Tag Archives: national security

The Truth Is Hard To Accept And In The Case Of Iran, Few Do.

Bookmark and Share    Some realities are so disturbing that we would rather not deal with them. This habit tends to be Iranian-Afghani Border Highlighta political phenomenon that we often encounter and that we often pay a dear price for.

For decades our federal government has refused to face the harsh realities of deficit spending. They just can’t find it in themselves to deny their spending habits and tighten our federal belt. Unless we eventually legitimately confront the reality of runaway deficit spending and face the unpleasant facts that we can’t continue to spend what we don’t have for much longer, we will soon have a rude awakening. All because we did not want to face the facts.

World Wars I and II were realities that we did not want to have anything to do with. Woodrow Wilson spent the years 1914 through 1917 trying to not have anything to do with the war. An American population that had no desire to be a part of what was happening “over there” also wanted to stay out of it. Their fears of the possibility of Americans getting involved in World War I even drove Woodrow Wilson to, in 1914, draw up a declaration of neutrality. He even urged Americans not to take any sides. In 1916 a grateful American electorate reelected Wilson on the slogan “he kept us out of war”.

A year later, American was at war. After neutrality did not prevent Germans from killing Americans, Wilson turned around and  stated that we were going to be a part of World War I in an attempt to fight a “a war to end all wars” and to make “the world safe for democracy”.

Our need to defend ourselves and our interests were inevitable. We just didn’t want to face the truth.

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt presided over our nation, he and most Americans again did not want to be involved in the war “over there”. Our allies begged on hands on knee, but we refused to officially get involved. We did however try to covertly help our allies like Great Britain. Although we did not want to fight, we knew how important it was for our allies to not go down in defeat. So we offered minimal, under the table, support.

And then Japan attacked and killed what was up to then, the most devastating foreign attack on America ever.

A short time later, we were not just fighting in World War II, we were leading the war effort.

There is often question as to just how much history would have been altered had we put our muscle into these fights before it was too late and could no longer deny the facts.  There is also question as to just how much, our leaders and we the people, as a nation, have learned from past denials.

Today, our war weary nation wants nothing more than to put an end to conflict. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we want the war in Afghanistan to be over and our military involvement in Iraq to be done. The only difference there is that some want  to end when we have achieved our goal and eliminated the threats that sent us there in the first place, while others just want us out of the two countries at any cost. I happen to be a party to the former school of thought. I also happen to be of the school of  thought that, as troubling and unpleasant as some realities are, we, as a nation, can not sweep them under the rug. By doing so, we will eventually trip over what sweep there and fall.

Currently an unpleasant reality that we must confront is Iran.

Put aside for a moment their nuclear ambitions. For a moment, don’t even consider the Iranian Presidents stated desire to push Israel off in to the sea. Let us ignore for a brief second the possible threats that we don’t want to deal with. Instead let us just look at the existing threats that we are dealing with right now—–threats that we do not want to acknowledge because the truth of them happening creates “a reality so disturbing that we would rather not deal with it”.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the greatest threats and challenge to our missions being completely accomplished are insurgents. These are extremist rebels who seek to engage the democratic installed governments of the two nations in battle and ultimately overthrow them. We have long known that Iran is providing many of these insurgents. Not only are they providing the actual rebels, they are also supplying them with explosives and other military hardware.

This is a point made quite obvious in a recent article in AsiaTimes.com entitled Afghans Fear Infiltration From Iran.

In it, the authors document the events in a tiny border town between Iran and Afghanistan named Islam Qala. The article details the ease in which Iranian insurgents are helping the Taliban to defeat the American born democracy behind the new Afghan government.

