Notice: We are currently migrating to a new server. This process should take less than 24 hours. Thank you for your patience.


Posts with the tag 'The Fifth Column'

What hath the “New Tone” wrought?

While I’ve admired President Bush for many reasons, what I could never understand was the President’s reluctance to answer the many unfounded, over-the-top criticisms and out-and-out attacks that were foisted upon him by the left of this nation.

Paul Kengor addresses this in a must-read piece at the American Thinker. For all of the Bush Administration’s successes, most notably his success via perseverance of his Iraq war policy, President Bush’s “new tone” policy set the stage for the relentless, unanswered barrages of assaults by the leftists of this nation and around the world.

The “feel-good” language espoused by many democrats regarding “getting along” and their supposed pining to end the “politics of personal destruction,” in the end, of course, was so much political puffery. On the other hand, George Bush’s “new tone” was not only a buzzword, but S.O.P. for his administration. As with nearly every aspect of his administration (and what those on the left could never fathom nor abide), Bush actually meant what he said and said what he meant when he proclaimed that he would establish “a new tone” in Washington.

Paul Kengor asserts that Bush’s “new tone” was a spinoff of his adherence to his evangelical Christian roots; specifically with regard to the principle of “turning the other cheek (Luke 6:29).”

While a president’s abiding by principle is certainly to be lauded, the application of this principle to Bush’s leftist detractors during his administration yielded disastrous, and yes, even dangerous results. Turning the other cheek allowed the leftists to set the agenda for debate, and allowed them relatively free rein in their efforts to dangerously damage the morale of this country with carte-blanche levels of seditious rhetoric and out-and-out falsehoods. Bush’s “new tone” allowed the leftist elements of this country to give licentious aid and comfort to America’s enemies during a time when our sons and daughters were in harm’s way, giving our enemies encouragement to climb out of their caves and kill another day. Bush’s “new tone” has made it much easier for democrats and other leftist elements to continue relatively unabated on a roll of propaganda based on contrivances that continues to this day, on every issue from energy to foreign policy.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s failure to utilize the bully pulpit to answer unjust criticism and attacks from detractors has left those of us on the right side of the aisle to do all the heavy lifting; which was all well and good, but not enough.

President Bush has many legislative and policy accomplishments for which to be proud. But public opinion and debate in the arena of ideas are also matters of import.

It is my opinion that President Bush’s “new tone” policy is a virtual handbook of how not to play the game.

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

50 comments July 21st, 2008

Obama’s sense of “Patriotism”


“As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.”

-Barack Hussein Obama, in a speech delivered on 30 June, 2008-

So that explains Barack Hussein Obama’s close relationship with one William Ayers, whose patriotic duty (by Obama’s definition) included setting bombs and killing innocent people. Heck, according to Obama’s definition, and by Ayers’ own admission, he just wasn’t patriotic enough.

That also explains Obama’s close relationship with one Rev. “God Damn America!” Wright.

For in Barack Hussein Obama’s world, these men, and others, have demonstrated, according to Obama’s own definition, the “…truest expression of patriotism,” in spades.

An axiom that I have long held is that liberals have no chance of winning a debate in the arena of ideas, unless they are given rein to re-define the terms of that debate.

The heinous practice of killing a baby in what should be the safety of a mother’s womb, heretofore known as abortion, is now known as, “reproductive health.”

The process whereby the government confiscates wealth from productive Americans for redistribution, formerly known as “taxes,” are now known as “contributions” or “investments.”

Today, “the messiah” stated,

“…surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.”

If Obama’s sense of ‘patriotism’ embodies his established pattern of associations with “patriotic” individuals, such as Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and others whom he must consider “…the best of America’s common spirit,” then color me unpatriotic.

Cause I ain’t buying it.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Proving that Democrats are about as dumb as a box of rocks, another Obama surrogate opens mouth and inserts foot:

While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.

“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers…

…”So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”

I wonder if Beers thinks that Obama’s experience is “sadly limited” by the fact that he was just a kid during Vietnam? Or that he didn’t serve at all, in any capacity, this great nation he aspires to govern?

