this speech in 1992.
While President Bush has remained steadfast in his principle that the world needs to be rid of Islamic Fascism and terrorism in all its forms, democrats like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Dhimmi Carter have been doing their level best to play populist politics like a dime-store piano.
Yet President Bush continues to take the high road.
Class– or no class?
You decide.
Tags: Al Gore, President Bush, The Fifth Column
November 26th, 2007
I’m in the process of reading two books, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East and The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City. I’m about half way through the latter, two thirds done with the former. Both are fascinating books providing me with new information and new insights into the Arab/Israeli War - and War it is, and it has been ongoing since the proclamation of the State of Israel in 1948. And it will go on until the war ends. Unstated by either author so far, but clear to me is that the reason we’re still engaged over the issue of Israel, Jerusalem and the threat of radical Islam is because we’ve never allowed the Arab/Israeli war to be fought to a conclusion.
In 1967, one of the pre-battle acts was Irael’s internal debate over whether or not they could go to war without approval from the western powers, especially the United States and wheth
