The Path to Power: How Senate Democrats Use Power of Their Office to Threaten Free Speech in "Path to 9/11"

On Thursday, Senate Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent an official letter to the Disney Corporation demanding the cancellation of the ABC program "The Path to 9/11" (program web site here).

The letter went so far as to remind Disney that: "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest." That statement contains a subtle, but very clear threat that Disney should act as a "trustee" according to the manner by which Democrats like Reid define it.

The Framers of the Constitution were very clear in the protections they wrote for free speech. And any attempt to curtail that freedom at the behest of a political party is especially forbidden.

Imagine if President Bush sent an official letter to a broadcast network demanding they pull a program which makes him look bad. There would be marches in the streets calling the President "Hitler" and claiming we live in a "police state."

Opps! They already do that and without any good reason. Once again, the people crying about our civil rights and liberties seem to be the ones placing them in jeopardy for political purposes.

Bush: Terrorist Interrogations Have Saved American Lives

I wonder how many of those who have wailed and moaned about our aggressive interrogation of captured terrorists are alive today because the program helped to stop attacks before they occurred?

Yesterday, President Bush gave new details of the once secret CIA program that was exposed by the Washington Post and derided by Democrats and the handwringers who would handcuff those trying to keep us safe.

The President tells the story of Abu Zubaydah whom we captured in combat shortly after September 11th. He was gravely wounded on the battlefield, but medical care provided by the United States saved his life.

President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists

White House Transcript:

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.

Based on that information, Zubair was captured in June of 2003, and he soon provided information that helped lead to the capture of Hambali. After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a "J-I" cell, and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and, in turn, led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian "J-I" operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States -- probably [sic] using airplanes.

During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans. For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States, and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows.

KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest. In fact, we did not know about Yazid's role in al Qaeda's anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.

These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program. Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.

We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's to protect the American people and our allies.

Democrats continue to insist that President Bush's policies have made America "less safe." Yet countless examples from the last five years prove that thousands of American lives have been saved due to aggressive policies of the Bush Administration.

Imagine how much more effective we could be in winning this war and protecting the American people if Democrats were more interested in working with US than they are in regaining political power?

Are We "Slouching Towards November?"

Republicans won control of Congress in 1994 because we put forward a plan of core ideas and nationalized the election around them.

Will we lose the lose Congress in 2006 because we failed to do the same again?

Newt Gingrich, the architect of the 1994 victory has a new 11 point plan for victory in 2006. Is anyone paying attention?

I'd be willing to bet the House of Representatives on one issue: National Security.

Answer these few simple questions:

Do you want to win the war in Iraq or withdraw? Do you want us to take every step to detect and foil terrorist plot or are you more concerned with protecting civil liberties? Do you want us to confront terrorist threats and their state sponsors more aggresively, or do you want us to negotiate?

If you answered YES to the first part of each question then you should vote for Republicans running for Congress and Senate. If you answered YES to the second part of each question vote for Democrats.

I have every confidence that the American people want to win the war on terror (or the war on Islamic fascism). But I don't hear Democrats talking about winning or victory.

Here's more on this subject:

Slouching Toward November
By Jed Babbin
Real Clear Politics

...About two weeks ago, a Gallup poll showed that the Dems' lead (more than a dozen points) in national polls had disappeared. This was a poll of 1,000 adults, not likely voters. If only likely voters had been polled, the Dem advantage would probably have morphed into a small Republican lead. This, despite bad news from Iraq, high gasoline prices and voter disgust with Congress. Why? Because world and national news is trumping small issues the Dems want to campaign on.

On Monday, a Washington Post front-page story referred to a "...strategist who has worked as part of Bush's campaign team," who "...believes there is a 9-in-10 chance Republicans will lose their 12-year-old House majority." The same day, a New York Times front-page story said, "The strategic imperative facing the Republicans, many analysts say, is clear: transform each competitive race from a national referendum on Mr. Bush and one-party Republican rule into a choice between two individuals -- and define the Democratic challengers as unacceptable." But what happens if Congressional Republicans decide to do the opposite? What if they read the Gallup poll and decided to nationalize the election? What if they started firing consultants and hiring historians?

