Archive for September, 2003
« Previous EntriesHoward Dean Against America
Saturday, September 27th, 2003Howard Dean was in Boston this week - my city. Preaching his political hate speech to his left wing choir, the former governor of Vermont and abortionist for Planned Parenthood stood in Copley Square blaspheming local history and attacking our Commander-In-Chief, George W. Bush. Fallaciously using references to “patriots” and the Sons of Liberty, Dean mistakenly paralleled his crusade for the White House to the American Revolution.
Dean’s vile and calculated choice of metaphors spoke of the Boston Tea Party, recalling the actions of the Sons of Liberty, who “boarded three ships in Boston Harbor to protest a government more concerned with moneyed interests than its own people.”
Dean has set the stage for his own Liberal Theatre. His choice of words here indicates the direction he is going. This is revisionist history in the making.
He called the Boston Tea Party a “grassroots campaign” - a description often attached to his own quest for the presidency. Here, he is telling his audience “You are my Sons of Liberty - my campaign is the Boston Tea Party.” In Dean’s sick mind, he believes his campaign is going to set this country “on the path to freedom and democracy.”
As usual, Dean, avoiding discussing the issues, focuses directly on making an attack on George W. Bush in the flow of his fairy tale, “a King named George — who had forgotten his own people in favor of special interests — was replaced by a government of, by and for the people.” This is just sad. It’s no mistake that he refers to “a King named George” - it is one of those fortunate coincidences for Dean to make his story have just a smidgen more impact.
But what Dean doesn’t realize (or is just deliberately trying to distort) is that the Sons of Liberty were protesting taxes on tea. The Sons of Liberty today are not the people rallying behind Dean in Copley Square - not even close. Howard Dean’s “Sons of Liberty” are rallying behind a man who stands for higher taxes and big government - the exact opposite ideals of the Sons of Liberty of the American Revolution.
Howard Dean, while governor of Vermont, taxed his constituency far greater than King George III taxed the colonists. The Boston Tea Party was not about “special interests,” it was about taxes. High taxes. Howard Dean has taken history and revised it to suit his political agenda.
War On Terror (R-USA)
Wednesday, September 24th, 2003When the Democrats criticize Bush, the only thing they are concerned with is furthering their own agenda and their party’s agenda. The Democrat’s agenda today is to impede the war on terror.
You heard me.
To the Democrats, criticizing George W. Bush is more natural than breathing.
They seek to undermine the progress made by Bush and his administration by questioning a cause they supported months and/or years ago.
Ted Kennedy, Senator-at-Large from Massachusetts, recently said about Iraq, “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.”
Oh really Teddy? Isn’t it funny, last September you said “I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course [invading Iraq] he urges upon us.”
Made up in Texas, huh? What’s with the flip-flop Teddy? Is an election coming up Teddy?
Wait, what else did you say?
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
Funny, George W. Bush said the same thing.
There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.
This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are more than willing to sit around and wait to be attacked again. Republicans actually want to prevent terrorism.
Teddy’s remarks from a year ago show you what the real motivation behind his words is. It’s political hate speech. He’s taking the war on terror and painting it as George W. Bush’s political weapon.
The result? America looks weak. The war on terror looks like a farce. The resolve we once showed appears to have waned. The terrorists then think they can hit us again.
The Democrats are hurting the war on terror. By questioning the battles we fight, they pave the way for other nations to question our efforts, which can break down our coalition. Teddy’s flip-flops are only a small portion of the radical changes Democrats have made on their positions on the war on terror to suit their political motives.
Come on Teddy, even you conceded George W. Bush genuinely believed in the cause he pursued.
Even you admitted that Saddam was an evil tyrant pursing weapons of mass of destruction.
Even you admitted that Iraq posed a threat.
The difference between Teddy and George W. Bush is that Bush wants to prevent terrorism - Teddy wants to react to terrorism.
Who has really politicized the war? Any thinking person would be able to see that George W. Bush has actually kept his word to fight terrorism.
The Democrats… they’ve been feeding their constituency with anti-Bush rhetoric and criticizing the war on terror. Which is actually going to help defeat terrorism? Which is actually going to save American lives?
It is ever so clear, that the war on terror is the Republicans’ war, not the Democrats’. They can sit around and wait for the terrorists to hit us if they want to, but I’m going to stand with the Republicans, and support the war on terror, support the President, and support the troops.
You, my readers can do the same donating to Bush’s campaign and/or volunteer your time. The best way to support the war on terror is keep George W. Bush in office.
Unplanned Parenthood … Unplanned Death
Saturday, September 20th, 2003Former Vermont Governor, and Democratic candidate for President, Howard Dean has said he would veto any parental notification law as President.
Howard Dean, once involved with Planned Parenthood, would rather lead this country down a path where little girls can get abortions � a serious procedure no matter how you feel about the issue � and leave their parents, the people legally and morally responsible for their child, in the dark.
