Victory in Iraq

I guess the Dems' reaction to President Bush's speech at the Naval Academy this morning should come as no surprise.

Their strategy is to convince the American people that we are losing the war, that we are doomed to fail in Iraq, and that more than two thousand Americans have died in vain.

The Dems insist that Bush has no plan and that we should start leaving Iraq now. They are wrong on both counts.

The President's Iraq policy is based on confidence in the bravery and resolve of the U.S. military and the universal desire of the human soul for freedom.

In his speech, Bush clearly explained the Administration's plan for victory.

He spoke about the enemy and the need for success. He discussed the status of the mission and praised the progress that has been made in Iraq. With sincere gratitude, he thanked the Midshipmen of the Naval Academy for volunteering to serve their country at a time of war.

Complete Transcript

(Excerpt)

As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."

Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief.

And as we train Iraqis to take more responsibility in the battle with the terrorists, we're also helping them build a democracy that is worthy of their sacrifice. And in just over two-and-a-half years, the Iraqi people have made incredible progress on the road to lasting freedom. Iraqis have gone from living under the boot of a brutal tyrant, to liberation, free elections, and a democratic constitution -- and in 15 days they will go to the polls to elect a fully constitutional government that will lead them for the next four years.

With each ballot cast, the Iraqi people have sent a clear message to the terrorists: Iraqis will not be intimidated. The Iraqi people will determine the destiny of their country. The future of Iraq belongs to freedom. Despite the costs, the pain, and the danger, Iraqis are showing courage and are moving forward to build a free society and a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East -- and the United States of America will help them succeed.

Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course." If by "stay the course," they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by "stay the course," they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by "stay the course" they mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him." Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy.

Victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve of the American people. It will also demand the strength and personal courage of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. And as the future officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps, you're preparing to join this fight. You do so at a time when there is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq. I know that for our men and women in uniform, this debate can be unsettling -- when you're risking your life to accomplish a mission, the last thing you want to hear is that mission being questioned in our nation's capital. I want you to know that while there may be a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington, D.C., one thing is not in dispute: The American people stand behind you.

I disagree with the President on that last statement.

His assertion that the American people stand behind our troops isn't completely true -- not if you consider John Kerry and Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to be Americans.

In response to Bush's remarks, Kerry said:

The president today in his speech said, I quote, "America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am commander-in-chief." Well, so long as Jack Reed is United States senator and John Kerry is a senator and the rest of us are senators, none of us, no one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins.

That's a massive flip-flop. Actually, it's more of a lie than a flip-flop. Kerry is orchestrating a movement to bring 20,000 troops home over the holidays. He has a petition on his website. He demands:

The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of 2006.

If George W. Bush refuses to produce a concrete plan for Iraq, then, at the start of 2006, we will demand that Congress acts to take the decision out of his hands. And, if the Republican Congress fails to call the Bush administration to account, we will use the 2006 elections to take the decision out of their hands. We won't stop until we succeed.

That is absolute lunacy. Thank God Kerry lost the 2004 election! Thank God!

He and other radical Leftist Dems have been trumpeting the need for timetables and specific dates for troop withdrawal.

NO WAR HAS EVER BEEN WON ON A TIMETABLE.

The Dems' insistence that the Administration provide a rigid plan for troop withdrawal is just nuts. It's idiotic.

If victory is the goal, then it's impossible to guarantee a date by which American troops will be out of Iraq.

Nonetheless, Feingold thinks that it should be December 31, 2006. How stupid is that? It's so stupid that it makes me ill.

The lib press eats up the timetable stuff, so I understand why politicians are drawn to it. Pelosi responded to Bush's speech today by echoing John Murtha's call for troops to begin coming home immediately. I think that was a calculated move by her to draw attention away from what the President had to say at Annapolis.

However, instead of keeping the anti-Bush drumbeat going, Pelosi's comments make her look like a fool and remind Americans that the Dems cannot be trusted with our national security.

It's so obvious. You can't win a war on a timetable. You can't win a game of Monopoly on a timetable!

Another excerpt reveals what the War on Terror is about. You'd think everyone would understand this by now, that we are at war with an ideology.

Why don't the Dems get it?

In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed -- and today Germany and Japan are democracies and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Eastern and Central Europe from Soviet domination -- and today these nations are allies in the war on terror.

Today in the Middle East freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom, and as democracy spreads in the Middle East, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists. Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation -- and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans. We will meet the challenge of our time. We will answer history's call with confidence -- because we know that freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this earth.

This next excerpt from the President's speech speaks for itself.

Before our mission in Iraq is accomplished, there will be tough days ahead. A time of war is a time of sacrifice, and we've lost some very fine men and women in this war on terror. Many of you know comrades and classmates who left our shores to defend freedom and who did not live to make the journey home. We pray for the military families who mourn the loss of loves ones. We hold them in our hearts -- and we honor the memory of every fallen soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman, and Marine.

One of those fallen heroes is a Marine Corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote, he said, "[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so they can live the way we live. Not [to] have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators_. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

There is only one way to honor the sacrifice of Corporal Starr and his fallen comrades -- and that is to take up their mantle, carry on their fight, and complete their mission.

Jeff Starr is a hero.

Hillary: Tired, Confused, Dizzy

Hillary Clinton is a mess.

The only things she has going for her are the throng of Dems that see her as their savior and the adoration of the mainstream media.

Will that support be enough to make her the first woman to be President of the United States?

(A horrible, icy chill just went through me.)



