IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

[vernecarty]

Whether there are justifiable reasons or not for our presence in Iraq will probably always be debated.
No intelligent nor reasonably well-informed individual can take an objective look at the available evidence and come to any other condlusion than that the reasons originally given for our action are quite suspect to say the least. Whether Bush knew about it or not, the intelligence was clearly massaged for political effect.
Another sad consequence oif what happened was the tarnishing of the credibility, and diminution of stature of a man like Colin Powell. The entire affair speaks volumes about the level of contempt some poltical apparatchiks have for the general public. The current spin by some reminds me of the indignant and pseudo-intellectual tripe spouted by a lot of folk, inccluding windbag Limbaugh, to pooh- pooh the early concerns expressed  by some alert folk about the global warming trend. The early scientific evidence in the literature was rock-solid that this was happening.
I am  occasonally amused to still hear some folk talk about it being proganda from the liberal left. More of us need to read the scientific and professional literatrue to help cure us of our stifling malaise and stultifying ignorance.
Verne

p.s the fact that a bull-dog like Patrick Fitzgerald is having such a hard time cracking the case involving the leak of that CIA operative's name (clearly done in retaliation) tells you something important...I am watching this with great interest...

[wmathews]

Whether there are justifiable reasons or not for our presence in Iraq will probably always be debated.
No intelligent nor reasonably well-informed individual can take an objective look at the available evidence and come to any other condlusion than that the reasons originally given for our action are quite suspect to say the least. Whether Bush knew about it or not, the intelligence was clearly massaged for political effect.
Another sad consequence oif what happened was the tarnishing of the credibility, and diminution of stature of a man like Colin Powell. The entire affair speaks volumes about the level of contempt some poltical apparatchiks have for the general public.
p.s the fact that a bull-dog like Patrick Fitzgerald is having such a hard time cracking the case involving the leak of that CIA operative's name (clearly done in retaliation) tells you something important...I am watching this with great interest...

.

Verne,
      You bring a very valid point about the manipulation of truth by the executive branch,  whether by Republican or Democrat. No greater danger of this than in a time of war. The lessons of Watergate were supposed to be that no president is above the law, as is the supposed legacy of Vietnam. The accusation of chickenhawks like Karl Rove that liberals are not patriotic because they are questioning this executive powers, such as supension of habeas corpus is symptomatic of this pathology. Like many Vietnam vets, I subscribe to the conviction, I love my country, I don't trust my government. It seems the higher up the echelon, the more likely the mantra is that power means never having to say: I was wrong. This observation is not meant to minimize the seriousness of 9/11, but only to underscore that loss of liberty is an enemy every bit as dangerous as al Qaeda.
 Wayne

[David Mauldin]

Willy:  "It says here that in November 2003 there were and estimated 5000 insurgents in Iraq!"

Joe: "Yea, but today they says the insurgents are estimated at 16000!"


Willy:  "Why then doesn't the President send us some help?"


Joe"  "Perhaps he really doesn't know what he is doing?"


But remember folks it was the librals who lost the war!!!  These stats come from our own government! DOD Dept. Of Defence!

[David Mauldin]

43% say impeachment now!!!!


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

[vernecarty]

.

Verne,
      You bring a very valid point about the manipulation of truth by the executive branch,  whether by Republican or Democrat. No greater danger of this than in a time of war. The lessons of Watergate were supposed to be that no president is above the law, as is the supposed legacy of Vietnam. The accusation of chickenhawks like Karl Rove that liberals are not patriotic because they are questioning this executive powers, such as supension of habeas corpus is symptomatic of this pathology. Like many Vietnam vets, I subscribe to the conviction, I love my country, I don't trust my government. It seems the higher up the echelon, the more likely the mantra is that power means never having to say: I was wrong. This observation is not meant to minimize the seriousness of 9/11, but only to underscore that loss of liberty is an enemy every bit as dangerous as al Qaeda.
 Wayne

I pray for my president Wayne, that he would walk in integrity before his God. I am afraid you are one of the few believers I know (along with Chuck) who views the issue as one primarily of principle, and not simple-minded party politics. I do not stand in the man's shoes and cannot appreciate all that he contends with. I do know that no amount of political acumen and success is worth the imprimatur of the Almighty. The witness of Daniel proves that it is possible to serve in uncomprormised righteousness. Christians who take the position that the man and those around him can do no wrong have become useless to him...
Verne

[al Hartman]

Just FYI:


From:
Click here: DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Local News Columnist Steve Blow

Steve Blow:
Another take on Iraq war
08:00 PM CDT on Thursday, July 7, 2005



In a letter to the editor last week, a Duncanville woman asked: "Would anyone in the media be willing to take a positive look at the war in Iraq?"

