George W. Bush - 2004
Four More Years of Strong, Principled Leadership
 
Archives

Contact Us

Links

Shops

White House



 Advertiser

Lipozene

Propolene 30 Day Risk Free

Propolene


 Advertiser

Bedazzler

Bedazzler
Only $19.95 plus s&h

 Advertiser

American Legacy Guitar

AmericanLegacyGuitar

Master Class Esteban Guitar


 Advertiser

Conquer HA

ConquerHA for Joint Relief

Conquer HA


 Advertiser

John Beck TV

JohnBeck.TV

JohnBeck Free & Clear


 As Seen on TV Products

Top Sellers

Hylexin
Stick Up Bulb
Ronco Knife Set
Huggable Hangers
Timelife.com 70s Music Explosion
One Touch Can Opener

 
"This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others.
It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." - President Bush, National Day of Prayer and Remembrance
 
···Current Events

"The Calling of Our Generation"
9/11/2006

"Five years ago, this date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds, and nationalities -- and made war upon the entire free world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before. Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe. On this solemn night, I've asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world.

On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil. Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high floors of burning skyscrapers -- and called home so that their last words to their families would be of comfort and love. We saw courage in passengers aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm -- and then charged the cockpit. And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and smoke -- and ran back in to answer cries for help. On this day, we remember the innocent who lost their lives -- and we pay tribute to those who gave their lives so that others might live.

For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I've met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades. I've stood with families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride in loved ones who refused to be victims -- and gave America our first victory in the war on terror. I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now five years old -- and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in their arms. Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.

Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings, and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Read the rest of President Bush's speech to the nation on this horrible anniversary here.

* * * * *

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is Dead
6/09/2006

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki announced that "Today, al-Zarqawi has been eliminated" at a press conference yesterday. The reaction to that announcement speaks volumes. Iraqi journalists cheered and broke into songs of celebrations. American journalists sat silent, marking notes on their papers. To Iraqis, whose lives are tormented daily by the presence of bloodthirsty madmen like al Zarqawi, his death was cause to celebrate. To American journalists, it was not. That's all that needs to be said about that.

Congratulations to the dedicated soldiers and airmen who tracked and killed this most wanted enemy.

* * * * *

How the Republican Party has Irritated Conservatives, Part MCXLVII
2/09/2006

As detailed in this editorial by George Will, the Congress - excuse me, the Republican Majority Congress - is poised to further anger the fiscal conservatives in the GOP and deepen our financial deficit for an assinine stunt. It appears our fearless leaders have passed legislation which would provide vouchers to all owners of analog televisions to facilitate their transition to digital television broadcasts. As Will writes,

...(T)his story illustrates the timeless truth that no matter how deeply you distrust the government's judgment, you are too trusting. Here, as explained by James L. Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, is the crisis du jour: The nation is making a slow transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. Why is this a crisis? Because, although programming currently is broadcast in both modes, by April 2009 broadcasters must end analog transmissions and the government will have auctioned the analog frequencies for various telecommunications purposes. For the vast majority of Americans, April 2009 will mean . . . absolutely nothing. Nationwide, 85 percent of all television households (and 63 percent of households below the poverty line) already have cable or satellite service.

What will become of households that do not? Leaving aside such eccentric alternative pastimes as conversation and reading, the digitally deprived could pursue happiness by buying a new television set, all of which will be digital-capable by March 2007. Today a digital-capable set with a flat-screen display can be purchased from — liberals, please pardon the mention of your Great Satan — Wal-Mart for less than $460. But compassionate conservatism has a government response to the crisis. Remember, although it is difficult to do so, that Republicans control Congress. And today's up-to-date conservatism does not stand idly by expecting people to actually pursue happiness on their own. Hence the new entitlement from Congress to help all Americans acquire converter boxes to put on top of old analog sets, making the sets able to receive digital programming. All Americans — rich and poor; it is uncompassionate to discriminate on the basis of money when dispersing money — will be equally entitled to the help.

The $990 million House version of this entitlement — call it No Couch Potato Left Behind — is (relatively) parsimonious: Consumers would get vouchers worth only $40 and would be restricted to a measly two vouchers per household. The Senate's more spacious entitlement would pay for most of the cost — $50 to $60 — of the converter boxes. But there is Republican rigor in this: Consumers would be required to pay $10. That is the conservatism in compassionate conservatism.