Take a moment to review this account of Iranian involvement. And then understand this. The ugly truth in what we must confront is the only way we can assure a success with any longevity in Afghanistan and Iraq. The truth of the disturbing realities Iran confronts us with are so undesired that I will not even bring myself to state the harsh truth of what we must do. Read the Asia Times article that I reference and link to here and draw your own conclusions. But before you do remember what Wilson and Roosevelt wanted to believe and then remember what they had to do.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Hate Crimes & National Security: How Democrats Fit Square Pegs Into Round Holes

Bookmark and Share    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi celebrated what she carefully phrased as “the passage of the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”. She continued with her statement by adding hate-crime-22149-20090430-60that it was passed “as part of the conference report on Defense Authorization for fiscal year 2010 (HR 2647)”.

This might initially seem an innocent enough statement but a look at the meaning of the statement reveals a truly repulsive an reprehensible example of liberal deception and political preposterousness.

By its very definition, an appropriations bill is a legislative act proposing to authorize the expenditure of public funds for a specified purpose, “a specified purpose”. The term is also not one that can be interpreted as a tool for sweeping legislative action on multiple, unrelated fronts. But with a total lack of responsibility and decency Congress followed through with a process that was amended by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on July 15th of this year. The amendment (S.AMDT.1511) added a hate crimes provision that became part of a bill which was meant for the specific defined purpose of authorizing financial appropriations for military construction, military personnel, military activities of the Department of Defense, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2010.

Hate crimes legislation and the cost of an effective national defense are in no way, shape or form, related issues. That indisputable fact makes one wonder why and how the twain meet.

Dealt with separately, the DOD appropriations had enough of its own controversial aspects. Most notable were the budgeting questions that led to hard fought alterations of programs developing alternative engines for an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a possibly negligent scrapping of the F-22 fighter program. So sensitive were these two aspects of the appropriations process that President Obama promised a veto of the bill if the F-22 was not scrapped and if the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was seriously disrupted. But perhaps the most sensitive aspect of defense department appropriations process is the fact that it funds THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION !!!!!

That small fact warrants serious consideration by serious and responsible people. It is a process that, if tamperedDepartment of Defense insignia with, will result in a vulnerability to the United States that can reap devastating results too difficult to repair or reverse in a time and fashion that keeps us safe. Given the importance of the issue, how does the Democrat majority deal with it? They throw the issue of hate crimes legislation into it.

Hate crimes alone is a divisive issue. The very nature of a bill that places the lives of some over the lives of others warrants much debate of its own. For a group of responsible federal legislators to conclude that one similar act of violence should be addressed with less severity than another similar act of violence based upon who and why they were committed is nothing but government sanctioned discrimination. At the heart of hate crimes measures are an attempt to not simply create penalties for violence but to legislate peoples attitudes and even their thoughts. The extent to which hate crimes initiatives are created offer the potential for future enforcement of laws that will criminalize words and thoughts in an acute contradiction of the First Amendment.

There is no excuse for violence. It is intolerable in all its forms and for all its reasons. Hate and bigotry are personal perceptions that are bred by ignorance and intolerance but they are not combated by somehow claiming that the murder of one person because you hate their religion, orientation, gender, color, accent or maybe even their politics, is any less heinous than the murder of another person for any other reason. Why should someone who kills a homosexual because of their orientation be punished with any less severity than someone who kills a homosexual for their money? Why should the killer of a married mother of two receive a softer sentence because someone killed her for her car, than someone who killed her because she was a lesbian?

justitiaWith the exception of extenuating circumstances of murder committed by accident, unintended or contributory negligence, or in self defense, the government should not be asserting greater emphasis on the prosecution of or penalties on crimes committed against one group of people or for the particular reasons they were committed. To legislate different penalties for similar crimes based on why and who they are committed against  is not the commissioning of proper judicial conduct. Such laws take the blindfold of justice  off of Justitia herself.