Bill is responsible for giving Hillary the best of times and the worst of times.

Without him, she wouldn't occupy a U.S. Senate seat. Without Bill, she wouldn't be set to launch a presidential campaign.

(There's that chill again.)

Bill has been a double-edged sword for Hillary. While he's responsible for delivering her to the Senate, he's also responsible for presenting her with a plethora of problems to overcome in a presidential bid.

Many make the argument that one's personal life is irrelevant when determining a candidate's worthiness. I disagree. Character is an important issue.

Some of Hillary's personal characteristics are sure to be enormous hurdles for her in 2008. Thanks to Bill's choices, his serial degradation of women, Americans know Hillary to be a serial enabler.

Why has she spent decades putting up with Bill's philandering, his complete disrespect for her and women in general?

Anyway you slice it, she comes off badly. Hillary's relationship with Bill reveals her to be either pathetically weak or disgustingly self-centered.

Hillary has not worn the years with Bill well. She seems tired. Perhaps that's why she appears utterly incapable of maintaining the consistency and cohorence necessary to be viewed as a strong leader, at home and abroad.



Yesterday, Hillary was in dual dove and hawk mode.

In a CYA e-mail to supporters, Hillary said, "I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the President and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war."

She claims she was misled by the Bush Administration while simultaneously citing the importance of succeeding in Iraq.

"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops."

Hillary goes on, "Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism."

"America has a big job to do now. We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis."

Huh?

If the war is so wrong, why not insist on immediate troop withdrawal?

If the war is the right thing, then why criticize the President for taking the nation to war?

It seems that Hillary is arguing to keep Americans in harm's way for what she considers to be a pack of lies.

It must be the same sort of reasoning that she uses to convince herself that staying married to Bill is the right thing to do. She's stuck in that "finish what we started" mentality, even though she perceives what was started to be an enormous mistake.

Hillary, this potential Commander-in-Chief, apparently wants to continue fighting a war and allowing American blood to be shed in Iraq, though she believes it isn't a noble cause.

Or is it?

I'm not sure what she is really saying. I do know that she is speaking with her own self-interest and presidential aspirations in mind. That is certain.

Self-interest is her guiding force, her morality. As a result, Hillary's values and policy statements are muddled and messy, or as John Kerry would say, "nuanced."

While that dizzying confusion may be in Hillary's comfort zone, I think it would be disastrous for America.

Maverick Joe Lieberman

Why do the mainstream media fawn over "maverick" Senators like Russ Feingold and John McCain, while virtually ignoring Joe Lieberman?

He is certainly a maverick. His column in the Wall Street Journal proves that.

Lieberman tells the truth about what he witnessed in Iraq, a much different picture than what John Murtha, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and other Dems paint.

Rather than joining in the Democrats' drive to undercut President Bush and Republicans up for election in 2006 by undercutting our military, belittling their mission and thereby demeaning their service, he makes the case for staying the course.

When it comes to Lieberman, I'm ambivalent. I can't forget that one of the tactics he and Al Gore employed in an attempt to steal the 2000 election was the orchestrated effort to have military absentee ballots be tossed out. That still makes me sick.

I used to view Lieberman as a man of principles. Unfortunately, that changed when he morphed into a crazed loony liberal during the Florida recount. Momentarily at least, he sold his soul.

However, his column seems to indicate that he has fought off those demons and once again respects the U.S. military.

Wouldn't it be great if other Dems could put politics aside and give our troops the respect they deserve by acknowledging all the progress that they have made in Iraq?

Lieberman writes:

After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Wouldn't it be great if the Dems would stop the politically opportunistic posturing and recognize that what our troops in Iraq are engaged in is a noble cause?

Our Troops Must Stay

By JOE LIEBERMAN
November 29, 2005; Page A18

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood -- unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

* * *
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

* * *
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan -- Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future -- and why the American people should be, too.

* * *
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Yes.

Semper Fi.

A CHEESEHEAD PRESIDENT

Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin has been busy positioning himself for the 2008 presidential election. Thanks to the eager Leftist mainstream media, he's been getting a relatively good deal of attention lately.

This morning he appeared on ABC's This Week. George Stephanopoulos actually flew to Madison to tape an interview with Feingold on Saturday. Before a crackling fire, the two talked about Iraq and other issues.

The ambiance was no accident. Rather than sitting in a cold studio, Feingold was steeped in earth tones and warmth and coziness.

Although Feingold is not an unfamiliar face on the national scene, this interview presented the presidential wannabe in a carefully staged setting. Certainly, what Feingold said was important, but maybe not as important as the images. He came off as a likable, approachable nice guy.

Both Steph and Feingold wore suits. Feingold did not opt for his more rustic look or the flannel shirts he typically wears in his Senate campaign commercials, spots that have played a crucial role in propelling him to Washington. Still, the mood was relaxed and intimate. For the national spotlight, Feingold wanted to appear presidential while maintaining a Mr. Rogers persona. He was serious, yet quick to smile. Nice.

It would have been fitting for Steph and Feingold to start singing:

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
A beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
A neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

I've always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.
I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you.

So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?
Won't you please,
Won't you please?
Please won't you be my neighbor?

Of course, Feingold wasn't inviting the audience to be his neighbor. He was inviting them to support him to be the president.

As usual, he sold himself as an independent thinker, a man of values.

Steph highlighted Feingold's maverick streak by pointing out his willingness to vote his conscience rather than march in lockstep with the Dems.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. In addition, he's the only one among the current Dem potential presidential candidates to have voted against the war in Iraq. Solidifying his anti-war stance, back in August, Feingold was the first to advocate a timetable and a specific date for troop withdrawal from Iraq, December 31, 2006.