Beth Weaver went on to say that when her two sons returned from military duty there, they were "stunned and disgusted" by the lack of good news being reported from Iraq.

First, my hat is off to any parent with not one, but two sons in Iraq. How terrifying that must be.

And second, sure, this member of the media would love to hear some good news from Iraq. After Thursday's horrors in London, maybe you're hankering for something hopeful, too.

So a few days after her letter appeared, I was sitting in Ms. Weaver's homey den, listening with fascination and apprehension to the stories of her 22-year-old twins, Nick and Dan Turner.

Both are U.S. Marines on reserve status now. But from September through April, they were on highly active duty – fighting street-by-street, house-by-house to roust insurgents from the enemy stronghold of Fallujah.

That macho thing prevented them from making it sound too dramatic or heroic. But Nick laughingly told of his first patrol in Iraq – a nighttime excursion that included a firefight. "Those tracers were flying through the air, and it's like, 'Holy crap! This isn't on TV anymore. This is real.' "

It actually took some lobbying by the family for Dan and Nick to serve together in Iraq. Initially, only Dan was activated for service there, and the Marines balked at putting both brothers in harm's way. But Ms. Weaver said: "I'd rather they be together. They can take care of each other."

So though they didn't fight side by side, they saw each other often. And both say they witnessed an amazing transformation.

"When we got there, the Iraqis were all hostile to us. Adults and children would give us the middle finger as we passed by," Dan said.

Then came the battle of Fallujah, in which law-abiding citizens fled and insurgents put up a desperate fight. The city was swept clean – and nearly demolished in the process. Even so, when residents returned, everything began to change, the brothers said.

"They were giving us thumbs up," Nick said. "They would holler out 'Good Bush' and 'Good Mister' – the only English they know."

"They really started to understand we were there to help them," Dan said.

When her sons got home, Ms. Weaver realized there was a perception gap with almost her first question. "I said, 'Do you feel like you made a difference?' "

Shocked, Dan replied, "Heck, yeah! Don't you know?"

Ms. Weaver had to admit that she didn't. The daily reports of death and mayhem left her wondering whether we even belonged in Iraq.

"I was very concerned that it was a big mistake," she said. "Watching TV, reading the newspaper, it was like: 'Oh, my God. They're in hell!' "

But the twins were full of upbeat stories of schools opening, of growing trust, of Iraqi men kissing their hands in appreciation, of befriending children with smiles and chocolates.

"We are winning their hearts and minds," Dan said. "You don't see that here."

The brothers also said they saw tremendous progress in the Iraqi troops. Initially, a few Iraqis joined them on patrols merely as a gesture. Now patrols often include half GIs and half Iraqis. "They're just getting better and better," Nick said.

In brief defense of my profession, there's no denying that securing Iraq has been a lot tougher than predicted. It's not like we're making the bad stuff up.

And many folks don't seem to understand that journalism focuses on problems not out of perversity, but rather to hasten solutions. It's one of our most important functions.

Still, our coverage should not become part of the problem. And the brothers believe that it has.

"It's not all death and destruction. We're winning the people over," Dan said. "But it's not like flipping a light switch. It will take time and patience and support from home. If you reported more of the good stuff, there would be more support."

I think they have a point.

E-mail [color=Blue]sblow@dallasnews.com[/color]

[al Hartman]

Inasmuch as all other posters seem to have retired from the field of this thread, I'll just toss in this e-mail I received today:


THE WAY IT SHOULD BE HANDLED:


    A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the treatment
of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war.  Below is a copy of the response.



  Dear Concerned Citizen:

    Thank you for your recent letter criticizing our treatment of the
Taliban  and Al Qaeda detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    The administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was
heard loud and clear here in Washington.  You'll be pleased to learn that,
thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating the Terrorist
Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for
Killers" program, or LARK for short.  In accordance with the guidelines of
this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal
care.

    Your detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation to your
residence next Monday.  Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is to be cared for
pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of
admonishment.  We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your
standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly
recommended in your letter.

    Although Ahmed is psychopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your
sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him
overcome this character flaw.  Perhaps you are correct in describing these
problems as mere cultural differences.

    Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat
and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail
clippers.  He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices
from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked
up, unless you feel that this might offend him.

    Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters since he
views females as a subhuman form of property.  This is a particularly sensitive
subject for him.  He has been known to show violent tendencies around women
who fail to comply with the dress code that he considers appropriate, but
I'm sure that over time they will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by
the bhurka.  Just remind them that it is all part of respecting his culture
and his religious beliefs.

    Thanks again for your letter.  We truly appreciate it when folks like
you inform us of the proper way to do our job.  Take good care of Ahmed and good
luck!

  Cordially,
  Don Rumsfeld

al

[outdeep]

See Jane's Magical Mystery Tour
Kathleen Parker
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/printkp20050727.shtml

July 27, 2005


Like millions of Americans, I heaved a sigh of relief upon reading that Jane Fonda finally is going to speak out against the war in Iraq. Where has she been?

On book tour promoting her autobiography-in-progress, "My Life So Far." We might have guessed a real-time sequel was in the offing.

Fonda says that, having met some veterans and their families while on tour, she's decided to break her silence. "I've decided I'm coming out," she told an audience in Santa Fe, N.M. "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that."

That baggage includes the now infamous photo of Fonda in 1972 sitting atop a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of that country. Many Vietnam vets do not forgive Fonda for what they view as treason and for making their lives harder, especially prisoners of war who were tortured in her name. To her limited credit, Fonda has apologized.

Still, her newest foray into antiwar territory feels like a cartoonish parody of her former self. Jane Fonda playing Jane Fonda. In her newest version of Me, Myself and I, Fonda will segue from book tour to antiwar tour via a cross-country trip on a bus that runs on vegetable oil. Slick. But is it canola?

Fonda is mum on details but promises "it's going to be pretty exciting." One can hardly wait. Suddenly, I find myself dreaming of a time when the Rolling Stones do not do one more tour, and Jane Fonda does not find her groove again.

Ending the war is surely the goal of any sane person, but what precisely would Jane Fonda and others against the war have us do? Withdrawing now isn't an option. Losing the war isn't an option. Handing Iraq to terrorists isn't an option. Even those opposed to invading Iraq concede that much.

So what is the point of an antiwar, vegetable oil bus tour? After this trip, Fonda may need a small island to accommodate the baggage she'll accrue.

Meanwhile, there is serious work to do in Iraq, especially as a new constitution is being crafted, the success of which will hasten our ability to withdraw successfully. If Fonda and other celebrities want to attach their names to something constructive, they might join the Independent Women's Forum (iwf.org) in trying to advance the status of women in Iraq and, ultimately, throughout the Middle East.

IWF members meet regularly with Iraqi women, both in the U.S. and abroad, to teach them the principles of democracy and equal rights. Their critically important work is based on the understanding that democracy and freedom are the antidote to terrorism, and that women's (and other minority) rights are fundamental to the ultimate cure.

At this precarious moment, as terrorists gain momentum from successful hits in Britain, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere, Iraq's working-draft constitution leaves much to be desired. Of greatest concern is a section that leaves personal matters - marriage, divorce and inheritance - to whatever religious law is practiced by the family's sect.

Women are equal, in other words, as long as their rights don't violate Shariah, or Koranic law. What this could mean for Iraqi women is on vivid display in places where Islamic law rules.

A few days ago, for example, a woman in an Indian village who was raped by her father-in-law was forced to nullify her marriage, marry the rapist, and act as mother to her former husband. This mind-numbing fatwa was issued by South Asia's most powerful theological school, according to The Washington Times.

Before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi men and women were almost equal. Except for those chosen especially for rape by Saddam's sons and their henchmen, women faced only the same tortures as men. Now, they may face diminished status under a constitution that, as proposed, contradicts democratic principles of equality and freedom.

The Iraqi parliament has until Aug. 15 to adopt a draft constitution, which then faces a nationwide referendum by mid-October. If the women lose, we all lose.

Now there's a cause for feminists and Fondas alike. If we want to end the war in Iraq, a sound, woman-friendly constitution is at least part of the answer. To that end, Michelle Bernard, the IWF senior vice president who runs the democratic outreach program to Iraqi women, says she'd be happy to accept Fonda's check.

[outdeep]

Jane Fonda's second coming
Cal Thomas
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050728.shtml

July 28, 2005


We've all seen them: aging athletes, beyond their prime, trying to squeeze out one more fight, or one more season, but failing to bring back their glory days.

That seems an appropriate analogy for the return of Jane Fonda to the political stage. Having made her first movie in many years ("Monster-in-Law") that was a box office success, Fonda apparently thinks her new visibility gives her a certain credibility to comment on the Iraq war.

