Mr. Perfect for President
by Michelle Malkin
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/archive.shtml
September 29, 2004
TV cameras are brutally unforgiving -- especially during high-stakes election debates. They amplified the angst on Richard Nixon’s brow, the inexperience in Dan Quayle’s eyes, and the vulgarity of Al Gore’s visage.
How will Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry hold up under the spotlight? What will the cameras reveal? Beneath the Christophe-coifed hair, unnaturally taut skin and artificially enhanced tan, there are some naked attributes Kerry cannot conceal:
His spite. His haughtiness. His condescending core.
John Kerry detests his opponents. He detests his own staff. He detests anybody and anything that interferes with his political ambitions. Since returning from Vietnam, his main contribution to public discourse has been contempt, not courage. He possesses resentment, not hope. He does not inspire. He sulks.
Much has been said about Kerry’s superior argumentative skills. He was a champion debater at Yale; his former Republican opponents in Massachusetts have effusively praised his quick recall and rhetorical agility.
This will no doubt impress the like-minded lefties in America’s newsrooms and Hollywood salons. But in America’s living rooms, a man’s unvarnished character -- how he carries himself, how he treats others, how he responds to adversity -- speaks volumes over the stilted platitudes and smoothly memorized factoids that come out of his mouth.
This isn’t a race for prom king or “Jeopardy!” champion. It’s a race for leader of the free world.
Throughout the course of the campaign, Kerry has demonstrated a holier-than-thou hubris that continues to alienate security moms, Reagan Democrats and swing voters of all backgrounds. It’s not just his disingenuous vacillation on foreign policy (he was for the war before he was against it, but he’d vote the same way) that bothers folks. It’s not just the Kennedy-esque photo-ops of Kerry in athletic settings that scream vanity instead of vigor. It’s the ugly little things that pile up and create the indelible image of a Royal Jerk:
-- Such as publicly calling one of his own Secret Service agents a “son of a (bleep)” for accidentally knocking him down on his snowboard during a press availability in Ketchum, Idaho. “I don’t fall,” Kerry sniffed to reporters as he cursed the Secret Service agent on the record.
-- Such as badmouthing NASA for releasing routine publicity photos of Kerry, dressed in a goofy-looking “bunny suit,” while on a campaign visit to the shuttle Discovery at the Kennedy Space Center. After the pictures caused unforeseen embarrassment, Kerry sent his spokeswoman onto the cable news to falsely suggest that NASA had played a dirty trick.
-- Such as burning his own campaign staff over his failure to effectively counter the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans. “The candidate is furious,” a longtime senior Kerry adviser told the New York Daily News. “He knows the campaign was wrong. He wanted to go after the Swift boat attacks, but his top aides said no.”
-- Such as ridiculing President Bush for remaining with schoolchildren for a few extra minutes after learning of the Sept. 11 attacks, while neglecting to mention his own emotional paralysis at the Capitol that morning.
-- And such as using an Outdoor Life magazine question about what his favorite gun is to tout his Vietnam War hero status again, then faulting his campaign staff for fabricating the weapon he named in his interview. “My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam,” Kerry is quoted as saying in the October issue. “I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”
Now, according to Monday’s New York Times: “Senator John Kerry’s campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine’s questionnaire on his behalf for the error.”
This is the paragon of strong moral leadership who will bring victory in the War on Terrorism and restore America’s values? This Botox-ed egomaniac? This serial waffler? This ruthless buck-passer?
Proverbs 18:12 counsels: “Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility.” It’s a lesson Mr. Perfect will learn too late.
Copyright Creators Syndicate, 2004.
This message was sent by: , 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA, 90045 USA
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Friday, September 24, 2004
War - by Ichabod Crane
War
In eighteen months of war in Iraq we have sustained over one thousand casualties. They include both those killed in direct action, indirect action (beheadings, etc.) and outright accidents (like when a truck went of the road, into a ditch and rolled over, killing the driver). That’s 18 months with 1000+ casualties.
In WWII we had 295,000 casualties from Dec 7, 1941 through August 15, 1945; that is 44 months. There were never cries about a quagmire. There was no effort to get out because there were too many casualties. Casualty reports were not a political tool used to unseat FDR. The media never accused FDR of not having an ‘exit strategy.’
There were 6700+ casualties a month during WWII; there are about 55 casualties a month in Iraq. The terrorist are pouring into Iraq where we get to shoot them like fish in a barrel. Are the Presidents opponent(s) trying to say that it would be better if the terrorists were engaged somewhere else? Why? Where?
I am thinking that “The War on Terror” is only going to be won when we eliminate the terrorists; that is what we are doing now. While every life lost is precious the only way to give meaning to those fallen warriors is to fight the war to a victorious finish. Otherwise they will have died in vein. That is unthinkable!
If we stop engaging the terrorists in the Middle-East then we will have to meet them in the streets of America. They have said so; they said it loudly and clearly on September 11, 2001, didn’t you hear them? They have sworn to destroy us and our way of life. They are not open to negotiation. It is us or them.
I like us, even if we sometimes don’t agree, we don’t try to kill each other over things like whether or not women should be seen in public without being covered from head to toe. We kill each other for manly reasons like if we should allow religious cults in the desert their right to privacy. Even then we mostly just kill them.
So, I’m in favor of killing the terrorists where they come from so that we can get on with our lives here. We are doing that and at a fantastically lower cost then we did it a half a century ago (1340:11). That is over 121 times fewer casualties to do essentially the same thing. At least until they get “The Bomb” that is.
I think we need to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors now before they start helping the terrorists (Hell, they are the terrorists) with a nuclear device. Once they start to build bombs where do you think they will detonate them? Will it be Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Rome, London, NY, Washington DC, or all of the above and more?
Only the number of bombs they can make before we stop them limits the places. How many of the world’s cities should we say is enough? I say zero and we need to act now. The UN has already declared itself useless in this (and every other) matter. In for a penny, in for a pound as the British are want to say.
What is unfortunate is that the political campaign of John F’ing Kerry is using our troops as hostages and giving aid and comfort to our enemies (something John F’ing Kerry mastered in the early 70’s). I think that this is inhibiting the Commander-in-Chief from doing these things now. I think he is holding back, to avoid the ensuing controversy, until after the election. I hope that it won’t be too late.
A nuclear blast over Baghdad would be a real blow. It would certainly boost the casualty rate and bring the Iraqi elections to a halt. The tens or hundreds of thousands of souls that would be knocking on Heaven’s Door would have liked it better if we were quicker to remove the Iranian nuclear threat as well.
Doing it now, however, in light of the politicizing of the war as it is, might be political suicide for the President and therefore a more serious blow to world peace in the long run if it were [political suicide].
FDR never had this problem; republicans were just better behaved I guess. Even when it cost them an election, they thought of the country first.
I heard John F’ing Kerry say that going to Iraq was a mistake. It would have been a mistake, perhaps, if we didn’t find any terrorists there; but we are finding more terrorists there then we did in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what ‘The War on Terror’ is about?
John F’ing Kerry said that we were not safer for having gone to Iraq because Iraq has become a haven for terrorists. How does that not make us safer? Where would he rather have the terrorists, in Nantucket so that he could get another medal for personally fighting them there? I personally like that they are somewhere else and that we are killing them there.
Our main-stream news agencies have become a fifth column. They are doing more to help the terrorists than Cat Stevens raising money for them. By dividing the country and causing the terrorists to think they can win by the same means the North Vietnamese won by; that is by turning public opinion against the war. That is suicide!
These agencies have got to go, and the best way to be rid of them is to stop watching them. No ratings no commercial money, no commercial money and they will have to close shop. They are a disgrace. At what point does the First Amendment end and the Sedition Act take over?
It was never about WMDs, but we still need to find them. It wasn’t about freeing the Iraqis, but they are learning freedom. It was always, first and foremost about destroying international terrorism and with it the people and the governments that support it.
It is about survival at the most primal level.
In eighteen months of war in Iraq we have sustained over one thousand casualties. They include both those killed in direct action, indirect action (beheadings, etc.) and outright accidents (like when a truck went of the road, into a ditch and rolled over, killing the driver). That’s 18 months with 1000+ casualties.
In WWII we had 295,000 casualties from Dec 7, 1941 through August 15, 1945; that is 44 months. There were never cries about a quagmire. There was no effort to get out because there were too many casualties. Casualty reports were not a political tool used to unseat FDR. The media never accused FDR of not having an ‘exit strategy.’
There were 6700+ casualties a month during WWII; there are about 55 casualties a month in Iraq. The terrorist are pouring into Iraq where we get to shoot them like fish in a barrel. Are the Presidents opponent(s) trying to say that it would be better if the terrorists were engaged somewhere else? Why? Where?
I am thinking that “The War on Terror” is only going to be won when we eliminate the terrorists; that is what we are doing now. While every life lost is precious the only way to give meaning to those fallen warriors is to fight the war to a victorious finish. Otherwise they will have died in vein. That is unthinkable!