In the November 21 issue, The New Republic gave Feingold the cover, headlining him as "The Hillary Slayer." A cartoon depicted Feingold as David to Hillary Clinton's Goliath.

Without question, Feingold is setting himself up as an alternative to Hillary.

Will David have what it takes to slay Goliath?

No way.

While Feingold may be the darling of the radical Left, he won't be able to win the support of all those states that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I don't think that Feingold can win on one issue, opposition to Iraq. The fact is Feingold is an ultra-liberal.

Steph tried to counter Feingold's alliance with the libs by pointing out that Feingold voted for John Roberts. Although Feingold disappointed NARAL, it really was not a risky move. He has NARAL in his pocket, with a 93 rating.

In response to his vote on Roberts, NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin wrote:

Clearly, we’re disappointed. Wisconsinites expected Senators Kohl and Feingold to stand up to this anti-choice nominee. Both have been key allies in the past and have led the Senate in protecting the rights and liberties we all cherish.

NARAL knows that Feingold is rabidly pro-abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme his views are.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Yikes!

Infanticide won't win a lot of support in Red States.

Feingold's vote for Roberts will not serve to negate his extremism and his liberal voting record. The Americans for Democratic Action give Feingold a 97 rating.

His vote for John Roberts was a safe, calculated move. The Wisconsin NARAL branch didn't abandon him. He didn't lose liberal support because of his vote, but he may have gained some approval from independents.

At this point, everything that Feingold does must be viewed as preparation for a 2008 run.

Most likely, his role will be to push Hillary and others pretending to be centrists to address their true selves and their Leftist positions.

Feingold may be an appealing nice guy, but he'd be doomed to defeat if he became the Dem 2008 nominee. He’s just too liberal.

I don’t think he has a future as a vice presidential nominee either. I certainly can't see Hillary picking him as her running mate.

Although Feingold eventually voted with his party on Bill Clinton's impeachment, he did break ranks to vote to keep the proceedings alive.

Feingold's Statement

(Excerpts)

The question before us today is: Should the President of the United States be held to a lower standard?

The answer is: No. To the contrary; we can bestow no higher honor than to select one individual to represent us all as President. In one person we endow the character of our nation, as the head of state and the head of government.

It's with great disappointment, but firm resolve, that I have concluded the President has not lived up to this high standard and that he should be removed from office. The House managers have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that, in addition to indefensible behavior with an intern, which was not illegal, the President engaged in the obstruction of justice and, as an element of that obstruction, committed perjury before a federal grand jury, which is.

...The President had it solely within his power to keep the country from the course on which it has been for the past year. First, of course, he could have chosen not to engage in the behavior in question. Having behaved as he did, though, and having been discovered, the President could have acknowledged his own actions and accepted the consequences. This could have been an honorable resignation, or an admission, contrition, and a firm resolve to take responsibility; with a request for resolution in a manner short of impeachment and trial.

Instead, the President chose to deny the allegations, and fight them with a coordinated scheme of manipulation and obstruction. He lied outright to the American people, to his close associates, and to his cabinet. An enduring image of this whole tale will be his finger-pointing lie to the American people, even after admonishing us to listen closely, because he didn't want to have to say it again.

Even in view of these actions, the President missed numerous opportunities to right this matter and get it behind him and the country. At virtually every opportunity, though, he chose an action that further prolonged the matter and led directly to his impeachment.

...As a result of these choices by the President of the United States, the Senate was left with no choice other than to confront the charges and hear the case pursuant to the President's impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Obviously, Feingold didn't consider the impeachment a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Given this history, I doubt Hillary would want Feingold to be her running mate in 2008.

When it comes to presidential politics, Hillary is not divorced from Bill. In the 2008 presidential election, his past is hers. A Clinton-Feingold ticket would be too uncomfortable for the Dems and offer too many opportunities for the Republicans to bring up the impeachment and show Hillary as Bill’s enabler.

As likable and principled as Feingold might be to some, he won't make it through the primaries. I think he'll do no more than stir things up a bit and put pressure on his fellow Dem candidates. In short, he'll be an obstacle as they try to present themselves as being in line with mainstream America.

He's getting attention now because of his anti-Iraq war stance, not because he is a viable candidate.

At the end of his interview with Stephanopolous, Feingold said, "But I do think one thing we can all agree on is that this country is overdue for a cheesehead president. We've never had one."

That's cute. He's showing his Mr. Rogers side. However, his friendliness and his Midwestern charm won't be enough to camouflage his extremist liberal views.

Feingold can't win.

He's the Howard Dean of 2008.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day

October 3, 1863


The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

A. Lincoln

Iraq, Timetables, and Turkey

The Democrats are obsessed with timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq. They insist that since the Bush administration will not offer a timetable, it has no plan for victory and no exit strategy.

That's an unfair accusation.

Back in August, Senator Russ Feingold was the first elected official to set a specific date, December 31, 2006, for American troops to be out of Iraq.

Last week, Congressman John Murtha was the first "hawkish" official to call for the "immediate redeployment" of our troops.

On November 17, 2005, Murtha said:

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

Although Murtha has recently tried to backtrack on what that means, "immediate redeployment" refers to immediate withdrawal, moving troops out of Iraq.

