| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Monday, October 31, 2005
|
|
Wasting not a minute, the liberal Democrat Senator from New York, the male one, Sen. Charles Schumer, holds a press conference to speak about Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. With the woman not even buried yet he uses her name and legacy to suggest that Judge Samuel Alito might try to take our country back to where it was in the 50's. It's a cheap shot from a pro race baiter if you ask me, and Democrats and Blacks ought to be repulsed at his suggestion.
"Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place."
10:56:01 PM 
|
|
Well this is what it is. Here's a Ted Kennedy then and now on Judge Samuel Alito, the President's pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 04/05/90
"After insisting that Harriet Miers shouldn’t even get a hearing because she couldn’t prove she was extreme enough, the far right has now forced the President to choose a nominee that they think has views as extreme as their own." (10/31/05)
Kennedy has it all wrong, as usual. It was Harriet Miers' decision to withdrawal her nomination. She wasn't forced out. Nevertheless, two more Democrats had this to say about Judge Alito.
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “I Believe Mr. Alito Has The Experience And The Skills To Be The Kind Of Judge The Public Deserves – One Who Is Impartial, Thoughtful, And Fair. I Urge The Senate To Confirm His Nomination.” (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Congressional Record, 4/27/90, p. S5281)
FORMER SEN. BILL BRADLEY (D-NJ): “[T]he Confirmation Of Sam Alito As U.S. Attorney For New Jersey Is Testimony To The Commitment He Has Shown And The Success Of His Efforts As A Law Enforcement Official. I Am Confident That He Will Continue To Do All He Can To Uphold The Laws Of This Nation With The Kind Of Determination And Vigor That Has Been His Trademark In The Past.” (Sen. Bill Bradley, Congressional Record, 12/8/87, p. S17427)
It's high time Senator Kennedy and his ilk learn to live with a Supreme Court of an originalist majority. A judiciary with limited authority, which is, to interpret Constitutional matters using the Constitution instead of using foreign law, religious, personal, or special interests' beliefs, leaving the law making responsibility to the law makers, the Legislative branch of our government.
1:45:03 PM
|
|
That's the headline on the New York Times' online edition. Well DUH! That is what I expected Bush to do. We will probably find out that he believes in God and even goes to church somewhere. That's good news, albeit irrelevant to the job at hand. These characteristics are what the left fears most in a judicial nominee, which is amusing to say the least. Amusing to me because a person's religious beliefs are not what matters on the Supreme Court. The only thing that matters is that he is dedicated to interpret Constitutional issues based on the Constitution itself, not on foreign law or his religion or personal preferences, period. Restoring order in the Court means that legislatures will once again be the law makers in this country.
Sen. Harry Reid is quaking in his shoes over Bush's pick. That's a ringing endorsement for me. He still does not accept the precedent that picking nominees is the President's job, not his. It's the privilege you get when you win elections.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned President Bush not to pick Judge Alito, 55. "I think it would create a lot of problems," Mr. Reid said on "Late Edition" on CNN.
NYT link
8:03:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, October 29, 2005
|
|
Haven't you heard Arab states condemning Ahmadinejad's declaration to wipe out Israel? You haven't? Neither have I. Is it because they agree with the terrorist president of Iran? Or is it because they are intimidated by the terrorists among them? Or a little of both? In any case, they make the case for the administration's war on terror and in trying to change the hearts and minds of Arabs living with terrorists to either eliminate them or isolate them through some sort of democratic process.
They have to be part of the solution, if not part of the problem.
AP link
8:28:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 27, 2005
|
|
Here's another reminder for the left. The terrorist president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says that Israel should be wiped off the map, and how good Hamas is doing to that end. Ya think we need to make nicey-nice with him too? You need to recognize danger when it stares you in the face. Or do you want to take a chance that it won't get blown off?
Do you also believe that the United Nations will take some definitive action to stop it? Or rather, do you want to entrust your life and the security of this country to the United Nations?