She has announced plans for an anti-war bus tour next March. Why is she waiting so long? The war might be over by then. The bus will run on vegetable oil. How 1960s! Will the riders grow their hair long, smoke pot, dress in tie-dyed T-shirts and sing "Blowin' in the Wind"? Fonda says she will be joined by her daughter and some families of Iraq War veterans. She says veterans came up to her during her book tour, encouraging her to protest the war.

In her memoir, "My Life So Far," and on numerous interview shows, Fonda has repeatedly apologized for going to North Vietnam in 1972 where she sat on an anti-aircraft gun and said things critical of her country that encouraged the enemy to fight on.

The North Vietnamese used her comments as propaganda in an effort to demoralize American troops and diminish the resolve of prisoners of war. Just what does she think will be the result of her forthcoming bus tour if not to encourage the terrorists and insurgents now fighting Americans and Iraqis in Iraq?

With high privilege also goes increased responsibility. If youthful indiscretion is an excuse she has used to explain her anti-war activities more than 30 years ago, what explanation will she have in her now mature years - temporary insanity?

 "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," Fonda was quoted as saying. "I carry a lot of baggage from that." She certainly does, which makes it all the more perplexing why she is intent on adding even more baggage. It's peculiar that Fonda only protests what Americans do to resist evil, but she led no protests against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime that practiced evil. Why is that?

Jane Fonda might be described as one who is "always learning, but never able to acknowledge the truth," as the Bible she once read and claimed to believe says about people of shifting convictions and allegiances (see 2 Timothy 3:7). Except that she does not learn, much less arrive at any truth.

When Fonda announced she had been born again by accepting Christ as her savior, I investigated and concluded she was genuinely serious about her new faith. I wrote a column urging people not to judge or condemn her. Sadly, I must now write that by her own words, Jane Fonda has moved away from that initial faith into a universalism in which she says there are many ways to God and Jesus is not the only path. She has denied the essence of Christianity. One cannot truly be called a Christian unless one believes the uniqueness of the life, atoning death and resurrection of Christ.

When Jane Fonda protested the Vietnam War there were just three television networks and few media outlets for those who opposed her actions. We are now in a new media environment. While the major networks may practice their usual celebrity suck-up, cable television and talk radio are not about to give her a free pass. Look for Vietnam veterans still angry at "Hanoi Jane" to turn out along the bus route to protest her protest, then and now. It could get ugly.

Jane Fonda has every right to freedom of speech, but so do those who believe she caused enough harm in the Vietnam War that they will not allow her to escape accountability or undermine America's efforts in this one. America survived its pullout from Vietnam. It cannot survive a similar outcome in this war. That's the big difference that Jane Fonda doesn't understand.

[Margaret]

Robert Lifton, who first identified 8 criteria for thought reform, has an interesting article on the war on terror. It begins:

"The apocalyptic imagination has spawned a new kind of violence at the beginning of the twenty-first century. We can, in fact, speak of a worldwide epidemic of violence aimed at massive destruction in the service of various visions of purification and renewal. In particular, we are experiencing what could be called an apocalyptic face-off between Islamist forces, overtly visionary in their willingness to kill and die for their religion, and American forces claiming to be restrained and reasonable but no less visionary in their projection of a cleansing warmaking and military power. Both sides are energized by versions of intense idealism; both see themselves as embarked on a mission of combating evil in order to redeem and renew the world; and both are ready to release untold levels of violence to achieve that purpose."


The complete article can be read on the F.A.C.T.net website at http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html

[outdeep]

This link should work "more better".  The original one was preceeded by "ftp" which causes problems.

http://www.factnet.org/American_Apocalypse.html

[Mark C.]

Hi Margaret!

  I was unable to open the link you provided so my response to it is limited to what you wrote re. it.

    Dr. Lifton's attempt to make America's involvement in Iraq equal to Islamic extremists in what he calls "an apocalyptic face-off-----" is deeply flawed; the two groups are as different as night and day.  I suspect that the good Dr. has a political axe to grind (left leaning agenda) that attempts to desiginate all war as "a cleansing warmaking and (use of) military power"

   Would Robert Lifton accuse the US forces involved in WW II of the same "vision" as the Nazi and Japanese zealots?  Were we wrong to try and defeat these evil systems and "cleanse" them from the earth in an effort to "redeem and renew the world?"

   I am proud of our American soldiers and am supportive of their mission and see it as a classic battle against good and evil!