For months now, Dems have prodded the Bush administration to provide a specific timetable to bring the troops home. Throwing out dates like that would be utterly ridiculous. Nonetheless, since they have not done so, the Dems claim Iraq is a quagmire and unwinnable.

Unfortunately, the Dems don't seem to be able to comprehend the nuances of an appropriate exit strategy.

Since June, Bush has said, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." On June 28, 2005, in a speech to at Fort Bragg, N.C., the President explained U.S. goals for victory in Iraq.

He said:

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Just days ago, Bush reiterated this strategy during his trip to Asia.

BUSAN, South Korea (CNN) -- In a speech to U.S. troops in South Korea, President Bush on Saturday rejected Democratic calls to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, vowing to "stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory our brave troops have fought for."

"In Washington, there are some who say that the sacrifice is too great, and they urge us to set a date for withdrawal before we have completed our mission," Bush said Saturday. "Those who are in the fight know better."

"So long as I am commander-in-chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground," he said, adding that U.S. troops are "making steady progress" in training Iraqi forces to defend their country.

"As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," he said.

True, the Bush administration provides no specific dates or timetables, because doing so would be terribly irresponsible and dangerous for the Iraqi people.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by John King on CNN.

He asked her to offer specifics about U.S. troop levels in Iraq being reduced.

QUESTION: Clearly going to come down, when? Senator Biden says bring maybe 50,000 home next year. I understand there's a plan circulating within the Administration that could bring, assuming conditions on the Iraq ground improve, as many as 60,000 home next year. How many and when?


SECRETARY RICE: I think what the President will want to assess is when can we safely bring down our level of forces so that Iraqis are really capable of achieving the results and the effects that you want rather than having some artificial timetable. I suspect that the American forces are not going to be needed in the numbers that they are there for all that much longer because Iraqis are continuing to make progress in function, not just in numbers but in their capabilities to do certain functions like, for instance, holding a highway between the airport and the center of the city, something that our forces were doing just a short time ago, they're now doing. I think that's how the President will want to look at this.

Clearly, troop levels will go down, but according to circumstances that will allow it, not some arbitrary date.

I'm sick of the politics. Calls for a timetable are lame. The fact is there is no way to predict exactly when the U.S. military presence in Iraq will end.

Timetables are guides; but they provide no guarantees.

Since it's Thanksgiving, let's talk turkey and timetables.

When the turkey goes in the oven, I can go to the timetable and estimate when the turkey will be cooked to perfection.



However, experience has shown that the turkey doesn't always cooperate with the timetable. Sometimes, it reaches the proper temperature sooner than I expect. Sometimes, it requires more time.

In any event, I take the turkey out of the oven at precisely the right moment, when the meat thermometer says it's time. I wouldn't let it dry out, nor would I serve an underdone turkey just because I wanted to abide by a timetable.

Blindly following a timetable can be disastrous. It's irresponsible. Food poisoning would be certain to put a damper on the holiday.

Sound judgment and common sense are necessary for success. That's the only exit strategy for the turkey that I intend to follow, not a cooking chart.

I wonder if all those demanding a set timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq also think it's a good idea to pull the turkey out of the oven, carve it, and eat it before it's done. I doubt it.

Marshmallow and Yam

President George W. Bush invites children on stage, Tuesday, November 22, 2005, to pet "Marshmallow, " the National Thanksgiving Turkey, at the official pardoning of the turkey at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington.

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

There really are no standards regarding pardons, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached.

Stoked by Bill Clinton's pardon blitz in the final hours of his presidency, debate has stirred about limiting this presidential power.

Yesterday, in spite of his low approval ratings, George W. Bush chose to exercise his power to issue pardons.

One might view that as a risky move, given how weakened the President is right now. Perhaps the President isn't as weakened as the MSM and lib pundits would have us believe.

So far, there has been little to no controversy about his decision. I haven't been aware of any press releases from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi charging Bush with misleading the public on this one.

Maybe it's because members of Congress have left D.C. The Senate won't conduct business until December 12. The House won't be back to work until December 6. Still, I don't think vacation is the reason the Dems have been quiet on Bush's decision.

Maybe there has been no outrage from the Dems because even they can understand that Marshmallow and Yam certainly qualify for a pardon. After all, the turkeys have not been impeached.

Moreover, I don't think they've committed any offenses against the United States, which is all the more reason to spare Marshmallow and Yam.

Text of the Presidential Pardon

(Excerpts)

I'm going to grant a pardon this afternoon, and the pardon I grant comes with a new measure of responsibility and fame for Marshmallow and Yam. In the past years, the turkeys I spared went on to lead lives of leisure at Frying Pan Park in the state of Virginia. This year is going to be a little different. Marshmallow and Yam were a little skeptical about going to a place called "Frying Pan Park." I don't blame them. So I'm proud to announce that Marshmallow and Yam will serve as honorary grand marshals at Disneyland's Thanksgiving Day Parade. And they'll go on to spend the rest of their natural lives at Disneyland.

The granting of the turkey pardon is not a responsibility that I take lightly... . I know that Marshmallow and Yam are going to feel pretty good strutting around sunny California, remembering the cold days of Minnesota.

...Thanksgiving is a holiday rooted in the American spirit of gratitude and sharing. We see this spirit in America today. When the communities along the Gulf Coast were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, Americans came together to provide help for their neighbors in need. It was a remarkable outpouring of compassion and generosity. That outpouring of compassion demonstrated once again that the great strength of our country lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens.

We also give thanks on Thanksgiving for our many blessings, and we thank those who are far away from home who protect our freedoms. It's through the courage and skill of our Armed Forces that we're safe as a nation, and we're very proud of their service.