Iran's President Says Israel Must Be 'Wiped Off the Map'. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tone was reminiscent of that of the early days of Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. By NAZILA FATHI. [NYT > Home Page]
12:43:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
|
|
"Probably the single greatest problem between blacks and whites in America is that we are forever witness to each other's great shames. This occurred to me in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, when so many black people were plunged into misery that it seemed the hurricane itself had held a racial animus. " 
So says Shelby Steele in the Opinion Journal today. His analysis of the black and white thing in America is right on. If you think you completely understand racism and poverty, think again after reading this piece. Another excerpt:
And yet, despite the fact that greater responsibility is the only transforming power that can take blacks to true equality, this is an idea that deeply threatens the 40-year balance of power between the races. Bill Cosby's recent demand that poor blacks hold up "their end of the bargain" and do a better job of raising their children was explosive because it threatened this balance. Mr. Cosby not only implied that black responsibility was the great transforming power; he also implied that there was a limit to what white responsibility could do. He said, in effect, that white responsibility cannot overcome black inferiority. This is a truth so obvious as to be mundane. Yet whites won't say it in the interest of their redemption and blacks won't say it in the interest of historical justice. It is left to hurricanes to make such statements.
Witness. Blacks, whites, and the politics of shame in America. [OpinionJournal.com]
1:05:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
|
|
May God bless Staff Sergeant George Alexander, whose death was eagerly anticipated by the Cindy Sheehan / George Soros wing of the Democrat party. May God rest his soul. Sgt. Alexander makes the 2000th casualty in the war on terror, yet the headline calls it as the 2,000th in Iraq. In either case, they totally miss the point. They omit the first 3,000 brave souls on the front line of this war. Those tough and innocent Americans like Barbara Olson and Todd Beamer.
 
In this day of morbid celebration for the anti-war crowd on the left, lets give pause and thanks to the first 5,000 who gave their all for us to carry on and finish this war. Finish it by winning it, not by quitting it.
LATimes AP MoveOn.org
4:22:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, October 23, 2005
|
|
Al Franken went on Letterman last Friday night to hawk his latest book that he said was chock full of "nutritional candy." Which is his way of saying it's another bash Bush and his administration book. Dave's lead questions were about his show and then the Gloria Wise Girls & Boys Club money scandal/investigation. In the 1 min. 6 sec. it took him to answer, he didn't say anything to the question except to say 'the bozo is gone now.'
Come on Al, you can do better than that. Where did the money come from and where did it go? And why would Mike Papantonio (Ring of Fire co-host and investor) threaten a witness with legal troubles if he didn't 'cooperate'?
See the video.
9:56:20 PM
|
|
Saw Air America masthead Al Franken on David Letterman last Friday, Oct. 21. You know you can guage his audience in political terms by the laughter he or the guest gets. Dave asks Al how the radio show is doing, and the audience's reaction to his reply is a little gem.
See the video.
9:22:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, October 22, 2005
|
|
Oh, and by the way. Does this sound familiar? Truth and integrity don't matter if it will help advance the cause. Thanks to GOP Bloggers.
NARAL Co-Founder Admits Lying in Roe v. Wade.
Apparently, some of the information the Supreme Court relied upon in its Roe v. Wade decision was deliberately falsified by abortion advocates. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review debated this issue at Princeton on Wednesday:
The Roe opinion itself, written by Harry Blackmun, relied heavily on an account of the legal history of abortion which turned out to be profoundly flawed. The "pro-choice" historians--including some of the most distinguished people in the field--stepped in to shore it up when Roe when it appeared to be about to fall. To do this, as Ramesh showed with devastating detail and precision, they brought disgrace upon themselves. Also appearing on the evening's program was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, who gave a chilling account of the lies he and his colleagues told in their effort to legalize abortion in the late 1960s and early 70s. He told the audience about disseminating false polling data, falsifying statistics about illegal abortions and maternal death rates, and engaging in many other appalling acts of dishonesty. "We believed our lies were justified in what we regarded as a good cause," he confessed.
[GOP Bloggers]
12:12:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 21, 2005
|
|
Attention Libs and biased media! Make a note that Bush's first reaction is always diplomacy. So don't even attempt to go there when the U.N. refuses to act on their own report.
Bush Wants U.N. to Deal With Syria Report (AP).
 AP - President Bush on Friday called on the United Nations to convene quickly to deal with a U.N. investigative report implicating Syrian officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
4:48:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
|
|
Sound bizarre to you too? Yet this headline describes what the U.S. Senate did just days ago! Got this info from the CFIF website. You have to do a few things to set this straight. Write your Senators, demand that it be stricken in conference. Write the President and demand that he follow through on his promise to veto this legislation if it gets that far. And thank the 5 Republicans who voted against this idiotic amendment SA1977 written by Sen. John McCain (RINO, AZ).