Now, the hardhearted will, in their cheeseparing small-mindedness, ask: Given that the transition to digital has been underway for almost a decade, why should those who have adjusted be compelled to pay money to those who have chosen not to adjust? And conservatives who have not yet attended compassion reeducation camps will ask: Why does the legislation make even homes with cable or digital services eligible for subsidies to pay for converter boxes for old analog sets — which may be worth less than the government's cost for the boxes?

Gattuso says defenders of this entitlement argue that taxpayers will not be burdened by its costs because the government's sale of the analog frequencies will yield perhaps $10 billion. Think about that: Because the government may get $10 billion from one transaction, taxpayers are unburdened by government's giving away $3 billion with another transaction. Such denial that money is fungible fuels the welfare state's expansion.

Republicans in Congress have abandoned the principle of small government, and operate in the knowledge that the Executive Branch is currently unwilling to wield veto-power over their favor-seeking re-distribution of yours (and my) tax receipts. This is a symptom of their majority-minded incumbency, the cure for which may be administered by conservative voters who stay home in 2006 rather than vote for Republican office-holders with one hand while pinching their nostrils shut with the other.

* * * * *

Osama bin Laden is Dead
1/09/2006

Since we ended the year with a heartwarming story about Baby Noor [update available here], let's begin the year with some great news. According to Micheal Ledeen, resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, Osama bin Laden is now suffering his richly deserved eternal anguish. Ledeen writes in the National Review Online the news that contacts in Iran have told him of the terrorist's death late last year.

And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

Ledeen argues that this is an unique moment in history when revolutionary change is possible in the Middle East, not just because of the death of many former bad agents but also due to the widening gap between the hardline rulers and the freedom-seeking citizens of Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example.

In short, both demography and geopolitics make this an age of revolution, as President Bush seems to have understood. Rarely have there been so many opportunities for the advance of freedom, and rarely have the hard facts of life and death been so favorable to the spread of democratic revolution.

The architect of 9/11 and the creator of Palestinian terrorism are gone. The guiding lights of our terrorist enemies are sitting on cracking thrones, challenged by young men and women who look to us for support. Not just words, and, above all, not promises that the war against the terror masters will soon end with a premature abandonment of what was always a miserably limited battlefield. This should be our moment.

George W. Bush has seized the moment to lay the foundation for democracy in the Middle East and secure our safety here at home. History will place him in high regard for his leadership.

* * * * *

"No Better Friend..."
12/30/2005

The following story seems like a good way to end our first year on the web publishing political commentary. It is frustrating dealing with the lack of leadership out of Washington while we are at war at home and abroad. Frequently, this space features commentary that is irritated, concerned, angry, confused or all of the above. That's why this story had such a welcome tone and is our feature article for year end.

When troops from the Georgia National Guard raided a Baghdad home in early December, they had no idea that their mission in Iraq would take a different turn. As the young parents of an infant girl nervously watched the soldiers search their modest home, the baby's unflinching grandmother thrust the little girl at the Americans, showing them the purple pouch protruding from her back.

Little Noor, barely three months old, was born with spina bifida, a birth defect in which the spinal column fails to completely close. Iraqi doctors had told her parents she would live only 45 days. But she was tenaciously clinging to life, and the soldiers in the home -- many of them fathers themselves -- were moved. "Well, I saw this child as the firstborn child of the young mother and father and really, all I could think of was my five children back at home and my young daughter," Lt. Jeff Morgan told CNN from Baghdad. "And I knew if I had the opportunity whatsoever to save my daughter's life I would do everything possible. "So my heart just kind of went out to this baby and these parents who ... were living in poverty and had no means to help their baby. I thought we could do that for them," he added.

So Morgan and his fellow soldiers began working to get Noor the help she needs. "We ... collectively decided this is going to be our project," said Sgt. Michael Sonen. "If this is the only contribution we have to defeating the war on terrorism, this is going to be it."

So these brave warriors arranged to have the Baby Noor evaluated at a military hospital, and working with charities and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, (R) Georgia, are making arrangements for her to have surgery to close the hole in her back. By the first of the year she should be recovering from surgery in Atlanta, her grandmother by her side.

