I had a problem pulling the video off my Tivo, that problem being that I inadvertently erased it. Duh! So I don’t have the video of Pres. Bush’s press conference this morning as I hoped. I’m sure I’ll be able to get it later from the Charlie Gibson newscast because the response came after question, or rather a series of questions, came from Martha “I look like someone told me my dog just died” Raddatz on ABC.
Here’s the exchange:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
And I’d like to switch to Afghanistan.
There was another attempt on President Karzai’s life. There are operations going on there right now. Is the strategy succeeding? Are we winning in Afghanistan?
BUSH: Yes, I think we’re making progress in Afghanistan. But there’s a very resilient enemy that obviously wants to kill people that stand in the way of their re-imposition of a state that is — which vision is incredibly dark.
I mean, it’s very important for the American people to remember what life was like in Afghanistan prior to the liberation of the country. We had a government in place that abused people’s human rights, they didn’t believe in women’s rights, they didn’t let little girls go to school and they provided safe haven to al-Qaida.
In the liberation of this country, we’ve achieved some very important strategic objectives: denying al-Qaida safe haven for which to plot and plan attacks and replacing this repressive group with a — you know, a young democracy.
And it’s difficult in Afghanistan.
I mean, if you know the history of the country, you understand it’s hard to go from the kind of society in which they had been living to one in which people are now responsible for their own behavior.
But I’m pleased with a lot of things. One, I’m pleased with the number of roads that have been built. I’m pleased with the number of schools that have opened up. I’m pleased that a lot of girls — young girls are going to school. I’m pleased health clinics are now being distributed around the country.
I’m pleased with the Afghan army that when they’re in the fight they’re good.
You know, I wish we completely eliminated the radicals who kill innocent people to achieve objectives, but that hasn’t happened yet. And so I think it’s very much in our interest to continue helping the young democracy, and we will.

After the president threatened to cut off her mic, she got this off:

QUESTION: A couple of weeks ago you said that in Iraq, in 2006, you said we were winning and the strategy was working…
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: … to keep up troop morale. How can we believe that you’re not doing the same thing here?
BUSH: You tried to ask me that question before as a repeat.
Look, I said…
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Can I finish please?
The question you asked me before, at the exclusive I gave you on the ranch, was, You said that we were winning in the past.
I also said that there was tough fighting. Make sure you put the comments in place.
So what I’m going to tell you now is we’re making progress in Afghanistan, but there’s tough fighting. I’m under no illusions that this isn’t tough. I know full well we’re dealing with a determined enemy.
I believe it’s in our interests that we defeat that enemy.
And so, yeah, we’re making progress. But it’s also a tough battle.
We’re facing people who are willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into places where the innocent dwell or the innocent shop and kill them.
Is there an interest to confront these people now, whether it be in Afghanistan or Iraq or Europe or anywhere else? And the answer is absolutely it’s in our interests.
And the notion that somehow we can let these people just. kind of. have their way or, you know, just don’t stir them up, is naive or disingenuous, and it’s not in our nation’s interest.
We are in a global struggle against thugs and killers. And the United States of America has got to continue to take the lead.
And so in Afghanistan, yes, we’re making progress.
Does that mean, you know, that it’s over? No, it doesn’t mean it’s over. We’re in a long struggle, as I’ve told you many a time, against these jihadists.
You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy.
See, this is an ideological struggle. These aren’t isolated law enforcement moments.

He gets it. They don’t.

Trackback URL

The last thing the Husband said to me this morning before he left for the office was “Please don’t cry today.” He hasn’t forgotten that six years ago I spent about two weeks alternately sobbing uncontrollably and expressing disbelief in what I had seen live on tv with my own eyes: a speeding commercial aircraft plowing into the World Trade Center.

I was watching a replay of the “Today” show coverage from 9/11/01, and I couldn’t promise the Husband that I’d shed no tears today. When he said “don’t watch that,” I replied that we have to watch so we never forget. So, while I can’t promise dry eyes today, I can say that my initial shock and sadness has been augmented with the determination that even though we never asked for this war with these barbarians, our nation will see it through to victory.

I was honored, along with the rest of the contributors to be part of Illinois Review’s 9/11 remembrance. Please check it out here.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Trackback URL

Years ago when we heard that Islamic fanatics wanted to kill Salmon Rusdie for supposedly slandering the prophet Mohammed in his book “The Satanic Verses,” I think most of us thought it was a joke, like the line in the Steve Martin movie “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid:” “it was the sort of town where they spelled ‘trouble’ t-r-u-b-i-l, and if you corrected them, they kill you.” Over the weekend, as people speculated about the origins of the foiled car bomb plot in the U.K., some suggested that maybe it was an angry response to the Queen’s knighting of Mr. Rusdie, at least from those prepared to dare to suggest it was the work of anyone other than “international terrorists” of indefinite origin. Yeah right. We wouldn’t want to racial or ethnically-profile anyone. Nor would we want to suggest that anything other than a teensy, tiny minority of Muslims think suicide bombing is acceptable, despite that poll we heard about in May, 2007 that said that 25% of Muslims under 30 think suicide bombing is justified in some circumstances. Suddenly, a poll that liberals can find fault with!