This is an attack on parenthood itself. This is not a pro-life or pro-abortion issue. This is about the welfare of young girls… children. It�s about life and death.
Howard Dean, the left wing, pro-abortion ideologue may as well be working at McDonald�s asking �Would you like an abortion with that?� when a young girl orders a Happy Meal.
The Clinton Administration: Attempting to Rewrite History
Sunday, September 14th, 2003Former members of the Clinton administration have been desperately trying to rewrite history to wash the blood off their hands for their inaction against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
It’s quite sad, when you see how they lie through there teeth. Albright, talking to TIME Magazine in an interview with J.F.O. McAllister on the eve of the publication of her new book of memoirs “Madame Secretary” had many ridiculous and false things to say regarding the differences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations on handling terrorism:
Q: Unlike other memoirs, Madame Secretary has hardly a hint of score settling. If you didn’t want to set the record straight, why did you write it?
A: The day-to-day making of policy is arguing all the time. You’re trying to get the right approach and the right answer, and there are moments that aren’t very pleasant. But in the end, you look at the overall product. Any differences we had [in the Clinton Administration] were so minimal compared to what I see in the Bush Administration, I thought: It’s just not worth it.
Unfortunately for her, history recorded a very different story of just how the Clinton Administration handled terrorism compared to the Bush Administration.
Clinton ignored lots of intelligence, and several offers by Muslim countries, like Sudan, to get bin Laden. Clinton’s reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 demonstrated his lack of concern for terrorism, even his acknowledgment that it was terrorism. The CIA was kept out of the investigation for crying out loud. Clinton also kept the CIA from hiring desperately needed Arabic translators, leaving phone intercepts from bin Laden untranslated. Clinton had plenty opportunity to respond appropriately to terrorism - yet he didn’t do a thing.
Q: Did you neglect the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and leave it for the Bush Administration to clean up?
A: President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. The CIA set up a special bin Laden division, and the President authorized the use of lethal force against him. We struck his camp in 1998 after the embassy bombings, and we came close. President Bush has been in Afghanistan with 8,000 troops, and they still haven’t found him.
A meaningless strike did occur. However, the State Departments actually stopped the process of obtaining the two ringleaders of the embassy bombings, who were sitting in a hail cell in Khartoum, Sudan, waiting to be taken into U.S. custody. As RIchard Miniter explained in his book “Losing Bin Laden” that requests were denied by the State Department to allow agents to go to Sudan. Because “the U.S. government doesn’t do business with terrorists, and Sudan was considered a terrorist state.” The Sudanese government, holding the suspects for the United States were unable to “wait any longer for the Clinton Administration to come to its sense and take custody of [the suspects] Abbas and Suliman.” A terrible Clinton Administration failure.
Of course, Albright has also said back in February that she couldn’t explain why Bill Clinton also had turned down deals from the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden. Clinton even admitted in a speech to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002 that he turned down the opportunity to get him:
“And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”
Then of course was the attack on the USS Cole. Planned and executed by Al Qaeda - retaliation was opposed by Albright herself, as detailed by Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden:
[Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar] Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore’s national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a “friendly” harbor and, at the time, no one knew if the ship’s pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it.
…
Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders of bin Laden and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, complete with satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates … the Pentagon’s “target decks.” The detailed plan was “to level” every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. “Let’s blow them up,” Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections … not a mandate for action.
….
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike … but for diplomatic reasons. “We’re desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians,” Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, “bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time.”
….
Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. “State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that, “It would be irresponsible,” a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been gong on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internally.
…
In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke’s retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.
A Test of Our Own
Thursday, September 11th, 2003The following post is an editorial I wrote for my school paper, The Informer, after September 11, 2001. Before I write a reflection on these past two years, I thought it would be appropriate to look at my words from two years ago, to see just how much (or how little) things have changed. I shall post my thoughts on the two-year anniversary of 9-11 in the next couple days.
A Test of our Own
Matt Margolis
Informer Columnist
8:45 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Tuesday, September 11, I was asleep. Eighteen minutes later, I was still asleep, unaware of what was taking place a couple hundred miles away. 9:30 a.m., President George W. Bush declared: “We have had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.”
I have never been to the World Trade Center. I almost visited it this past summer. I saw the towers from the Brooklyn Bridge, and that was as close as I ever got to it. The two buildings meant very little to me before that Tuesday morning when one of my roommates woke me up shouting “The World Trade Center just collapsed!” I got to the TV shortly before the second tower collapsed, it was a moment that I feel will stick with me for the rest of my life. My roommates and I gathered in front of the TV, and watched on.
1:04 p.m., Bush vows to hunt down and punish those responsible for the attacks… “Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.” We heard what we had been waiting to hear: the leadership we had hoped for. We watched on.
