January 17, 2007
Well, unless he's going to say it's bullshit, whatever it is can't be good.
This is encouraging, however:
"It's not accurate. It's wrong," White House spokesman Tony Snow said regarding media reports suggesting that Bush would agree to mandatory emissions caps in an effort to combat global warming. Such caps could require energy conservation and pollution curbs.And, of course, another blatant lie from Al-Reuters:
"If you're talking about enforceable carbon caps, in terms of industry-wide and nation-wide, we knocked that down. That's not something we're talking about," Snow said...
..."We'll have a State of the Union address in a week and we'll lay out our policy on global warming," Snow said when asked whether British Prime Minister Tony Blair had persuaded Bush to agree to tougher action to combat global warming.
U.S. allies such as Britain and Germany have pressed for a new global agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Bush withdrew the United States from the protocol in 2001, saying its targets for reducing carbon emissions would unfairly hurt the U.S. economy.Kyoto was never ratified by the Senate, who voted it down 95 to ZERO in 1999 - under Clinton's watch. Bush simply called a spade and spade and spelled out why. You can't withdraw from a treaty you've never entered into.
He could easily have passed the buck to his predecessor and all those Senators, but that's not what leaders do.
The President did withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2001 (and rightly so since one of the parties no longer existed). So it could be that Al-Rueters is just being lazy. Either way, it's disgraceful reporting.
January 11, 2007
I don't have all the data about the current situation in Baghdad and Anbar Provence (few do). But it strikes the right tone in my mind.
Implementing this plan offers no guaranty of victory, but the Democrats' alternative can only guaranty defeat. It's the only thing they understand.
As far as I'm concerned, only one of these choices is acceptable. Give our men and women what they need, remove the unnecessary restrictions on the rules of engagement and let them do their job. Period.
January 09, 2007
Really, with Bush's override-proof veto power and a one-seat majority in the Senate, the Dems are going to have a pretty difficult time passing any kind of meaningful legislation. So the next two years are going to amount to merely impeding and harrassing the President wherever and whenever possible.
That's where Fielding comes in:
It's hard to imagine a more experienced choice than Mr. Fielding on the subject of executive power. As deputy White House counsel from 1972 to 1974, he witnessed the modern low tide of Presidential authority as Richard Nixon was besieged by Watergate. And as Ronald Reagan's counsel from 1981 to 1986, he had to cope with a Democratic House that unleashed special prosecutors on the executive branch.So let Rep. Henry "Nostils" Waxman and his merry band of litigious buffoons take their best shots.
The "independent counsel" law has happily expired, but this Congress will be looking to assert itself in particular on war powers. Mr. Fielding understands the importance of fighting off such poaching--for the sake of Mr. Bush and the Office of the Presidency. This ought to mean recommending that Mr. Bush veto any weakening of last year's law on military tribunals, as well as resisting any further delegation of executive power to the judiciary for approving warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda.
The question of responding to the avalanche of subpoenas will be more politically delicate. Congress has every right to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and the White House will be obliged to supply numerous documents. However, the principle of executive privilege is vital to Presidential decision-making, and preserving the privacy of that deliberative process will be one of Mr. Fielding's primary tasks.
November 08, 2006
It might be time to search around for it, dust it off and keep it handy for the remainder of your term. You will need it... more...
November 01, 2006
September 29, 2006
"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush said.How d'ya like them apples?
September 26, 2006
"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.
He complained that "somebody leaked classified information for political purposes," Bush said, criticizing both the news media and people in government who talked to them about classified material.
The initial leak, coming from Bush opponents in the intelligence community and shamelessly reported by the NY Times and WaPo, was a nakedly political move aimed at undermining the U.S.'s Global War On Terror in the heat of an election season. Those portions that were reported were selected specifically to give the impression that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a direct cause of increased terror activity around the world. As if such activity never existed prior to 2003.
And as if the Left and their MSM enablers weren't already doing enough to encourage America's enemies.
Michelle Malkin has the definitive round-up.
Prior to Bush's release order, House Democrats tried their best to make political hay of the report by pushing for a "closed-door" session to discuss it.