Churchill said the keys to statesmanship are in history. So are the keys to this election. They're in 1980, 1986 and 1988, in the speeches and campaigns of Ronald Reagan.

In 1986, Reagan - in the same stage of his presidency as Bush is today -- wanted to nationalize the mid-term election, making Democrats the issue. The Republicans' big buck consultants - whose track record then was as bad as Bob Shrum's is today - advised against it. The party listened to them and they achieved disaster by small margins: by only a few thousand votes in many states and the GOP lost several key senate seats all because the base didn't turn out.

It was more than Reagan's unflagging cheerfulness that propelled Republicans in 1988. It was his use of "the 'L' word." On the eve of the 1988 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan gave what was probably his best stump speech ever. He said, "It's time to talk issues; to use the dreaded "L'' word; to say the policies of our opposition and the congressional leadership of his party are liberal, liberal, liberal." Democrats are the party of the ACLU. Against liberal elitists in 1980, Republicans managed to knock out some of supposedly unbeatable old Senate's liberal lions such as Frank Church, Birch Bayh and George McGovern. This was the work of NCPAC in their tv ads. What if the Republicans went after some of today's?

What if this year's Senate contest featured an ad with Bob and Liddy Dole talking about how the Senate works? Most people don't realize that senators vote twice: before anyone votes on any bills or nominations, every senator votes for the leadership and the committee chairmen. Will Nebraska's Ben Nelson vote for Patrick Leahy to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee? Will North Dakota's Kent Conrad vote for Carl Levin - who has made a career of opposing missile defense - to be chairman of the Armed Services Committee? Of course they will. But the voters of their states probably don't remember that. What if Republicans remind them?

Democrats want the president to fire Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and replace him with a real tough guy like, maybe, Susan Estrich. Dems can't refute these charges because they happen to be true. Republicans made some good moves, forcing symbolic votes on the flag burning and gay marriage amendments, and the Dems' "cut and run" plan for Iraq. How many Republican candidates will challenge their opponents on those issues in clear and uncompromising terms? Remember, too, that in 2000 Bush's lead had been shrinking in states such as Florida when 60% of Americans bought Gore's claim that he was a moderate. When Gore's liberal credentials were plastered all over the tv screens, Bush recovered his lead in Tennessee, Florida and elsewhere. The Dems are the "L" party, with an elitist bent. What if Republicans didn't let anyone forget that?

Given Republicans' sorry track record on pork-barrel spending, the choice this year isn't as clearly between liberal and conservative, but it is, as Reagan said, between strength and "...international weakness and accommodation, and always, always, always, blame America first." Democrats have spent five years blaming Bush for 9-11, UN absurdities, fading European alliances, Iraq's slow progress and everything else without - once - offering a plan of their own to win the war. "Victory" and "winning" aren't words that pass their lips. And there's reason to believe that the Dems know - despite all their campaign chatter - that they can't win on the war issue.

No, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld didn't call the Dems "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." He didn't even refer to them when warning against the 1930s-like appeasement that has taken hold in the West. But the Dems' hair-trigger overreaction to his remarks about appeasement were worthy of a teenage girl on prom night whose dad says, "sweetie, your hair isn't quite right." The screams and hysterics bespeak a deep-seated concern. I'm betting that the Democrats have some non-public polls that show voters aren't buying their "we'll win and they can't" war talk. Thanks to Murtha, Kerry, Durbin and the whole sorry lot, they've proven that they still are what they have been since 1972: the party of retreat and defeat. Their new Labor Day plan for Iraq amounts to withdrawal and booting Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Some plan.

Why You Don't See Senator DeMint on Lamestream Media

Here in South Carolina we have two Senators. Both are Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham is a media darling, who often obliges by finding points of disagreement with President Bush. It's no surprise he gets so much television face time.

Our other Senator, Jim DeMint, doesn't get much tv time. And that's a shame. His statement today on the Senate Floor probably explains why:

DeMint: Democrats should “stop performing for an audience and help us fight this War on Terror.”