If we stop engaging the terrorists in the Middle-East then we will have to meet them in the streets of America. They have said so; they said it loudly and clearly on September 11, 2001, didn’t you hear them? They have sworn to destroy us and our way of life. They are not open to negotiation. It is us or them.
I like us, even if we sometimes don’t agree, we don’t try to kill each other over things like whether or not women should be seen in public without being covered from head to toe. We kill each other for manly reasons like if we should allow religious cults in the desert their right to privacy. Even then we mostly just kill them.
So, I’m in favor of killing the terrorists where they come from so that we can get on with our lives here. We are doing that and at a fantastically lower cost then we did it a half a century ago (1340:11). That is over 121 times fewer casualties to do essentially the same thing. At least until they get “The Bomb” that is.
I think we need to take out Iran’s nuclear reactors now before they start helping the terrorists (Hell, they are the terrorists) with a nuclear device. Once they start to build bombs where do you think they will detonate them? Will it be Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Rome, London, NY, Washington DC, or all of the above and more?
Only the number of bombs they can make before we stop them limits the places. How many of the world’s cities should we say is enough? I say zero and we need to act now. The UN has already declared itself useless in this (and every other) matter. In for a penny, in for a pound as the British are want to say.
What is unfortunate is that the political campaign of John F’ing Kerry is using our troops as hostages and giving aid and comfort to our enemies (something John F’ing Kerry mastered in the early 70’s). I think that this is inhibiting the Commander-in-Chief from doing these things now. I think he is holding back, to avoid the ensuing controversy, until after the election. I hope that it won’t be too late.
A nuclear blast over Baghdad would be a real blow. It would certainly boost the casualty rate and bring the Iraqi elections to a halt. The tens or hundreds of thousands of souls that would be knocking on Heaven’s Door would have liked it better if we were quicker to remove the Iranian nuclear threat as well.
Doing it now, however, in light of the politicizing of the war as it is, might be political suicide for the President and therefore a more serious blow to world peace in the long run if it were [political suicide].
FDR never had this problem; republicans were just better behaved I guess. Even when it cost them an election, they thought of the country first.
I heard John F’ing Kerry say that going to Iraq was a mistake. It would have been a mistake, perhaps, if we didn’t find any terrorists there; but we are finding more terrorists there then we did in Afghanistan. Isn’t that what ‘The War on Terror’ is about?
John F’ing Kerry said that we were not safer for having gone to Iraq because Iraq has become a haven for terrorists. How does that not make us safer? Where would he rather have the terrorists, in Nantucket so that he could get another medal for personally fighting them there? I personally like that they are somewhere else and that we are killing them there.
Our main-stream news agencies have become a fifth column. They are doing more to help the terrorists than Cat Stevens raising money for them. By dividing the country and causing the terrorists to think they can win by the same means the North Vietnamese won by; that is by turning public opinion against the war. That is suicide!
These agencies have got to go, and the best way to be rid of them is to stop watching them. No ratings no commercial money, no commercial money and they will have to close shop. They are a disgrace. At what point does the First Amendment end and the Sedition Act take over?
It was never about WMDs, but we still need to find them. It wasn’t about freeing the Iraqis, but they are learning freedom. It was always, first and foremost about destroying international terrorism and with it the people and the governments that support it.
It is about survival at the most primal level.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
President Speaks to the United Nations General Assembly - September 21, 2004
Instead of listening to what people said he said, here is what he said, right off the White House web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/print/20040921-3.html
God Bless him, we have a great President and I believe that history will bear that sentiment out.
(I smell a McGovern-type landslide coming on...)
--Ichabod Crane
---------------------------------
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 21, 2004
President Speaks to the United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
11:00 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this General Assembly. The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world. Welcome to New York City, and welcome to the United States of America.
During the past three years, I’ve addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for my country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N. and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.
The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.
Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.
Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.
In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.
These rights are advancing across the world -- and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs.
In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations, and banks, and commuter trains, and synagogues -- and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan we saw, once again, how the terrorists measure their success -- in the death of the innocent, and in the pain of grieving families. Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage, along with her son and her nephew -- her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery, and saw what she called the “little graves.” She said, “I understand that there is evil in the world. But what have these little creatures done?”
Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering, and fright, and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers.
We’re determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans. We’re determined to end the state sponsorship of terror -- and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We’re determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world -- and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.
The dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions -- then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say “serious consequences,” for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.
Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. In three years the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries, and pledged a total of $5.6 billion to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention and treatment and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent. AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time, and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We’re supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws, and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed, anywhere on Earth.
Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption, and provide aid. In 2002 we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Since these efforts began in 1996, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens have received more than $30 billion of relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans.
Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil, and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing. We must create permanent capabilities to respond to future crises. The United States and Italy have proposed a Global Peace Operations Initiative. G-8 countries will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere. The countries of the G-8 will help this peacekeeping force with deployment and logistical needs.
At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease-fire, and we’re providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a new resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed, and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the Council on this timely and necessary action. I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur.
Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women, or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We’ve witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom.
Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there any -- only one form of representative government -- because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them. Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.
Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and we must continue to show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world’s newest democracies.
Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world’s most vital -- and most volatile -- regions. They brutalized their peoples, in defiance of all civilized norms. Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they’re fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of us all.
The Afghan people are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. They’re fighting to defend their nation from Taliban holdouts, and helping to strike against the terrorists killers. They’re reviving their economy. They’ve adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation’s most cherished traditions. More than 10 million Afghan citizens -- over 4 million of them women -- are now registered to vote in next month’s presidential election. To any who still would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.
Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty. Today, in this hall, the Prime Minister of Iraq and his delegation represent a country that has rejoined the community of nations. The government of Prime Minister Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace. And under Security Council resolutions 1511 and 1546, the world is providing that support. The U.N., and its member nations, must respond to Prime Minister Allawi’s request, and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal, and free.
A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. So a terrorists group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today -- conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians, and the beheadings of bound men. Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.
Our coalition is standing beside a growing Iraqi security force. The NATO Alliance is providing vital training to that force. More than 35 nations have contributed money and expertise to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure. And as the Iraqi interim government moves toward national elections, officials from the United Nations are helping Iraqis build the infrastructure of democracy. These selfless people are doing heroic work, and are carrying on the great legacy of Sergio de Mello.
As we have seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt, and influence election outcomes. We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections. The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail.
The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.
These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice. For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.
This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The longsuffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.
Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.
The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere. In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi: “We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary; democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability.” Here at the United Nations, you know this to be true. In recent years, this organization has helped create a new democracy in East Timor, and the U.N. has aided other nations in making the transition to self-rule.
Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions. Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts and polling places, and support the work of election monitors. To show our commitment to the new Democracy Fund, the United States will make an initial contribution. I urge other nations to contribute, as well.
Today, I’ve outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity, and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy -- these causes, these ideals, call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together, we can accomplish so much more.
History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The charter states them with clarity: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,” “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them. I’m confident that this young century will be liberty’s century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
END 11:21 A.M. EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040921-3.html
God Bless him, we have a great President and I believe that history will bear that sentiment out.
(I smell a McGovern-type landslide coming on...)
--Ichabod Crane
---------------------------------
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 21, 2004
President Speaks to the United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
11:00 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this General Assembly. The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world. Welcome to New York City, and welcome to the United States of America.
During the past three years, I’ve addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for my country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N. and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.
The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.
Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.
Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.
In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.
These rights are advancing across the world -- and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs.
In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations, and banks, and commuter trains, and synagogues -- and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan we saw, once again, how the terrorists measure their success -- in the death of the innocent, and in the pain of grieving families. Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage, along with her son and her nephew -- her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery, and saw what she called the “little graves.” She said, “I understand that there is evil in the world. But what have these little creatures done?”
Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering, and fright, and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers.
We’re determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans. We’re determined to end the state sponsorship of terror -- and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We’re determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world -- and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.
The dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions -- then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say “serious consequences,” for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.
Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. In three years the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries, and pledged a total of $5.6 billion to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention and treatment and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent. AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time, and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We’re supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws, and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed, anywhere on Earth.
Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption, and provide aid. In 2002 we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people.
Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Since these efforts began in 1996, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens have received more than $30 billion of relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans.
Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil, and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing. We must create permanent capabilities to respond to future crises. The United States and Italy have proposed a Global Peace Operations Initiative. G-8 countries will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere. The countries of the G-8 will help this peacekeeping force with deployment and logistical needs.
At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease-fire, and we’re providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a new resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed, and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the Council on this timely and necessary action. I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur.
Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women, or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We’ve witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom.
Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there any -- only one form of representative government -- because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them. Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.
Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and we must continue to show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world’s newest democracies.
Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world’s most vital -- and most volatile -- regions. They brutalized their peoples, in defiance of all civilized norms. Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they’re fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of us all.
The Afghan people are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. They’re fighting to defend their nation from Taliban holdouts, and helping to strike against the terrorists killers. They’re reviving their economy. They’ve adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation’s most cherished traditions. More than 10 million Afghan citizens -- over 4 million of them women -- are now registered to vote in next month’s presidential election. To any who still would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.
Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty. Today, in this hall, the Prime Minister of Iraq and his delegation represent a country that has rejoined the community of nations. The government of Prime Minister Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace. And under Security Council resolutions 1511 and 1546, the world is providing that support. The U.N., and its member nations, must respond to Prime Minister Allawi’s request, and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal, and free.
A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. So a terrorists group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today -- conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians, and the beheadings of bound men. Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.
Our coalition is standing beside a growing Iraqi security force. The NATO Alliance is providing vital training to that force. More than 35 nations have contributed money and expertise to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure. And as the Iraqi interim government moves toward national elections, officials from the United Nations are helping Iraqis build the infrastructure of democracy. These selfless people are doing heroic work, and are carrying on the great legacy of Sergio de Mello.
As we have seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt, and influence election outcomes. We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections. The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail.
The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.
These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice. For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.
This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The longsuffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.
Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.
The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere. In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi: “We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary; democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability.” Here at the United Nations, you know this to be true. In recent years, this organization has helped create a new democracy in East Timor, and the U.N. has aided other nations in making the transition to self-rule.
Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions. Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts and polling places, and support the work of election monitors. To show our commitment to the new Democracy Fund, the United States will make an initial contribution. I urge other nations to contribute, as well.
Today, I’ve outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity, and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy -- these causes, these ideals, call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together, we can accomplish so much more.
History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The charter states them with clarity: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,” “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them. I’m confident that this young century will be liberty’s century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
END 11:21 A.M. EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040921-3.html
Aligning Mars and Venus | By: Suzanne Fields (townhall.com)
I was listening to Rush today and he was saying something about how, with the help of Cell Miller that the President was cornering the (married) women's vote.
He also said that someone in the Kerry campaign said that it took nearly a decade to get the American People turned against the Vietnam War and now Kerry only has six months to do that over the Iraqi War. Isn't that nice? He thinks he can win if he can just get the American People to turn their backs on their children who are fighting in Iraq, like he did in the 60s and 60s!
Unfit for Command indeed!
Here is a woman's perspective on the former point (and I think it carries to the second as well):
--Ichabod Crane
PS, Please note the term "Cowardly Lion" in the text and remember who labeled Kerry that first! (Heh, heh, heh) --IC
----------------------------------
He also said that someone in the Kerry campaign said that it took nearly a decade to get the American People turned against the Vietnam War and now Kerry only has six months to do that over the Iraqi War. Isn't that nice? He thinks he can win if he can just get the American People to turn their backs on their children who are fighting in Iraq, like he did in the 60s and 60s!
Unfit for Command indeed!
Here is a woman's perspective on the former point (and I think it carries to the second as well):
--Ichabod Crane
PS, Please note the term "Cowardly Lion" in the text and remember who labeled Kerry that first! (Heh, heh, heh) --IC
----------------------------------
Aligning Mars and Venus
By: Suzanne Fields (townhall.com)
Which presidential candidate most appeals to the women? Four years ago, Al Gore thought he could expand his appeal to women with “earth tones” and getting in closer touch with his “feminine side.” It didn’t work.
For four years we’ve watched George W. swagger and now he tells us that’s simply how they “walk” in Texas. His greatest asset in wooing women is his wife, whose natural grace speaks well for the man she married.
Women have been emancipated too long to be wooed by sexy superficialities. But there’s something at work under the radar called the masculinity factor. George W. in his cowboy boots and Texas drawl is much more the natural man that appeals to feminine instincts. John Kerry, fastidiously coiffed in understated designer togs, is the contemporary metrosexual, looking as if he gives a good deal of attention and money to the way he looks. But how these images play into the gender gap is hard to calculate.
Kerry is an accomplished sportsman and a hunter, but exploiting those qualities seems to have given him an unexpected bump in the chin, like the kick from a Remington Model 870 pump-action shotgun. Late night comics ridiculed his windsurfing as merely trying to see which way the wind is blowing. When he appreciatively waved a hunting gun in the air for photo-ops, manly men observed that the gun was banned by legislation that he had sponsored in the Senate. Poor John. He simply doesn’t look comfortable in his macho skin.
The Kerry handlers, desperately searching for signs of a rainbow, have begun to treat him as though he were all three of Dorothy’s companions in “The Wizard of Oz” - Tin Man, who needs a heart, Cowardly Lion searching for courage and Scarecrow in pursuit of a brain. Dorothy, alas, is nowhere to be seen, and neither is the Yellow Brick Road.
Conventional wisdom dictates that more women will vote for the Democratic candidate, more men for the Republican. The numbers could determine the election. Immediately after 9/11, polls showed little difference in the way that both men and women rallied behind the president, but those numbers have swung back to the conventional formulation, though by narrower margins.
Four years ago, George Bush reduced the predicted gender gap by appealing to suburban women who liked his ideas for reform of the schools. This year the soccer mom has morphed into “security mom,” whose major concern is the safety of her children. When it comes to appreciating leadership in the war against terrorism, large majorities of men and women prefer the president over John Kerry - war heroics, wind surfing and illegal gun or not.
Many other gender factors can come into play this year. Women may be from Venus and men from Mars, but how they vote depends on the way their planets are in alignment. Marriage influences ballot choices. A majority of married women, for example, say they’ll vote for President Bush and a majority of unmarried women say John Kerry is their man, according to published polls, continuing the recent trend that more married women with children vote Republican than Democratic. Now there’s another problem for the senator. In the year 2000, 68 percent of married women actually voted and 52 of unmarried went to the ballot box. (It’s the Nuptial Gap, stupid.)
At their convention in New York, Republican delegates carried orange signs saying “W stands for women,” and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake acknowledges that “George W. Bush is literally the best Republican we’ve seen at targeting women voters.”
The president offers substance by detailing what he means by “empowerment” and the “opportunity society,” which ought to appeal to both married women, mothers and unmarried women who work. “Flex time” is about giving women opportunities to trade overtime in for time off. Tax cuts benefit women, too.
The Independent Women’s Forum exposes the myth behind feminist rhetoric against tax cuts. “Women should oppose feminists’ implicit assumption that women are better off when government has more and individuals have less,” writes Carrie Lukas, the forum’s policy director. “After all, surrendering resources is tantamount to surrendering independence.”
Cutting income taxes reduces the government’s burden on women (and their husbands) and offers more freedom to mothers to choose whether to work or stay home. Women - single and married - are increasingly investing in and working for small businesses and tax cuts help them expand their opportunities, income, independence and choices.
What do women want? Security most of all, and a president who can best keep Venus and Mars in alignment.
By: Suzanne Fields (townhall.com)
Which presidential candidate most appeals to the women? Four years ago, Al Gore thought he could expand his appeal to women with “earth tones” and getting in closer touch with his “feminine side.” It didn’t work.
For four years we’ve watched George W. swagger and now he tells us that’s simply how they “walk” in Texas. His greatest asset in wooing women is his wife, whose natural grace speaks well for the man she married.
Women have been emancipated too long to be wooed by sexy superficialities. But there’s something at work under the radar called the masculinity factor. George W. in his cowboy boots and Texas drawl is much more the natural man that appeals to feminine instincts. John Kerry, fastidiously coiffed in understated designer togs, is the contemporary metrosexual, looking as if he gives a good deal of attention and money to the way he looks. But how these images play into the gender gap is hard to calculate.
Kerry is an accomplished sportsman and a hunter, but exploiting those qualities seems to have given him an unexpected bump in the chin, like the kick from a Remington Model 870 pump-action shotgun. Late night comics ridiculed his windsurfing as merely trying to see which way the wind is blowing. When he appreciatively waved a hunting gun in the air for photo-ops, manly men observed that the gun was banned by legislation that he had sponsored in the Senate. Poor John. He simply doesn’t look comfortable in his macho skin.
The Kerry handlers, desperately searching for signs of a rainbow, have begun to treat him as though he were all three of Dorothy’s companions in “The Wizard of Oz” - Tin Man, who needs a heart, Cowardly Lion searching for courage and Scarecrow in pursuit of a brain. Dorothy, alas, is nowhere to be seen, and neither is the Yellow Brick Road.
Conventional wisdom dictates that more women will vote for the Democratic candidate, more men for the Republican. The numbers could determine the election. Immediately after 9/11, polls showed little difference in the way that both men and women rallied behind the president, but those numbers have swung back to the conventional formulation, though by narrower margins.
Four years ago, George Bush reduced the predicted gender gap by appealing to suburban women who liked his ideas for reform of the schools. This year the soccer mom has morphed into “security mom,” whose major concern is the safety of her children. When it comes to appreciating leadership in the war against terrorism, large majorities of men and women prefer the president over John Kerry - war heroics, wind surfing and illegal gun or not.