Thank Senators Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions and Stevens for voting against this abomination and having the political courage to put the lives of innocent Americans above the interests of third world terrorists, thugs and dictators.
4:23:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, October 16, 2005
|
|
White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio and Anti-White Supremacist Protesters Riot. John Seewer, an Associated Press writer seems hell bent on fanning the racial tension in Toledo. Why else would his sub-title be "Mayor of Toledo, Ohio, Declares Emergency, Sets Curfew After Hundreds of White Supremacists Riot"? Well, which is it Seewer? It was black gang members who were rioting, smashing police cars, and smashing a policewoman's head with a brick. That, according to Toledo's Mayor Jack Ford. Do the people in this video look like white supremacists to you? Mayor Jack Ford correctly blamed the rioting on gangs taking advantage of a volatile situation.
Toledo Mayor Jack Ford
Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for allowing the march: "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.
City officials expected trouble, which's why they were there in the first place, to prevent trouble. They got way more than they expected. Had the people heeded the Mayor's wishes, which was to ignore them and stay inside, nothing would have gotten out of hand, and the white racists would have gone home defeated. Instead, like Mayor Ford said, 'they got what they wanted.' Which sounds to me like the soft bigotry of low expectations. Seems to me if Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are serious about it, they would have their Million Man March in Toledo, and Los Angeles, and New Orleans, as well as D.C. by taking the fight to the people who need it. Shall we overcome or not?
11:27:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 14, 2005
|
|
Ten years after the first Million Man March in Washington, a current assesment of where we are today is not encouraging. The WSJ Opinion Journal takes a look at the shift from 'we shall overcome' to 'shall we overcome.'
It seems that after decades of supporting and building up our daughters, sisters and wives, we are finally willing to acknowledge a national "boy problem" in general, one with devastating consequences for black males in particular. That belated recognition, our "leaders" seem to be saying with yet another media-courting march, might be too little too late.
Without strong, self-sacrificing, frugal and industrious fathers as role models, our boys go astray, never learn how to be parents (or men), and perpetuate the dismal situation of single-parent homes run by tired and overworked black women. The black family as a survival unit fails, which leads to the ever-fragile community collapsing along with it.
Shall We Overcome? The black American condition today.
8:30:59 AM
|
|
In John Kerry's mind, he deems it unfair to require that union employees consent to having their dues used for political purposes. He doesn't give a wit about working people. Kerry and prominent Democrats care more about getting the union money than giving the working man his choice. Prop 75 does not prevent workers from contributing. Rather, it preserves their freedom to choose. You see, 'choice' to the Democrats only applies to abortion.
Kerry Criticizes Calif. Union Dues Proposal (AP). AP - Sen. John Kerry said Thursday that a ballot initiative on union dues backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger could end up depriving working people of having a say in politics. [Yahoo! News: Politics News]
8:11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 13, 2005
|
|
This is required reading for two reasons. First reason is the look inside al Qaeda's war plan, which includes making Iraq their home base country (after the Americans leave) to export their jihad, killing their way all over the middle east, especially Egypt. This letter from Zawahiri seems to confirm what President Bush said in his address on the war on terror last week, that the center of the war on terror right now is Iraq. The second reason you should read it is because you won't see it in any detail in the biased media. They don't want that to get out. Doesn't fit the template. If anything, Zawahiri seems propped up by all the 'get out of Iraq' and 'illegal war' talk by the Democrats. Look how confident he is that we will leave prematurely.
(A) The matter of preparing for the aftermath of the exit of the Americans: The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority-as soon as the country is freed from the Americans-does not depend on force alone. . . . Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.
And lastly, it shows Zawahiri's concern over Zarqowi's chances of success in Iraq. Abu Musab al Zarqawi is al Qaeda's commander in Iraq. A country where we wouldn't be if Al Gore had his way. Nothing like aiding and abetting the enemy from a foreign country. A chic thing to do if you're a flaming liberal. He continues . . .