We think of our military families who will have an empty seat at the table this Thanksgiving. The American people are thankful for the sacrifice of the American military families, as well. America's men and women in uniform and their families have our gratitude -- not only on Thanksgiving, but on every day.

Our guest of honor seems about ready to come on in and say hello. So without further ado, I grant Marshmallow and Yam a presidential pardon. In the meantime, may God bless you all and your families during this Thanksgiving season.

Do you think the Dems will complain that this pardon was an unethical power grab by Bush?

Was it a shameless photo-op?

Was it a pathetic attempt to prove that the President is in control?

Was Karl Rove behind this?

Do you think that Bush should have gone to the UN to get its approval before acting?

If CBS conducted a poll, I suppose it would be weighted so that at least 30% of those asked would strongly disapprove of Bush's handling of the matter.

Thankfully, Bush doesn't lead by polls, nor does he allow the UN to determine what's best for America or our turkeys.

I, for one, am glad that Marshmallow and Yam will be spending this Thanksgiving Day, and the rest of their lives, at Disneyland.

I hope no Dems attempt to undermine the administration and call for hearings or a special prosecutor to investigate why these two lucky turkeys were granted pardons.

I'd hate to see Marshmallow and Yam roasted by a Senate panel or grilled before a grand jury.



Marshmallow: "I'm going to Disneyland!"

The Tipping Point

In the November 28, issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman declares that President Bush has lost support for the Iraq war.

It's over. The surrender is underway.

He dubs "hawkish" John Murtha as the "one-man tipping point" that has brought about the beginning of this end.

Time to cut and run.

Fineman writes:

Initially a strong supporter of the conflict, [Murtha] had voted for it and the money to pay for it. But on his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that the war was unwinnable, but that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse.

It's the moment the Left has been waiting for. They think this is really it.

The Dems believe that they have finally gained some traction on their assertions that the Iraq war is an unwinnable quagmire and Bush is a complete failure who lied us into the conflict.

The Dems think they are winning over the hearts and minds of Americans, meaning they think that they have convinced the public that the U.S. must accept defeat and surrender. Most importantly, it's all Bush's fault.

I don't see it that way. However, I agree with Fineman that we are at a tipping point.

Yes, according to polls, support for the war is down; but I think that's more indicative of fatigue rather than the public actually tipping toward the Dems' strategy.

When faced with a choice between a cut and run, Mogadishu scenario and a chance for democracy to take a firm foothold in the Middle East, I don't think that Americans are ready to embrace defeat and hand terrorists a victory.

Those on the Left are in the unenviable position of cheering for failure in Iraq. Instead of applauding the remarkable strides our troops have made in Iraq since the war began and extolling their liberation of millions of people, the Leftists in government and the media must downplay progress.

When freedom is on the march, the libs are in the tank.

Fineman does mention that some things could be interpreted as successes in Iraq. He writes:

On the ground, the shrewder analysts say, it's not entirely clear that U.S. policy has "failed." The TV news, not to mention Al-Jazeera, doesn't regularly summarize the stunning changes in Iraq, many of them morally and politically worthy. Saddam Hussein is gone and awaiting trial. Schools, hospitals and other institutions are operating in most parts of the country. Voters have adopted a constitution. And even many Sunnis are gathering in political parties that are maneuvering in advance of the Dec. 15 national elections.

Not surprisingly, Fineman dashes any hope for a free, thriving Iraq in his next paragraph. He warns:

But fresh allegations that the government was secretly torturing Sunnis won't help encourage that sect to take part in the December balloting. And few members of Congress return from visits to Iraq buoyant about the likelihood of ending the insurgency any time soon without a massive infusion of additional American troops.

Fineman considers the administration's campaign to get the good news from Iraq to the public as spin, as PR to save Bush's presidency, like it's a game about presidential approval ratings.

I don't get that. Truth isn't spin. It's reality. That's not PR. That's telling the facts.

Here are some Iraq facts that Bush's opponents don't want you to know.

Recently 217 Police Officers Graduated From Advanced And Specialty Courses At The Baghdad Police College. (Department Of Defense Website, www.defenselink.mil, Accessed 11/20/05)

This Week In Iraq "One Iraqi Division, Five Brigades And 36 Battalions Have Now Taken The Lead In Their Areas, Compared To Just One Brigade And 11 Battalions Just Five Months Ago ..." (Department Of Defense Website, www.defenselink.mil, Accessed 11/21/05)

"Iraqis Now Have The Lead In Roughly 90 Square Miles Of Baghdad, An Entire Iraqi Province And More Than 450 Square Miles In Other Provinces ..." (Department Of Defense Website, www.defenselink.mil, Accessed 11/21/05)

This Year, Over 100 Leaders In Zarqawi's Network Have Been Captured, Undermining The Terrorists Ability To Communicate, Finance And Execute Attacks. (Department Of Defense, "October, 2005 Report To Congress," Press Release, 11/15/05)

"Iraqis Are Expressing Their Freedom By Providing Information Regarding Terrorists. The Number Of Tips Rose From 442 In February To 3,341 In August." (Rep. Duncan Hunter, "Talking Points: This Is No Time To Leave Iraq," Press Release, 11/18/05)

Iraqi And American Forces Launched A Series Of Operations This Past Week That Thwarted Terrorist Activities, Including An Attack On The Italian Embassy. (Department Of Defense Website, www.defenselink.mil, Accessed 11/20/05)