Many other gender factors can come into play this year. Women may be from Venus and men from Mars, but how they vote depends on the way their planets are in alignment. Marriage influences ballot choices. A majority of married women, for example, say they’ll vote for President Bush and a majority of unmarried women say John Kerry is their man, according to published polls, continuing the recent trend that more married women with children vote Republican than Democratic. Now there’s another problem for the senator. In the year 2000, 68 percent of married women actually voted and 52 of unmarried went to the ballot box. (It’s the Nuptial Gap, stupid.)
At their convention in New York, Republican delegates carried orange signs saying “W stands for women,” and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake acknowledges that “George W. Bush is literally the best Republican we’ve seen at targeting women voters.”
The president offers substance by detailing what he means by “empowerment” and the “opportunity society,” which ought to appeal to both married women, mothers and unmarried women who work. “Flex time” is about giving women opportunities to trade overtime in for time off. Tax cuts benefit women, too.
The Independent Women’s Forum exposes the myth behind feminist rhetoric against tax cuts. “Women should oppose feminists’ implicit assumption that women are better off when government has more and individuals have less,” writes Carrie Lukas, the forum’s policy director. “After all, surrendering resources is tantamount to surrendering independence.”
Cutting income taxes reduces the government’s burden on women (and their husbands) and offers more freedom to mothers to choose whether to work or stay home. Women - single and married - are increasingly investing in and working for small businesses and tax cuts help them expand their opportunities, income, independence and choices.
What do women want? Security most of all, and a president who can best keep Venus and Mars in alignment.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
The President's State of the Union Address, January 2002
I am sending it here now to remind people, in the midsts of all the muddy political rhetoric, of what the President actually said rather than what he is said to’ve said.
(In the indomitable words of Yogi Berra, “I didn’t say half the things I said.”)
------------------------------------------------------------
President Delivers State of the Union Address
The President's State of the Union Address
The United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
View the State of the Union
Read about USA Freedom Corps
Go to the State of the Union web page
9:15 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.)
We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression. (Applause.)
The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. (Applause.)
America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. (Applause.)
The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan's new government. And we welcome the new Minister of Women's Affairs, Doctor Sima Samar. (Applause.)
Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of our coalition, and to the might of the United States military. (Applause.) When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. And tonight, thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror. (Applause.) The man and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves -- you will not escape the justice of this nation. (Applause.)
For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day.
Last month, at the grave of her husband, Michael, a CIA officer and Marine who died in Mazur-e-Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper Fi, my love." Shannon is with us tonight. (Applause.)
Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom.
Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.
What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.)
Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. (Applause.)
Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.
My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)
But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)
Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.
September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party -- yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause.)
It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise. (Applause.)
My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades -- because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. (Applause.)
The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack. Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home.
My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence. We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters. (Applause.) We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States. (Applause.)
Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs. (Applause.) And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens.
A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones. (Applause.)
Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security, the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the American people. (Applause.) To achieve these great national objectives -- to win the war, protect the homeland, and revitalize our economy -- our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner. (Applause.) We have clear priorities and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas: We'll prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession. (Applause.)
Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. (Applause.) Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks -- they want a steady paycheck. (Applause.) When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. (Applause.)
Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. (Applause.) Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. (Applause.) Senator Judd Gregg. (Applause.) And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. (Laughter and applause.) I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing -- (laughter) -- but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results. (Applause.)
There is more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. (Applause.) We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. (Applause.)
Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil. (Applause.)
Good jobs depend on expanded trade. Selling into new markets creates new jobs, so I ask Congress to finally approve trade promotion authority. (Applause.) On these two key issues, trade and energy, the House of Representatives has acted to create jobs, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation. (Applause.)
Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. (Applause.) Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small; some thought it was too big. (Applause.) But when the checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right. (Applause.) Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit, and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)
The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend. For the sake of American workers, let's pass a stimulus package. (Applause.)
Good jobs must be the aim of welfare reform. As we reauthorize these important reforms, we must always remember the goal is to reduce dependency on government and offer every American the dignity of a job. (Applause.)
Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a patients' bill of rights -- (applause) -- to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage -- (applause) -- to approve an historic increase in the spending for veterans' health -- (applause) -- and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs. (Applause.)
A good job should lead to security in retirement. I ask Congress to enact new safeguards for 401K and pension plans. (Applause.) Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails. (Applause.) Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct. (Applause.)
Retirement security also depends upon keeping the commitments of Social Security, and we will. We must make Social Security financially stable and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them. (Applause.)
Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: productive farm policy -- (applause) -- a cleaner environment -- (applause) -- broader home ownership, especially among minorities -- (applause) -- and ways to encourage the good work of charities and faith-based groups. (Applause.) I ask you to join me on these important domestic issues in the same spirit of cooperation we've applied to our war against terrorism. (Applause.)
During these last few months, I've been humbled and privileged to see the true character of this country in a time of testing. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. (Applause.)
The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people.
And I hope you will join me -- I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis, our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)
None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do.
For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." (Applause.) In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass. (Applause.)
My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation. (Applause.) Many are already serving, and I thank you. If you aren't sure how to help, I've got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world.
One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies; volunteers to help police and fire departments; transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger.
Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.
And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years -- (applause) -- and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. (Applause.)
This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. (Applause.) And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.
All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. (Applause.)
No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. (Applause.)
America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.
In this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before, to achieve peace and prosperity. In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom. (Applause.)
The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed. (Applause.) Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together. Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy -- especially in tragedy -- God is near. (Applause.)
In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we've been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential.
Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life. (Applause.)
Steadfast in our purpose, we now press on. We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory.
Thank you all. May God bless. (Applause.)
END 10:03 P.M. EST
(In the indomitable words of Yogi Berra, “I didn’t say half the things I said.”)
------------------------------------------------------------
President Delivers State of the Union Address
The President's State of the Union Address
The United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
View the State of the Union
Read about USA Freedom Corps
Go to the State of the Union web page
9:15 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.)
We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression. (Applause.)
The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. (Applause.)
America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. (Applause.)
The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free, and are part of Afghanistan's new government. And we welcome the new Minister of Women's Affairs, Doctor Sima Samar. (Applause.)
Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of our coalition, and to the might of the United States military. (Applause.) When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. And tonight, thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror. (Applause.) The man and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves -- you will not escape the justice of this nation. (Applause.)
For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day.
Last month, at the grave of her husband, Michael, a CIA officer and Marine who died in Mazur-e-Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper Fi, my love." Shannon is with us tonight. (Applause.)
Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom.
Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.
What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.
Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. (Applause.)
Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. (Applause.)
Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.
While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia.
My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)
But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)
Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.
September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party -- yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause.)
It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise. (Applause.)
My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades -- because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay. (Applause.)
The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack. Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home.
My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence. We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters. (Applause.) We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States. (Applause.)
Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs. (Applause.) And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens.
A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones. (Applause.)
Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security, the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the American people. (Applause.) To achieve these great national objectives -- to win the war, protect the homeland, and revitalize our economy -- our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term, so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner. (Applause.) We have clear priorities and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas: We'll prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession. (Applause.)
Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. (Applause.) Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks -- they want a steady paycheck. (Applause.) When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. (Applause.)
Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. (Applause.) Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. (Applause.) Senator Judd Gregg. (Applause.) And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. (Laughter and applause.) I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing -- (laughter) -- but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results. (Applause.)
There is more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. (Applause.) We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. (Applause.)
Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil. (Applause.)
Good jobs depend on expanded trade. Selling into new markets creates new jobs, so I ask Congress to finally approve trade promotion authority. (Applause.) On these two key issues, trade and energy, the House of Representatives has acted to create jobs, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation. (Applause.)
Good jobs depend on sound tax policy. (Applause.) Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small; some thought it was too big. (Applause.) But when the checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right. (Applause.) Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit, and ending the death tax. For the sake of long-term growth and to help Americans plan for the future, let's make these tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)
The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend. For the sake of American workers, let's pass a stimulus package. (Applause.)
Good jobs must be the aim of welfare reform. As we reauthorize these important reforms, we must always remember the goal is to reduce dependency on government and offer every American the dignity of a job. (Applause.)
Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a patients' bill of rights -- (applause) -- to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage -- (applause) -- to approve an historic increase in the spending for veterans' health -- (applause) -- and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs. (Applause.)
A good job should lead to security in retirement. I ask Congress to enact new safeguards for 401K and pension plans. (Applause.) Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails. (Applause.) Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct. (Applause.)
Retirement security also depends upon keeping the commitments of Social Security, and we will. We must make Social Security financially stable and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them. (Applause.)
Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: productive farm policy -- (applause) -- a cleaner environment -- (applause) -- broader home ownership, especially among minorities -- (applause) -- and ways to encourage the good work of charities and faith-based groups. (Applause.) I ask you to join me on these important domestic issues in the same spirit of cooperation we've applied to our war against terrorism. (Applause.)
During these last few months, I've been humbled and privileged to see the true character of this country in a time of testing. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. (Applause.)
The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people.
And I hope you will join me -- I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis, our First Lady, Laura Bush. (Applause.)
None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do.
For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." (Applause.) In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass. (Applause.)
