[JohnHuang2]

Monday, September 8, 2003

Quote of the Day by CFC__VRWC

[JohnHuang2]

G'nite, y'all. Have a great day.

[windchime]

Bump!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The rest of the world needs to pull their own weight or be recognized as parasites living off Americans who fought and died to bring peace and security to the world. To be partisans now reaches those depths only the self-serving can navigate.

[Molly Pitcher]

"Stay the Course" - that's what's it's all about. The terrorists are counting on us not to do that, and it looks like the Corrupt Party and assorted Leftists here and abroad are encouraging them to think that.

[The Mayor]

Bump!

[b4its2late]

Good job!

[maica]

Excellent comments, as usual, JH2. I always look forward to your remarks.

[baseballmom]

Great commentary JH2.

It was interesting to listen to the commentary by the "professional" media last night. David Gergen topped them all, by likening GW's speech to the "desperate" speeches of LBJ and Nixon during Vietnam.

"For America," added Bush, "there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world

Thank God for GWB, he gets it.

[Brasil]

We won't find a better analysis anywhere. Wish some newspapers would offer this. Thanks.

[woofie]

I think you hit it again ....I didnt see that much post speech commentary but what I saw was positive

And this speech will be followed by a full bore press to get what this administration and country needs to reshape that God forsaken area of the world...

[blackie]

Good read, Lady!

[Spruce]

I always enjoy your posts JH2! Another home run for you!

[MeekOneGOP]

Excellent work JohnHuang2 ! Thanks for posting your article and for the ping !

"For America," added Bush, "there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

"A presidential executive order issued during the Clinton
administration hamstrung the FBI so badly that bureau
lawyers decided it would be illegal to infiltrate Osama bin
Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a senior
FBI official during the Clinton administration said Saturday."
(June 1, 2002)

____________________

"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.

The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Fred Mertz]

I like your version JH2. I need to read your stuff more often.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thank you!

(((JH multi-lateral ping!)))

Once again, Bush sets the agenda, defines the terms of debate, the course for action, the meaning of success. That's what a leader does. That's what Bush did tonight.

Ping list: on/off, please Freepmail.

8 Unapologetically Pro-Coalition News Links and Articles

[FranklinsTower]

"Past differences (should not) interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation."

I find the choice of using the phrase "civilized world" a very subtle but an extremely powerful rhetorical device. Last September, Bush used the threat of the UN being irrelevent as a means to get 1441 passed. It worked. While the threat of irrelevancy is still there, the rhetoric is now being moved to "Who is part of the civilized world? France, Germany and the UN are you going to side with the barbarians?" To call these people uncivilized is the ultimate insult to their way overblown egos.

Thus, the reason for going to the UN is to either expose France and Germany for who they really are -- allies of the barbarians -- or force them to comply with the "civilized world". Anyone who thinks we are going to the UN because we are "failing miserably" in Iraq is sadly mistaken. Instead, we are forcing France, Germany and the UN in general to play their hand. Bush is either going to get his resolution or the UN's inability to be part of the civilized world will render it irrelevant. My bet is that Bush will get his resolution just like last fall and then some -- perhaps some much needed institutional reform at the UN.

This is strategy of the highest order folks. Sun Tzu couldn't have done it better himself.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I would say the price tag was VERY INEXPENSIVE considering the cost of rebuilding say,... the entire city of New York, or LA, or Houston. Or all of them. Then take into account all the lives that would be lost too. What price SECURITY? Wasn't 9-11 enough? The article below kind of says it all doesn't it?

Vets
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How To Look At The War On Terror
David Horowitz (archive)


September 8, 2003

Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil?

I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who would have made that bet two years ago.

There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans enjoy. It is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or their hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s borders are secure or because America’s internal security systems have been successfully overhauled.

There is one reason – and one reason alone – that Americans have been safe for the almost two years since the 9/11 attacks.

That reason is the aggressive war that President Bush and the American military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil. The war on terror has been fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul instead of Washington and New York. By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by making the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and the American military have kept Americans safe.