If one were to take the time to debate this issue properly, the mounting legal, moral and ethical arguments that demonstrate hate crimes legislation to be in and of themself  a discriminatory practice are endless and I am sure the passions of those who support such discriminatory policies meant to prevent discrimination against others have their endless cases for hate crimes legislation. Which is exactly why this measure never should have been made a provision thrown into a defense spending bill. It has nothing to do with defense appropriations. To slip this distinctly separate issue into a bill that it has no relationship with was genuinely despicable and it denies the proper individual attention that bothe issues deserve.

With hate crimes legislation being such a divisive issue, clearly it was made a part of the defense issue in an attempt to avoid it being dealt with based on its own merits, which if it were, it would hardly receive the same support that a bill providing money for the defense of our nation would. However, for some, for the first time ever in their legislative careers, they actually did vote against the defense appropriations bill and they did so because hate crimes legislation was made a part of the it. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence was among those who fell into this category. After declaring “ that the defense bill was being used as a vehicle for liberal social policies wholly unrelated to our country’s national security”, Pence delivered a passionate speech on the House floor opposing the Democrats’ attachment of the hate crimes bill to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

In it he states that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 is “an important piece of legislationCongressman Mike Pence of which “its essential elements” will ultimately provide our troops with the “critical resources they need to accomplish their mission.” The Congressman added “However, the Majority in this Congress has cynically included hate crimes provisions in this legislation that threaten the very freedoms of speech and religion that draw our soldiers into the uniform of this nation.” In its entirety Rep. Spence laid out a compelling case against both the actions of the Democrats and their misguided drive for hate crimes.”  For the full text of the speech, click here

The Democrat majorities manipulated the system so that those who did support proper funding of the Department Defense had to also support hate crimes legislation. Conversely, the only way that they could have opposed hate crimes legislation would have been to oppose the funding of the Defense Department. Such politics should be criminal in and of itself. It is absolutely insincere and shameful. Rest assured that Democrats are not alone in this practice of adding unrelated measures to varied legislation designed to address something other than what is added to it. Republicans do the same thing and the practice, as deplorable as it is, is commonplace. That is why I have long since called for an overhaul of the legislative proposal process, a process which through committee and the amendment procedures, would deny unrelated spending measures and issues from being attached to each other.

Be it Republicans or Democrats, the practice of tagging issues or spending measures that are irrelevant to the intended focus and origins of a bill is wrong. Such disingenuous conduct is not for those of honor and with dignity. In this case, it was the Democrat majorities who have proven themselves to be dishonorable and without dignity.

The question now becomes who has not only the dignity and honor to put an end to the practice of creating legislative riders but who has the courage and power to do so. Based on the prime example of making hate crimes a rider on legislation effecting national security, President Obama could veto the FY 2010 appropriations bills and make it clear that if you want hate crimes legislation passed, lets do so on its own merits, not on the basis of treachery and deceit.

For some reason though, I doubt our President has the dignity and courage to do that.

Bookmark and Share


Filed under politics


Bush and Obama Walk To The Oval Office

Bush and Obama Walk To The Oval Office

 Okay, so maybe it’s not the actual transcript but I think it went something like this………..

G.W.B – Welcome to the White House Mr. President-Elect. Its a real pleasure and honor. We’re makin’ history here.  

B.H.OThank you. Having gone through this yourself, I’m sure you understand the emotions that the times we’re in and that this occasion brings to me. So it goes without saying that I appreciate your gracious invitation and your earnest cooperation in the transition, Mr. President.

G.W.B. – Please call me George. You and I share a lot more in common now than ya think and we’re among a very small group. Only 42 others have gone on the path that you’re about to go on and that I’ve already taken. So call me George. Ya know, I have a habit of giving people nicknames. I usually just tag ‘em with the first snappy word that comes to mind ‘cause of some obvious characteristic they’ve got. I call this one really tall guy in the White House Press Corps Stretch.

Looking at you …….

B.H.O.How ‘bout you call me Barry…..my good friends always have.

G.W.B. – Close enough……Sounds good to me …..So, Barry, where ya wanna begin? Got any initial nagging questions?