My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation. (Applause.) Many are already serving, and I thank you. If you aren't sure how to help, I've got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world.
One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies; volunteers to help police and fire departments; transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger.
Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.
And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years -- (applause) -- and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. (Applause.)
This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. (Applause.) And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.
All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.
If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. (Applause.)
No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. (Applause.)
America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.
In this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before, to achieve peace and prosperity. In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom. (Applause.)
The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed. (Applause.) Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together. Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy -- especially in tragedy -- God is near. (Applause.)
In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we've been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential.
Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life. (Applause.)
Steadfast in our purpose, we now press on. We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory.
Thank you all. May God bless. (Applause.)
END 10:03 P.M. EST
Bush’s Honorable Air National Guard Service By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
Bush also signed his form-180 allowing the Pentagon to release his military records; John F'ing Kerry has not. John F'ing Kerry IS running on his service record (that he won't release); the President is not.
The following story is about President Bush's miliitary service; "Unfit for Command" is John F'ing Kerry's...
Bush’s Honorable Air National Guard Service
By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004
George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush’s because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee’s Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.
Lt. Bush’s opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don’t remember looking ahead (and I’m sure Lt. Bush didn’t either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard’s Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world’s first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)
Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country’s National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush’s mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.
I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don’t strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I’ve been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying “Missing Man Formations” and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.
Cowards (or people who lack courage) don’t take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, “a dynamic outstanding young officer” who stood out as “a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot.” “Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries,” Colonel Killian wrote: “He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”
As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized -- with short notice -- to deploy anywhere in the world.
During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.
Just as Lt. Bush’s supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush’s Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush’s documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush’s service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 -- the impetus for me to write this letter.)
There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush’s honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn’t be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces.
Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes -- they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election -- as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe.
Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States -- having given their lives for their country.
Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry’s four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.
Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm’s way.
As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I’m grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country’s success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy.
We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn’t be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust?
Addendum
DNC - Kerry Campaign - CBS 60 Minutes
Left-Wing Allegations and Fraudulent Documents
Response to DNC Video “Fortunate Son
The Democrat National Committee (DNC), the Kerry Campaign, CBS 60 Minutes and their liberal media supporters have launched the fifth major attack on President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The purpose of this attack is to enhance Kerry’s election prospects by dishonoring President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG) and undermining his credibility as Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces.
Concurrent with the airing of Dan Rather’s (CBS’ 60 Minutes program on 09/08/2004) hit piece on President Bush, DNC’s Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senator Tom Harkin piled on with vitriolic attacks on President Bush’s service record. CBS’ program (using fraudulent documents to launch their attack on President Bush) served as the kick-off call for a coordinated nationwide attack on Bush’s ANG record. “Operation Fortunate Son” is the code name that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC have given for their attacks on George W. Bush’s service in the Guard.
Lying Allegation:
The DNC alleges that President Bush falsely claimed he served in the United States Air Force and therefore lied about his military service record. This is the DNC’s specific allegation: “George W. Bush’s campaign literature claimed that he ‘served in the U.S. Air Force.’ The only problem? He didn’t,” “George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,”
Response to Allegation:
When I went through flight training in the United States Air Force (USAF), we had Air National Guard (ANG) Officers in my pilot training squadron. For economic reasons, the ANG turns to the Air Force to do its undergraduate pilot training. President Bush served in the Air Force for more than a year (as an ANG officer) while going through USAF flight training.
Also, the United States has exchange officers from other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that come to the U.S. to fly in our Air Force flying squadrons. Upon return to the UK, these Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots would say they served in the USAF (as an RAF Exchange officer) and that’s what would be reflected in their personnel records. Similarly, our flying officers are assigned to squadron flying positions in the RAF. Their personnel records would reflect that they served in the RAF (as an USAF Exchange Officer).
Additionally, as part of Lt. Bush’s training (prior to attending USAF Flight Training), Lt. Bush was placed on active duty with the Air Force for 120 days. This would be another basis for saying he served in the Air Force. To deny that fact would mean that all service people who are in training status are not serving their country. This would be absurd but nothing surprises me any more with the DNC/Kerry Campaign and what they will do and say in their quest for power.
Conclusion: The DNC doesn’t know what it’s talking about. You don’t have to be an active-duty Air Force officer to serve in the Air Force as either an ANG pilot or an exchange pilot. George W. Bush’s description in his campaign literature as having served in the USAF and ANG was correct; he did not lie about his service record as alleged by the DNC.
Influence Allegation: Another allegation is that Lt. Bush used political influence to get in the ANG.
Response to Allegation:
President Bush’s father (President George H.W. Bush) has publicly stated that the Bush family did not pull any strings to get George W. Bush into the ANG. George W. Bush got a pilot slot in the ANG because he took the steps necessary to make himself a worthy applicant.
Left-Wing Democrats have alleged that there were 150 applicants trying to get in the ANG; that Bush was a “Fortunate Son” who was given preferential treatment; and that he was leapfrogged over all these applicants based on political pressure and special influence. This is a false charge. Here are the facts.
Most applicants were applying for ANG enlisted positions not for pilot training. The highest number of pilot applicants that the Texas ANG Group had (at any one time) during the Vietnam War was around ten. The reason for this very low number was there were stringent educational, security clearance and physical requirements that had to be met for pilot training in the ANG; also, there was a high “danger factor” in flying the F-102 aircraft. For every ten pilot applicants, usually only two were selected by the ANG to attend USAF pilot training school.
The question everyone needs to honestly ask themselves is: Why wouldn’t the ANG want George W. Bush in their organization? How many Yale graduates do you think the ANG had to choose from (probably only one) his name was George W. Bush? So when George W. Bush went for his interview with Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt (Texas ANG Group Commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston), it would seem to me that Col. Staudt’s decision to select George W. Bush for pilot training was a good one for the ANG - separate from any other consideration. Given that George W. Bush ended up being President of the United States, one might conclude that Colonel Staudt was an excellent judge of character; that he made the right decision.
Ben Barnes, another one of CBS’ 60 Minutes helpers in orchestrating the attacks against President Bush’s ANG record, states in his interview with Dan Rather that he helped George W. Bush get into the ANG. The only problem is that Ben Barnes previously swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting George W. Bush into the Guard. Additionally, this question came up in the 2000 election and Ben Barnes’ daughter asked her father if he had anything to do with helping George W. Bush get into the ANG. He told his daughter no (that he didn’t help Bush get in the Guard). So what has changed? Ben Barnes is now a big fund raiser and supporter of John Kerry and may have a job with Kerry - should Kerry be elected President. This is the “reliable source” Dan Rather used to attack President Bush and help validate the content of CBS’ fraudulent memos.
Conclusion: I believe that the liberal media - agenda driven - propaganda machine has not presented a fair and balanced perspective about George W. Bush’s ANG service, instead, their many articles have left readers with the impression that George W. Bush was given preferential treatment over 150 ANG applicants and that the only way he would have been selected for a pilot slot would be if someone helped him politically; nothing could have been further from the truth.
Default Allegation: George W. Bush defaulted on meeting his ANG Service Requirements
Response to Allegation:
Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush’s time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973.
It was not uncommon for pilots to depart the ANG earlier than their established service commitment back in the early seventies. Allowing pilots to transition into civilian life served the best interests of the ANG in managing its pilot force. Why? The answer is simple: there were too many pilots versus the number of cockpits required to keep pilots current in their assigned aircraft. The glut of pilots was the result of a phase down of flying operations in Southeast Asia and Vietnam.
Also, it was common for ANG pilots (who were going to leave the service) to work out with their commanders, assignments not involving flying duty. The benefit to the individual was that it helped work the transition from ANG service to civilian life. The benefit to the Guard was that they could replace less experienced pilots with “high flight time” combat seasoned pilots.
An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn’t take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102’s in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge.
Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush’s ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.
Byron York in his September 9, 2004 article provided the numbers I use in the below chart.
All I did was add up the points. NOTE: Any objective reporter could have totaled the numbers to give people a more balanced perspective on Lt. Bush’s ANG record; they chose not to. Now let’s look at the ANG point system and how Lt. Bush measured up against it.
Accumulating Points toward Air National Guard Service Requirements
As you serve in the Air National Guard, you accumulate points toward meeting your ANG service requirements. When Lt. Bush was serving, the minimum points required (annually) to meet ANG requirements was fifty (50 points). The DNC, Kerry Campaign and Liberal Media are obsessed with validating that Lt. Bush earned all the ANG points necessary to qualify for his honorable discharge. They are particularly concerned with points accumulated after April 1972.
I’ve constructed the chart below to show that Lt. Bush not only met his annual requirements but exceeded them threefold - 954 earned versus a 300 point minimum requirement. Lt. Bush’s strong record of Guard service supported his early release from a six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School. He received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973 having served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days.