So while John Kerry, (D) Massachusetts would have you believe American troops are "terrorizing children" in Iraq, (a slander against our troops he has been consistent in spewing since Vietnam), the troops are busy "defeating terrorism" in ways big and small, brutal and tender. As the Marines like to say, "no better friend - no worse enemy".

To help Baby Noor, visit Lifeover Ministry and make a contribution.

Happy New Year.

* * * * *

Wiretapping vs. Mass Graves
12/28/2005

While the moonbats are howling about "illegal" domestic spying via wiretapping, another mass grave has been discovered in Iraq. Rational people recognize the outrage over wiretapping as another symptom of Bush-hating, while recognizing the mass grave as a bona fide example of a heinous man reigning horror on his own nation.

Iraqi officials said they found the skeletal remains of 31 people in what they described as a mass grave in the Shi'ite holy city of Kerbala on Tuesday.

A senior official at the laboratory to which the bodies were taken said the people appeared to have died during the suppression of a Shi'ite uprising against Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. "There are 31 bodies. We're still testing but it appears they are victims of the events of 1991," the official told Reuters.

One man authorizes wiretaps on phone conversations between suspected terrorists. One man orders mass murder to put down popular unrest. And the Democrats line up on the wrong side of history to express their condemnation.

There is a reason the majority of American citizens do not believe they are serious about our national defense.

* * * * *

Endangered Humans
12/14/2005

I don't think this site has included comments about abortion prior to today's entry, but something I read recently has haunted me since I saw it. The statement I read was that between 80 and 90 percent of pregnant women whose babies test positive for Down's Syndrome choose to abort their baby rather than have a child with Down's Syndrome. Between 80 and 90 percent.

Having had two perfectly healthy children I cannot imagine the anxiety that overwhelms an expectant parent to learn their baby has Down's. Still - 80 to 90 percent choose to abort their pregnancy.

Kathryn Jean Lopez argues that it is time to have a national discussion about that fact in an article here on National Review Online.

I know abortion is one of our most contentious issues. People don't want to judge. They don't want to put their rosaries on your ovaries. People often just don't want to talk about it. But we have to talk about it. And we have to especially talk about Down Syndrome and abortion — and this class of people "sophisticated" types seem to think can (and should?) be eliminated. A civilized society cannot tolerate this reality.

Lopez refers to an article written in the Washington Post by Patricia Bauer, mother of Margaret, a child with Down's Syndrome. Quoting Bauer, she writes:

As Margaret bounces through life, especially out here in the land of the perfect body, I see the way people look at her: curious, surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed. I know that most women of childbearing age that we may encounter have judged her ... to be not worth living. To them, Margaret falls into the category of avoidable human suffering. At best, a tragic mistake.

What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. I'd like to think that it's time to put that particular piece of baggage on the table and talk about it, but I'm not optimistic. People want what they want: a perfect baby, a perfect life. To which I say: Good luck. Or maybe, dream on.

Read the whole article, then forward it to someone you respect. Talk with them about it. Start a national conversation.

* * * * *

Pearl Harbor Day
12/07/2005

Excerpts from the President's speech commemorating the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day appear below. Read the whole speech here.

Liberty's ultimate triumph was far from clear in the early days of World War II. When our country was attacked at Pearl Harbor, America was emerging from the Great Depression, and several nations had larger armies than the United States. In Asia and Europe, country after country had fallen before the armies of militaristic tyrants. However, the brave and determined men and women of our Nation maintained their faith in the power of freedom and democracy. They fought and won a world war against two of the most ruthless regimes the world has ever known. In the years since those victories, the power of freedom and democracy has transformed America's enemies in World War II into close friends.

Today, our goal is to continue to spread freedom and democracy and to secure a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. We are grateful to the men and women who are defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of the 21st century. These patriots are protecting our country and our way of life by upholding the tradition of honor, bravery, and integrity demonstrated by those who fought for our Nation in World War II. The service and sacrifice of our World War II veterans continue to inspire people across our country, and we remain deeply grateful for all that these heroes have done for the cause of freedom.


* * * * *

"We Are Winning"
12/04/2005

James Q. Wilson offers a sample speech for George W. Bush to give to the American people in this article on OpinionJournal Online. The speech begins:

My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis. Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or killed.

After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing. Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament. An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely. According to surveys, Iraqis are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future.

