Posted on 08/28/2004 5:14:56 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
LOL. Great, you made me wake up the baby. Too funny. I can just hear them cursing in Spanish like the old Mexicans do in my husband's hometown. =)
ARRGH!!! That picture made my skin crawl!!
The protesters are too STOOPID to figure that out, and if they hear the warning, they'll just ignore it in their hatred for the President.
Works for me!
Heh, gotta love em!!
Look how Dubya and Laura are holding hands, very naturally! It's not a 'put on' with them!!
Have a great trip, tell Dubya and Laura HI for us, and for goodness's sake, STAY SAFE!!
At least there are still some honest democrats out there. Go get 'em Ed.
ED KOCH identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat. The former New York City councilman, congressman, and three-term mayor says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center -- the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling -- "I made it on my own, and you should, too." The Democratic philosophy, by contrast, he sums up as: "If you need a helping hand, we'll provide it." No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs.
But he's voting for him in November.
"I've never before supported a Republican for president," Koch told me last week. "But I'm doing so this time because of the one issue that trumps everything else: international terrorism. In my judgment, the Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to stand up to the terrorists. But Bush is a fighter."
Koch was surprised and impressed by Bush's resolve after Sept. 11. "He announced the Bush Doctrine -- he said we would go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. And he's kept his word." Koch doubts that the leadership of his own party could have mustered the grit to topple the Taliban or drive Saddam Hussein from power, let alone to press on in what is going to be a long and grinding conflict.
"Already, most of the world is caving. If you didn't have Bush standing there, you'd have everybody following Spain and the Philippines" in retreat, he says, trying to appease the terrorists instead of fighting them.
How much of his party does Koch speak for? We won't know for sure until Election Day, when exit polls help gauge how many Democrats crossed party lines to support Bush. But Koch knows he's not the only Democrat to regard the war against militant Islam as the most critical issue of the campaign. And he doesn't think he was the only one dismayed by what he saw at the Democratic convention in July.
From Michael Moore's seat of honor next to Jimmy Carter, to the thunderous applause that greeted Howard Dean, to the 9 out of 10 delegates who want to pull the plug on Iraq, the convention exposed the radical antiwar mindset that dominates the Democratic Party leadership.
But hasn't Kerry pledged to stay in Iraq and to go after the terrorists? "That's what he says to appeal to moderates and conservatives during the campaign," Koch replies. But the party activists who nominated him would compel him to back down once he was in office. The people now running the Democratic Party want no part of the war, and "when the chips are down, Kerry will do what they want." Continued...
The MSM gushes over that maverick McCain but Zell Miller? Well he's just a cartoonish GOP partisan.
Why should Jews want the re-election of George W. Bush? Let's start with the removal of Saddam Hussein, his resolve in fighting Islamic terrorists, his unequivocal support for Israel's government and people, his willingness to confront the appeasers of terror in the United Nations, and his steadfast commitment to the principle of prevention.
The case for George W. Bush is the case for a clear and consistent US foreign policy. In three and a half years, President Bush has done more for Israel than any other president in the last 50. And, unlike his opponent, he has never wavered, vacillated, or equivocated in his support.
For all practical purposes, national security and defense are among the few issues that truly fall under presidential power.
Budgets, taxes, spending programs are crafted and approved by Congress. Nor do presidents determine social policy - including such contentious issues as abortion and prayer in school. Congress makes the laws, and it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret them. A president cannot even determine the makeup of the Supreme Court. Just ask Robert Bork and all the judicial nominees rejected by the Senate over the last few decades.
In fact, about the only almost unchecked power a president does have today is in foreign policy. When it comes to national security and international relations, what a president says and what a president does is taken seriously.
So when Senator John Kerry says we have to be more "sensitive" in our efforts against those who fly planes into skyscrapers on American soil, or those who send children to blow themselves up in crowded Israeli restaurants and buses, exactly what message is he sending? Kerry's philosophy, also held by the man he first mooted as a "special Middle East adviser," Jimmy Carter, is based on "consensus-building." But how do you build consensus with people who support the destruction of our land and our people? "War is not the answer" is an easy bumper sticker to display, but it is hardly an effective foreign policy for a peaceful world in the 21st century.
