October 10, 2006 Posts
00:02 Irey Outlines History of Anti-American Jihad 03:01 Santorum Sounds Statesmanlike, Casey Evasive 16:49 The Sad State of Election 'Analysis' in the Agenda Media 21:02 'Sourpuss Party' Whining Again
Irey Outlines History of Anti-American Jihad
Diana Irey addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition in Philadelphia today. Here's some of her most potent statements:
The world in which we grew up ended 27 years ago, on November 4, 1979, when hundreds of radical Muslim students overran and occupied the American embassy in Teheran. For 444 days, the world watched and waited, as a radical Islamic regime held hostage not just 52 diplomats in a fortified bunker, but, in fact, an entire nation thousands of miles away.Democrats would have you believe that this war against the Islamic jihadists started because of President Bush's policiess. This statement of fact proves beyond a doubt that that isn't true. Only a hyperpartisan Democrat would argue with Ms. Irey's opinion. In fact, I expect some to do exactly that.
The seizure of the American embassy in Iran in November 1979 by Muslim extremist students was the first shot fired in what is now, clearly, a war with radical Islam determined to destroy the West and reestablish the Muslim Caliphate along a crescent that stretches from Spain to the Middle East.This isn't theory or opinion; it's stated fact straight from the lips of UBL and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The seizure of the American embassy in Teheran in 1979 was followed by the suicide truck bombing against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, which cost us the lives of 241 young soldiers, the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II. That attack was carried out by the same Hezbollah terrorists who rain destruction on northern Israel. They were funded, trained, and equipped by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And what did we do? Ronald Reagan chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal.Diana Irey didn't mention that the advice Presidents Reagan and Clinton got to withdraw came from the same man: John Murtha. It's been 23 years since Murtha told President Reagan to leave Beirut but Murtha's advice is the same: We can't accomplish our objectives militarily. It was bad advice then; it's horrible advice now. It's been 13 years since Murtha said "There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."
---------------
What we did not know at the time, and only learned later, was that the assault on the American forces was conducted by forces trained, equipped, and funded by the then-virtually-unknown al Qaeda. And what did we do? Bill Clinton chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal. After that, the attacks against Americans overseas began coming faster and faster:
The American embassy in Teheran. Beirut. Word Trade Center One. Mogadishu. The Khobar Towers. American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The U.S.S. Cole. Each time, our response was muted. Each time, terrorists learned a simple lesson: they could kill Americans with impunity.I think most Americans agree with the President that Iraq is a war that we must win. I also think that most Americans think that it was a mistake because we haven't won. I suspect that they're saying something like "Mistake or not, we've got to stabilize Iraq or else Iran installs a puppet regime that controls vast oil reserves."
President Bush has determined that enough is enough. In his speech following the terrible attacks of September 11, he declared that it would be the policy of the American Government to defeat these terrorists, and that we would no longer tolerate other governments allowing terrorists to operate from within their nations. "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said.
I support the President.
Withdrawing from Iraq now would send a message to other governments as well, that America is an undependable ally, and that it is safer to cut a deal with the terrorists than to count on us.Absolute fact. Frankly, anyone can break a promise. It takes people of genuince character to keep one's promise through challenging times. Because he isn't willing to keep his promises in difficult times, John Murtha proves that he's a nobody. He isn't a trustworthy man when it comes to Iraq.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:02 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Santorum Sounds Statesmanlike, Casey Evasive
Listening to the difference between Rick Santorum's statement on North Korea's nuclear missile test and Bob Casey's is a study in contrasts. Here's Sen. Santorum's answer:
"There is no question in my mind that Iranian scientists are in Pyongyang and Korean scientists are in Tehran," the Pennsylvania Republican said. Mr. Santorum said the communist regime's possession of nuclear weapons is a profound regional threat in East Asia, but, more importantly, a worldwide threat, because of the Pyongyang government's demonstrated willingness to traffic in arms. "My biggest concern is with Iran," Mr. Santorum said, "because if they get the weapon, they will use it."Here's Casey's statement:
"The increased aggression by North Korea must be denounced and swiftly addressed to prevent further proliferation," he said. "In the past five years, North Korea has increased this nuclear stockpile, tested missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and now, they have detonated a nuclear device."Sen. Santorum's statement shows a command of the facts involved in this issue. Casey's statement is evasive, an attempt to sound tough. Casey's statement doesn't inspire confidence that he grasps the details of the situation. Frankly, the empty rhetoric in Casey's answer should scare Pennsylvania voters. The U.S. Senate isn't a place for on the job training, especially in wartime.