  Above my desk on a shelf where I am typing from is a framed tribute to an American Hero who gave his life, as many Americans have in the past, to fight evil and protect "the vision" that God intends man to live in the dignity of freedom.

                                       AMERICAN HERO

                                     Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson
                                              U.S Marine Corps
                                                    Age 19
                                                 Hometown
                                                  Chino, CA
                                              Died Nov. 9, 2004

        Robert Lifton attempts to assainate the character of these soldiers involved in a very worthy effort by making their mission equal to the evil system that is radical Islam in an effort to push his political views and this is disgusting!
                                                                God bless,  Mark C.  

[Oscar]

Mark,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Lifton, as far as I know, is a good psychologist.  At least in the area of Mind Control.   

I know he spoke at the Claremont Colleges recently.

The belief in Freedom is based on the Christian idea of the image of God in each created individual and the fact that all men can have equal access  to God through Jesus Christ.

The Muslim denial of freedom to all men is based on their idea of "submission" to Allah.  It is pure legalism, through and through.  Obey all sorts of outward religious observances and you are OK.

Disobey and you must be punished under Qu'ranic and Sharia law....which is pretty harsh.

Resist and you must die!  If you are conquered and still refuse to convert, you may be allowed to become a Dhimmi.  These are subject peoples who must pay special taxes and have few rights.

This is a war against Western Civilization, no doubt about it.   Most Muslims are fairly secularized and stay out of the radical's activities.  But they sympathize and frequently support them financially.  And...their young men are candidates for radicalization.

Our children's and grand-children's future is being threatened.  So...I say they should be suppressed.

Thomas Maddux

[outdeep]

The president's fading voice
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, March 22, 2007

President Bush appealed for patience as the Iraq war entered its fifth year. In a televised address from the White House, the president warned of the consequences if America were to "pack up and go home."

The president appeared to be pleading, not leading. Where are the convictions of conscience, the soaring rhetoric, the broad vision and the dire warnings of failure? Did these go out the door with the departure of Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter?

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery. We saw a different man after 9/11 than we saw before, or see now. The loss of eloquence has given his political opponents new opportunities, not only to make his life miserable, but also to encourage the enemy in their perception of a divided nation. His weekly radio addresses are lifeless and delivered in a monotonous cadence, as if he wishes he were someplace else.

Speeches matter: Lincoln at Cooper Union and his Second Inaugural Address; Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in World War II; John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address; Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech; Reagan's tear-producing "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech commemorating D-Day at Normandy and the one he delivered after the Challenger disaster and Bush's post-9/11 speech to Congress. If you can't rise to the occasion as president, or when history calls in some other great leadership capacity, when can you?

The president needs to go on the offensive, not just on the war, but also on domestic issues. There was a glimmer of an offense in his challenge to Democrats over a "show trial" regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But verbal combat is not his gift and he is dealing from a weakened position with a Democratic Congress.

On the war, he should constantly quote what al-Qaida and other extremist organizations state is their objective for us. He should ask war opponents, "Do you think they are lying?" The president should invite Iraqis to America to thank us for our investment - of blood and capital - in their freedom. The president should ask war opponents, "Would you prefer they were still under Saddam Hussein's murderous regime? Senators Obama, Schumer, Durbin, Reid and Speaker Pelosi, tell them that to their faces."

Then the president should ask war opponents, "If we were to pull out before we are certain that the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own, what will happen next? Iraq would surely be overrun by al-Qaida fanatics who would then establish a radical Islamic state like they did in Afghanistan, using that state as a terror base to eliminate Israel and come after Europe and the United States with renewed vigor. When that happens, will you take responsibility for it? I doubt it."

On the earmarks Democrats are loading onto the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, the president should list them and their authors by name and shame them before the American people. He won't because he's too nice, which is a wonderful personal trait but it cannot make one a great president. Better to be a nasty success than a genial failure. Bush gets no points from his Democratic opponents for being "Mr. Congeniality."

If the president cares not only about a legacy, but in seeing his Iraq policy successfully completed, he'd better start defending it and proclaiming the truth as he sees it before his opponents pound him to political death. The Left has no strategy for victory, only defeat. They won't say what would happen without a strong America opposing Islamofascism. Their strategy is retreat and defeat.

Why can't Mr. Bush say these things? Is he afraid liberals won't like him? They already don't like him. He shouldn't care if they like him less. The president is not the head of an etiquette club. He is a political leader and is also supposed to be a moral and military leader. The United States once was feared. Now, third-rate terrorists and puny dictators think they can do anything to us with few, if any, consequences. If conciliation and kindness won't do the job, fear might.