MORE GOOD NEWS

"Internet Subscribers Have Risen From 5,000 Before The War To 196,000 In September." (Department Of Defense, "October, 2005 Report To Congress," Press Release, 11/15/05)

"There Were No Independent Newspapers Or Magazines In Iraq Before The War. Today, There Are More Than 100." (Department Of Defense, "October, 2005 Report To Congress," Press Release, 11/15/05)

"There Were No Commercial TV Stations In Iraq Before The War. Today There Are 44." (Department Of Defense, "October, 2005 Report To Congress," Press Release, 11/15/05)

"There Were No Commercial Radio Stations In Iraq Before The War. Today There Are 72." (Department Of Defense, "October, 2005 Report To Congress," Press Release, 11/15/05)

Last Sunday on Meet the Press, this exchange occurred between Tim Russert and John Murtha:

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman, according to our military experts, there are only 700 Iraqi troops who are fully independent and combat ready. That being the case, if we withdraw our troops quickly from Iraq, won't the Iraqi citizens be overwhelmed by the al-Qaeda and Saddam loyalists? Are the Iraqis capable of defending themselves without the U.S.?

REP. MURTHA: Tim, I'm absolutely convinced that we're making no progress at all, and I've been complaining for two years that there's an overly optimistic--an illusionary process going on here.

Huh?

Absolutely no progress at all?

There is an illusionary process going on here.

Many of Murtha's statements on Meet the Press were reminiscent of Aaron Broussard's Hurricane Katrina appearance. His tearful stories were dramatic, but highly misleading, or if you prefer--UNTRUE.



"We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts."

--DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963



President Kennedy speaks in Fort Worth the morning of the assassination.

President Kennedy delivers his inaugural address, January 20, 1961.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to "undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free."

And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation," a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Real Video of Address

Audio mp3 of Address

Matthews Plays Kumbaya-ball

Chris Matthews took his Leftist drivel across the border a few days ago.

The Edmonton Sun provides an enlightening account of a speech Matthews delivered at the University of Toronto.

"The period between 9-11 and (invading) Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said."If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective.

I disagree.

Kidnapping civilians and beheading them on videotape is NOT a different perspective. That's evil.

Hijacking civilian airliners and flying them into buildings filled with thousands of innocent people is NOT a different perspective. That's evil.

Matthews lives in a fog of moral relativity. That's dangerous.


"The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because they understand what's driving them."

OK, smart guy, what's driving them?

The type of anti-Americanism you spew on a daily basis?

He said Bush squandered an opportunity to unite the world against terrorism and instead made decisions that built up worldwide animosity for his administration.

With all due respect to Matthews, DUH!

Why do Leftists like Matthews ignore all that happened before Bush took office?

When Clinton was president, after the World Trade Center, our embassies, and the USS Cole were bombed, why didn't he unite the world against terrorism?

Why didn't Clinton take custody of Osama bin Laden when Sudan had him and offered him to the U.S.?

Talk about a squandered opportunity!

"We had a strong international unity coming out of 9-11. The world was never so united against terrorism and we lost that," Matthews said. "That is the great tragedy of the Bush era."

I think a great tragedy of the Bush era is that his opponents on the Left shamelessly put self-interest ahead of country, freedom, democracy, and human rights.

When asked what caused the U.S. to invade Iraq, he said it was a combination of factors.

"I think the father-son relationship with the Bushes is part of it. I think the oil thing is part of it," Matthews said of the current president and his father, George Bush Sr., who was president during the Gulf War more than a decade ago.

"Our friendship with Israel (is part of it) and 9-11 created a kind of crazy Zeitgeist in the country. Bush wanted to do something big. It couldn't just be tracking down al-Qaida. He wanted a big bang. I think it's a mixture of these things."

Obviously, Matthews is a member of the radical far Left, hitting all of their positively loony talking points.

He belongs in the Crawford ditch with Cindy Sheehan.

Matthews said the current president is guilty of not knowing enough about the world and not keeping up with current events, as was evident in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the slow reaction to the crisis in New Orleans.

I think Matthews is guilty of not knowing enough about the terrorists and not keeping up with their intentions to slaughter Americans.

Text of bin Laden's Fatwa

(Note: The fatwa was issued in early 1998.)

(Note to Matthews: The terrorists are evil.)

Disorder in the House

The Associated Press reports:

House Republicans maneuvered for swift rejection Friday of any notion of immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sparking a nasty, sometimes personal debate over the war following a Democratic lawmaker's own call for withdrawal.

Just a day after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., stoked a surging political fire over President Bush's Iraq policies by proposing that troops return home now, Republicans brought a measure to the House floor urging that a pullout begin immediately.

The symbolic vote was intended to fail, and furious Democrats accused the GOP of orchestrating a political stunt.

"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

..."We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not retreat," Speaker Dennis Hastert, R- Ill., said of the nonbinding resolution.

Democrats claimed Republicans were changing the meaning of Murtha's withdrawal proposal. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months. Democrats said they planned to counter by voting against the GOP provision en masse.

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message _ stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message _ that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.

Democrats booed and shouted her down _ causing the House to come to a standstill.

Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the chamber's center aisle screaming that Republicans were making uncalled-for personal attacks. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

..."It's a pathetic, partisan, political ploy," said Rep. Nita Lowey, D- N.Y. Added Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif.: "It's just heinous."

"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House and it is outrageous," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

The outrage from the Dems is very amusing.

They're upset about personal attacks???

What have they been saying for months?