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

54 comments June 30th, 2008

Hillary Clinton: Iraq War is Lost.

Commander in Chief? I think not.

Unless she wants to head a kamikaze patrol.

Wanting to burnish her anti-American victory credentials, and taking a move out of Harry Reid’s (D-Morticians Union) playbook, Commander-In-Chief wannabe Hillary Clinton joined in the ranting of the rabid anti-war left and, with extreme prejudice, threw our soldiers and their mission under the proverbial bus:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may end up costing Americans $1 trillion and further strain the economy, as she made her case for a prompt U.S. troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but voters now say the economy is their top issue in the campaign for the November presidential election.

Clinton, the former first lady who is trying to convince voters she has foreign policy gravitas, hurled criticism both at her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and the Republicans’ choice, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Foreign policy gravitas? Declaring the Iraq war lost, in spite of the successes of this past year?

Commander in chief, my backside.

The more and more I see these two demo-bozos slip into their real character, or lack thereof, the better and better John McCain is looking.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not fit to run a one-car funeral, much less the world’s most potent (and benevolent) military.

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

38 comments March 17th, 2008

Harry Reid plays chicken with the troops. Again.

Evans-Novak Reports:

As Congress reconvened, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) walked into a trap. He permitted anti-war Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to bring up two Iraq troop-withdrawal amendments to the Defense bill, assuming Republicans would filibuster by blocking cloture. But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) did the opposite, forcing an unwanted war debate and sending Reid’s Senate schedule into chaos.

Harry Reid has the ability to screw up a one-car funeral, while simultaneously being able to stick his foot up his own arse.

If he weren’t so incompetent he’d be dangerous.

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

16 comments February 27th, 2008

Class, vs. No Class.

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.

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

13 comments November 26th, 2007

Yes, Virginia–there are Republicans with Spines.

Despite the exponentially growing tales of success, there are “the fifth column” of our nation who hope against hope that they can undermine and evince failure of the efforts of our troops and the commanders on the ground in Iraq.

Specifically, Harry Reid continues to choose to completely ignore all the successes made via the efforts of our troops, continuing rather to engage in the rhetoric and propaganda of defeat at all costs. Said Harry “The Undertaker” Reid today,

“We simply cannot buy victory in Iraq. This year has been the bloodiest year in the history of the war.”

Of course in that statement Reid refuses to acknowledge that the last few months, largely in part due to the efforts of our troops and their commanders, have produced some of the least number of civilian and military casualties since the war began!

And the willing shills over at CNN Radio News simply parroted Reid’s propaganda on their top of the hour newscasts, with no mention of recent and not-so-recent successes.

Earlier this evening, I was at the SD 15 BPOU meeting, where I lamented that I see no Republicans countering the defeatist, seditionist rhetoric coming from Reid and the other traitorous democrat scum that inhabit the hallowed halls of Congress and the Senate.

Thoroughly dejected, I spent the night wondering when someone on the side of victory would come to the defense of our soldiers and their mission.

And then my friend Gary Gross came through and emailed me this tidbit from a floor speech by Senator Cornyn:

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues from Georgia, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, in talking about the news from Iraq. It’s important as we discuss the challenges that we still face and that the Iraqi people still face in Iraq to talk about the complete picture.

And unfortunately, while we have heard much of violence in Iraq and the challenges that face us, we have not heard enough about the successes that the American military and our Iraqi allies are meeting with in that country. It wasn’t that long ago that the surge that General Petraeus, the counterinsurgency strategy that he is the architect of and which he has executed was called a failure on the floor of the United States Senate.

It’s ironic, looking back, that sometimes it’s helpful to go back and learn from history. You don’t have to go back very far; actually just the summer and the spring of this year when leaders on the other side of the aisle called the surge a failure. And the most ironic part of it is that General Petraeus, who is the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, at the time said we haven’t even started the surge yet. So let me have a few months.