BUSH EXCEEDS AIR NATIONAL GUARD ANNUAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (THREEFOLD FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD)
Air National Guard Service Period
Minimum Annual Requirement
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush
May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253
May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340
May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137
May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112
May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56
Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56
Ref:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Minimum Annual Requirement - 300
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954
Fraudulent Documents Used to Attack Bush
Multiple salvos are being fired at Bush by the DNC, Kerry Campaign and their liberal media surrogates - to dishonor President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard and undermine George W. Bush’s credibility as Commander-In-Chief. The preponderance of evidence is that the Kerry Campaign was the planned benefactor of the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush. But something went terribly wrong; we have a fraudulent document scandal and the mask has been pulled off CBS’ extraordinary effort to undermine the President of the United States; help the DNC and get Kerry elected President.
It appears that CBS’ 60 Minutes attack on Bush helped to get (in one fell swoop) thousands of liberal writers to dust off their last article (bashing President Bush’s ANG service), touch it up and re launch it. This massive left-wing driven effort hopes to get the media focus off of Kerry and back onto President Bush.
Now look at the Fraudulent Memo to File (below) produced by CBS.
As of 09/15/2004, CBS’ 60 Minutes stands by its story that the memos were copies of original Air National Guard documents.
Observations regarding the 18 August 1973 memo:
Typewriters used by the Air National Guard in 1973 (at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron) lacked the technology to produce the 18 August 1973 Memo for File -- to the specifications of today’s Microsoft Word technology. The technology lacking was proportional typeface, superscript, curly apostrophes, Times New Roman font and vertical spacing.
Should you have doubts that the memo is a fraud (after viewing my re-type), then validate the memo yourself. Instructions: Take the 18 August 1973 memo that CBS says is a copy of the original document produced in 1973 and copy it into Microsoft Word. Then set your font to the default setting - “Times New Roman Font 9”. Don’t change anything from Microsoft Word default settings; i.e., the type size (font 9), tab stops, and margins. Now type the memo that CBS says Lt. Col Killian typed over 30 years ago. Walla, you get the 1973 message exactly. The spacing is the same, letters line up (look above and below each sentence) and line breaks are the same.
Since anyone can quickly ascertain that this document is fraudulent merely by going through the above exercise (you don’t need a documents expert, handwriting expert or typewriting expert), then why weren’t the DNC, Kerry’s Campaign and CBS able to determine that these documents were fraudulent (using their experts)?
Other Points about the 18 August 2004 Memo for File:
Filing a memo with “SUBJECT: CYA” is unlikely; files are subject to inspection.
During the years Lt. Bush was in the Air National Guard (ANG) the abbreviation for an Officer’s Efficiency Report would be O.E.R. not OETR.
Col. Staudt retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March 1972 almost 1½ years before the date of the fraudulently constructed memo of 18 August 1973.
Staudt would not be in a position to exert pressure on Hodges or Killian (to sugar coat Lt. Bush’s O.E.R.) because he was not in the command line of either; he was retired.
Lt. Bush would not be getting an O.E.R. from Lt. Col Killian because he wasn’t under Lt. Col Killian’s observation for the number of days required to rate him. Also, Lt. Bush was leaving the Air National Guard and such a report would be of no advantage to the Guard and no advantage to Lt. Bush for career advancement in the Guard. The import of an O.E.R. (being rendered on Lt. Bush) would be minimal since he was on his way to Harvard Business School and leaving the military.
I’m not going to analyze the other CBS memos but offer this comment. Most of these memos would be a lot about nothing even if they weren’t fraudulent. It’s fascinating that the content of these memos just happen to coincide with the attack points used by the Kerry Campaign/DNC.
The DNC, Kerry Campaign, CBS’ 60 Minutes and the liberal media establishment know nothing about ANG flying units; know nothing about the conversations Lt. Bush had with Lt. Col Killian 30 years ago; know nothing about what Lt. Col Killian authorized Lt. Bush do (regarding meeting his service requirements); know nothing about what they talked about concerning Lt. Bush’s flight physical and know nothing about the views of the officers holding command positions at the time Lt. Bush served in the ANG.
But what all of us now know (based on the recent comments of ANG Colonels and Generals) is that George W. Bush was seen as an excellent officer, a top-notch pilot and highly respected by the officers and commanders who flew with him in the ANG. We know, also, that he was greatly respected by his Fighter Interceptor Squadron Commander - Lt. Col Jerry Killian -- based on comments of Killian’s wife and son. We know that Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge from the Air National Guard.
Despite all the positive comments of the commanders in Lt. Bush’s ANG chain of command (as well as the pilots that flew with him), the DNC/Kerry campaign and the mass liberal media continue belittling the service of our Commander-In-Chief.
Kerry’s efforts to malign Bush’s military service in the Air National Guard and undermine President Bush’s credibility with the American people (while promoting himself as a war hero) will not be well received by the American people. See my article: Kerry’s Strategy to Undermine Bush CLICK HERE Zell Miller best discribes John Kerry’s qualifications for Commander-In-Chief (Click Here). President Bush has served as Commander-In-Chief for three and a half years. We can judge his performance. I’m voting for the re-election of President Bush.
What Should Happen Now?
CBS must divulge who gave them the fraudulent documents. It’s okay for news organizations to protect information sources. It is not okay for them to use their journalistic cover to protect people who have played a part in a hoax on the American public. The use of fraudulent documents (in an effort to influence the outcome of a national election and take down a sitting President) is serious criminal activity and needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted.
-----------
John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
The following story is about President Bush's miliitary service; "Unfit for Command" is John F'ing Kerry's...
Bush’s Honorable Air National Guard Service
By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004
George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush’s because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.
Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee’s Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.
Lt. Bush’s opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don’t remember looking ahead (and I’m sure Lt. Bush didn’t either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard’s Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world’s first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)
Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country’s National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush’s mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.
I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don’t strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I’ve been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying “Missing Man Formations” and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.
Cowards (or people who lack courage) don’t take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, “a dynamic outstanding young officer” who stood out as “a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot.” “Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries,” Colonel Killian wrote: “He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”
As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized -- with short notice -- to deploy anywhere in the world.
During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.
Just as Lt. Bush’s supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush’s Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush’s documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.
As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush’s service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 -- the impetus for me to write this letter.)
There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush’s honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn’t be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces.
Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes -- they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election -- as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe.
Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States -- having given their lives for their country.
Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry’s four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.
Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm’s way.
As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I’m grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country’s success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy.
We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn’t be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust?
Addendum
DNC - Kerry Campaign - CBS 60 Minutes
Left-Wing Allegations and Fraudulent Documents
Response to DNC Video “Fortunate Son
The Democrat National Committee (DNC), the Kerry Campaign, CBS 60 Minutes and their liberal media supporters have launched the fifth major attack on President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The purpose of this attack is to enhance Kerry’s election prospects by dishonoring President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG) and undermining his credibility as Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces.
Concurrent with the airing of Dan Rather’s (CBS’ 60 Minutes program on 09/08/2004) hit piece on President Bush, DNC’s Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senator Tom Harkin piled on with vitriolic attacks on President Bush’s service record. CBS’ program (using fraudulent documents to launch their attack on President Bush) served as the kick-off call for a coordinated nationwide attack on Bush’s ANG record. “Operation Fortunate Son” is the code name that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC have given for their attacks on George W. Bush’s service in the Guard.
Lying Allegation:
The DNC alleges that President Bush falsely claimed he served in the United States Air Force and therefore lied about his military service record. This is the DNC’s specific allegation: “George W. Bush’s campaign literature claimed that he ‘served in the U.S. Air Force.’ The only problem? He didn’t,” “George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,”
Response to Allegation:
When I went through flight training in the United States Air Force (USAF), we had Air National Guard (ANG) Officers in my pilot training squadron. For economic reasons, the ANG turns to the Air Force to do its undergraduate pilot training. President Bush served in the Air Force for more than a year (as an ANG officer) while going through USAF flight training.
Also, the United States has exchange officers from other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that come to the U.S. to fly in our Air Force flying squadrons. Upon return to the UK, these Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots would say they served in the USAF (as an RAF Exchange officer) and that’s what would be reflected in their personnel records. Similarly, our flying officers are assigned to squadron flying positions in the RAF. Their personnel records would reflect that they served in the RAF (as an USAF Exchange Officer).
Additionally, as part of Lt. Bush’s training (prior to attending USAF Flight Training), Lt. Bush was placed on active duty with the Air Force for 120 days. This would be another basis for saying he served in the Air Force. To deny that fact would mean that all service people who are in training status are not serving their country. This would be absurd but nothing surprises me any more with the DNC/Kerry Campaign and what they will do and say in their quest for power.
Conclusion: The DNC doesn’t know what it’s talking about. You don’t have to be an active-duty Air Force officer to serve in the Air Force as either an ANG pilot or an exchange pilot. George W. Bush’s description in his campaign literature as having served in the USAF and ANG was correct; he did not lie about his service record as alleged by the DNC.
Influence Allegation: Another allegation is that Lt. Bush used political influence to get in the ANG.
Response to Allegation:
President Bush’s father (President George H.W. Bush) has publicly stated that the Bush family did not pull any strings to get George W. Bush into the ANG. George W. Bush got a pilot slot in the ANG because he took the steps necessary to make himself a worthy applicant.
Left-Wing Democrats have alleged that there were 150 applicants trying to get in the ANG; that Bush was a “Fortunate Son” who was given preferential treatment; and that he was leapfrogged over all these applicants based on political pressure and special influence. This is a false charge. Here are the facts.
Most applicants were applying for ANG enlisted positions not for pilot training. The highest number of pilot applicants that the Texas ANG Group had (at any one time) during the Vietnam War was around ten. The reason for this very low number was there were stringent educational, security clearance and physical requirements that had to be met for pilot training in the ANG; also, there was a high “danger factor” in flying the F-102 aircraft. For every ten pilot applicants, usually only two were selected by the ANG to attend USAF pilot training school.
The question everyone needs to honestly ask themselves is: Why wouldn’t the ANG want George W. Bush in their organization? How many Yale graduates do you think the ANG had to choose from (probably only one) his name was George W. Bush? So when George W. Bush went for his interview with Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt (Texas ANG Group Commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston), it would seem to me that Col. Staudt’s decision to select George W. Bush for pilot training was a good one for the ANG - separate from any other consideration. Given that George W. Bush ended up being President of the United States, one might conclude that Colonel Staudt was an excellent judge of character; that he made the right decision.
Ben Barnes, another one of CBS’ 60 Minutes helpers in orchestrating the attacks against President Bush’s ANG record, states in his interview with Dan Rather that he helped George W. Bush get into the ANG. The only problem is that Ben Barnes previously swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting George W. Bush into the Guard. Additionally, this question came up in the 2000 election and Ben Barnes’ daughter asked her father if he had anything to do with helping George W. Bush get into the ANG. He told his daughter no (that he didn’t help Bush get in the Guard). So what has changed? Ben Barnes is now a big fund raiser and supporter of John Kerry and may have a job with Kerry - should Kerry be elected President. This is the “reliable source” Dan Rather used to attack President Bush and help validate the content of CBS’ fraudulent memos.
Conclusion: I believe that the liberal media - agenda driven - propaganda machine has not presented a fair and balanced perspective about George W. Bush’s ANG service, instead, their many articles have left readers with the impression that George W. Bush was given preferential treatment over 150 ANG applicants and that the only way he would have been selected for a pilot slot would be if someone helped him politically; nothing could have been further from the truth.
Default Allegation: George W. Bush defaulted on meeting his ANG Service Requirements
Response to Allegation:
Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush’s time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973.
It was not uncommon for pilots to depart the ANG earlier than their established service commitment back in the early seventies. Allowing pilots to transition into civilian life served the best interests of the ANG in managing its pilot force. Why? The answer is simple: there were too many pilots versus the number of cockpits required to keep pilots current in their assigned aircraft. The glut of pilots was the result of a phase down of flying operations in Southeast Asia and Vietnam.
Also, it was common for ANG pilots (who were going to leave the service) to work out with their commanders, assignments not involving flying duty. The benefit to the individual was that it helped work the transition from ANG service to civilian life. The benefit to the Guard was that they could replace less experienced pilots with “high flight time” combat seasoned pilots.
An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn’t take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102’s in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge.
Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush’s ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.
Byron York in his September 9, 2004 article provided the numbers I use in the below chart.
All I did was add up the points. NOTE: Any objective reporter could have totaled the numbers to give people a more balanced perspective on Lt. Bush’s ANG record; they chose not to. Now let’s look at the ANG point system and how Lt. Bush measured up against it.
Accumulating Points toward Air National Guard Service Requirements
As you serve in the Air National Guard, you accumulate points toward meeting your ANG service requirements. When Lt. Bush was serving, the minimum points required (annually) to meet ANG requirements was fifty (50 points). The DNC, Kerry Campaign and Liberal Media are obsessed with validating that Lt. Bush earned all the ANG points necessary to qualify for his honorable discharge. They are particularly concerned with points accumulated after April 1972.
I’ve constructed the chart below to show that Lt. Bush not only met his annual requirements but exceeded them threefold - 954 earned versus a 300 point minimum requirement. Lt. Bush’s strong record of Guard service supported his early release from a six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School. He received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973 having served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days.
BUSH EXCEEDS AIR NATIONAL GUARD ANNUAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (THREEFOLD FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD)
Air National Guard Service Period
Minimum Annual Requirement
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush
May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253
May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340
May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137
May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112
May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56
Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56
Ref:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Minimum Annual Requirement - 300
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954
Fraudulent Documents Used to Attack Bush
Multiple salvos are being fired at Bush by the DNC, Kerry Campaign and their liberal media surrogates - to dishonor President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard and undermine George W. Bush’s credibility as Commander-In-Chief. The preponderance of evidence is that the Kerry Campaign was the planned benefactor of the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush. But something went terribly wrong; we have a fraudulent document scandal and the mask has been pulled off CBS’ extraordinary effort to undermine the President of the United States; help the DNC and get Kerry elected President.
It appears that CBS’ 60 Minutes attack on Bush helped to get (in one fell swoop) thousands of liberal writers to dust off their last article (bashing President Bush’s ANG service), touch it up and re launch it. This massive left-wing driven effort hopes to get the media focus off of Kerry and back onto President Bush.
Now look at the Fraudulent Memo to File (below) produced by CBS.
As of 09/15/2004, CBS’ 60 Minutes stands by its story that the memos were copies of original Air National Guard documents.
Observations regarding the 18 August 1973 memo:
Typewriters used by the Air National Guard in 1973 (at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron) lacked the technology to produce the 18 August 1973 Memo for File -- to the specifications of today’s Microsoft Word technology. The technology lacking was proportional typeface, superscript, curly apostrophes, Times New Roman font and vertical spacing.
Should you have doubts that the memo is a fraud (after viewing my re-type), then validate the memo yourself. Instructions: Take the 18 August 1973 memo that CBS says is a copy of the original document produced in 1973 and copy it into Microsoft Word. Then set your font to the default setting - “Times New Roman Font 9”. Don’t change anything from Microsoft Word default settings; i.e., the type size (font 9), tab stops, and margins. Now type the memo that CBS says Lt. Col Killian typed over 30 years ago. Walla, you get the 1973 message exactly. The spacing is the same, letters line up (look above and below each sentence) and line breaks are the same.
Since anyone can quickly ascertain that this document is fraudulent merely by going through the above exercise (you don’t need a documents expert, handwriting expert or typewriting expert), then why weren’t the DNC, Kerry’s Campaign and CBS able to determine that these documents were fraudulent (using their experts)?
Other Points about the 18 August 2004 Memo for File:
Filing a memo with “SUBJECT: CYA” is unlikely; files are subject to inspection.
During the years Lt. Bush was in the Air National Guard (ANG) the abbreviation for an Officer’s Efficiency Report would be O.E.R. not OETR.
Col. Staudt retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March 1972 almost 1½ years before the date of the fraudulently constructed memo of 18 August 1973.
Staudt would not be in a position to exert pressure on Hodges or Killian (to sugar coat Lt. Bush’s O.E.R.) because he was not in the command line of either; he was retired.
Lt. Bush would not be getting an O.E.R. from Lt. Col Killian because he wasn’t under Lt. Col Killian’s observation for the number of days required to rate him. Also, Lt. Bush was leaving the Air National Guard and such a report would be of no advantage to the Guard and no advantage to Lt. Bush for career advancement in the Guard. The import of an O.E.R. (being rendered on Lt. Bush) would be minimal since he was on his way to Harvard Business School and leaving the military.
I’m not going to analyze the other CBS memos but offer this comment. Most of these memos would be a lot about nothing even if they weren’t fraudulent. It’s fascinating that the content of these memos just happen to coincide with the attack points used by the Kerry Campaign/DNC.
The DNC, Kerry Campaign, CBS’ 60 Minutes and the liberal media establishment know nothing about ANG flying units; know nothing about the conversations Lt. Bush had with Lt. Col Killian 30 years ago; know nothing about what Lt. Col Killian authorized Lt. Bush do (regarding meeting his service requirements); know nothing about what they talked about concerning Lt. Bush’s flight physical and know nothing about the views of the officers holding command positions at the time Lt. Bush served in the ANG.
But what all of us now know (based on the recent comments of ANG Colonels and Generals) is that George W. Bush was seen as an excellent officer, a top-notch pilot and highly respected by the officers and commanders who flew with him in the ANG. We know, also, that he was greatly respected by his Fighter Interceptor Squadron Commander - Lt. Col Jerry Killian -- based on comments of Killian’s wife and son. We know that Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge from the Air National Guard.
Despite all the positive comments of the commanders in Lt. Bush’s ANG chain of command (as well as the pilots that flew with him), the DNC/Kerry campaign and the mass liberal media continue belittling the service of our Commander-In-Chief.