The proposal from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was denied by a vote of 171-217. Such a session hasn't happened in the House since July 1983, when the chamber went into a closed session to discuss the United States' support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua."Better understand" it my ass. This was a blatant attempt to increase the drama by fanning the flames of speculation that somehow the Administration has something to hide in this report. How any reasonable person could consider voting for a party whose leadership would risk compromising national security by playing political games like this is beyond me.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Pelosi said the secret session was needed to allow members to better understand the intelligence community's most recent assessment on global terrorism, some of which leaked to the news media over the weekend.
Now that it will become public record, the proper context of the report and information that shows our military efforts and results in a more favorable light will put an end to that garbage.
The NY Times and the WaPo will now be free to report the parts that they didn't care to, such as those highlighted by "Spook86", the author of "In From The Cold" (Originally linked by the folks at Power Line):
In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.As the President said, read it for yourself.
Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.
The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.
More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.
And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community.
The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?
(note: all original bold/italics emphasis appears as it does on "In From The Cold" blog)
September 19, 2006
But there really is only one major reason for the uptick: Republican voters, who've expressed their dissatisfaction with Bush on many issues, are starting to see the forest for the trees. The issue of the Global War on Terror is THE issue and it trumps everything else.
Bush's approval rating edged up largely on the strength of Republicans coming back to the fold with 86 percent saying they support him now, compared to 70 percent in May, USA Today said.This does not mean, however, that 60 percent are in favor of the only alternative that the Democrats are floating: cut and run. Many voters that make up Bush's base of support have felt that we've not been aggressive enough in Iraq or that the President was allowing the Democrats to chip away at his (and by extension, the nation's) resolve to finish the job.
For the first time since December 2005, a majority of people polled did not say the war in Iraq was a mistake. The respondents were evenly split at 49 percent to 49 percent, the report said.
However, the poll finds that the Iraq war continues to be a problem for Bush. Sixty percent said he does not have a clear plan for handling Iraq and 75 percent said Iraq is in a civil war, USA Today said.
The White House has spent the last couple of weeks putting that fear to rest. The President's strategy - as it was in 2002 and 2004 - is to double down on his policies that have kept the country attack-free since 9/11. Republicans candidates would do well to get on board. If they do, then the GOP's superior Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) machine will ensure Republican retention of both chambers of Congress.
Jim Geraghty at NRO takes a closer look at the numbers.
September 15, 2006
Will he be drawing a line in the sand over terrorism legistlation in the Senate?
On a related note, NBC's David Gregory got into it again yesterday with Tony Snow, prodding the White House Press Secretary over the President's attempt to clarify provisions in the Geneva Convention.
On the Imus In The Morning radio show this morning, the host asked David Gregory about his questions to Snow. Gregory raised concerns that the President is trying to redefine the torture guidelines of the Convention. Imus asked, "So what?"
Gregory responded that if the U.S. did this it might set a precedent for other countries to do the same. "Which countries?" asked Imus.
The White House Corresponded responded (and I'm paraphrasing here) that there is concern about a war with Iran, for example.
Imus (who loves Gregory) asked him point blank: "Do you think that if we got into a war with Iran, and if they captured some of our soldiers that Iran would comply with the provisions of the Geneva Convention? What are you, an idiot?"
Gregory was incredulous. I laughed my butt off.
The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity.Back in 1984, former VP Fritz Mondale asked his fellow Presidential candidate Gary Hart, "Where's the beef?"
"The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.
One of the oldest clichÃƒÂ©s in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a clichÃƒÂ© because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.
Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me.
Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.
Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.
He could just as easily ask the same question of his party, twenty-two years later.
September 12, 2006
He offered words of optimism, hope and encouragement. He spoke of the courage, strength and spirit that this country has always shown in times of crisis.
What the majority of Americans saw was an example of leadership.
What Democrats saw will no doubt inspire in them anger and rage. Based on their experiences within their own party, Democrats have a hard time recognizing leadership. While they are all very familiar with being roused, stirred-up and driven to indignation, they have very little experience in being led.
The President layed out his case for fighting this war against Islamic Fascism - on all of its fronts.
For the majority of Americans whose outlooks are based in reality, this case - whether they liked hearing it or not - makes sense.
For the Left, however, it was a challenge to their fantasy of a false peace rooted in isolationism and head-in-the-sand denial. And they will react as they typically do. Years from now, when their children are grown they will ask, "Mommy? Daddy? What did you do during the great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century?" And they can hold their heads up high, look them in the eyes and say "I posted thousands of childish, obscene comments on weblogs!"