This is the most vital part. This authority, or the Sharia amirate that is necessary, requires fieldwork starting now, alongside the combat and war. It would be a political endeavor in which the mujahedeen would be a nucleus around which would gather the tribes and their elders, and the people in positions, and scientists, and merchants, and people of opinion, and all the distinguished ones who were not sullied by appeasing the occupation and those who defended Islam.
We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have any representation for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so the result was that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from them.
Check out the article in today's Opinion Journal, Zawahiri's Lament 'What our enemy thinks about Iraq.' The full text of the letter is on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence at www.dni.gov
1:23:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
|
|
The Democrat battle lines have been drawn now, between Sen. Hillary (the centrist, act I) Clinton and Sen. John Kerry, representing the George Soros 527's wing of the Democrat party, and promoted by Sen. Edward Kennedy. I can't imagine either potential candidate succumbing to the other. This is going to be some Democrat primary season, when it comes.
Kennedy Supports Kerry Over Hillary for 2008 Election. Sen. Edward Kennedy would support Sen. John Kerry if he runs again in the 2008 election over possible contender Sen. Hillary Clinton. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com - Politics]
4:25:21 PM
|
|
Ever since President Bush named Harriet Miers as his nominee to the SCOTUS, like a lot of conservatives, I too was surprised. I fully expected Janice Rogers Brown or another well qualified well-known candidate to be picked. I quickly was getting flashbacks of jump'n Jim Jeffords. Flashbacks to the final day of putting an end to the judicial nominee filibuster as a tactic, only to see it cave in to an elite club of 14.
It seemed to me that the good candidates were ignored and any speculation about why they weren't picked was not comforting either. A choice made from weakness, or perceived weakness as Rush Limbaugh opined seemed to me to be an accurate assessment. Weakness from the standpoint of not being able to get a headliner choice confirmed. A majority of 5 isn't enough to insure a win on important matters. That's when the RINOs reveal themselves. Republicans need a majority of at least 8 to govern with some confidence, unless and until the RINOs get replaced in office. On the other hand, what appears to some to be weakness could also be interpreted as a move by someone who would rather unite than divide.
Though I expected a strong, known quality choice, I did entrust President Bush to make that choice when I voted for him. And I have to trust his choice. The criticism from the vocal right reminds me of the vocal left. There is the same arrogance about who Bush should have chosen, about how he (in their minds) betrayed them. Same song from the moveon.org wing of the Democrat party. They want, make that demand, that the old skool Democrats step aside and let them take over.
Why trust Bush's judgement? His track record in picking personnel is pretty good IMHO, and, I don't think that he would sell out his party or his country by putting up a nominee to the Supreme Court who would legislate from the bench. Keep in mind, only Bush and those involved know who was asked and who may have declined the offer. All we know is who his (final) choice is.
Meanwhile, let's not get wrapped around the axle by pounding our chests and carping on the President. Let the process proceed and stop acting like the rabid left.
1:45:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, October 08, 2005
|
|
A preview of what would happen under the democrats' retreat & surrender plan. Here's a hint, being nice to this enemy empowers them and encourages more. Taking the fight to them remains the only way to end it. Pulling out of Iraq too soon will empower the terrorists. And with Iraq as their new home, we will see new terrorist recruits going there from all over the world. Who but the democrats in Washington believe that alQaeda will then leave us alone? Well, them and others who similarly don't believe we are in a world war on terror. It IS a matter of life and death and takes burying your head in the sand to a whole new level.
A pioneering scheme to fight Islamist terror by encouraging jailed extremists to rethink their grasp of the Koran is under fire after claims that some of its "converts" have taken up arms again.
Closer to home is our own history with the human debris we are housing at Club Gitmo. Some of those freed from there have been re-captured on the battlefield again.
telegraph.co.uk | Dick Durbin | Ted Kennedy | Washington Times
11:57:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 07, 2005
|
|
Needs no introduction. On Powerline today. . .
President Bush Speaks Again on the War on Terror, But Is Anyone Listening?.
President Bush gave a major address on the war on terror and Iraq before the National Endowment for Democracy yesterday; you can read the whole thing here. You should read the whole thing, since it's next to impossible to get an accurate sense of it from news accounts. this one in the New York Times is typical; it buries a few brief quotes from the speech amid commentary on Bush's falling poll numbers, adverse reaction to the Miers nominiation, and the Democrats' attacks on Bush. Here are a few key paragraphs from Bush's speech. It began with the most specific and accurate description of the enemy that Bush has yet given publicly:
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.
Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
Bush went after Syria and Iran, as well as the often-depraved Arab news media:
The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Bush responded directly to the silly argument that current terrorist acts are caused by the Iraq war or other actions of the United States:
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
He then went on to lay out with considerable specificity the administration's strategy to defeat militant Islam. He noted the many successes that we have had to date:
Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.
Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.
President Bush put our efforts in Iraq into the context of the broader war, and the terrorists' burning desire to control another country as they once controlled Afghanistan. He defended, ably, the progress that is being made in Iraq:
By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)
I was talking with a liberal the other day, who tried to explain to me that democracy in Iraq is impossible because of that country's religious and ethnic diversity. Only civil war can result from such conditions, he said. Oh, great, now they tell us--multiculturalism is impossible!
As he did before the war began, Bush laid out the most important purpose of the Iraq war: to promote the spread of freedom in the Middle East, as the only long-term solution to the perpetuation of Islamic terrorism:
The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.
Four years after September 11, neither the Democrats nor anyone else has proposed an alternative to Bush's strategy for long-term victory in the war on terror.
This was another in a series of great speeches in which President Bush has outlined his strategies and policies in the war. By contrast, the Democratic response was pathetic. As usual, it consisted mainly of an appeal to ignorance. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said:
The truth is, the administration's mishandling of the war in Iraq has made us less safe, and Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a training ground for terrorists.
As our readers know, this is a lie. (Here is one of many examples of Saddam's Iraq as a terrorist training center.) But it is a lie that is constantly repeated by the Democrats, and I am sure that many Americans who are not as well informed as our readers believe it.
I haven't seen a report on how many people watched Bush's speech; in fact, I'm only assuming that it was broadcast by someone. My guess is that very few either saw it or will read it in its entirety. Instead, the overwhelming majority depend on what they read about Bush's speech in the newspapers or hear on television news reports. Those articles and reports, with hardly any exceptions, will be carefully framed to minimize the speech's impact.
People used to talk about the Presidency as a "bully pulpit," but I think one lesson of the Bush years is that the President's ability to communicate effectively with the American people, outside of the context of an election campaign, is limited. The real "bully pulpit" belongs to the mainstream press, which is just about unanimously devoted to undermining the President's effort to communicate with, and thereby lead, the American people. [Power Line]
10:14:01 AM
|
|
Congratulations to William F. Buckley Jr. for the 50th anniversary of National Review. I consider myself lucky to have come to know him as one of the, if not the founder of conservatism. I remember growing up in the 50's, before I knew about politics, I knew that my father admired him, for the same reason most people do, for his perspective on topics of the day, and his mastery and use of the English language. He made an impression on me as a child and, looking back, it was he who sparked my interest in civics. Civics? Who even knows the word any more?
Bush Celebrates 50 Years of National Review
 AP - President Bush celebrated the 50th anniversary of the conservative magazine National Review and honored its founder, William F. Buckley Jr., before a group of Republican leaders on Thursday.
[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
12:38:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, October 06, 2005
|
|
 Former Vice President Al Gore, also known to have lost the 2000 election, is in desperation mode now. Democracy is falling, democracy is falling. The sky is next, what with 'global warming' and all. Algore apparently is not alone in his neuroses. One doctor diagnosed that Gore's problem is that he lost the election, a wound that was re-opened when John Kerry lost another one. Gore and the people who still listen to him have confused losing power with a failing democracy. Just a teeny bit arrogant wouldn't you say? As usual, he is 180 degrees from reality. I would argue that election results are the triumph of democracy.
Al Gore; "I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions."
4:10:45 PM
|
|
Was entertained this afternoon by one of those MSM types, Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe. He was telling Al Franken and his Air America listeners that the United States has no business being in Iraq and we should leave on a timetable at the rate of 10,000 per month. Replacing our 10,000 with an equal number of Iraqis, trained or not. If we have 150,000 brave soldiers in theater, then that means that by January 2007 we would be out. Sounds similar to Ted Kennedy's plan to retreat and surrender. I believe the terrorists would be willing to wait that long. | |