September 6th, 2006 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate in response to a Democrat amendment calling for the resignation of U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“I'm afraid if my Democrat colleagues spent half the time helping us fight this War on Terror as they do attacking the administration, we’d be a lot closer to winning this war.

“They are united in the idea of retreat and defeatism. They attack this president with no ideas of their own. They are trying to take the tools to fight terrorism away from this president: the Patriot Act, the interception of communications, tracing finances.

“On every turn, the Democrats are obstructing the things that have changed with this president that allowed terrorism to grow unchallenged for the eight years under the Clinton administration. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stooped to attacking members of the President’s cabinet.

“We need to get back to the business of approving the resources that our soldiers need. And I would appeal to my Democrat colleagues to stop performing for an audience and help us fight this War on Terror.”

President Bush Speech Clarifies War On Terror

With the fall elections looming, President Bush is stepping efforts to communicate the measures we are taking to be effective in combating Islamic fascism. Last Thursday he addressed the American Legion in a speech that reads better than the delivery in which he often appeared distracted.

As with a similar series of speeches last year, the President often warms to new material with each iteration. Yesterday, speaking to the Military Officers Association of America he found his voice, his passion, his focus.

And he delivered a gripping speech that went further than any before in describing the enemy we face and what is at stake.

The White House web site has a link to the video here. The following is an extended excerpt:

President Discusses Global War on Terror
White House Transcript:

We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously. So today I'm going to describe -- in the terrorists' own words, what they believe, what they hope to accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. I'll discuss how the enemy has adapted in the wake of our sustained offensive against them, and the threat posed by different strains of violent Islamic radicalism. I'll explain the strategy we're pursuing to protect America, by defeating the terrorists on the battlefield, and defeating their hateful ideology in the battle of ideas.

The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience -- but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous [Caliphate]."

This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri -- he's al Qaeda's second in command -- declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in "every land that was a home for Islam, from [Spain] to Iraq. He went on to say, "The whole world is an open field for us."

We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, girls could not go to school, and children were forbidden the smallest pleasures like flying kites. Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for perceived offenses. Women were publicly whipped. Summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world -- including many Muslim nations.

The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call "infidels" -- a category that includes America, the world's free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them. (Applause.) We see the uncompromising nature of the enemy in many captured terrorist documents. Here are just two examples: After the liberation of Afghanistan, coalition forces searching through a terrorist safe house in that country found a copy of the al Qaeda charter. This charter states that "there will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet [the enemy] halfway. There will be no room for dialogue with them." Another document was found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London -- a grisly al Qaeda manual that includes chapters with titles such as "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." This manual declares that their vision of Islam "does not make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it." The confrontation calls for "the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

Still other captured documents show al Qaeda's strategy for infiltrating Muslim nations, establishing terrorist enclaves, overthrowing governments, and building their totalitarian empire. We see this strategy laid out in a captured al Qaeda document found during a recent raid in Iraq, which describes their plans to infiltrate and take over Iraq's western Anbar Province. The document lays out an elaborate al Qaeda governing structure for the region that includes an Education Department, a Social Services Department, a Justice Department, and an "Execution Unit" responsible for "Sorting out, Arrest, Murder, and Destruction."

According to their public statements, countries that have -- they have targeted stretch from the Middle East to Africa, to Southeast Asia. Through this strategy, al Qaeda and its allies intend to create numerous, decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they can plan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.

These violent extremists know that to realize this vision, they must first drive out the main obstacle that stands in their way -- the United States of America. According to al Qaeda, their strategy to defeat America has two parts: First, they're waging a campaign of terror across the world. They're targeting our forces abroad, hoping that the American people will grow tired of casualties and give up the fight. And they're targeting America's financial centers and economic infrastructure at home, hoping to terrorize us and cause our economy to collapse.

Bin Laden calls this his "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan." And he cited the attacks of 9/11 as evidence that such a plan can succeed. With the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden says, "al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America lost -- according to the lowest estimate -- $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars of America. Bin Laden concludes from this experience that "America is definitely a great power, with unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation." He went on to say, "Therefore, it is very easy to target the flimsy base and concentrate on their weak points, and even if we're able to target one-tenth of these weak points, we will be able [to] crush and destroy them."

Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed to serve the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."

Bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong. (Applause.) Osama bin Laden has written that the "defeat of... American forces in Beirut" in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He's declared that "in Somalia the United States [pulled] out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it." And last year, the terrorist Zawahiri declared that Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet."

These terrorists hope to drive America and our coalition out of Afghanistan, so they can restore the safe haven they lost when coalition forces drove them out five years ago. But they've made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq -- the nation bin Laden has declared the "capital of the Caliphate." Hear the words of bin Laden: "I now address the whole Islamic nation: Listen and understand: The most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America -- it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided.

Here is what al Qaeda says they will do if they succeed in driving us out of Iraq: The terrorist Zawahiri has said that al Qaeda will proceed with "several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of Caliphate The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. And the fourth stage: the clash with Israel."

These evil men know that a fundamental threat to their aspirations is a democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. They know that given a choice, the Iraqi people will never choose to live in the totalitarian state the extremists hope to establish. And that is why we must not, and we will not, give the enemy victory in Iraq by deserting the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

Last year, the terrorist Zarqawi declared in a message posted on the Internet that democracy "is the essence of infidelity and deviation from the right path." The Iraqi people disagree. Last December, nearly 12 million Iraqis from every ethnic and religious community turned out to vote in their country's third free election in less than a year. Iraq now has a unity government that represents Iraq's diverse population -- and al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq breathed his last breath. (Applause.)

Despite these strategic setbacks, the enemy will continue to fight freedom's advance in Iraq, because they understand the stakes in this war. Again, hear the words of bin Laden, in a message to the American people earlier this year. He says: "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

Now, I know some of our country hear the terrorists' words, and hope that they will not, or cannot, do what they say. History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called "What Is To Be Done?" -- in which he laid out his plan to launch a communist revolution in Russia. The world did not heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed. (Applause.)

Five years into this struggle, it's important to take stock of what's been accomplished -- and the difficult work that remains. Al Qaeda has been weakened by our sustained offensive against them, and today it is harder for al Qaeda's leaders to operate freely, to move money, or to communicate with their operatives and facilitators. Yet al Qaeda remains dangerous and determined. Bin Laden and Zawahiri remain in hiding in remote regions of this world. Al Qaeda continues to adapt in the face of our global campaign against them. Increasingly, al Qaeda is taking advantage of the Internet to disseminate propaganda, and to conduct "virtual recruitment" and "virtual training" of new terrorists. Al Qaeda's leaders no longer need to meet face-to-face with their operatives. They can find new suicide bombers, and facilitate new terrorist attacks, without ever laying eyes on those they're training, financing, or sending to strike us.
...

[editor: The Shia Terrorist Problem]

As we continue to fight al Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia extremists, who are learning from al Qaeda, increasing their assertiveness, and stepping up their threats. Like the vast majority of Sunnis, the vast majority of Shia across the world reject the vision of extremists -- and in Iraq, millions of Shia have defied terrorist threats to vote in free elections, and have shown their desire to live in freedom. The Shia extremists want to deny them this right. This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East. And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.

Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy. Hezbollah, the source of the current instability in Lebanon, has killed more Americans than any terrorist organization except al Qaeda. Unlike al Qaeda, they've not yet attacked the American homeland. Yet they're directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of Americans abroad. It was Hezbollah that was behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans. And Saudi Hezbollah was behind the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, an attack conducted by terrorists who we believe were working with Iranian officials.

Just as we must take the words of the Sunni extremists seriously, we must take the words of the Shia extremists seriously. Listen to the words of Hezbollah's leader, the terrorist Nasrallah, who has declared his hatred of America. He says, "Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America."