How does that old saying go? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?
President Bush concluded his address to the nation with a call for unity.
Most Americans remember the kind of unity this country shared in the weeks following 9/11 and they long for it again. They recognize how important this is in a time of war.
Democrats will reject this call out of hand. After all, they are engaged in a different war - a political war to take back control of the Federal government. For them, a sense of unity offsets any political advantage they might hope to exploit. Democrats are calling this a "political speech". This should come as no surprise. Surely, to those who would make the war a political issue, it was.
Yes, we have two perspectives out there. Our enemies are hoping one of them will prevail. It's not all that hard to figure out which one.
September 06, 2006
In other words, it was no accident (though none of his supporters thought so) that we haven't been attacked since.
But here's the kicker: in response to the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision on military tribunals, he is having Sen. Majority Leader Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell introduce legislation for Congress to explicitly authorize their creation. Dems, who've been going around thumping their chests and saying how safe America would be if they were in charge, are now going to have to put up or shut up.
Mario Loyola at NRO's The Corner explains:
The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.This is the 2006 equivalent of the Homeland Security Bill of 2002. Democrats will head into a mid-term election either look blatantly weak and obstructionist on national security or pissing off their Moonbat base.
And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.
Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.
"DAMMIT! He did it AGAIN!"
Can't wait to see the responses from the Donks. Heh.
h/t: Michelle Malkin (who liveblogged the speech) and, of course, MFSIL who first emailed me about the speech!
August 02, 2006
"Take THAT Hippy! Fit as a fiddle and you got me for two and a half MORE YEARS!"
July 27, 2006
To be honest, you can probably count me among them. And that's a good thing.
Why, you ask? Because it means he's looking out for our interests, not theirs. And that's one of the many reasons I voted for him.
Honestly, what real benefit does the U.S. obtain from having it's President respected by foreign leaders? A boost to our national self-esteem? Whoop-de-do. Here's a news flash: most of the world hates us regardless of who is our President. It's derived from envy. The difference nowadays is that the expression of that hatred is more visible.
The U.S. is damned whatever it does. So allow me to quote Markos Moulitsas Zuniga: "Screw them."
July 06, 2006
And many, many more. On this day in 1946 in the city of New Haven, CT, the 43rd President was born. I love this pic because it absolutely drives the Left NUTS! That's right, moonbats. A good and decent man. A devoted father. A loving, faithful husband. And a pilot.
And your Commander-In-Chief. Saving your ass, like it or not. Deal with it.
June 26, 2006
"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and, at the same time, make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."HotAir.com come has the video. If he was holding back, you could've fooled me.
June 13, 2006
April 26, 2006
"Including especially good humor and sharp intelligence. Perhaps the best thing about this appointment is the very hostile WH press corps is suddenly confronted by an individual who has already out achieved them in the world of media, which means he knows their tricks and he knows their vanities. There are some smart folks in the WH press room, but there are plenty of pretty faces as well, and they know that Snow is a whole lot smarter than they are."Let's also be mindful of the what Tony is sacrificing to serve the President: money, time with his family, a successful radio show and the flexibility to have a normal life. On top of congratulations, I'd say a big "thank you" is in order.
April 24, 2006
"He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.While the President must suffer the slings and arrows of his short-sighted critics, there are many around the world who are inspired by his steadfast resolve. Just as Ronald Reagan's courage to stand up to the Soviet Union gave hope to men like Sharansky during the Cold War, Bush's consistent message of freedom is sowing the seeds of future democracy in the Middle East.
With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure."
"Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.Those who would turn a blind eye towards tyranny do so at their own peril. Three Presidents in the 20th century were confronted with it - Roosevelt, Truman and Reagan - and each of them chose to oppose it. We live in a better world because of it. George W. Bush is the first President of the 21st century to advance the cause of freedom in the world. Let's hope he's not the last.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world."
March 16, 2006
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a greater emphasis on working with allies and declares diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of weapons of mass destruction.In a post-9/11 world, this is the reality and what is necessary. On a practical level, it's merely common sense.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
118 queries taking 0.059 seconds, 278 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.