The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more rapidly than the inflation rate. In some places, the terrorists who lost the war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent, honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad. And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion. Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.

The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.

I have heard it argued by members of the MSM that good news is hardly ever "news" at all -- you don't ever read in the paper about all the successful flights that land at the airport each day, only the one that crashed in the last 10 years. I think the same is true in Iraq. All the progress that is being made is incremental and not "newsworthy" by MSM standards. That leaves it to the White House to communicate the message that we are winning the war in Iraq and doing great good there.

The MSM will keep us all acutely aware of the painful cost of our efforts in the Middle East on behalf of civilized people everywhere. I am grateful that the President has recently begun increasing his efforts to communicate the results.


* * * * *

Losing Their Backbone
11/25/2005

Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech last week on the occasion of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala. He inserted remarks at the beginning of his message that ruffled some of the (chicken) feathers of the Democrats, so I felt obliged to reproduce them here:

Most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts.

What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures –- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers –- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -– but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

It is impossible to imagine VP Cheney running for President in 2008, which is a crying shame, because the man knows how to put the smack down. Those are the facts, indeed...


* * * * *

Happy Thanksgiving
11/24/2005

We will not be posting commentary from the frontlines of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy today in order to celebrate Thanksgiving with our families.

We are thankful for this great country, it's many opportunities and freedoms for which so many have paid (and are paying) so great a sacrifice. We are thankful for our families and friends. We are thankful for the church and all those who work at her mission. We are thankful for the rough courage of the men and women of our armed forces, both military and domestic. And much, much more...

Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless You.

* * * * *

23 Reasons
11/23/2005

Just read the first two lines of this article by Victor David Hanson in National Review and savor it's clarity and truthfulness:

This is the mantra of the extreme Left: "Bush lied, thousands died." A softer version from politicians now often follows: "If I knew then what I know now, I would never have supported the war." These sentiments are intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible for a variety of reasons beyond the obvious consideration that you do not hang out to dry some 150,000 brave Americans on the field of battle while you in-fight over whether they should have ever been sent there in the first place.

Brilliant! As the Left scrambles to revise the history of this war's origins, Hanson lays out the indisputable record from which these jerks are running:

Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.

If the Bush administration erred in privileging the dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war — genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. It was the U.S. Senate — a majority of Democrats included — not Paul Wolfowitz, that legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East: "...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".

So read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide; real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens."

The Senate resolution authorizing war in Iraq cited 23 reasons why the United States was going to war with Iraq. Let that sink in for a minute, because when you turn on the nightly news or pick up the paper all you will read about is WMD's and 'lies' the Bush administration told about them.

Hanson also correctly pinpoints the reason the Left is running for cover on this war, and it has nothing to do with pre-war intelligence or democratic progress in Iraq and Afghanistan or the magnificent conduct of our troops under fire:

...What then is really at the heart of the current strange congressional hysteria? Simple — the tragic loss of nearly 2,100 Americans in Iraq.

The "my perfect war, your messy postbellum reconstruction" crowd is now huge and unapologetic. It encompasses not just leftists who once jumped on the war bandwagon in fears that Democrats would be tarred as weak on national security (a legitimate worry), but also many saber-rattling conservatives and Republicans — including those (the most shameful of all) who had in earlier times both sent letters to President Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn their commander-in-chief for taking them at their own word.

So without our 2,100 losses, nearly all the present critics would be either silent or grandstanding their support — in the manner that three quarters of the American population who polled that they were in favor of the war once they saw the statue of Saddam fall. [Emphasis mine.]


* * * * *

Obsessing over WMD's and Katrina?
11/21/2005

I accidently stumbled upon NPR on the radio tonight while driving home from work, and let my judgment lapse long enough to listen to a "man on the street" segment they were doing with a group of people from Louisville, Kentucky who were unanimous in their upset with President Bush. (Not one supporter in the whole city could be found for the piece? Curious...)

Anyway, average person after person listed off their official grievances about the President, each of them mentioning WMD's and Katrina near the top of the list. No one's upset with Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco made the airwaves, if anyone had the good sense to mention their roles at all. But President Bush was cited as racially prejudiced and unconcerned with the poor based on "his" response to the natural disaster. What utter crap.

