Subscribe Twitter

Monday, June 30, 2008


Here's a really good article on President Bush by Anne Coulter. I'm glad there's a positive piece out there about good ol' GWB- I'm so sick and tired of liberals and conservatives whining about the decisions President Bush had to make during his turbulent presidency. Call me a blind follower, but I doubt any one of you out there could've kept America safe from terrorists, had you been president. GWB, with courage in his heart and faith in God, took a stand and made hard decisions. He is still making hard decisions. He never pandered to anybody, unlike Obama, and yes, even McCain. I'm gonna miss him when he's gone!


"I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon...
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

-President Bush

After September 11, he promised that he would not yield nor rest. Many years later, the President is still fighting.

Ann Coulter:
In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.


Here is an interesting comment from a poster over at Free Republic:

In 2000 there were 5 Mideastern nations defined as state sponsors of terrorism. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.

Now there are 2. Even the brain dead Left should be able to do that much math.

And another one:

Did President Bush make this world safer? Indeed he did.

1) During the Bush Administration Libya gives up its nuclear weapons program.

2) During the Bush Administration the black market from Pakistan led by A.Q.Kahn for nuclear weapons technology is broken up.

3) During the Bush Administration North Korea begins dismantling their plutonium enrichment reactors.

4) During the Bush Administration Israel and the U.S.A. destroy Syria’s nuclear weapons enrichment reactors.

5) During the Bush Administration, Saddam Hussein who said quite clearly while in jail awaiting his trial that he would have had the U.N. sanctions broken and be in full production of WMDs within a year. That would be the years 2004 - 2005 approximately that Saddam would have been re-armed with WMDs. It now goes without saying the obvious that Saddam will not be getting nuclear weapons anytime soon. Nor will he be directly funding and training the terror group ‘Islamic Jihad’ which is al-Qaeda and whom blew up two U.S. embassies. (see the recent: Iraqi Perspectives Project).

6) During the Bush Administration the U.S.A. has nuclear weapon ambitious Iran pinned in on both sides from Afghanistan and Iraq which is pure strategic genius.

Under Clinton the countries Pakistan and India successfully test nuclear weapons and North Korea begins plutonium enrichment.

Food for a thought.

other news:
Who'll Keep the Faith-Based Initiative?


joe six-pack said...

Good article.

I have seen arguments that it is in the Republican party's (And John McCain's) interest for an additional attack upon U.S. soil.

Seeing as this has been an incentive for so many years, President Bush must be really, really incompetent. He has failed miserably in making his incentive to have us attacked again a reality.

I am surprised that this issue has not come up more often.