Iran's leaders, who back Hezbollah, have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's President declared in a speech that some people ask -- in his words -- "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achievedÂ? I say that thisÂ? goal is achievable." Less than three months ago, Iran's President declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh if you do not abandon the path of falsehood you're doomed destiny will be annihilation." Less than two months ago, he warned: "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes [America and the West] should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region." He also delivered this message to the American people: "If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept [to do this], the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down."

America will not bow down to tyrants. (Applause.)

Wow! Can I get an "Amen" for that?

President Bush went on to unveil the new document: "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" which outlines in great detail the efforts we are undertaking to keep Americans safe and WIN the War on Terror.

Democrats will want to get a copy to quote from next time a reporter asks what their plan is for keeping America safe. They make a habit of claiming all good ideas as their own while offering nothing but obstruction and negativity.

Democrat "Ideas" for Iraq are Mostly the Bush Plan

You know the complaint by now: Democrats haven't any good ideas to win the war in Iraq. Well, actually they do have some ideas, just not alternatives. Mostly they spout the Bush policy in Iraq as if it was their idea.

Perhaps the best illustration of this is the September 4th letter to President Bush from Senate MINORITY Leader Harry Reid:

Reid Letter to President Bush:

...We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

On behalf of President Bush, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten responded.

Josh Bolten response:

...Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided. First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years.
...
Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed.
...
Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort."...This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

SMACK!

I'd like to add a postcript to Bolton's response: "Senator Reid, it's hard to imagine anyone being a bigger jackass than your predecessor Tom Daschole. But you certainly seem to have eclipsed even his standard for cowardice and stupidity.

Again, Dem's have no practical, effective alternative!

Playing at a Polling Place Near You: "Revenge of the Peace Fascists"

Labor Day marks the end of summer and the official start of the political campaign season. 2006 may be a watershed moment in American politics. While all the conventional wisdom that predicted doom and gloom in 2002 and 2004 was wrong, who knows? The punditocracy might get it right this time and we find ourselves dealing with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the defeaticrats in charge of the legislative portion of the federal government for the final two years of the Bush presidency.

The secret to conservative victories in past elections is the ability to get our people registered and make sure they vote on election day and that their vote is counted and that efforts are made to eliminate fraud in the electoral process.

The deadline for registering new voters and requesting absentee ballots will pass shortly. There is no time to waste if you have a friend or family member who is not registered, or who will be unable to vote at their precinct on Election Day and needs an absentee ballot. In most states, voters need to be registered 30 days in advance of an election. Requirements for requesting absentee ballots vary, so check with your local Election Board for details.

Time is running out quick for those serving in our military overseas . If you have family members or friends in the U.S. Armed Forces, please make sure they understand that absentee ballots need to be filled out correctly, POSTMARKED, and returned well in advance of election day to avoid any challenge by Democrat poll workers.

Hold Onto Your Hats: Expect Dem Dirty Tricks

Registering voters and getting them to the polls is not enough. In the past six years we've witnessed a slew of dirty tricks that undermine the sanctity of "One man. One vote."

The Democrat attempt to exclude military ballots in Florida 2000 and recount only selective precincts where Al Gore was strongest was only the preview of what was to come.

In the 2004 presidential election, attempts to affect the vote in key states with fraud, harassment, vandalism, violence and intimidation reached epidemic levels never seen before in American politics.

Expect things to get worse. After all, Democrats continue to be fed a steady diet of hate speech directed at Republicans from Howard Dean, the Chairman of their party, on down.

When Dr. Dean states that he "hates Republicans and everything they stand for" and later goes on to suggest that: "We're in a battle between good and evil and we [Democrats] are the good." it hardly goes without notice among the ranks of those who are prepared to do anything to win the "battle" for "good."

When Peace Fascists Attack:
Walking with uber-Peace Fascist Cindy Sheehan, a woman carries the sign "Fascism is on the March." (full size image here) What a shame they live in an Orwellian delusion and fail to realize the irony.

Ms. Sheehan and company have been knighted with "absolute moral authority" by the left. But as the new saying goes: "Absolute moral authority corrupts absolutely."

