Wednesday, September 6, 2006
ARE YOU FOLLOWING THE AL QAEDA SCRIPT
Yesterday President Bush made
a speech to the Military Officers Association in Washington D.C. The
transcript can be found in the reading assignments.
One part of the speech is especially interesting. Bush was discussing
some of the messages that our intelligence forces have found in captured Al
Qaeda documents. Here's a portion of Bush's speech where he discusses a
letter from Osama bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a
propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter
to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in
Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to
"launch," in his words, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the
American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden
says, will send the American people a number of messages, including
"that their government will bring them more losses in finances and
casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed to
serve the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by
delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the
American people on the American government to stop their campaign
against Afghanistan."
So ... a question. Are you living up to Osama's expectations? If you're
a Democrat, or if you're living in a tree house in Crawford, Texas, the
answer is probably "yes."
DEMOCRATS TAKING ON NATIONAL SECURITY
The mid-term elections are 2 months away and like the Republicans, the
Democrats have internal polling. They know the war in Iraq is unpopular and
George W. Bush is their lightning rod they can use to their advantage in
advertising and their campaigns. But they also know one other thing.
They know that Americans perceive them as being weak on national security.
There's a reason for that. Democrats ARE weak on national security.
We'll get to that in a minute.
So the Democratic Party has decided to try and close the gap a bit...and
are now on the offensive when it comes to the issue. Just yesterday, Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid tried
took a shot at George W. Bush, saying
"Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less
safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which
we live." The GOP shot back that there have been no terrorist attacks in 5
years and all Reid and his bunch want to do is cut and run in Iraq. That's
also true.
But whenever Democrats try to bring up this idea that we're so vulnerable
national security-wise under the Bush Administration, the media never holds
them accountable for what they did the last time they had the reins. It
wasn't that long ago that Bill Clinton was President of the United States
(even though some of us may be trying to forget.) Let's take a peek at the
record, shall we?
It was during the Clinton Administration that we experienced attack and
after attack by Islamic terrorists...and nothing was done about it. The
first World Trade Center bombing? Nothing. The debacle in Somalia? No
response. The bombing of our African embassies? Zero action. Khobar
Towers in Saudi Arabia? The Democrats did nothing. All the while, Osama
Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were emboldened....propped up by our appeasement
strategy. During the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, Islamic
terrorists plotted and planned their greatest attack: September 11th. And
so they pulled it off.
And it was the policies and procedures of the Clinton Administration that
benefited the 9/11 hijackers, right up until the end. They could have been
caught, but "the wall" put into place during Jamie Gorelick's tenure at the
Department of Justice prevented the sharing of intelligence across
agencies. And yet she was put on the 9/11 Commission.
That's what the media should be asking the Democrats about when they want to
say they're better on national security. But it'll never happen.
SHOULD RUMSFELD STEP DOWN?
Numerous Democrats have been
calling recently for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. They didn't like it too much when Rumsfeld compared those opposed
to the War on Terror to the Nazi appeasers in the late 1930's. As the
saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. At any rate, the conventional
wisdom on the Left is that Rummy screwed up the war, so he should have to
go. He should be fired. Let's look at that reasoning.
Rumsfeld has been President Bush's Secretary of Defense for his entire
tenure as president, since January of 2001. During that time, Rumsfeld has
guided the Pentagon through two major wars...the one in Afghanistan and the
war in Iraq. The first was seen as a smashing success....the latter not so
much these days. But what Democrats and the media are missing is that
Rumsfeld was also just as successful in Iraq.
Remember the invasion in March of 2003? It took only a matter of days for
Rumsfeld's military to march to Baghdad and put the Iraqi military in
surrender mode. Uday and Qusay were killed. Saddam was captured. By any
measure of military success, the invasion was a roaring success with minimal
casualties. So Rumsfeld gets the credit for that. So what has he done
wrong?
He gets blamed for everything...but really, he shouldn't. Take Iraq. Was
it Rumsfeld's decision to disband the Iraqi military, creating a security
nightmare? Nope. That one belongs to former administrator Paul Bremer.
What about the decision to allow the looting to take place after the
invasion? Rumsfeld wasn't running the show in Iraq then either. Is it
Donald Rumsfeld that is running the insurgency that has been so hard to get
rid of? Hardly.
Oh..but there's Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The alleged abuses that took
place there are surely his fault! Not if you believe the investigations
that took place. There's no evidence the higher ups had anything to do with
or knew anything about any sort of abuses. That doesn't make it right, but
it doesn't make Rumsfeld guilty of anything.
So in the end, Rumsfeld stays. And he'll probably stay in his job right up
until Bush leaves office, just to irritate the Democrats.
CINDY SHEEHAN BACK IN THE NEWS
Ladies and gentlemen .. introducing the face of the American pacifist,
appeasement, anti-war movement! Barking Moonbat Cindy Sheehan!
You know that your day wouldn't be complete without your daily dose of
the goings-on of the Crawford Crackpot, Cindy Sheehan. She's the anti-war
protester that has set up shop down at President Bush's Crawford, Texas
ranch the past couple years. She drifts in and out of the news, doing one
thing or another to get some attention. But the latest headlines concern
her new house she's planning on building.
You see, she bought a plot of land down there near the Bushes, but she had
somebody buy it for her, knowing that nobody would want to sell to her. She
was right. Once the person who sold realized it was for her, they
immediately regretted the transaction. But Cindy Sheehan has her property.
And now she wants to build a house. But not just any house.
According to "Mother Sheehan,"
her new digs will be a tree house. She gave
an interview to the Waco Tribune in which she talked about her plans.
Actually ... it's rather appropriate. A moonbat treehouse. I wonder if
she'll put some straps in there so she can hang upside-down from a limb
while sleeping at night.