B.H.O.Well Mr. Presi,…ahh…George, I would like your take on what you believe will be the first, most pressing, immediate and important challenge or development to confront me after I’ve taken the oath?

G.W.B. – We all know the economy is a priority.

B.H.O.That’s an understatement George, how’d you let it get so out of hand?

G.W.B. – Ask your friends,…… Dodd took more money from the housing folk at Fannie and Freddie than anyone else and Barney Frank was getting’ it on with one of the guys running them and as the two boys chairin’ that committee overseein’ how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bein’ run, they decided to let ‘em off the hook……. Wouldn’t even look into their books. So that helped start the crisis.  And so did Clinton’s homeownership initiatives.  They forced Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other loaners to hand out sub prime loans and overextend ‘emslevse to people they knew couldn’t afford to pay ‘em back.  The bill had to come due soon.  That all was just part of the problem, the part that tightened up the loaning market and started it all.

I shoulda’ seen it coming though, so I take the blame for not heading it off………

……But anyway, like I was sayin’ the economy is an obvious priority but it isn’t one that should allow you to lose focus on other stuff. You know what you wanna do so go to it. It’s your economy now. You won and your policies won the approval that gives you the right to try to put ‘em through. As for your biggest immediate challenge… Let me give you a little presidential history.

Before I came into office people were beginning to grumble, we were experiencing a mild recession as I came here to DC. So that became my priority. I focused attention on it to try an’ get support for tax cuts that we got enacted. I focused on cutting the amount of money that we taxed people so that they had the money to pump back into the economy and help prevent the recession from gettin’ rougher and lastin’ longer than it could have.

I also tried to move ahead quickly with my campaign promises…..faith based initiatives, no child left behind, ..things like that.

Then less than eight months into it, while sitting in a classroom with little kids, it all changed.

B.H.O.I hear you George.

G.W.B. – You may hear me but you don’t understand, at least not yet Barry. But you will, in time you will.

B.H.O.- So your saying national security is my priority.

G.W.B. – What I am saying is as I sat their in that class room and Andy, my chief of staff, rushed in, leaned over and whispered in my ear that we were under attack, I felt fear and fury. The fear wasn’t for me but for the country. The fury was over the fact that this could happen. To make it worse, here I was….. sittin’ around with the most vulnerable and innocent among us, our children, our future.

With those kids faces lookin’ in my direction, that sense of anger and the fear for our people coincided with a quick feeling of failure.

I was the President that was responsible for our safety when this happened……Me!…..I was suppose to stop these things from happening to my people.  I was in a Florida classroom, tryin’ to promote an education program that would improve the education of our kids, our children,….. and while doin’ this, their nation was directly attacked. Our own people were being slaughtered in their places of work.

Barry, …..at the moment,….. I took a direct punch to the gut and then an upper cut to the chin. I was reeling from the fact that this was happening and that, as President, for whatever reasons, I did not prevent it from happening.

B.H.O.- Mr. President, no one knew…..it was not your fault and no one ever claimed it was your fault.

G.W.B.- No they didn’t….well except for a few fanatics who claim I actually orchestrated the attacks. But you’re right, no one blamed me, but I blamed myself. I am the President and it was – is, my responsibility to defend us.

Logic lets me accept that, at the time, no one could’ve known the exact threat and how bad it could be. That’s logic.  But even Presidents have feelin’s and although logic tells me one thing, my emotions still twist my guts with the fact that I was the President that unknowingly allowed this to happen.  Every death on that day weighs on my heart like a cinder block.

It was then that I vowed not to allow any suspicion to go unchallenged. No matter how minor the threat may seem, I knew then that it couldn’t be ignored. I saw the internals. Clinton saw them and knew them too. Problem is both of us did not have the wherewithal and awareness to prioritize them properly. Who actually ever thought that some lunatic, camel riding, desert rat could be as big a threat as he proved to be.