Well, General Petraeus has now had a few months, and the surge has now had an opportunity to make a difference. And in fact, there is much positive news to report. I have to think that the biggest mistake the nay-sayers have made is to bet against the men and women of the United States military. That’s always a mistake, because the the American military men and women have demonstrated that they can accomplish the goals that they set out to do, and they are making a tremendous difference in Iraq in eliminating terrorist strongholds as we continue to train the Iraqi military to take our place.

And as I’ve always said, Mr. President, we all want to bring our troops home. The question is: are we going to bring our troops home based on conditions on the ground and the Iraqis’ ability to secure and stabilize their own country or are we going to do it regardless of the consequences in a way that will create the potential for a failed state in Iraq, another terrorist haven, and encourage our sworn enemies in Iran and elsewhere, embolden them to think that America cannot be trusted and America will turn its back on our allies?

Mr. President, in May, one of our senior colleagues said the surge was supposed to bring stability essential to political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. But he said at the time it has not, and it will not. One short month later the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House in a letter to the President wrote, “as many had foreseen the escalation has failed to produce the intended results. The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.”

We even bore witness to atrocious ads run by organizations like moveon.org, slandering General Petraeus before he even had a chance to come here and report on the status of the surge in September. Well, Mr. President, the numbers don’t lie. To the dismay of many Americans, some of my colleagues have chosen to conveniently gloss over and try to explain away the progress that’s been made by General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy.

Far from being a simple increase in troops we learned, General Petraeus’ strategy was a new way to attack the enemy in Iraq. That is utilize support from both local Iraqi citizens and tribal leaders to form an offensive against insurgent and terrorist groups. And this strategy has met with a resounding success. It’s become a common story but one worth repeating that Al Anbar province, a Sunni strong hold, was virtually overrun and lost to American and Iraqi forces, because Al Qaeda basically had its way with that region, had terrorized the people so much that they would not stand up and fight them, and basically were being held as victims of terror.

Now, the so-called ‘Anbar Awakening’ has occurred. Tribal leaders have come forward and volunteered their people to serve in the Iraqi police force and the Iraqi security forces, and now Al Anbar province has essentially been rid of organized Al Qaeda strong holds. “The Washington Post” editorial page on October 14 recognized decreasing violence in Iraq and noted that the evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.

In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52% from August and 77% from September. The Iraqi health ministry and the associated press reported similar results, and we are thankful that American casualties are down as well. Numbers recently released by the Pentagon corroborate the progress occurring in Iraq. In and around Baghdad, the DOD reports, terrorist operations are down by 59%. Operations targeting Iraqi forces, more than 60%. Car bombs are down by 65%. Casualties due to enemy attacks are down by 77%. And violence during this last Ramadan period was the lowest in three years.

But perhaps the most convincing evidence that things, good things are happening in Iraq is the fact that the Iraqi people are beginning to move back into areas that they had previously left behind, hopeless that peace and security could ever be accomplished. According to recent news reports, even cab drivers are feeling it’s safe tore drive around Baghdad neighborhoods where sectarian violence one made it impossible for them to enter.

Perhaps the most telling story of increased security in Baghdad is one told by the Iraqi people themselves. According to an Associated Press article from this past weekend, thousands of Iraqi refugees who previously fled their homes in heir home country. While it’s easy for skeptics to doubt numbers and statistics, it is nearly impossible to say not long ago Iraqis living in a foreign country now feel safe enough to come home. this clearly indicates that there are good things happening in Iraq. And around Baghdad. The AP reports that in a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped.

The article goes on to quote one refugee who returned home to his neighborhood of Qadra. In Qadra, he said, about 15 families have returned. He said, “I’ve called friends and family and told them it’s safe to come home.” Where there was one widespread fear among Iraqi citizens, we’re now seeing something new — hope. Hope for a better and safer future. Nothing confirms this more than the return of refugees and the testimony that they’ve given that it is becoming safer in Iraq, while not yet safe.