What was the difference between relief efforts in Alabama and relief efforts in Louisiana immediately following the hurricane? Answer - NOT the federal government. The feds played the same role in both states, but the presence of competent, mature leadership in Alabama lead to relief for it's citizens, and the presence of corrupt, ill-prepared nitwits in Louisiana lead to chaos for it's citizens.

Thank goodness we have the MSM to help sort all of this out for us. Headline: "The Government will save you from anything ever - unless they are those meanie-Republicans who 'stole' the election".

As to the oh-so-tired WMD charge, Norman Podhertz writes (again) on the facts of the charge in the Wall Street Journal OpionionJournal.

The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion

Please don't let the facts in this case interfere with your "Bush lied - people died" judgment over on NPR though. That just looks so much more pithy on a bumper sticker than "Savage madmen want to destroy utterly our country and civilization itself, so we must kill them before they kill us".


* * * * *

The Culture Revolution
11/18/2005

The gay "marriage" argument in this country is frustrating and typical of disagreements over culture in this country. The side of the argument advocating a profoundly radical revision of the historic definition of marriage is seen as reasonable and inclusive, while those who would conserve marriage's historic meaning are seen as hatemongers and homophobes. Is there really no thoughtful argument to be made in favor of leaving the definition of marriage unchanged, or are all words spoken in favor of defining marriage as "one man and one woman" hate speech?

Katherine Kersten, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, offers an account of one front in the culture revolution under way in Canada over this very issue.

How could a simple law redefining marriage as a union of "two persons" have such a revolutionary effect? There are two reasons.

First, marriage is Western society's most fundamental institution. As such, it is embedded throughout our law, child-rearing practices and culture in general. When marriage is redefined, other social institutions are likewise transformed.

Second, when male-female marriage and same-sex marriage become equal in the eyes of the law, treating them differently becomes discrimination. In Canada, "privileging" male-female marriage in any way is now a violation of human rights. According to Henry, "Canadians who believe in the historic definition of marriage, who believe that children need a mother and father, are now the legal equivalent of racists."

Today, Canada is combing through its laws and institutions to remove evidence of heterosexist discrimination. Terms such as husband and wife are now forbidden across the spectrum of Canadian law and government programs. The legal meaning of parenthood is being transformed, with consequences no one can predict.

Henry says Canadian schools are becoming battlegrounds. "Children will have to be taught about homosexual acts in health class, as they now are about heterosexual acts. Books that promote same-sex marriage are being introduced in some elementary schools. In one action, complainants have demanded 'positive queer role models' across the whole curriculum. If parents complain, they'll be branded as homophobes." Sound farfetched? People who disagree with same-sex marriage risk charges of hate speech. In British Columbia, teacher Chris Kempling has been found guilty -- and disciplined -- for defending male-female marriage in newspaper opinion pieces. Henry himself has been hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for promoting traditional marriage in his pastoral letters. "The human rights tribunals have become like thought police," he says. "In Canada, you can now use the coercive powers of the state to silence opposition."

When I read "the coercive powers of the state" it sends shivers up my spine. The full force of the U.S. Government does not need to be brought to bear on a culture that by an overwhelming majority believes that the definition of marriage should not change. Radicals in the gay minority and their sympathizers should not be allowed to unleash the many consequences, including those we can't even imagine, that would result from turning our definition of marriage upside-down.


* * * * *

Death by Government Negligence
11/17/2005

Our second piece on the rioting in France is intended to provide a little perspective.

Denis Boyles, writing in the National Review Online chides the French President for hiding away from the spotlight while it is turned on him for leadership instead of moralizing.

According to Elaine Sciolino, the New York Times Paris correspondent, writing in the International Herald Tribune, "President Jacques Chirac has never been one to shun the spotlight. But in the face of the most serious social crisis of his 10-year presidency, the 72-year-old French leader seems like the invisible man."

I can't remember when Sciolino first went to France to report for the Times, but if she thinks this is the "most serious social crisis" Chirac has faced, she's as wrong as she is when she says he's never been one to shun the spotlight. The award for "most serious social crisis" must go to the 2003 heatwave in which a collapse of government services resulted in the deaths of 15,000-old people in the space of about three weeks — that's five 9/11s, one every four days — while Chirac lounged through his holiday, far from every spotlight. Maybe she forgot. Or, more likely, she just didn't see it for what it was.