When President Bush declared war on global terrorism, America's agenda became Israel's agenda, and vice versa. The words he used at this year's AIPAC conference were direct, blunt, and unwavering: "Freedom-loving people did not seek this conflict. It has come to us by the choices of violent men, hateful men... Israel longs for peace. America longs for peace. Yet there can be no peace without defending our security. There is only one path to peace and safety. America will use every resource we have to fight and defeat these enemies of freedom."
In a survey my firm conducted for the Hudson Institute, beating terrorism is the single greatest priority in America today. The president adopted Israel's approach for fighting terror - bringing the fight directly to the doorsteps of every terrorist network, no matter where their disciples may hide. And just as Israel's non-sensitive approach has reduced a flood of deaths by terror to a trickle, there has not been a successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.
Now compare that language and approach with Senator Kerry's speech at the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference last October. "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas," said Kerry. "We do not need another barrier to peace."
To be fair, Kerry did eventually recognize that the fence was a "legitimate act of self-defense." But hundreds of Israelis had been murdered before Kerry decided to parrot Palestinian propaganda. Is that what the Jewish community wants in their president - someone who flips one way and another as Israeli blood is being spilled? This type of political tiptoeing has even loyal Democrats nervous. They fear that an absence of conviction will reveal an absence of strength and leadership.
Another significant difference between the two candidates is their world view. Senator Kerry has argued that US policy needs to be more attentive to and respectful of the Europe Union and the United Nations, the same bodies who turn a blind eye to global anti-Semitism and terrorism.
It should not be surprising what happens when Kerry's world view is applied to the Middle East. In his 1997 book The New War, Senator Kerry wrote, "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." What a warm, gracious tribute to a despot who bankrupted his own people, broke every commitment made at Oslo, supplied illegal arms and funding to terrorist organizations, and has allowed subordinates to rain down incessant violence on innocent Israelis.
You will not hear President Bush echo such sweet language about Yasser Arafat. Sure, his words are often simple and his world vision relatively black and white - but that's a value Jews should appreciate. In the war against terror, moral clarity is an asset, not a liability. The Bush approach is founded on a very simple principle: The best way to pursue peace is to maintain strength.
Not since the Yom Kippur War has an American president mattered more to the safety and survival of the Jewish state.
President Bush's support for Israel, and the greater war on terror, is not a stand-alone issue. It defines his entire agenda, domestic and foreign. Terrorism has already adversely affected jobs, taxes, and other important domestic concerns. Staying the course in these troubled times will indeed test who we are as a nation and as a people. The fact is, we cannot have economic or personal security without national and homeland security.
George W. Bush gets it. With unequivocal opposition to Palestinian terrorism, his public declaration that some areas of Jerusalem and the West Bank must remain under Israeli control, the public rejection of the Palestinian "right of return" claims, and the elimination of one of the great sources of evil in the Middle East, this president has earned the support of the Jewish community.
Byron York: Kerry and Swift Boats: A Damage Report
Thomas Owens: Fanhrenheit 1971 (very good)
You gotta see these pictures of the cat and the horse!
No wonder Kerry won't criticize them! They are just like HIM!
I'm watching the protesters live on CSPAN, and praying for a safe week for HLL, IG and all other right minded visitors to NYC!
What's the consensus? Has there been a little firming up?
Hep is own the way, hope is in da air!
Leftists aren't very smart and they certainly don't think ahead, evidenced by the sign, 'quagmire accomplished'. A long rectangular sign with no vents to let the wind pass through. A good stiff breeze could prove very entertaining.
Why Tim, I'm just a sweet little thing but I'm really tough on terrorism.
Here we have one putting a price on our security for propaganda:
An electronic sign displays the cost of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) as calculated by two activist groups in Times Square in New York Friday, Aug. 27, 2004. The clock was unveiled Wednesday by the advocacy group Project Billboard and the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank headed by John Podesta, former President Clinton (news - web sites)'s chief of staff. (AP Photo/Ed Bailey)
She seems to get lots of make overs but none of them take or last long..She really bristled on MTP when little Timmie showed a poll that she was the democrat most disliked by the Republicans...hee hee....she even beat out ole Slick....she said that we don't like her because we don't know her!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.