No one is saying that the job has been completed, but surely an honest, objective appraisal would acknowledge the improvements in the security situation in Iraq as de demonstrated not only by these statistics, by these testimonials from Iraqis themselves. These heart-warming accounts of families reuniting in neighborhoods which not long ago had been written off as hopeless and businesses opening their doors is an important lesson for us all.

This strategy employed by this new commander, General Petraeus, has worked, and it’s continuing to work. The efforts of our military men and women who have put their hearts and souls into this mission are now paying dividends and producing results. These security gains are not a fluke. What we’re seeing is a direct result of a carefully designed strategy which includes ramped-up counterinsurgency operations, increased efforts to foster cooperation and reconciliation among local tribes and our continued backing of the hard work of the American military and our support for their families.

As we’re presented with funding requests by the Pentagon to bring about a stable and peaceful Iraq, we are ensuring that our soldiers have the resources they need to bring peace and stability to a tumultuous land. And my hope, Mr. President, is that we will not use the funding request from the Pentagon for continued support for our troops as another political football, as has been used in the past, particularly in the face of such hopeful and promising news, for which I would expect that we would be grateful and to thank our men and women in uniform and their families who have sacrificed so much to help bring this about, along with our Iraqi allies.

General Petraeus told reporters this past weekend that, in general, we think there are no Al Qaeda strongholds at this point. While he was quick to remind us that they are still a potent threat, his assessment of the progress in Iraq can be nothing but reassuring. Mr. President, I shudder to think of what would have happened had we listened to the nay-sayers months ago who said, we have to withdraw all our troops, even before the surge was able to be fully im implemented. So far, we have voted 59 times on Iraq-related resolutions, most of which are non-binding Sense of the Senate resolutions.

59 times we have voted, even before the surge had a chance to be implemented. Now we see once again what a mistake it is to bet against the men and women of the United States military and thank goodness those resolutions were not successful and thank goodness our American soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, coast guard were able to carry out this new plan under the leadership of General Petraeus, and we now see at least some hope in a land where hope was in short supply.

So, Mr. President, although many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prejudged the surge strategy and continue to oppose our efforts in Iraq, some of whom call even today for cutting off funds to support our troops, we see now substantial evidence of progress, and it is my continued hope that these positive developments may yet change the tone of the national dialogue on the global war on terror, including the campaign in Iraq.

It’s time for all members of this body to take an objective look, not through our political lens, not through a lens which sees only to the next general election, but look objectively at what our troops are accomplishing in Iraq instead of focusing only on the challenges. We should at least be honest enough to acknowledge the accomplishments. Not the least of which are the indisputable gains in security that have been made through their sacrifices. I, for one, am proud to recognize and applaud the undeniable achievements of our troops in Iraq.

Their hard work and their tireless dedication has reminded us that a stable and peaceful Iraq is within reach. It’s my fervent hope that my colleagues will join me in acknowledging and honoring the successes achieved by our military personnel and renew their support for them, for their commander, and for the counterinsurgency strategy that is bearing fruit and to always remember their family — families here at home who wait for their loved one to return as soon as their mission is accomplished.

So, I was happily wrong in my assertion that there are no Republicans with the cajones to stand up for our troops and their mission.

Rather, there is a media cabal that is so hellbent on pushing their agenda that they haven’t the balls to present an opposing view that runs counter to their defeat-at-any- cost-so-we-can-crucify-Bush template.

Between the media and the democrats, I feel as if I have ceased being a citizen of America, and am instead a citizen of Wonderland.

The active sedition on the part of not only a critical mass of American citizens but of elected officials sworn to defend the Constitution is getting to be all too surreal.

Where the hell is the looking glass?

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

5 comments November 14th, 2007


Prime Sponsor

Advertisements

Recent Posts

RSS Blogs For John McCain's Victory

Recent Comments

RSS GOP Bloggers

Archives


Blogroll

Meta

Tags

Mark Noonan on Twitter

Matt Margolis on Twitter

    Advertisements

    Buttons For Your Blog

    Disclaimer

    Blogs For Victory is privately owned and maintained. All contributors are volunteers unaffiliated with any campaign or political party.

    Material published and opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the individual authors of this site.