Here's Casey's campaign manager's sophomoric wisecrack:
"Who's been in power for the last five years, while [North Korea] has expanded its weapons program?" he asked in an e-mailed response to the incumbent's remarks.That's a cute question but it's the wrong question. The right question is: What types of festering messes did President Bush inherit from Bill Clinton? The truth is that President Bush has dealt with a ton of major challenges and he hasn't attempted to ignore problems until he's out of office like Clinton did.
President Bush inherited the terrorist problem that Bill Clinton ignored. Then he implemented the regime change that was U.S. policy towards Iraq since the Clinton administration. Remember that this was after 16 U.N. Resolutions against Saddam that Clinton didn't enforce. That isn't including the mess that Clinton created by giving North Korea nuclear technology.
After all that, Democrats have the audacity to say that Bush didn't stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons? Democrats don't want you remembering the liberation of 50 million people. They're whining about this because they're hoping the voters won't notice the mess they got us into in the 1990's because they were all talk and no action.
Democrats want Pennsylvania voters to ignore Casey's lack of foreign policy qualifications. They'd prefer that Pennsylvania voters just hear the legendary name. They want to transfer his dad's legend to the son without the son earning it.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:03 AM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by mr skin at 20-Oct-06 02:16 PM
Now that's a Surprise! Kim Jong Il actually apologized for North Korea for conducting nuclear testing?!! He said he didn't have plans to test anymore. Something just doesn't sound right about that one.
The Sad State of Election 'Analysis' in the Agenda Media
It should be utterly embarassing to the Washington Post to put this article on the front page. to say that it's wishy-washy is understatement. After reading this, it's impossible to take Chris Cillizza and Jim VandeHei seriously as political reporters. Here's a sample of their 'work':
They are all but writing off GOP open seats in Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Florida, (the one previously held by Foley). Party officials said that three GOP incumbents in Indiana are trailing in private polling and that seats thought safe suddenly appear imperiled. These include the open Florida seat vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris, who is running for senator. "It is unquestionably closer than we would like," said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL).I decided to check the Arizona papers to see what reactions are to illegal immigration. To say that people advocating "comprehensive immigration reform" aren't being received well is understatement. The Democrat in the AZ-8 race that Mssrs. Cillizza and VandeHei refer to is Gabrielle Giffords. She's running against Randy Graf, the founder of the Minuteman Project. Graf is staunchly for building the wall; Giffords is wishy-washy. With illegal immigration being the dominant issue in AZ-8, that means she's election night road kill.
As for the GOP "all but writing off" Florida, I think I'll trust this article just a bit more:
Gov. Jeb Bush said today a lot of "talking heads" on television, especially Washington pundits, underestimate Florida voters when they predict that the Republicans can't hold the congressional seat of disgraced ex-Rep. Mark Foley.Considering Jeb Bush's popularity within Florida and considering that Foley's district is a safe GOP district (Foley won in 2004 by 36 points) and considering Jeb's gonna be campaigning for Mr. Negron, I'd hardly say that the GOP is "all but writing this district off." Frankly, I don't know how much more engaged the GOP could be.
Bush said he will campaign for state Rep. Joe Negron, who faces an "extraordinary challenge" in a five-week race against Democrat Tim Mahoney for the District 16 seat. Since Foley resigned last week, after the primaries, Negron's name won't be on the ballot, but Foley's will, and a vote for Foley will count for Negron, who was chosen by the Florida Republican Party at a caucus in Orlando on Monday.
That's before considering the pathetic shape that Tim Mahoney is in. Polipundit has the scoop on why Mahoney's toast:
The best part of this is that all that shareholder value was lost while Clinton was President!!! This company went public in March 2000 at $7.00 a share. In one year, Tim Mahoney (D) lost $300,000,000 of shareholder value for the stockholders. This chart from Yahoo Finance will sink this guys campaign. Please help spread the news.That's just two instances where Mssrs. Cillizza and VandeHei are badly wrong.