Come on now ... is this the best the peace-at-any-price movement in the
U.S. can come up with?
THE END OF DELTA PILOT PENSIONS
A federal judge has given Delta Airlines permission to
end its pension
program for pilots.
Next step? Delta goes to some outfit called the federal Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation to put an official end to the plan.
Next step? The taxpayers step in and pay a goodly portion of the pension
benefits for retired Delta pilots.
Many of these pilots spent their entire careers steadfastly doing their
difficult jobs with the understanding that when the government forced them
to retire at 60 a comfortable pension would be waiting for them. Now most
of them will be trying to find a way to go on without having to go back to
work or reduce their standard of living.
These Delta pilots aren't alone. They have plenty of company in retirees
from other companies who have also eliminated pension plans. All of these
people have one thing in common. They relied on others for their retirement
planning.
The sure way to avoid what is happening to these pilots, and what has
happened to so many other American retirees, is to assume the responsibility
and control of your own retirement planning from the very beginning. When
you invest the money that you earn into your own retirement account ... no
company can come along and say "Hey, times are rough. We're ending your
pension program." You're self-reliant! You're immune from some third
party's determination to raid and destroy your pension fund!
Sadly, the people of this country just don't have this type of an
independent streak. Minor decision, minor planning ... that's fine.
Americans don't have any problem coping with the freedom to decide what to
eat for dinner tonight, where to go on vacation, or what book to read. When
it comes to the truly important issues: How to provide for my family's
heath care, how to plan for and fund a retirement plan and how to educate my
child ... it's always somebody else's job. Preferably the government.
Several years ago Americans were given the choice of whether or not to
support a simple plan to allow them to take just two percent of their
earnings ... money that was going to be taken by Social Security anyway ...
and invest it in a private pension plan over which they would have sole and
complete control. They passed. This was just too much of a burden for most
Americans. They didn't want the responsibility of having to figure out
where to invest that money. Just let the government do it.
The rejection of the plan to partially privatize Social Security gave us
a terrifying look into the psyche of the American worker. Freedom is fine,
as long as it doesn't entail to much responsibility. When the going gets
tough, go to the government.
The pensions for these Delta pilots were not guaranteed by the law or by
our government. Well, guess what? Either are your Social Security
benefits. Watch how the pilots handle this situation. You may have to
emulate them at some point.
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW CBS NEWS
Last night Queen Couric made her debut on the CBS Evening News.
Big deal.
I haven't watched a network newscast for five years, and I don't see any
need to start now. Anyone who would rather watch Couric on CBS than Brit
Hume on Fox News Channel needs help anyway.
I did read the reviews though. When I found out that Katie and CBS
actually gave precious time out of about 20 minutes of actual news coverage
to Tom Cruise's baby ... well, that about said it all.
Bread and circuses.
REDNECK SCRAP BOOK
You know, you almost wouldn't mind being stuck behind
this going 15 mph down a
country road where you can't pass. More in the Redneck Scrap Book.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Thanks to the listener who alerted me to this from Captain Capitalism!
In this blog entry the good Captain puts to absolute and final rest the idea
that Bush's economic policies are creating more poor people.
Gotta read this!
And here's another blog for you to read ...especially if you are somewhat
lacking in your understanding of economics. This one is entitled
"Americans Hate their Fabulous Economy." You can drive your bedwetting
friends nuts with this stuff.
Tony Blankley provides us with a history of appeasement (it's not always
a bad thing) and offers an opinion as to
whether or not appeasement will work with radical Islamists.
Democrats are going to campaign for the next 61 days on the
"incompetence" of the Bush Administration.
Cal Thomas sets the record straight. The economy is doing great.
Unemployment is down.
Here is a
transcript of President Bush's remarks before the Military Officers
Association of America yesterday in Washington D.C.
Well, Katie Couric has her first CBS Evening News broadcast under her belt.
So far the
reviews are that she did O.K. Of course, the proof will be in the
ratings...or the lack thereof.
This is the smack down we've all been waiting for: White House Press
Secretary Tony Snow got into it with NBC's David Gregory. Gregory accused
Snow of pointing at him and Snow called Gregory rude.
You can read the whole exchange here.
Here's the entire letter from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to
Harry Reid on why his ideas for Iraq are misguided and why they're not
going to fire Don Rumsfeld. It will be interesting to see if Reid replies.
The hot rumor in the UK is that British Prime Minister
Tony Blair will step down as Labour leader on May 31, 2007 and leave
office entirely July 26th next year. This will make his tenure in office an
even 10 years. But the pro-appeasement forces in Britain aren't reacting
too kindly to his retirement plans.
Michelle Malkin is challenging her readers with a post-September 11th
vocabulary test. She brings everybody up to speed on the different
terminology of Islamic terrorists and how it relates to the rest of us. But
don't expect the mainstream media to tell you about any of these terms.
Pat Buchanan says what many are thinking....that
the only hope the GOP has of retaining control of the House and Senate is to
take control of the illegal immigration issue....and now. As an example
of this possibility, Buchanan points to Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania's poll
numbers.
Discrimination is thought to be a bad thing, but
Dr. Walter E. Williams asks a most politically incorrect question in his
new column. What if discrimination were truly outlawed? Williams says we
all discriminate every day.
This should wake up Republican voters and send them scrambling to the polls
on November 7th.
Former impeached Federal Judge Alcee Hastings would become chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee under Speaker Pelosi.
Cal Thomas turns the table on the Democrats...and wonders since they blamed
George Bush for high gas prices last summer, will they be giving him
credit for their decrease in the past few weeks? Somehow I doubt it.
Thomas Sowell says the only difference between today's liberals and the
now-defunct Soviet Empire is that the Soviet Union imposed its doctrine
by force. You'll be surprised by the similarities, though. |