B.H.O.I understand Mr., eh, George….the sense of responsibility for all that happens must be all consuming. I’ve already begun to establish such a feeling myself,…knowing that it’ll all be up to me soon.

G.W.B. – Well you know, my father once wrote that the answer to doing it all, and carrying on is “Family, faith, friends, do your best, try your hardest, rely on your innate good sense, kindness and understanding of the American people”*. He claimed that is where a president gets his strength. After a few months in office myself, I realized old 41 was right on that one……you will too.

B.H.O.I’ll certainly heed that advice……

G.W.B. – Good,…… but the answer to your question about what your first challenge, when you get sworn in ‘ill be………Well, it is not what you think.

The greatest challenge you’ll first face is the same great challenge that your entire presidency ‘ill face. It’s not what you know. It’s what you don’t know. It’s the surprises that our enemies thrive on and it’s the surprises that can derail all your plans. The greatest challenge that us Presidents face are the unknown events which we don’t plan for.

B.H.O.So what do you suggest?

G.W.B. – Develop contingency plans……. Options for everything from your economic plan to your national security intentions. Have ‘em all planned and be prepared to roll ‘em out as soon as yesterday.

That and vigilance.

And don’t just hope for the best, help to insure the best. Leave no suspicion ignored and let no potential hazard linger or allow it the chance to come to fruition. Take out threats before they take us out.

B.H.O.I hear what you’re saying George, but if I’m hearing you right you’re telling me to continue your aggressive policies.  Andthe truth is that my campaign was based on the premise that your policies are wrong and they’re  not my policies. I promised to be different and that’s what the people wanted.

G.W.B. – Lemme tell ya something,  Barry,……….. You are going to be President, the highest office, the pinnacle of politics but ironically, once reaching that political pinnacle, politics has ta stop and the best policies have ta start. Politics won’t prevent the next attack. Politics wont make the poor rich.

Heck, I ran around the country telling everyone, in 2000, that I don’t want us in the business of nation building. And I didn’t want us doin’ that kind of stuff. I didn’ want us working on, or risking lives in, those countries with names I can’t even pronounce.

But look at me now.

I learn’d that by not involving’ ourselves an’ providing’ leadership where leadership is needed……bad things will come back to haunt ya. The wrong people ‘ill step in an’ try to provide that leadership. The type of leadership that led 19 terrorists to kill 3,000 Americans. So I may not have wanted to be doin’ what were doin’ but I learn’d quick , that we better do what we have to do or there’ll be consequences to suffer.

So what I’m telling you is this, all those promises you made,…….. well they were political and as President the leadership you must provide and the policies you gotta implement, trump politics and political promises that you made before you knew the real facts. As President you have to do what is right for the people not what you think is right to get elected. Being President is a heck of a lot different than bein’ a candidate. We all mean what we say but what we say isn’t always the means available to us.

This is it Barry,…. there’s no higher up to go than we are right now. You can’t be held back by what you thought,….. you gotta be driven by whatchya know. And as you begin to see all the classified NSR’s you’re gonna realize something. You’re gonna realize that my policies may not be aggressive enough and you’re gonna want to be even more aggressive than me.

B.H.O.Look I intend to keep up our defenses and try to eliminate threats but I…….

G.W.B. – Barry, you’re gonna see things that’ll make you say, “why haven’t we stopped them over there” or “why have we let these guys do this or that”. Some of what you will discover will make you say” why didn’t George take care of this?” Then your Secretary of State will come in and tell you why we can’t do what seems so obvious. And your Secretary of Defense will show up and remind you that Russia is ready to surround Poland with missiles if we don’t agree to accept one thing or another or that Greece is once a’gin stirring up Macedonia and that Turkey will blow their feathers if we train troops in Kazakhstan how to shoot straight….Its endless and more twisted than Johnny Edwards relationship with that campaign girl he paid off while his wife was recouping from cancer…..twisted I tell ya…twisted.