It's one thing to have your opinions be off; it's another to have your facts off by this much. Thank God for the gatekeepers at the Washington Post that caught this before it went to press. I'd hate to see such a fine media organization like the Post be lumped in with the Times 2 people.
Democrats said internal polls show that the fallout from the Foley scandal is confined to half a dozen races. Moreover, House elections are traditionally shaped by local issues and personalities, and the closest races come down to which party can turn out its most loyal voters.That's stunning news!!! After being the Page 1, above-the-fold news for nearly two weeks, Democrats' internal polling shows that it might tip 6 seats? Considering what little else Democrats have to run on, that's disastrous. It's worth noting that Mssrs. Cillizza and VandeHei didn't say that it was the deciding factor in those races, just that the fallout "is confined to half a dozen races."
Elsewhere, the political debate is returning to traditional disputes over the war, taxes and health care, according to Democrats and Republicans. The Foley story "is getting a lot of attention now, but I don't think it will have the legs to last four weeks," said Ron Carey, chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party.TRANSLATION: The "political debate is returning to" issues, which is the last thing Democrats want. They wanted to run on scandals and a 'throw-the-bums-out' attitude.
Democrats know that they don't have an appealing agenda. For that matter, they've decided that they don't need an agenda heading into this election. They're betting that Republicans are utterly despised and that their traditional voters won't turn out. That's a bad mistake on Democrats' part.
One last thing to factor into this is the fact that President Bush will sign the Secure Fence Act with a little over a week to the election to highlight a key Republican legislative victory. Highlighting that will pick the GOP faithful's spirits up in a hurry. It's the perfect 'kickoff' to the final GOP GOTV drive.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:50 PM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by Thomas at 10-Oct-06 08:47 PM
You of course fail (or refuse) to realize that any high profile anti-immigration legislation signed by the president close to the election will not only energize the pro-immigration left, and pro-immigration businesses but also totally alienate almost all Hispanic voters. In addition, you claim that Democrats don't want to run a campaign about "issues"; in response I only have one word, IRAQ! If indeed the conservative wing of the media prevails and is able to convince the American people that the leadership of the US House sheltering pedophiles isn't actually news, then Iraq is the next big issue for consideration. The Democrats need only point out the administration's long legacy of lies, arrogance, incompetence, and corruption and we can watch the Republican poll numbers sink in the face of our military's rising death toll.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Oct-06 09:34 PM
you claim that Democrats don't want to run a campaign about "issues"; in response I only have one word, IRAQ!
Issues is plural. Iraq is only one issue. (singular)
Preventing terrorism is the biggest issue this election, followed by illegal immigration.
BTW, most Hispanics agree with tough border enforcement, meaning it works in the GOP's favor.
'Sourpuss Party' Whining Again
If he keeps whining like this, Democrats can't afford to have Kent Conrad be the face of their party very long:
"They overstated the deficit on the front end to claim success later in the year," Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said in July, according to McClatchy newspapers.Conrad is whining about a detail that the average American doesn't care about. More Americans are likely to care about this statistic:
Income and corporate taxes have surged so much that the Treasury Department is expected to announce that the federal deficit for the fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, has declined to about $250 billion, almost $175 billion less than the administration had predicted in February. It also is about $68 billion less than the 2005 deficit , and although still the seventh highest annual shortfall in history, it gives the Bush administration and congressional incumbents something to talk about this campaign season.It seems to me that the average American will like hearing that the deficit is heading in the right direction more than they'll like hearing Democrats whine about process.
The projections put the administration close to meeting its goal of cutting the 2004 deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. "If you look at the numbers this year, they are already very close to the president's goal that he set out in 2004," Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters Friday after the CBO gave its unofficial $250 billion estimate.
I'm betting that most Americans will like hearing about this news. Anyone want to bet against me on that?
Overall, spending increased by $185 billion, but revenue grew even faster, by $253 billion , according to the CBO, accounting for smaller deficit. That's a revenue increase of more than 11 percent over 2005. The driving force has been a 27 percent increase in corporate income taxes , coupled with a 13 percent increase in individual income taxes.So much for liberals' argument on "how much the Bush tax cuts will 'cost.'" They don't 'cost', they increase tax revenues. The bottom line is that tax cuts are economically smart and morally right.
Posted Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:03 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