Like the KKK cross burners of old, today's Peace Fascist is obsessed with the symbol of Nazi Germany, the Swastika. It's spray painted on private property and burned into lawns

Ratcheting up the drumbeat of fascism, Peace Fascists also display a penchant for breaking windows and vandalizing property of those marked with an ideology that runs counter to that which is approved by the mob. It's another painful reminder of the history of fascism when Nazis stormed through the streets of Germany breaking the windows of Jews in what is remembered as 'Kristallnacht.'

The assault against private property is only the first step in that long, slow slide to fascism. The next step is illustrated here during the 2004 election when pro-Kerry union thugs surrounded 3 year old Sophia Parlock as she sat on her father's shoulders and tore the Bush/Cheney sign from her hands and shouted at her and her father as Parlock's 11 year old son looked on in horror.

Peace Fascists claim that President Bush and conservatives threaten their civil rights and would curtail dissent. Yet here we have a 3 year old girl subjected to the true character of those who are imbued with what they claim is an "absolute moral authority."

Yet even before Dr. Dean began his role as chief validator of the hate campaign, Democrat activists in the 2004 election assumed the mantle of "absolute moral authority" and went on sprees of violence, vandalism, theft and intimidation directed at Republicans.

When Angry Democrats Attack documents the cases in what was once regarded as peaceful Minnesota. Politburo Diktat has a list with details of multiple reports in several states of:

• Gunshots fired into GOP Headquarters in two states.
• Organized Union gangs invading, and in some cases vandalizing GOP HQ's in several states.
• Multiple reports of burglarized GOP offices and thefts.
• Nazi swastikas burned into lawns, spray painted on private property and campaign signs.

And in a direct attempt to influence the outcome of a close election in Wisconsin Michael Barone reports: "the sons of state Sen. Gwen Moore (who would be elected to Congress that day) and Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt slashed the tires of some 25 buses leased by the Milwaukee County Republican Party to take voters to the polls on Election Day."

When Dems Feel Empowered to Commit Electoral Violence, Why Not Commit Fraud as Well?

The attempt to keep the GOP voters from getting to the polls in Wisconsin in 2004 would be disturbing enough if it were an isolated incident. But John Kerry won Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes by a margin of 11,384 votes. Yet a joint investigation found that thousands more votes were recorded than voters having voted in Milwaukee. A massive number of double votes, phony registrations and felons voting also raise the specter whether the election of a U.S. president might have been decided by a deliberate campaign of vote fraud.

The American Center for Voting Rights has the full story on what happened in Wisconsin. But irregularities and fraud did not stop in the Dairy State. ACV documents similar problems in:

Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia.

Mary Poppins, Jeffrey Dahmer, Janet Jackson, George Foreman, Brett Favre, Michael Jordan, and Dick Tracy. All Registered to Vote in Small Town Ohio.

Some of these attempts at fraud would be funny, if the subject of voter fraud weren't so serious. Take the case of Chad Staton in Defiance, Ohio. He turned in 130 voter registration cards. 126 were determined to be fraudulent. Elections officials in small town Defiance immediately be-came suspicious when the above were registered mostly at the same address as Chad and all written in the same hand.

Chad admitted to being paid for his efforts with crack cocaine by a woman working for the National Association of Colored Persons Voter Fund. Perhaps he received an advance payment.

The NAACP tried to claim that this was an isolated incident, yet the history of their voter registration efforts in Ohio suggests otherwise.

Prosecutions Few and Far Between

Chad Staton pled guilty. The woman who hired him died suddenly of a drug overdose. The tire slashers in Wisconsin got jail time. Vote buying schemes in Illinois and West Virginia also brought convictions.

But if you read the full ACVR report you cannot help but notice the scale of the problem and the failure of many states and jurisdictions to assign the resources necessary to put a stop to the fraud.

Republicans Just as Bad???

Oh, yes. I can hear the moral equivalence crowd out there just waiting to say that Republicans are "just as bad" or the usual "both sides do it" nonsense that always seeks to ignore or explain away the seriousness of the issue. Perhaps those who push that tattered line of reasoning can point me to the convictions of Republicans for similar acts.