1:27 p.m., A state of emergency is declared by Washington. By now, all the images of World Trade Center collapsing and the Pentagon attack are burned into our memories. Who knew what was going to happen next? Was another target going to be hit? There were no answers. We barely knew what all the questions were.
I have been thinking about the words of our President, George W. Bush, “The resolve of our great nation is being tested. But make no mistake: We will show the world that we will pass this test.” These words reinforced my confidence in Bush’s leadership.
7:00 p.m. I was one of about two thousand students who assembled at the Sports Center. I wanted to see how my fellow students reacted to the day’s events. I did not come for answers, or for comfort. I came to see how my community here was going to bond. The vigil that was held was only the beginning of a new kind of unity on this campus. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to bring us together. However, it takes a lot more for us to remain united.
8:30 p.m., Bush spoke again: “Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America.” I have seen people on TV, tirelessly working to save lives at the site of the tragedy. Here, I have seen students expressing their concerns, comforting others, and wanting to donate blood. I hope we are responding with the best of the University of Hartford.
I said last week in my editorial that I felt good about this upcoming year. I wrote and submitted that editorial the day before the attacks. Yet, I still feel the same way, even with the events of last week, because I see an opportunity. I see the opportunity for this campus to come together. That is how the University of Hartford is being tested.
Will we learn from this experience that we all can be one community instead of a bunch of cliques? I think if there is ever a time for us to unite, now is the time. I do not mean the kind of spirit that occurs at a sports game on campus, when crowds of students cheer on our teams. I am referring to a unity of a higher, deeper, and more genuine kind. I hope our University will pass this test, because what happened September 11, 2001 is only the beginning. We need to stand together for everything that follows.
We need to stand behind our President and our government. Our country will fight back, and we will win. We are all victims of this act of war. We will all remember this for the rest of our lives. When we look back on this in future years, we will remember that when this happened we were students at the University of Hartford. That is why our actions here, from 8:45 a.m. last Tuesday through the rest of this school year are so important. That is why we are being tested.
One of the most incredible moments I can remember from the past week and half was during President Bush’s visit to the rubble where the World Trade Center towers once stood. He spoke to a crowd of people with a bullhorn; someone shouted that he could not hear him, to which the President replied “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon…” The crowd cheered and began chanting “USA! USA! USA! USA…”
My roommates and I cheered. That was an incredible scene. I believe all of us watching were surged with a new sense of patriotism for our country from watching that.
In the course of a few days, a country that seemed generally indifferent to each other and to the nation became unified and patriotic. American flag sales have jumped beyond expectation and supply. We have not yet begun a war, but we have already won the hardest battle. We must continue to show the world what it means to be an American.
1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Monday, September 17, 2001, I submitted this editorial… a little wiser and a lot more patriotic then I was just a week earlier.
________________________________________________
Originally published September 20, 2001
The Democrats Advocate Whom?
Wednesday, September 10th, 2003It’s time to set the record straight. While the Democrats hoping to become President bitch and moan about Bush they also lie through their teeth. We keep hearing over and over about Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” and while promises are made by Democratic candidates on repealing all or most of the tax cuts, one has to ask, “Who benefits from repealing the tax cuts?”
The main beneficiary of repealing the tax cut is not the American people. In fact, the only person who stands to benefit from a repealed tax cut is the Democrat who gets elected President – for he’ll have that money to spend waste in Washington.
That’s who these Democrats are advocating by repealing the tax cut. It’s not the poor… it’s not the middle class… it’s the Democrat President that gets elected who wants more money to spend in Washington. It’s the wealthy congressmen and senators who think they know better than you on how to spend your money.
Who stands to lose because of a repealed tax cut? How about the 10 million people taken off the tax rolls between 2000 and 2003 who will now be paying taxes again? How about those families who still won’t be paying taxes, but will lose out on child tax credit?
Working families stand to lose a lot if a Democrat is elected president.
So, help George W. Bush get elected! Volunteer for the campaign and donate today!
Freedom’s Cause
Sunday, September 7th, 2003President Bush spoke to our country tonight. Recalling the beginning of the War on Terror, nearly two ago, Bush said, “These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve and great progress.”
From Afghanistan to Iraq, we continue this lengthy war. As Bush laid out the details of our progress, you couldn’t help but think, “We’ve accomplished so much.”
As great as our accomplishments have been thus far; we still have work to do. The main front of the War on Terror is now in Iraq, but progress is being made all over. In Afghanistan, Bush told us “nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda’s known leaders have been captured or killed,” and “We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States.”
Progress occurs in Iraq as well. When the United States chose to enforce the demands of the United Nations Security Council, we launched “one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.” A nation is free, and we’re even safer from terrorism today, thanks to the steadfastness of George W. Bush.