Now the battlefield of the war on terror is post-liberation Iraq. The jihadists of al-Qaeda and radical Islam and Arab fascism are crawling out of the snakepits of Tikrit and slithering across the borders from terrorist bases in Syria and Iran to attack American troops, UN diplomats and anyone helping the American cause. Their goal is self-evident: To force the collapse of civil order and to inflict enough casualties on American forces that America will withdraw.

Such a withdrawal would be a massive defeat for the forces of order and decency not only in Iraq but in the world at large. It would be a dramatic victory of the forces of evil.

If Iraq can be secured and become an American ally, then Syrian terrorism and Iranian terrorism and Palestinian terrorism will have no place to hide. American pressure on terrorists everywhere will be dramatically enhanced. If, on the other hand, America withdraws in defeat then terror will flourish again in Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, but also in Damascus, Teheran and Ramallah.

The way to think about the war on terror is to ask yourself who is supporting President Bush and the American military in this life and death engagement, and who is not?

Help is certainly not coming from the European nations who armed and then appeased Saddam Hussein and opposed the liberation of Iraq and who now refuse to aid America in securing the peace.

Far worse, with exception of fading candidates like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards, it is certainly not coming from the leaders of the Democratic Party who from the moment Baghdad was liberated have with ferocious intensity attacked the credibility of America’s commander-in-chief, the justification for our mission in Iraq, and the ability of our forces to prevail.

In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as Al Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well – the swiftest, most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history – Al Gore has accused the President of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts with the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing American soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election recount, he and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument of a partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.

Gore’s bottom line in his August 7 speech attacking the President’s conduct of the war on terror was this: “Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm’s way.”

Gore’s attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline of one of America’s great political parties. In breaking bi-partisan ranks in the war on terror, Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic congressional delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the exception of Lieberman and Edwards, and by the party’s politically activist base.

It is a dark day for Americans when one of their two ruling parties cannot be counted on to support the flag when it is committed in battle, and when the battle is America’s response to a bloodthirsty aggressor with access to biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons.

In a Memorial Day speech to American veterans, President Bush had this to say about our adversary: “The terrorists’ aim is to spread chaos and fear by killing on an ever-widening scale….They celebrate the murder of women and children. They attacked the civilized world because they bear a deep hatred for the values of the civilized world. They hate freedom and religious tolerance and democracy and equality for women. They hate Christians and Jews and every Muslim who does not share their narrow and violent vision.”

The President vowed to stay the course, but noted that it is only recently that America has done so. “During the last few decades the terrorists grew bolder, believing if they hit America hard, America would retreat and back down.”

Perhaps the President had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on American troops in Somalia, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the Khobar Towers, a dormitory housing American soldiers, where President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the USS Cole, when President and Al Gore backed down.

“Five years ago,” the President continued, “one of the terrorists said that an attack could make America run in less than 24 hours. They’re learning something different today. The terrorists have not seen America running, they’ve seen America marching. They’ve seen the armies of liberation marching into Kabul and to Baghdad.” And they know and respect the difference.

Now we are engaged in a war to drive the enemy into the ground. We have taken or killed half of al-Qaeda’s leadership; we have destroyed the regime of Saddam Hussein – harbor to terrorists and sponsor of suicide bombers -- and captured or killed forty-two of its top fifty-five leaders.

The enemy understands the war we are in. It knows that it is fighting for its life in Iraq. In sabotaging the peace in Iraq, its aim is to intimidate America and force our retreat. In his Memorial Day speech, the President addressed this threat: “Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.”

Al Gore and the Democrats need to heed these words and change their course.

Unless the Democrats get behind this war, they will have no electoral future; if they do not, the nation will have no future that is secure.



©2003 FrontPageMag.com

[jonsie]

Thanks for a wonderful post in a day of "negativism". My youngest son will leave from Fort Hood on Wed. and I needed some cheering up.

[showme_the_Glory]

God Bless our president.

[eureka!]

Nicely done. W told America that we have to, and will, stay the course. And we will...