Liberals are always wailing about how evil right-wing Christians are out to take over the country. Perhaps one of those who espouses this irrational fear can point to an example of right wing Christians forcing their way into Democrat campaign headquarters, shooting at them or attempting to buy votes and create massive false registrations.

Democrats have alleged that black voters were discouraged from voting by long lines or acts of racism. Yet, no investigation of these charges has found any evidence to support those conclusions. If you look at the list of exhibits in the ACVR report, you'll find the infamous Kerry Edwards Colorado Election Day Manual with specific instructions on how to file false charges of racism and disenfranchisement of blacks even "if no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike."

The bottom line is that those who feel an "absolute moral authority" in a battle against "evil" may feel justified in breaking the law to achieve their ends. Of course this is exactly the definition of fascism and the danger it represents to democracy. Since most of these crimes go unpunished, we can only expect more of the same. Beware!

Resources:

• The introduction of John Fund's new book, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
• When Liberals Attack
• American Center for Voting Rights
• Politburo Diktat's "Brownshirt Meter" list of attacks.
• When Angry Democrats Attack: Minnesota style.

GOP Election Chances Looking Up?

Jim Geraghty
National Review Online:

[Do] Democrats get to win back Congress this year, based on the performance they’ve turned in lately?

When their plan on Iraq is essentially, “pull out and hope it gets better,” and their most prominent spokesman wants a rapid-response force based in Okinawa?
When a potential committee chairman said he doesn’t want to take sides for or against Hezbollah?

When they object to the term “Islamist Fascism,” essentially arguing that the guys we’re fighting can’t be fascist because they don’t have spiffy uniforms and a distinctive march? What, are they worried that the label "fascist" will unfairly tarnish the reputations of al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, Nasrallah and Hezbollah, and the Iranian mullahs?

(Judging by the reaction to Dick Durbin last year, Nazi comparisons are okay for U.S. troops guarding al-Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, but not okay for the actual terrorists that these guys are guarding.)

When they knock out the one undisputed hawk in their caucus and replace him with a guy who pledges, “America is stronger when we work with our allies and negotiate with our enemies?”

When they’ve spent much of the year beating the drums over a crime that didn’t occur? When they had to abandon the “culture of corruption” argument because members of their caucus had cash in their freezer and took a swing at a Capitol Police officer?

When there’s no chance whatsoever that these folks would really crack down on illegal immigration, and they not-so-subtly suggest that wanting immigration laws enforced is de facto racism?

Look – I can see losing to Bill Clinton. The guy could sell ice to Eskimos, always had the perfect touch on television, and campaigned as the most noncontroversial welfare-reforming centrist ever to kiss a baby. (And, er, uh, other people.)

But these guys? The GOP is going to lose to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Murtha, Ned Lamont? The crowd that shares its stages with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan?

Maybe my inclinations are blinding me. And there’s still a lot of campaign season to go. But I just don’t think it’s likely that this crowd is going to seal the deal with a majority of the American people.

Five Years of Democrat Hate and Lies: Nothing Better to Offer

John Kerry frequently bleats about how if Democrats were in charge, they would "do things better." No one is quite sure what they would do, as they have yet to say, but they assure us it would be "better."

Thus far, they've only displayed one skill, and it's not something for the better. The exposure of the three year fraud by Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame and the Bush haters is just the tip of the iceberg.

Readers may remember the sound bite of Senator Ted Kennedy when he said the Bush Administration had "told lie after lie after lie" about Iraq. Yet it seems those who screamed "LIAR" the loudest may have been the biggest liars of all time.

Michael P. Tremoglie writing in the Evening Bulletin goes down the sorry list of lies, conspiracy theories and smears that a coalition of liberals, communists, Democrats and Buchananites has used to manipulate the willfully ignorant and uninformed.

Visit the City Troll to run through the list. I'll just excerpt the final paragraphs here:

The propaganda machine of this coalition of liberals, communists, Democrats and Buchananite conservatives began manufacturing lies about the president since the 2000 election. They are every bit as sophisticated at disinformation as the KGB was during the Cold War.