So believe me,  I use lots of restraint, so much so that its sickening at times. But we live in a delicate world and not everything is public knowledge. Believe me, you’re gonna wanna carry out military actions that ya think are obvious and easy but you’ll realize that. for other reasons,…….. we can’t. But you’ll wanna do ’em.

B.H.O.I don’t think so George, I mean after all, I’m not a trigger happy kind of guy and besides…..we…. we’d have a lot more resources available to combat terrorism and fight that war with more success if we………..

G.W.B. – Look! Lemme tell you where we’re at!……………

Iran wants nukes. Israel wants to blow Iran into oblivion because of that…and they have the ability to do it.

That tension, and it’s possibility of happening, destabilizes our much needed, amiable, relationships between us and the Arab states with relatively moderate foreign policies. It also helps to destabilize our relationship with Russia who is in love with the Iranians and who are reverting back to their former Soviet ways and are agin’ encroaching on parts of Europe. It also helps to rattle an openly communist China who is in the midst of their own love affair with a psychotic, North Korean, nuclear wanting, government that is playing “Weekend With Bernie” by propping up it’s dead, maniacal, communist leader and pretending that he is running the show…………

….And don’t let me begin to tell ya about Pakistan and India. Both are armed to teeth, both hate each other and every other day they are ready to fire nukes at each other. Tryin’ to maintain a friendship with them is like a cat tryin to stop two dogs from eatin’ out of the same bowl………….

……..Then there are several, known, unaccounted for, weapons of mass destructions floating around out there……who knows where….because we sure as heck don’t……..

…….I also have three dozen known, terrorist networks, somewhere out there, with shoulder launching missiles and enough fertilizer to re-produce 50 Oklahoma City-like bombings. 

We’ve got terrorists hijacking ship loads of tanks off of Somalia, arms dealers smuggling grenades out South America, missing caches of munitions from army bases, nukes missing from the Ukraine, and missing tanker trunks in Jersey! 

Imagine that…….. a whole oil tanker…..missing in New Jersey!…..for over two years now!……… Ya’d think someone could find that! 

All this, while at the same time, I have an open border that liberals don’t want disturbed by a physical barrier, as more than three thousand people, illegally, walk through, undetected, everyday, as if it were new York’s Central Park!……….

………And those wmd’s that you guys say did not exist,….well I have an undersecretary of defense, some guy named Shaw,…. who tells me that before Operation Iraqi Freedom hit the ground, Saddam shipped ‘em to Syria under the cover of humanitarian assistance after Syria got shook to high heaven by an earthquake! Imagine that….Saddam Hussien!……humanitarian assistance!…….. Yeah,… and my ma’s a Playboy bunny centerfold.

And tryin’ to get the truth out of Syria is like tryin’ to pull teeth from a shark that’s biting your arm off.

B.H.O.Mr. President….George……That’s the problem. You’re leadership is based on fear and believing that the only way to not be full of fear is to be at war with anyone who thinks differently. My leadership is based on hope. It’s based in the faith in our ability to live without fear by eliminating the hatred that fear creates.

G.W.B. – Sounds great Barry, but your not delivering a speech to a crowd of your fans. You’re talking to me. You forget….I’ve been there and done that. You’re gonna be President and I am President….So here, between us, it’s straight talk and I don’t mean Johhny Mac’s straight talk….I mean real hard facts…….

My leadership is not based on fear, it’s based on security and trying to make sure that we don’t have to live in fear. Havin’ been blindsided once, I won’t let it happen agin’ and if it does, it won’t be because I didn’t make the right people do the right things to prevent it.

B.H.O.So your advice is to increase our intelligence capabilities. continue your war in Iraq, and prepare for war in Iran and Russia?

G.W.B. – Don’t forget North Korea and the possibility of Syria……..