BUSH IS A LIAR! BUSH IS A LIAR! BUSH IS A LIAR!

But hey, don't think of that as a personal attack.

Let's take a look at the prayer delivered by Dennis Kucinich on February 17, 2002, in Los Angeles. The accusations he makes about President Bush and the administration are truly heinous.

Under the guise of a "prayer," Kucinich says, "The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President."

Kucinich "prays" about Bush authorizing the "bombing of civilians in Afghanistan." He says that Americans didn't ask "that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan."

That's not personal?

What a joke!

Furthermore, I think it was inappropriate for the Dems to boo the message that Rep. Jean Schmidt delivered from the Marine colonel.

He has a right to his opinion. The Marine has had to listen to the Dems belittle the value of his mission. He had to hear Murtha say the U.S. military should no longer be in Iraq.

He disagrees. Don't you think the Marine deserves the courtesy of his words being heard and considered with respect?


Why would the Dems get all bent out of shape because the Republicans wanted to have an on the record vote on Iraq policy?

I was under the impression that the Dems wanted to make it clear to Americans that they are the anti-war, "Bring them home now" party.

Guess not.

403-3

THE WAR EFFORT

You remember this woman, don't you?

As Americans and others around the world were reeling in stunned disbelief and horror in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, she was celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocents and the catastrophic destruction.

Something tells me that she would engage in a similar celebration upon hearing calls for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq from former and current American elected officials. This cut and run strategy, the Democrat Mogadishu plan, signals American defeat and emboldens terrorists. It pleases our enemies.

That's not a theory. That's a fact.

On November 6, 2001, in a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, President Bush said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

At that time, Bush was referring to cooperation from other countries in the War on Terror. I think the same could be said to the American Left today.

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

In recent weeks, many on the Left have exposed themselves as against us.

Their comments aren’t made in a vacuum. Al Qaeda members hear them. Would-be suicide bombers hear them. Iraqis preparing for elections on December 15, hear them. Our troops hear them. The world hears them.

Statements that show weakness on the part of the United States demoralize and endanger our troops currently in harm’s way. Such statements certainly shake the will of Iraqis struggling to establish a democracy, at great personal risk. In addition, going wobbly hands the terrorists a victory, like in Mogadishu.

Criticizing policy is not the issue. I’m not suggesting that debate be squelched.

I’m saying that many remarks made by those on the Left have crossed over the line of expressing a difference of opinion to becoming some of the most reprehensible, politically opportunistic comments imaginable.

Who belongs in the "AGAINST US" column?

Osama bin Laden

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Kim Jong Il

I think most Americans would agree that these individuals are our enemies. Of course, there are Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan types that consider these people to be freedom fighters; but for the most part, they are deemed to be the enemies of the United States.

It's time to update the list of our enemies.

Some "AGAINST US" Additions:


BILL CLINTON


Bill Clinton speaks at the American University of Dubai.

On Wednesday, Bill Clinton spoke to Arab students at the American University of Dubai. This former U.S. president had the audacity to savagely attack the Bush administration.

While on foreign soil, Clinton played politics. He sought to weaken a sitting president during wartime for purely political gain.

Clinton said, "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done. It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

As American soldiers were fighting, spilling their blood, this disgusting man made statements that can only be interpreted as encouragement to the insurgents.

What Clinton did on Wednesday, slamming the current Commander-in-Chief, is the sleaziest thing he’s ever done. The disgrace of his shameless womanizing, soiling the presidency, and lying to his wife, his aides, his cabinet, and the American people is nothing compared to his effort to undermine the War on Terror.

That’s unforgivable.


JIMMY CARTER


Jimmy Carter promotes his book and bashes Bush.

In the November 4, 2005, edition of the Christian Science Monitor, David Cook writes some of the comments made by former President Jimmy Carter at a breakfast sponsored by the Monitor. Carter was hawking his new book.

Cook writes:

Members of the Bush team “decided to go to war against Iraq long before George Bush was elected.”

[T]he Bush administration's decision to invade to prevent any future act of aggression from Saddam Hussein's Iraq came in for a scathing reproach. “The attitude of going to war against a relatively defenseless country in order to prevent violence in the world is a complete fallacy,” Carter said.

The likelihood that the US could leave Iraq “safely and with honor” would improve if the Bush administration were “to vow that we will actually withdraw from Iraq militarily,” he said. “I don't think there is any inclination or desire in the leadership in this administration to withdraw militarily from Iraq at any time in the future.”

Cook adds, “It is decidedly unusual for a former president to publicly castigate the policies of a sitting president.”

Unfortunately, it’s not unusual anymore. Clinton and Carter seem to be addicted to the practice. In the process of selfishly satisfying their habits, they are jeopardizing democracy, here and around the world.

Apparently, book sales matter more to Carter than the good of the nation and the world.


JOHN MURTHA


John Murtha calls for U.S. to surrender.

In a positively sickening display of political opportunism, John Murtha called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

He said:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

The fact that Murtha is a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former Marine doesn’t make his words more credible; it makes them more revolting.

While our troops are on the frontlines, how could he betray them in this fashion? How could he demoralize our brave troops? Doesn’t Murtha realize that his words bolster the will of our enemies?


RUSS FEINGOLD


Maverick Russ Feingold attempts to undermine the War on Terror.

On November 14, 2005, Senator Russ Feingold sponsored an amendment that included a call for the Bush administration to set a withdrawal timetable from Iraq.

Although it was defeated 54 to 40, the message that he, and thirty-nine other senators sent to our enemies is clear: The United States is weak and ready to cut and run.