All the investigations discredited these absurd allegations. Unfortunately, the debunking of the lies never got the media prominence the allegation did - with the exception of the Dan Rather episode.

It is rather sad that Democrats have chosen to use all the worse political tactics of their party has used throughout its long history rather than their best.
It was some Democrats, who later came to be known as "Copperheads," referring to the snake that strikes without warning, who tried to subvert President Lincoln's policies during the Civil War. These Northerners, who were sympathetic to the Southern slaveholders, were so egregious in their opposition to the Civil War that many actively gave support to the Confederacy - much like many of today's so-called " antiwar" protesters actively support the enemy, such as Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of aiding terrorists and Ramsey Clark, who is a counsel for Saddam Hussein.

There was a time in America when politics ended at the water's edge. There was a time in America when an American president could respond to his political opponents' vicious criticism without the media criticizing him for doing so.

Perhaps the greatest irony about the criticism of President Bush is that it implies Bush is committing treason, yet when Bush responds to his critics, they bray at being called unpatriotic by the President, even though he is doing no such thing.
President Bush's political enemies can legitimately criticize his policies for many reasons. The fact that they have to resort to lies, conspiracy theories and distortions leads one to believe that they are totally lacking any constructive and intelligent policies or initiatives.

Joe Wilson: Fame is a Harsh Mistress

Reposting this from the December 20th Mike's America:



Fraudmongering publicity whores like former Ambassador Joe Wilson and his ex-CIA wife Valerie Plame never seem to know when enough is enough. But really... posing in your PJ'S for Time Magazine's People Who Mattered 2005?

The Drudge Report ran a headline contest for the photo:

"Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

"Honey, I think I lost my cover"

"Why doesn't Bono return our calls anymore?"

"Valerie preparing for another undercover assignment"

"Joe, they came here to take a picture of me"

"A Leaking in Noir"

"The Pajama Party"

"Time to put this one to bed"

"My wife does it for microfilm"

"Make your own damned breakfast"

"Have you seen my pills?"

"Sleeping With the Enemy"

“Would you PLEASE send the news people away? I’m UNDER COVER!”

"Bananas in Pajamas"

"Do you know where the yellowcake is?

"Look what You've Done To Us, Bob Novak!"

"No More Wire Hangers"

"Joe, When Are You Going Back To Work?'

"Sleeper cell"

"Desperate Housewife"

"The baby upstairs is floating above the bed again"

"Valerie's Secret"

How about a few new ones? Here's a start: "Joe, the lawyers just called and it appears we facing charges for lying to investigators. "

The preceding brought to you by Wilson's Whines

P.S. In the July 15 edition of Mike's America we list the political affiliations and contributions of the author of "The Politics of Truth" and his wife Valerie.

And let's not forget Zell Miller, who in November 2005 tagged this entire episode for what it is: an attempt to overturn the policy and smear the legally elected government of the United States.

Prosecute Wilson Plame Fraud!

Washington Post Editorial: "It's unfortunate that so many people took him [Joe Wilson] seriously.

An astonishing editorial today in the Washington Post:

...It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
...
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

"It's unfortunate that so many people took him [Joe Wilson] seriously." Quite an admission from the Washington Post who along with the rest of the lamestream media spent much of the past three years indulging the left's attempts to create hysterics and hype over the big lie being told by Joe Wilson and amplified by the "news" media.

The real scandal here is the massive attempt to smear and ensnare the elected political leadership of our nation during a time of war. Why are no legal remedies being taken to hold Joe Wilson and his wife accountable for this fraud?

The "news" media treated this story as a potential Watergate for years. Staking out the courthouse where Karl Rove testified, endless speculation about the role Vice President Cheney may have played.

And now you admit that "oops" you were fooled? That's it? The damage is already done. Too many lefties out there sipped from the Kool Aid the "news" media and lefty bloggers served. And what about Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby? To paraphrase the words of falsely accused Reagan Labor Secretary Ray Donovan: "Where do they go to get their reputations back?"

The very least the lamestream media could do is expend a fraction of the ink above the fold they used to smear Rove/Cheney/Libby and demand prosecution of Wilson and Plame.