She's certainly not alone. I've written about this event often because 15,000 deaths by governmental negligence is what you call serious, social-crisis-wise. It's overlooked or ignored now, as it was then, because it's an cautionary tale embarrassing to the Left: It clearly illustrates what happens to you and your loved ones if you become accustomed to relying on the government — and especially the French one — to meet your personal responsibilities. The French learned then what Tocqueville knew long ago, that by the time you learn to depend on your government to save you, you're already a goner. The crisis of 2003 was not only a social crisis, for the Left, it was an ideological and spiritual one. [Emphasis mine.]

During that awful summer, as bodies choked morgues and doctors begged for help, Chirac said and did nothing for weeks — nothing at all, except to have his functionaries announce there was no crisis and punish those who said there was. After the crisis peaked, Chirac went on TV from his vacation home but only to tell the country not to worry. A year after the event, the health minister resigned and the government announced that in future heatwaves, everybody should go to the movies because they're air-conditioned. Otherwise, that most serious of social crises caused absolutely no visible change in French political life. A country that can shrug off manslaughter on a massive scale can easily overlook a few weeks of juvenile mischief. If they're smart, next year they'll just declare it a holiday. Or perhaps the French government will produce a typically Gallic remedy and ban the rioters' traditional headcoverings so we won't be able to tell the Muslims from the Marxists.

If 15,000 Americans died from a heatwave, the President would be sunk politically, morally and legally. In France, it doesn't even affect the President's vacation. There are any number of good reasons not to like the French, their pompous sermonizing on the evils of American Imperialism high on the list. I wouldn't trade one of our corporals in Iraq for the whole bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.


* * * * *

"The Explosive Arab Street" Turns Out to be in France
11/16/2005

I do not believe it is appropriate to gloat or point fingers at France while they undergo a major civil disturbance at the hands of disaffected Muslim youths. Nevertheless, the fact that the MSM has virtually ignored this major piece of the global war on terror leads me to think a couple of articles are in order.

Today let us hear from Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times.

Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.

Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.

The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

I wish the French government all the best in restoring order to their troubled country and to pulling their collective heads out of the sand to face the major cultural war already underway.


* * * * *

"A Universal Pathology"
11/15/2005

Victor Davis Hanson should be read and re-read every time he publishes an article online about the war - period, end of introduction. Writing about the world's continuing attention deficit when it comes to recognizing the global nature of the threat of radical Islamists, Hanson suggests the following formula for focusing our attention on winning this war.

Instead, the world—if it is to save its present liberal system of free trade, safe travel, easy and unfettered communications, and growing commitment to constitutional government—must begin seeing radical Islamism as a universal pathology rather than reactions to regional grievances, if it is ever to destroy it materially and refute it ideologically.

Yet the antidote for radical Islam, aside from the promotion of democratization and open economies, is simple. It must be militarily defeated when it emerges to wage organized violence, as in the cases of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Zarqawi’s terrorists in Iraq, and the various killer cliques in Palestine.

Second, any who tolerate radical Islam should be ostracized. Muslims living in the West must be condemned when they assert that the Jews caused 9/11, or that suicide bombing is a legitimate response to Israel, or that Islamic immigrants’ own unique culture gives them a pass from accustomed assimilation, or that racial and religious affinity should allow tolerance for the hatred that spews forth from madrassas and mosques — before the patience of Western liberalism is exhausted and “the rules of the game” in Tony Blair’s words “change” quite radically and we begin to see mass invitations to leave.

Third, nations that intrigue with jihadists must be identified as the enemies of civilization. We often forget that there are now left only four major nation-states in the world that either by intent or indifference allow radical Islamists to find sanctuary.

If Pakistan were seriously to disavow terrorism and not see it as an asset in its rivalry with India and as a means to vent anti-Western angst, then Osama bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri, and their lieutenants would be hunted down tomorrow.

If the petrolopolis of Saudi Arabia would cease its financial support of Wahhabi radicals, most terrorists could scarcely travel or organize operations.

If there were sane governments in Syria and Iran, then there would be little refuge left for al Qaeda, and the money and shelter that now protects the beleaguered and motley collection of ex-Saddamites, Hezbollah, and al Qaedists would cease.