Bush said that “The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations.” Bush understands that the presence of a stable democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, weakens the core of international terrorism. “Everywhere that freedom takes hold,” Bush said, “terror will retreat.”
This is why we’ve seen a desperate, but organized few, attempting to hijack the progress made in Iraq. While media reports would make us believe the attacks we’ve endure have been all over, Bush explained they’ve been focused mainly in one area of the country, “between Baghdad and Tikrit — Saddam Hussein’s former stronghold.” The north and south regions are generally stable, and continue progressing with reconstruction and self-government.
Separating the hawks and the doves, Bush clearly stated the difference between himself and the Democratic presidential candidates who want us to run away from Iraq, “The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done… In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.”
Bill Clinton ran from these challenges. His presidency will forever be stained with his poor decisions of inaction against terrorism, and dovish responses to attacks against our country. Clinton looked the other way at the sight of terrorism. George W. Bush has stared terrorism straight in the eye, demonstrating his resolve, and the threat of terrorism against us has diminished - not obliterated yet, but weakened. We have achieved great progress in making our country more secure.
Bush then laid out the three objectives of our strategy in Iraq: (1) destroying the terrorists, (2) enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and (3) helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
(1) Bush gave us some details on how we are combating terrorism in Iraq…from precise strikes against enemy targets, to a series of raids. To date, we’ve captured or killed 42 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders…” We are sending a clear message,” Bush said, “anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.”
(2) Bush assured us that we had an appropriate number of troops in Iraq to complete our mission. A multilateral force currently occupies Iraqi, “over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries” join our troops in Iraq, helping to stabilize the formerly oppressed country. “Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity — and the responsibility — to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.”
(3) Bush told us of the progress being made in getting the Iraqi people ready to run the country on their own. “Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberator,” Bush assured. “Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq’s Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections.”
This is impressive progress. To solidify our commitment to continuing this progress, Bush said he would soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. Other countries who stand to benefit from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq will be expected to contribute to this effort financially as well.
Times will be forever different. Bush noted, “there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 — to false comfort in a dangerous world.” However, while many out there may hate us, they’ll be less prone to attack us like they did two years ago. “We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness,” Bush said, “and the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”
This is going to be our policy on terrorism as long as George W. Bush is our Commander-In-Chief. Former President Bill Clinton’s policy on terrorism proved devastating for America. The line that resonates the most with me was when Bush said “terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”
Bush was absolutely correct. From the beginning of Clinton’s presidency, attacks against our country we not avenged. The Americans who lost their lives as a result of terrorism during the Clinton Administration did not have their deaths avenged until George W. Bush waged the War on Terrorism. We’ve won many battles since then, but the war still goes on. President Bush will seek victory to the end.
Before ending his speech, Bush paid homage to our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. Those who have fallen will always be remembered – those who continue fighting, we pray for. We are grateful for the job continued by them, and for the sacrifice made by many who won’t get to see the results of their efforts.
“We are serving in freedom’s cause,” Bush said, “and that is the cause of all mankind.”
Reading Up A Storm
Sunday, September 7th, 2003I’m not one for making book reviews, however, since my last update on my reading ventures, I have completed three books, (all within the caffeinated paradise of Starbucks) and I’m about to start a new one.
As you’ll know from my post Make Room On The Bookshelf I started reading “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell in late July. It is a fantastic book that I think everyone should read. It does a fabulous job at demonstrating just how common sense capitalism is, and why it works better than communism – in theory and in practice. Sowell’s use plain English to convey the concepts written in the book would even an uneducated commie liberal sweat.
After finishing Sowell, I read “Off with Their Heads” by Dick Morris. His book goes into some detail on how the America is under attack … not just by terrorists, but by the media, (namely the New York Times, have blemished their reputation as the paper of record to being just a left-leaning propaganda machine), Hollywood apologists, the French, even our own government. Dick Morris’s experiences in the Clinton White House gave him a very interesting and personal account of what was going on behind the scenes.
The really damning information of what happened behind the scenes during the Clinton Administration came from the book I just finished yesterday, “Losing bin Laden” by Richard Miniter. Miniter’s book was incredibly informative, based on lots of interviews, investigative reporting, and some never before reported accounts from people deep within the Clinton Administration paint a troubling tale of how Clinton repeatedly turned down golden opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, and to dismantle the Al Qaeda network – and save the lives of thousands of Americans. Between bureaucratic bungles between various departments in the government, to Clinton’s desire to save himself politically rather than fight terrorism,
It’s hard to read the book and not be enraged over the blatant negligence of our former Commander-In-Chief to protect Americans. I recommend this book for anyone who really wants to understand how Osama bin Laden has been targeting Americans for years, and how the Clinton Administration failed to do anything about him for 8 years.
I am soon to start on Tammy Bruce’s “The Death of Right and Wrong” which shall be quite an interesting read.
« Previous Entries