Kerry’s efforts to malign Bush’s military service in the Air National Guard and undermine President Bush’s credibility with the American people (while promoting himself as a war hero) will not be well received by the American people. See my article: Kerry’s Strategy to Undermine Bush CLICK HERE Zell Miller best discribes John Kerry’s qualifications for Commander-In-Chief (Click Here). President Bush has served as Commander-In-Chief for three and a half years. We can judge his performance. I’m voting for the re-election of President Bush.
What Should Happen Now?
CBS must divulge who gave them the fraudulent documents. It’s okay for news organizations to protect information sources. It is not okay for them to use their journalistic cover to protect people who have played a part in a hoax on the American public. The use of fraudulent documents (in an effort to influence the outcome of a national election and take down a sitting President) is serious criminal activity and needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted.
-----------
John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Notes from The Federalist (www.federalist.com) number 4-37 Brief
Notes from The Federalist (www.federalist.com) number 4-37 Brief
“Members of the liberal media elite have become rather choosy when it comes to advocating stem-cell cures for degenerative medical conditions. To these commentators, cures using adult stem cells just aren’t the ‘right’ cures. For stem-cell therapy to really count, it has to come from embryos. Indeed, even the most astonishing research advances using adult cells are ignored by these arbiters of public policy as if they never happened. And since liberal elites dominate public discourse in the stem-cell debate, the American people remain generally unaware of these astonishing scientific advances. ... Media opponents of President Bush’s stem-cell policy often accuse the president of deciding science questions based on religious beliefs. But they are the ones whose ideological predilections and personal antipathy for political opponents are making them incapable of appreciating the evidence. As the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.”
--Wesley Smith
“This young century will be liberty’s century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”
--President George W. Bush
“It is the responsibility of the President of the United States...to ensure that the safety of our people cannot be successfully threatened by a hostile foreign power.”--Ronald Reagan
“Now say someone comes to you looking for a job. Right off the bat, you notice something strange about his résumé: It goes on for page after page about a job he held for four months, more than 35 years ago, but makes only the barest mention of anything he’s done since. You have him in for an interview, and he can’t give you a straight answer to any question about what he plans to do in the job if you hire him. ... Still, you decide to check out his references. (John Edwards: “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him.”) Some sing his praises quite extravagantly, but a greater number describe him harshly as a man of dubious character, and some accuse him of lying on his résumé. He acknowledges a few embellishments but refuses to provide you with documents that would shed light on the other accusations. Would you hire this man? And would you fire an employee of four years’ standing in order to create an opening for him?”
--James Taranto
[Holy crap, batman! - IC]
“Here’s the reality: Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation’s presidents, including the most recent. I researched the Presidential Documents -- the official collection of every public presidential statement. An examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton during his eight years in office. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush’s 4.7. Bush’s biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements. This was the year of September 11; he was especially introspective, and often looked upward for strength. In 2002, he cited Christ in five statements. Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents displayed only two statements in which Bush mentioned his Savior: the Easter and Christmas messages. It may be reasonable to conclude that the hostile press reaction to Bush’s mention of Jesus has pressured him into silence. Such pressure was never placed on Bush’s Democrat predecessor. President Bill Clinton’s top year for Christ remarks was 1996 -- the year of his reelection campaign -- when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.” --Dr. Paul Kengor
[Some of their readers’ comments]
-- I have always endorsed the following type of solution, especially on airplanes. Naturally, on airplanes we’d need smaller calibers with rounds designed to fragment rather than penetrate.
– Ichabod Crane
“The terrorist attack in Russia last week could never happen here thanks to Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. They passed the ‘Gun Free School Zone’ bill. The terrorists would never dream of breaking such a law. In reality, why not follow the example of Israel where administrators, teachers, parents, grandparents and older students are armed and trained. This has prevented bloodshed in their schools.” --Butte, Montana
-- I openly admit, as if I hadn’t previously, that I hate John F’ing Kerry; and this is exactly why.
– Ichabod Crane
“I saw a campaign slogan this morning that read ‘Kerry for a Stronger America.’ We know what Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony did; how it empowered the enemy to continue the fight, how his testimony was used to further torture the POWs in captivity. What is John Kerry’s current rhetoric, that Iraq is the ‘wrong war,’ doing for the morale of the troops stationed in or returning to Iraq? Is it emboldening the insurgents in Fallujah or Najaf? How does this help strengthen America? Kerry undermined and endangered his brothers in arms in 1971 and he is doing so now.”
--Collierville, Tennessee
The Last Word
“Zell Miller can’t understand how someone who aspires to be commander-in-chief can vote for a war, and then oppose the appropriations to fund it at the moment of truth -- no matter how John Kerry tries to explain away that vote as just a matter of parliamentary procedure, a misunderstanding because, after all, he voted for the appropriations before he voted against them. Ol’ Zell can’t see how a responsible wartime leader could think, and vote, like that. Not when American troops are committed and in the field. Neither can I.”
--Paul Greenberg
I’ll also second that puzzlement – Ichabod Crane
“Members of the liberal media elite have become rather choosy when it comes to advocating stem-cell cures for degenerative medical conditions. To these commentators, cures using adult stem cells just aren’t the ‘right’ cures. For stem-cell therapy to really count, it has to come from embryos. Indeed, even the most astonishing research advances using adult cells are ignored by these arbiters of public policy as if they never happened. And since liberal elites dominate public discourse in the stem-cell debate, the American people remain generally unaware of these astonishing scientific advances. ... Media opponents of President Bush’s stem-cell policy often accuse the president of deciding science questions based on religious beliefs. But they are the ones whose ideological predilections and personal antipathy for political opponents are making them incapable of appreciating the evidence. As the old saying goes, none are so blind as those who will not see.”
--Wesley Smith
“This young century will be liberty’s century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”
--President George W. Bush
“It is the responsibility of the President of the United States...to ensure that the safety of our people cannot be successfully threatened by a hostile foreign power.”--Ronald Reagan
“Now say someone comes to you looking for a job. Right off the bat, you notice something strange about his résumé: It goes on for page after page about a job he held for four months, more than 35 years ago, but makes only the barest mention of anything he’s done since. You have him in for an interview, and he can’t give you a straight answer to any question about what he plans to do in the job if you hire him. ... Still, you decide to check out his references. (John Edwards: “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him.”) Some sing his praises quite extravagantly, but a greater number describe him harshly as a man of dubious character, and some accuse him of lying on his résumé. He acknowledges a few embellishments but refuses to provide you with documents that would shed light on the other accusations. Would you hire this man? And would you fire an employee of four years’ standing in order to create an opening for him?”
--James Taranto
[Holy crap, batman! - IC]
“Here’s the reality: Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation’s presidents, including the most recent. I researched the Presidential Documents -- the official collection of every public presidential statement. An examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton during his eight years in office. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush’s 4.7. Bush’s biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements. This was the year of September 11; he was especially introspective, and often looked upward for strength. In 2002, he cited Christ in five statements. Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents displayed only two statements in which Bush mentioned his Savior: the Easter and Christmas messages. It may be reasonable to conclude that the hostile press reaction to Bush’s mention of Jesus has pressured him into silence. Such pressure was never placed on Bush’s Democrat predecessor. President Bill Clinton’s top year for Christ remarks was 1996 -- the year of his reelection campaign -- when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.” --Dr. Paul Kengor
[Some of their readers’ comments]
-- I have always endorsed the following type of solution, especially on airplanes. Naturally, on airplanes we’d need smaller calibers with rounds designed to fragment rather than penetrate.
– Ichabod Crane
“The terrorist attack in Russia last week could never happen here thanks to Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. They passed the ‘Gun Free School Zone’ bill. The terrorists would never dream of breaking such a law. In reality, why not follow the example of Israel where administrators, teachers, parents, grandparents and older students are armed and trained. This has prevented bloodshed in their schools.” --Butte, Montana
-- I openly admit, as if I hadn’t previously, that I hate John F’ing Kerry; and this is exactly why.
– Ichabod Crane
“I saw a campaign slogan this morning that read ‘Kerry for a Stronger America.’ We know what Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony did; how it empowered the enemy to continue the fight, how his testimony was used to further torture the POWs in captivity. What is John Kerry’s current rhetoric, that Iraq is the ‘wrong war,’ doing for the morale of the troops stationed in or returning to Iraq? Is it emboldening the insurgents in Fallujah or Najaf? How does this help strengthen America? Kerry undermined and endangered his brothers in arms in 1971 and he is doing so now.”
--Collierville, Tennessee
The Last Word
“Zell Miller can’t understand how someone who aspires to be commander-in-chief can vote for a war, and then oppose the appropriations to fund it at the moment of truth -- no matter how John Kerry tries to explain away that vote as just a matter of parliamentary procedure, a misunderstanding because, after all, he voted for the appropriations before he voted against them. Ol’ Zell can’t see how a responsible wartime leader could think, and vote, like that. Not when American troops are committed and in the field. Neither can I.”
--Paul Greenberg
I’ll also second that puzzlement – Ichabod Crane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)