……….What I’m suggestin’ is that ya don’t let yourself think the world is safer than it is. As for Iraq…if ya go an’ pull out those troops before the Iraqis can do for themselves what we’re doin’ for ’em now….well than, you’re gonna be sending even more of our people back there. If you pull out before they’re ready to defend themselves you’ll be finding’ yourself at war with an Iran that is already trying to win the 10 year war with Iraq that they didn’t win before.

That’ll put you head to head to with Russia as well as China. That will cause the fragile house of cards that we live in to come crumbling’ down quicker than white on rice.

But hey…..you’re the man…..you’re the guy that got what ya wanted….the Presidency of the U. S. of A….

B.H.O.Ok than……it’s clear to me what you think. But I gotta tell you, it’s sounds like the Presidency makes one real cynical …….at least its done so to you.

G.W.B. – Barry buddy, it’s not cynical….its realistic and that is the one place where politics does have a place in the presidency…………

Never let the people know how scared they should be of the dangers out there or all the stuff they’ve got ‘ta worry ‘bout. That’s our job. That’s what we’re here for……

………If the American people really knew what was going on, they’d take matters into their own hands. And you think I’m aggressive?……..If the average American knew who was aiming what at them, and what this one or that one was planning on doing to ‘em,….they’d make Dick Cheney look like Mr. Rogers………….

A’lright, nuff of that……now lemme show you the Kennedy pool. You’ll drop your jaw when I show ya the hidden sauna and playroom.

B.H.O.I knew it! I knew there had to be some presidential society secrets to hear about.

G.W.B. – Are you kidding me…….you know those Nixon tapes?….Well wait till I show ya the Clinton tapes. He must’a accident’lly left a few behind. They’re videos and I can sure as heck tell ya’ that Monica’s blue dress wasn’t the only dress he soiled. By the way, those tapes,……… they’ll come in handy for ya’ if Hillary starts getting pushy again.

B.H.O.Now were talkin’ the shi’…eh em…..  I mean the dirt I was lookin‘ forward to…………………………………..


Over the past eight years Bush has provided us with endless amusement. As a result of his faux pas or ‘Bushisms’ as they’ve been dubbed. Here are twenty favorites.

“Those who enter the country illegally violate the law.” – Nov. 28, 2005

“We don’t believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans.” – Sept. 6, 2000

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” – Dec. 19, 2000

“Well, I think if you say you’re going to do something and don’t do it, that’s trustworthiness.” – Aug. 30, 2000

“I think we agree, the past is over.” – May 10, 2000

“I understand small business growth. I was one.” – Feb. 19, 2000

“This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating.” – April 23, 2002

“I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I’m going to be the president of everybody.” – Jan. 18, 2001

“One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.” – Jan. 3, 2000

“I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will.” – Oct. 5, 2002

“I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” – June 18, 2002

“I’m honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein.” – May 25, 2004

“I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society.” – Aug. 13, 2002

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.” – Sept. 17, 2002

“The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off.” – Oct. 8, 2004

“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” – Sept. 29, 2000

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” – Aug. 5, 2004

“Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” – Jan. 11, 2000

“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.” – Jan. 27, 2000

“They misunderestimated me.” – Nov. 6, 2000

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


There are those who claim that the Bush presidency is a debacle. They claim he destroyed our economy and entered into a unnecessary war.

They make these claims despite the facts. They claim that the economy is bad, yet they do not claim the truth. They deny that for the first five years, our economy maintained a historic, almost none existent, unemployment rate. But they run with a meaningless headline that states that unemployment is at a five year high. They claim that Bush put us into tough economic times, not acknowledging that the economy enters cycles and that our economy is strong enough to endure this perceived rough patch or that in the last year of Clinton’s presidency we were in a downturn that even 9/11 did not prevent this administration from bringing us out of.

On a larger front they claim “Bush lied, People died” and that we entered into a war without legitimate reason and that we need change in direction.