So in large part four nations stand in the way of eradicating much of the global spread of jihadism — and it is no accident that either oil or nuclear weapons have won a global free pass for three of them. And it is no accident that we don’t have a means to wean ourselves off Middle East oil or as yet stop Iran from becoming the second Islamic nuclear nation.


* * * * *

"No Evidence"
11/14/2005

With the Democrat party currently enjoying a good lather over the prospect of an indictment of an aide to the Vice President over conversations held with reporters several years ago, the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal editorialists offer this helpful article to help focus the conservative mind. To wit,

• In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).

• The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

• The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

• Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.

The certifiable nitwit Joseph Wilson IV continues to wring every last ounce of publicity available out of his discredited assertion that his wife's covert CIA status was maliciously leaked to the press to intimidate and/or punish him. And the desperate Democrats continue to hand him the microphone, hoping that more people watch the nightly news than read the actual reports about pre-war intelligence.

In the meantime, the President continues the war on terror in spite of poor public opinion over the war, the soldiers continue to sacrifice for the cause of our safety, and ordinary people in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to build the democratic foundations upon which peaceful, prosperous lives can be made for their children.

And the Libs say we should 'move on'...

* * * * *

Racial Arsonists
11/13/2005

Deroy Murdock, Contributing Editor to Nation Review Online wrote recently on the passing of a generation of dignified, classy champions of civil rights typified by Rosa Parks. In regard to her passing, he wrote:

When the late Rosa Parks was laid to rest Wednesday at Detroit’s Woodlawn Cemetery, Americans also paid their last respects to the brand of civil-rights activism that she embodied. By refusing to yield her seat to a white man in the front of a segregated Montgomery, Alabama bus on December 1, 1955, Parks (who died October 24 at age 92) both launched and epitomized a dignified, determined fight against hardened bigotry. It spread from the ultimately successful, 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, to sit-ins at Whites-Only lunch counters, to Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, to President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s signature on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In just eight and a half years, Parks, King, Medgar Evers, Bayard Rustin, and other civil-rights pioneers killed and buried Jim Crow by being serious, self-respecting citizens who challenged their countrymen to supersede real, palpable racism and achieve true equality for all Americans. Their victory was one of this nation’s finest hours.

Compare the grace and magnanimity of their struggle with the behavior of today’s civil-rights activists and their liberal, Democratic allies. As black Americans run the State Department, Time-Warner, Merrill-Lynch, and even Interpol, today’s charlatans promiscuously play the race card, not as the rarely deployed, ultimate defense against ethnic bias, but as the first response to any inconvenience that anyone of color might perceive. Rather than appeal for unity and calm to overcome bigotry, today’s racial arsonists spray lighter fluid on the nation’s still-cooling embers of ethnic animus. Instead of conserving their energies to fight genuine hatred when it makes an increasingly rare appearance, today’s race-obsessed liberals see prejudice as often as the white rays of the morning sun scatter the black shadows of the night. Indeed, Jim Crow might have survived for years were Parks, King, and their contemporaries as buffoonish as today’s race-propelled Left.

Murdock goes on to list examples of behavior by those who would claim to "lead" the civil rights movement today. Unfortunately for the country, these "leaders" refuse to acknowledge the real gains made by minorities in this country, or to work with conservatives to try solutions to problems that don't involve massive government control (school vouchers anyone?).

* * * * *

Women's Rights
11/10/2005

Carrie Lukas & Michelle D. Bernard write an article in Nation Review Online about a recent conference for women in Iraq which provided training about democracy and limited government.

The Iraqi women wanted to attend this conference because they want the things embodied in the conference agenda. They want democracy and a government beholden to its people. They want a limited government, a free press, and economic liberty. The women who attended represented almost every ethnic and religious group in Iraq. Some dressed in western garb, while others wore headscarves. Some were dressed in black abayas, and still others wore the brightly colored dress of Kurdistan. But they shared a common vision of a free and democratic Iraq.

The five-day conference provided an overview of the concepts that underpin a stable, democratic country such as limited government, religious freedom, and economic liberty. Not only were these fundamental ideas explored, but there was a "democracy in action" session — taught by Rep. Kay Granger (R.,Tex.), Rep. Tom Osborne (R., Neb.) and several other Members of Congress — dedicated to the practical application of these principles. Women roleplayed, learning how to lobby and influence policymakers. At the end of the conference, the women were given ways to continue to work together through follow up events and communication networks.

