There he goes again.The straight-talking, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may Texan hits another one straight into the bleachers.
That giant sucking sound you hear is George W. Bush, vacuuming up the Democrat Party. And the sound grows louder and louder.
Speaking from the Cincinnati Museum Center in Union Terminal, the President warned that "the threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions - its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror." He noted that Americans "must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On Sept. 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then and we are resolved today to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."
Bush declared that "failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear."
"That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear."
The President offered the most sweeping indictment of the Iraqi regime since his U.N. address as Congress is set to approve resolutions authorizing military action to remove Saddam from power. The resolutions are expected to pass overwhelmingly, strengthening the President's hand as he seeks to rally support from abroad.
The American public, incidentally, needs no convincing: A new CBS News/New York Times poll has
BarbraBarbara Striesand in a snit. The survey shows undiminished support for military action, despite the media's all-out effort in recent months to swing opinion around. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans support the use of force to remove Saddam, about the same as last winter.Even the
BarbraBarbara Striesand memo toGebhartGephardt apparently failed to sway many minds. The public still supportsattaqingattackingIrackIraq. Oh, the horror!The timing of the speech -- a year after the President ordered the bombing in Afghanistan -- and the choice of venue -- the transfer point for hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers during WWII -- brim with significance, and clearly were meant to convey an inauspicious message to Saddam Hussein: You're next.
In his 30-minute televised address, the President laid out his case methodically, detailing Saddam's capabilities, why they pose a threat to U.S. security, and why doing nothing is no option. The speech was also a searing indictment to Democrat critics who seem more worried over upcoming elections than threats from weapons of mass destruction.
As rifts in the Democrat camp grow wider and amid growing questions about Democrat commitment to national security, the President's speech couldn't come at a worst time for Democrats as they struggle in vain against a very popular President who uses his bully-pulpit to devastating effect.
In more ways than one, the haters have marched themselves into their own political meat-grinder.
For months, Democrats have been scraping the bottom of the barrel, hammering and hammering away at Bush over Enron, Kyoto, the economy, the deficit, the stockmarket, the environment, the Energy 'crisis', not knowing 9/11 was coming, knowing 9/11 was coming, the 'Shadow Government' -- even Hurricane Lili and Rosie O'Donnell scuttling her Magazine! Well, not quite, but they're working on it, believe me.
Still wonder why people think handing national security to Democrats is about as safe as hopping in a car with Teddy Kennedy drunk at the wheel?
"What happened to the Democrats?", wails cranky crackpot Tom Friedman, columnist for Saddam's favorite tip-sheet, the New York Times. "At the moment, the Bush team is leading the nation much more by fear than by hope," he gripes.
"The Democrats can only win, or only deserve to win, if they can offer a bold alternative. That would be a program for strengthening America based on hope not fear, substance not spin..."
Or, in other words, to win, Democrats must cease being, well, Democrats. Put another way, demagogues must stop being demagogues, says Friedman in a column dripping with, er, demagoguery. And fear. And spin.
The irony blissfully escapes him.
Sorry to break the news to ya, Tommy, ol' chum, but I'll tell the real reason your party's stock is as strong as Enron's.
For openers, here's three reasons: Jim McDermott, David Bonior, Mike Thompson.
Ring a bell, O Tommy?
Incredibly, Democrats defend the Baghdad Boys as red-white-and-blue "patriots." From the enemy capital, on TV no less, they called the President of these United States a liar and a warmonger.
Wow, how patriotic!
But wait -- their "patriotism" didn't stop there, no siree. The real victim here is poor Saddam, they claim -- laying the "patriotism" thicker and heavier as they went. He's been demonized, maligned by big bad bully Bush, you see. Saddam, McDermott assures us, can be -- and should be -- taken at his word, at "face value." It's that ten-gallon-hat vaguero madman from Texas who can't -- and should not -- be trusted.
So "patriotism" to liberals means going to Baghdad, denouncing your country, bashing your President, and holding Saddam up as some kind of paragon of virtue, right? All of this as our planes and pilots enforcing the 'No-Fly-Zone' daily get shot at from the ground.
Ah, I get it. But wait: If the Baghdad Boys are "patriots", what about 'Johnny the Taliban', then? What's that make him?
Why, a SUPER-PATRIOT, of course! What else? Joining the enemy, declaring Jihad, taking up arms against your own country -- these 'noble' acts are the height of "patriotism" ... to Berkley liberals. Indeed, for his tireless devotion and passion, the public-spirited Johnny Taliban deserves the most coveted prize of all -- give that boy the McDermott award for "patriotism"!
The more I hear liberals these days, the more they remind me of Democrats during the Monica mess.
They pulled out all the stops for Clinton then, now they're sparing no effort to save Saddam.
'Where's the evidence?', Saddam Kool-Aid drinkers hiss.
'Bush [Ken Starr] hasn't made a convincing case against Saddam [Clinton].'
'The U.K. weapons dossier [Starr Report] produced no new hard evidence, no smoking gun -- just the same ol', same ol'!'
'Besides, even if true, the charges don't justify Saddam's [Clinton's] removal from office [Regime Change].' (Monica parallel: The charges against Clinton don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses, i.e., eviction from power.)
'And so what if he mistreats his people?' What Saddam does inside his borders is his own private business!' (Monica parallel: What Clinton does in his private bedroom is none of our business -- so beat it!)
'And why pick on lil' Saddam, anyway? What about Iran, Syria and North Korea -- they sponsor terrorism, too!' (Monica parallel: Everybody does it -- all men have affairs; so why pick on Clinton?)
'Regime change, to be legitimate, must get support from Europe and all our allies. Cowboy Bush can't go-it-alone!' (Monica parallel: Clinton's impeachment, to be legitimate, must be bipartisan -- Republicans can't go-it-alone! Unilateralism won't work!)
There are differences, of course. In Saddam's case, it's military action to force him from power. In Clinton's case, a step-by-step 'how-to' for orderly 'regime change' at the top -- no guns, no violence -- is amazingly found in the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, too few people in Congress ever burden themselves to read it.
As for tonight's speech, the bottom line: The President, yet again, out-flanks his enemies, leaving the Democrats a smoldering heap, more decimated than Iraq's army after their rout from Kuwait.
Small wonder Democrats are squealing like stuck pigs.
Meanwhile, Dems are bracing for the next
BarbraBarbara Striesand Memo: Oh, Cry Me A River! Demokrats, Don't Give Up! Attaq Shrub Now! Attaq Shrub Now!Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