It’s pretty clear that it’s very difficult for us to appreciate the fanaticism of our enemy. We really do have a tough time getting our minds around the idea that anyone would want to chop off someone’s head for writing something offensive in a book. To us, it still sounds like some sort of sick joke. If that weren’t true, John Edwards presidential campaign would be over. The very fact that he can refer to the existential war we are fighting as a “bumper sticker” and not be laughed out of the race proves that many people are in denial about the determination of the enemy to kill as many of us as possible. Yes, they WOULD kill someone over something he wrote, and yes, they would kill you without thinking twice. Still, the left scoffs at this very real threat. They insist on characterizing these maniacs as “amateurs,” and “bumblers,” and say that those of us who think they are very dangerous are just being duped by President Bush and his campaign of “fear.”

Personally, I’ve had it with these 9/11 deniers. What does it take for them to appreciate the threat we face? Do they have to find themselves kneeling in front of a video camera, a machete at their throats, before they get it?

Trackback URL

On last night’s show I advocated that we take the same approach to the “crisis” of man-made global warming that the democrats take toward our national security; that is, embrace defeat and look for the short-term silver lining. We have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, fending off a death cult of head chopping lunatics who dream of repeating—no, exceeding the horrors of 9/11 and ultimately destroying Western civilization. Are the democrats worried about that? Hell no! They are counting the number of seats in Congress that they will pick up if things go badly for our side. Support the troops? Of course they do. Just ask them. Invested completely in defeat? Absolutely, and happily adding up the benefits, while blithely ignoring the consequences for our future security.
So when Sheryl Crow tells us to eschew our paper napkins in favor of wearing some sort of filthy, washable sleeve and wiping our mouths on it all day like demented bag ladies, and even worse, risking for an outbreak of e-coli borne disease by limiting toilet paper use to one-square per bathroom visit, I say “Sorry, Sheryl, but the war against man-made global warming is already lost, but when life gives you lemons, I say make lemonade! Since we’re doomed, let’s shoot the moon! Chances are the earth won’t turn into a fireball until after I’ve gone, so I’m going to enjoy wasting all the paper napkins and toilet paper I can. I’ve got mine. What happens in the future isn’t my problem.”
Now, pass me a roll of paper towels. I have to dust my dog’s crate, right after I put this single glass in the dishwasher and run it.

Trackback URL

Sure, those who say he looked a little stiff may have a point, but whenever I hear that President Bush isn’t a good speaker, I wonder if those who mock his oratory style would have voted for Abe Lincoln. Yes, Lincoln’s speeches were eloquently written, but supposedly his delivery left something to be desired. His voice was described as “shrill” and “unmusical.” In addition, come to think of it, the parallels between the criticisms of President Bush and President Lincoln are amazing, as noted by Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Not bad company.
I’ll share more of my reaction to the speech on tonight’s show (see the Listen Live link on this page), but here’s a preview:

As I predicted, the 20th century media LOVED the fact that the president admitted he had made mistakes. “See, see, he is an idiot after all!”
Unlike my media friends, I loved that the only other American politician the President mentioned was Sen. Joe Lieberman, who I cited as an example of bipartisanship. What a terrific, and backhanded way to smack down the phony liberal dems in Congress, who claim (witness Fancy Nancy Pelosi’s acceptance speech when she became Speaker) to want bipartisanship, but who supported Ned “Pedro” Lamont for that Senate seat.

I found it hilarious that the President praised the Iraq Study Group as “distinguished” and “thoughtful,” and that basically said “thanks for sharing, but I’m not going to make nice with the government’s that are trying to kill our troops.” Yes! Did this ever accept the liberals in the media! So you know it had to be the right thing.

I was very happy that he reminded those whose memories seem to have faded to the point where they’ve forgotten the images of people plunging to their deaths from a flaming 100+ story building of the reason for this war in Iraq.

As I said, I’ll share more tonight, but I want to hear your take, so please call. Tonight I’ll also share my reaction to some of the reaction, which was priceless. Yes, we’ve got the soundbites, so don’t miss it.

I thank God every day that we have a leader like George W. Bush in the White House, one who gets in when it comes to the struggle that we’re in. May God bless him, and may God continue to bless America.

Trackback URL