Today, these women are working toward their common goal. They continue to participate in regional conferences to encourage more women to become politically active. These women can draw upon a women-experts panel, which consists of some top scholars from around the global, who offer advice about the ongoing efforts to protect women's rights in the new government. They continue to partake in networking events so they remain in contact and coordinate their efforts. And they are making a difference, laying the groundwork for women's full participation in Iraq's government.


One lunatic with an improvised explosive device can create such immediate havoc that his actions will dominate the US news cycle for 24 hours. Yet these 150 women who put their lives and the lives of their families in jeopardy to blaze the trail for all Iraqi women do so without notice or recognition for their heroism. They are the reason that so many of us are hopeful for the future of Iraq and the entire Middle East.

* * * * *

The Next Nuclear Power?
11/09/2005

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of the nation of Israel, as noted here.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, cheered by thousands of supporters, signaled on Friday he stood by his call for Israel to be wiped off the map, while Iran's foreign ministry sought to defuse a diplomatic storm.

Israel said it would request an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council over the comments, which have drawn the condemnation of the West and Tehran's ally Russia.

Iranians chanting "death to Israel" and "death to America," converged from nine points in the Iranian capital for a rally attended by most of Iran's top officials. Some protesters set fire to or trampled on Israeli and U.S. flags.

Ahmadinejad took a short walk in the crowd, rallying in support of his comments that the Islamic world could not tolerate the Jewish state in its heartland. He said Western criticism carried no weight. "My words are the Iranian nation's words," he told the official IRNA news agency, when asked if he had a message for the world.

Meanwhile, Iran is ramping up its production of nuclear power facilities. We are repeated offered assurances that they are strictly pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and with a leader like Ahmadinejad, why should anyone worry about his intentions?

Still, Democrats in Washington remain more worried about Karl Rove than madmen like this, to their shame and utter unseriousness.

* * * * *

"A Great Struggle of Wills"
11/08/2005

President Bush gave a funny and stirring speech at the Opening Ceremony for the Air Force One Pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. The entire text of the speech can be foundhere but the funniest part was this:

No matter how many hours he spent in the air, President Reagan never lost his sense of humor. One of his favorite pastimes on board Air Force One was prowling the staff cabin with a White House photographer in tow looking for somebody who was asleep. (Laughter.) He would pose next to the unknown victim and then send him a signed picture when they got home. (Laughter and applause.) One day, Secretary of State George Schultz received a photo of himself asleep with his mouth wide open -- (laughter) -- as the President waved his arms in mock desperation. The inscription read, "George, wake up, the Soviets are coming."

History will continue to increase the reputation of our 40th President as a funny, tough, principled, smart leader - the perfect man for that moment in history. Our history involves a new type of threat, about which President Bush spoke these words:

Because of Ronald Reagan's leadership, America prevailed in the 20th century's great struggle of wills. And now in this new century, our freedom is once again being tested by determined enemies. The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are followers of a radical and violent ideology. They exploit the religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision, the establishment 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 against Muslims from other traditions who they regard as heretics.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard of Islamic militants that presume to speak for the Muslim masses. Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that the innocent can be murdered to serve a political vision. Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. And like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is doomed to fail. (Applause.)

It will fail because it undermines the freedom and creativity that makes human progress possible and human societies successful. The only thing modern about our enemy's vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past, a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future.

President Bush is as idealistic a man as the office of President has seen since Ronald Reagan. He is a champion of freedom for all people and history will remember him as a great President, too.

* * * * *

"Tough History is Coming"
11/06/2005

After the busiest hurricane season in history, a devastating tsunami (Indonesia) and earthquake (Pakistan), war in the Middle East, nuclear threats from nutcase countries (Iran and North Korea) and a potential bird flu pandemic, I've had a feeling of uneasiness settle in over me these last few weeks. It appears that I'm not alone.

Peggy Noonan wrote this article in the Opinion Journal Online expressing both her sense of difficult times and the moral failure of the country's elite from addressing difficulties head on. She begins:

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.

But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.

Read the entire article and decide if it is enough to have made "a separate peace" with what is going on in the world, or to risk leaving the shelter of our little lives to try and save the world. Literally.

* * * * *


1