Feingold wants to be president.

Do Americans want a president willing to surrender to terrorists?

Is it wise to retreat and encourage more attacks on our homeland by making it appear that the United States lacks a backbone?

Feingold believes his is a winning strategy. I believe it’s a winning strategy for the terrorists.


HARRY REID


Harry Reid, D-Nev., right, standing with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., left, holds up a copy of the pending ammendment for an Iraq policy proposal during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this week, Reid said, "Our troops and the American people deserve better. The White House needs to understand that deceiving the American people is what got them into trouble. Now is the time to come clean, not to continue the pattern of deceit."

Like the others, Reid is playing politics with the lives of our military personnel. Reid’s constant mischaracterizations of the President and the administration serve to undermine the War on Terror, embolden the terrorists, and threaten the safety of American troops.

There are too many other instances of Americans seeking to derail the war effort for me to get into now.

The bottom line is some on the Left are willing to accept defeat in the Middle East to pursue what they believe to be a winning political strategy at home.

These Leftists are not defenders of freedom and democracy. They are appeasers. They are defenders of tyranny.

Rather than working toward a lasting, long-term peace in the Middle East, something that would benefit every person on this planet, they care about their own political fortunes. They are looking no further than the 2006 elections.

That’s reckless, irresponsible, and unconscionable.

Clinton, Carter, Murtha, Feingold, Reid, and those of their ilk are against us.

Am I questioning their patriotism?

No.

I’m saying they are as patriotic as Jane Fonda, when she visited Hanoi, the capital city of the enemy, in 1972. She frolicked and giggled with enemies at an anti-aircraft gun site used to shoot down American pilots.


Jane Fonda and friends


Clinton, Carter, Murtha, Feingold, and Reid, etc., are true patriots, in a league with Jane Fonda.

John Murtha

Do you know this man?

He's been in Congress for thirty years and quite an influential member at that. Considering he's been around for so long, I feel like I should at least be able to recognize the guy.

The fact is I couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

For others like me, I guarantee that will change. Within the next 24 hours, I predict this man is about to get more air time and ink than any member of Congress. I would bet that he'll get more attention from the MSM than President Bush.

According to the Associated Press:

An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

That choking back tears part always lends a little drama to the moment, doesn't it?

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.

He said announcing a U.S. withdrawal would provide the Iraqi government with an added incentive to have their own security forces take control of the conflict.

Murtha is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout.

On his website, Murtha writes:

Our troops have performed extremely well in an intense conflict, and we all owe our gratitude to them and their families for the sacrifices they are making. I assure you I will continue to work as hard as I can to bring our actions in Iraq to a close.

Today, Murtha worked extra hard.

Of course, the MSM is in full drool mode over the Congressman's call for an immediate troop withdrawal.

The libs have been waiting for this moment.

Text of Murtha's speech

(Excerpts)

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

...Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

Murtha sounds just like Cindy Sheehan, without the profanity and the anti-Semitic stuff.

The "Honorable John P. Murtha" also stopped short of saying, "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."

True, Murtha has not been arrested for ignoring police warnings after planting himself on the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House, nor has he spent a few weeks in a ditch in Crawford, Texas.

However, Murtha and Sheehan are on the same page. They are similar in that they both are incredibly naive in terms of Iraq policy, as well as irresponsible. They both have problems comprehending the big picture.

Army Maj. Steven Warren provides some good news out of Iraq.

Debra Saunders writes:

Army Maj. Steven Warren, 39, is not happy, because he believes the media are painting an inaccurate picture of what's happening in Iraq. In a call arranged by the Florida-based Central Command of U.S. forces in Iraq, Warren spoke from Diyala province in the Sunni Triangle, where he has been stationed since January.

"I walk into the mess hall every day," he told me. He watches American TV news reports from Iraq, "and I ask myself, 'Where are they?'"

Recently, Warren saw a cable TV story on what the reporter called a fierce firefight in Diyala province. Warren believes the reporter got it all wrong. An IED (improvised explosive device) had gone off near Iraqi troops. Whenever that happens, "the first thing the Iraqis do, they start pulling their triggers" and shooting toward the wood line, he said.

That's not a fierce firefight; it's not even a firefight, Warren tells me, because a firefight requires that two sides shoot at each other.

You hear the bad news stories. Warren wants Americans to read some good news, too.


Did you know there was good news?

I don't think there are any Americans that want our military in harm's way. I hope and pray that our troops can come home and return to their families very soon.

However, there is no question that an immediate withdrawal would jeopardize the new Iraqi democracy. It would guarantee anarchy in Iraq. It could be a humanitarian disaster.

What happened when the U.S. pulled out of Southeast Asia?

On April 17th, 1975 the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group led by Pol Pot, took power in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia. They forced all city dwellers into the countryside and to labor camps. During their rule, it is estimated that 2 million Cambodians died by starvation, torture or execution.

Apparently, during his thirty years in Congress, Murtha wasn't paying attention.

The immediate troop withdrawal that he is calling for is shortsighted. It's inhumane. Don't the libs care about the Iraqi people?

One more thing--

Murtha claims that our troops have accomplished all that they can in Iraq and they should come home NOW.

What about our troops elsewhere?

I wonder if he thinks that our troops currently in Bosnia have finished their mission yet.

To paraphrase Murtha, have our military personnel done everything that has been asked of them in Bosnia?

The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Bosnia militarily, right?

Maybe he should give a speech about bringing them home. He'd be choking back tears, of course.