This business about U.S. attorneys is a distraction. Important issues need to be addressed. Where is the president's voice? Where is his confidence? Where is his leadership?

It's way past time to "kick butt."


Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

[vernecarty]

The president's fading voice
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, March 22, 2007

President Bush appealed for patience as the Iraq war entered its fifth year. In a televised address from the White House, the president warned of the consequences if America were to "pack up and go home."

The president appeared to be pleading, not leading. Where are the convictions of conscience, the soaring rhetoric, the broad vision and the dire warnings of failure? Did these go out the door with the departure of Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter?

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery. We saw a different man after 9/11 than we saw before, or see now. The loss of eloquence has given his political opponents new opportunities, not only to make his life miserable, but also to encourage the enemy in their perception of a divided nation. His weekly radio addresses are lifeless and delivered in a monotonous cadence, as if he wishes he were someplace else.

Speeches matter: Lincoln at Cooper Union and his Second Inaugural Address; Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in World War II; John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address; Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech; Reagan's tear-producing "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech commemorating D-Day at Normandy and the one he delivered after the Challenger disaster and Bush's post-9/11 speech to Congress. If you can't rise to the occasion as president, or when history calls in some other great leadership capacity, when can you?

The president needs to go on the offensive, not just on the war, but also on domestic issues. There was a glimmer of an offense in his challenge to Democrats over a "show trial" regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But verbal combat is not his gift and he is dealing from a weakened position with a Democratic Congress.

On the war, he should constantly quote what al-Qaida and other extremist organizations state is their objective for us. He should ask war opponents, "Do you think they are lying?" The president should invite Iraqis to America to thank us for our investment - of blood and capital - in their freedom. The president should ask war opponents, "Would you prefer they were still under Saddam Hussein's murderous regime? Senators Obama, Schumer, Durbin, Reid and Speaker Pelosi, tell them that to their faces."

Then the president should ask war opponents, "If we were to pull out before we are certain that the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own, what will happen next? Iraq would surely be overrun by al-Qaida fanatics who would then establish a radical Islamic state like they did in Afghanistan, using that state as a terror base to eliminate Israel and come after Europe and the United States with renewed vigor. When that happens, will you take responsibility for it? I doubt it."

On the earmarks Democrats are loading onto the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, the president should list them and their authors by name and shame them before the American people. He won't because he's too nice, which is a wonderful personal trait but it cannot make one a great president. Better to be a nasty success than a genial failure. Bush gets no points from his Democratic opponents for being "Mr. Congeniality."

If the president cares not only about a legacy, but in seeing his Iraq policy successfully completed, he'd better start defending it and proclaiming the truth as he sees it before his opponents pound him to political death. The Left has no strategy for victory, only defeat. They won't say what would happen without a strong America opposing Islamofascism. Their strategy is retreat and defeat.

Why can't Mr. Bush say these things? Is he afraid liberals won't like him? They already don't like him. He shouldn't care if they like him less. The president is not the head of an etiquette club. He is a political leader and is also supposed to be a moral and military leader. The United States once was feared. Now, third-rate terrorists and puny dictators think they can do anything to us with few, if any, consequences. If conciliation and kindness won't do the job, fear might.

This business about U.S. attorneys is a distraction. Important issues need to be addressed. Where is the president's voice? Where is his confidence? Where is his leadership?

It's way past time to "kick butt."


Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

Cal Thomas can dream all he wants.
The fact remains that this president is in deep trouble.
Has anyone noticed that almost without exception, everyone who has served in this administration leaves a person of diminished stature (some with reputations tarnished) as compared to when they came in?
It now appears that Gonzales is about to be aded to this list.
I am curious to see how Bob Gates is going to fare.
Without getting into the merits or lack thereof of the horrible debacle we now find oursleves in in Babylon, thoughtful folk cannot help but get the sense that something is terribly wrong with this crowd.
I note with interest that Paul Wolfowitz and his cronies are busily making plans to take control of the country's oil resources - Surpirse! Surprise!
The hubris and arrogance of those around him is nothing short of stunning, and it has nothing to do with political affiliation.
I get the sense that the worst is yet to come.
I hope Christians who thought the Republican Party being in power was akin to the coming of the Messiah are now spending much time on their knees imploring the mercy of God for this country, that He would somehow deliver us from this horrible mess we are in...