Well, let us look at why these people are wrong. Let’s go back into time to all the events, prior to 9/11 and after 9/11, which indicate the needs for our actions against potential threats and against terrorism.

Former deputy undersecretary of defense John A. Shaw was responsible for tracking Hussein’s weapons program before and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an intelligence summit in Alexandria, Virginia he explained that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were purchased from Russia were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war began. According to Shaw Russian Spetsnaz units “were specifically sent to Iraq to move weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence. According to this report the removal of evidence “was a well orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states which Russian leaders had a longtime relationship with”

Further evidence was found in 2006 when over 5 hundred munitions containing degraded WMD in Iraq. The discovery of projectiles filled with mustard and and saran proved that Saddam lied about his WMD and that he violated his agreement to dispose of such weapons. It is further proof that the left’s claim that there were no WMD is false and a lie.

On top of that, George Sada, who was a Christian member of Saddam’s inner circle and General in his army declared….

“When Saddam finally grasped the fact that it was a matter of time until Iraq would be invaded by American and coalition forces, he knew he would have to take specific measures to destroy, hide, or at least disguise his stashes of biological and chemical weapons, along with laboratories, equipment, and plans associated with nuclear weapons development. But then, much to his good fortune, a natural disaster in neighboring Syria provided the perfect cover story for moving a large number of those things out of his country”

Furthermore; After the original Gulf War Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. But for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. He denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions requiring that he rid himself of WMD.

On November 8, 2002 The U.N. adopted resolution 1441 by unanimous consent of the fifteen member security council and affirmed the world’s uncertainty of Saddam’s WMD. But WMD was not the only reason for this resolution. It declared that Iraq defied it’s obligations under UN Resolution 687, which was enacted after the Gulf War.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”

The liberal Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd stated around the same time ” The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

During the democratic Clinton administration liberal leader, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, the last liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

Now, given the events of 9/11 and our understood need to take out threats before they materialize, and based on the facts that existed before and after George W. Bush took office, what was the prudent thing to do? After diplomacy did not sway Saddam Hussein to do the right thing and despite the U.N.’s unwillingness to hold Saddam Hussein to their own resolutions, Operation Iraqi Freedom accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish……the threat of Saddam Hussein was eliminated.

Add to this the evidence that indicates Saddam’s ties to terrorists and terrorist groups and you have all the right reason to do all the right things.

The only thing that I hold against George Bush is the fact that he did not learn from past wars and throw all that we had into the fight in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power. In the days after his overthrow, Iraq become a vacuum that attracted terrorists to try to undo what we had done in Iraq and in those days, we did not have an adequate supply of forces to thwart and eliminate those terrorists. John McCain and Condoleezza Rice continuously urged for an increase in forces but Bush, faced with a liberal media that downplayed success and tried to indicate that Operation Iraqi Freedom was wrong, rejected such calls until he could not deny the need for them himself. But once he did, it worked.

You may want to deny the words of Generals and the evidence of Saddam’s ominous intentions but people like myself do not. You may want to claim that since there have been no attacks similar to 9/11 since that time, that there are no real threats or that terrorism does not exist anymore but I see that the efforts we undertook and that we are undertaking are helping to prevent them from occurring.

Some may be willing to ignore facts but I am not. The evidence was there before George Bush took office and is there while he is still in office.

To say this was all wrong places the burden of proof on those who say it.

Disprove to me the facts and possibilities which indicate that WMD’s were moved out of Iraq under the guise of aid to areas that were struck by earthquakes before the war began. Prove to me that the words of a General in Saddam’s army are wrong. Prove to me that existing stockpiles of WMD in Iraq were not intended for use by Saddam. Prove to me that the known visits to Saddam by known terrorists did not indicate a connection to terrorism.

The burden of proof pertaining to why Operation Iraqi Freedom and our subsequent assistance to Iraq in fighting terrorism was wrong, is up to you. I have the facts that indicate otherwise.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics