Replies

Whether Arafat stays or goes is quite beside the point. The Palestinians want Israel's annihilation. They're backed by repressive Arab countries, like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Egypt does their bidding as well. Bush knows full well that there's no chance the state which will border Israel will be a republic. He also knows that land for peace is a sham. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work in the future. Land isn't the issue. These are terrorists. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hebollah, and the rest. The President's speech was not a speech of a statesman. It was more of the same platitudes. But worst of all, it tells terrorists throughout the world that the Bush Doctrine is dead. Yes, we defeated the Taliban, but since then we've been on defense. We've not taken the steps even in our own country that are necessary to ensure our own protection -- from arming pilots, closing our borders to illegal immigrants, stopping and searching all would-be airline passengers who come from terrorist states or states like Saudi Arabia, arming pilots and co-pilots, x-raying all luggage, putting armed marshalls on all flights, etc. I think the Anerican people know what needs to be done, and they're way ahead of the politically correct leadership in Washington. The President must do more, and he must not concern himself with what the media or congressional Democrats or the Europeans think or say about him. What's right is right. It's one thing for the president to compromise his entire domestic agenda, which is bad enough. But to falter in the war on terrorism is simply intolerable. There's too much at stake.

If you would try to think a bit more clearly, you'll see that he is paving the way to a democratic Middle East.One that will not pose threats on a geo-political scale.The Bush Doctrine is alive and well, and sneaky too.He is offering hope to those under a jackboot of thugs, whether in Israel (PLO), Iraq, Iran and the rest.What is between the lines is that the US cannot afford to have these nations remain as they are.How many times does he need to say this before you get the point? Those regimes are toast.

Bush pulled a fast one, again.

This speech does not strike me as a concession, but instead, something different.

In the war on terrorism (and also in the political war with the left that Bush is fighting), he pretty much has told himself:
"In carrying out the task assigned....you will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy."

In terms of the war on terror, I want him to make sure we act quickly and decisively to halt threats, and he has done quite well on that front. I don't think there are many complaints, particularly from those who have a fair bit of knowledge on military matters.

On the domestic front, I, as a conservative, only want to see us engage when one of the following three questions will be answered yes:

1. Will engaging in this political battle probably result in the passage of legislation that reflects consevrative principles?

2. Will engaging in this battle probably help elect more conservatives to office?

3. Will engaging in this battle probably help toss Democrats out, even if it would elect a moderate Republican?

If the answer is yes to any ONE of these questions (the more YES answers, the better, of course), engage in the political battle, and go for it full-tilt. If the answer is NO to all three questions, then pull back, and live to fight a political battle another day.

Some people might see that as a sell-out. I prefer to think of it as making sure we don't fight and lose for nothing. What good will it do the principle wes both stand for if conservatives lose elections because we picked the wrong fight and/or didn't plan properly for the political battle?

"I think the Anerican people know what needs to be done, and they're way ahead of the politically correct leadership in Washington."

Sure we Americans in all our townships, towns and cities know what to do. At our level. But at the most important coordinating level, and the national (not federal) level the legs and arms are asleep. Everybody expects that the all-knowing Federal Behemoth at Master Bush's beck and call has things well under control.

That when big trouble comes that our Federal G-men will be there to guide us out of the flood of it. But they are not up it, they can not be, they don't see things from botttom up, but top down. They race to protect themselves. For us we aint't nothing but a convenient field trip away from probable targets.

We are set to learn the hard way. May we survive it.

G-d help us learn quickly and with minimum discomfort.