From Neal Boortz today:
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
ARE YOU FOLLOWING THE AL QAEDA SCRIPT
Yesterday President Bush made a speech to the Military Officers Association in Washington D.C. The transcript can be found in the reading assignments.
One part of the speech is especially interesting. Bush was discussing some of the messages that our intelligence forces have found in captured Al Qaeda documents. Here's a portion of Bush's speech where he discusses a letter from Osama bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "launch," in his words, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government will bring them more losses in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed to serve the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."
So ... a question. Are you living up to Osama's expectations? If you're a Democrat, or if you're living in a tree house in Crawford, Texas, the answer is probably "yes."
DEMOCRATS TAKING ON NATIONAL SECURITY
The mid-term elections are 2 months away and like the Republicans, the Democrats have internal polling. They know the war in Iraq is unpopular and George W. Bush is their lightning rod they can use to their advantage in advertising and their campaigns. But they also know one other thing.
They know that Americans perceive them as being weak on national security.
There's a reason for that. Democrats ARE weak on national security. We'll get to that in a minute.
So the Democratic Party has decided to try and close the gap a bit...and are now on the offensive when it comes to the issue. Just yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid tried took a shot at George W. Bush, saying "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live." The GOP shot back that there have been no terrorist attacks in 5 years and all Reid and his bunch want to do is cut and run in Iraq. That's also true.
But whenever Democrats try to bring up this idea that we're so vulnerable national security-wise under the Bush Administration, the media never holds them accountable for what they did the last time they had the reins. It wasn't that long ago that Bill Clinton was President of the United States (even though some of us may be trying to forget.) Let's take a peek at the record, shall we?
It was during the Clinton Administration that we experienced attack and after attack by Islamic terrorists...and nothing was done about it. The first World Trade Center bombing? Nothing. The debacle in Somalia? No response. The bombing of our African embassies? Zero action. Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The Democrats did nothing. All the while, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were emboldened....propped up by our appeasement strategy. During the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, Islamic terrorists plotted and planned their greatest attack: September 11th. And so they pulled it off.
And it was the policies and procedures of the Clinton Administration that benefited the 9/11 hijackers, right up until the end. They could have been caught, but "the wall" put into place during Jamie Gorelick's tenure at the Department of Justice prevented the sharing of intelligence across agencies. And yet she was put on the 9/11 Commission.
That's what the media should be asking the Democrats about when they want to say they're better on national security. But it'll never happen.
SHOULD RUMSFELD STEP DOWN?
Donald Rumsfeld...
has got to go
is doing a heck of a job
who?
Numerous Democrats have been calling recently for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. They didn't like it too much when Rumsfeld compared those opposed to the War on Terror to the Nazi appeasers in the late 1930's. As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. At any rate, the conventional wisdom on the Left is that Rummy screwed up the war, so he should have to go. He should be fired. Let's look at that reasoning.
Rumsfeld has been President Bush's Secretary of Defense for his entire tenure as president, since January of 2001. During that time, Rumsfeld has guided the Pentagon through two major wars...the one in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. The first was seen as a smashing success....the latter not so much these days. But what Democrats and the media are missing is that Rumsfeld was also just as successful in Iraq.
Remember the invasion in March of 2003? It took only a matter of days for Rumsfeld's military to march to Baghdad and put the Iraqi military in surrender mode. Uday and Qusay were killed. Saddam was captured. By any measure of military success, the invasion was a roaring success with minimal casualties. So Rumsfeld gets the credit for that. So what has he done wrong?
He gets blamed for everything...but really, he shouldn't. Take Iraq. Was it Rumsfeld's decision to disband the Iraqi military, creating a security nightmare? Nope. That one belongs to former administrator Paul Bremer. What about the decision to allow the looting to take place after the invasion? Rumsfeld wasn't running the show in Iraq then either. Is it Donald Rumsfeld that is running the insurgency that has been so hard to get rid of? Hardly.
Oh..but there's Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. The alleged abuses that took place there are surely his fault! Not if you believe the investigations that took place. There's no evidence the higher ups had anything to do with or knew anything about any sort of abuses. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make Rumsfeld guilty of anything.
So in the end, Rumsfeld stays. And he'll probably stay in his job right up until Bush leaves office, just to irritate the Democrats.
CINDY SHEEHAN BACK IN THE NEWS
Ladies and gentlemen .. introducing the face of the American pacifist, appeasement, anti-war movement! Barking Moonbat Cindy Sheehan!
You know that your day wouldn't be complete without your daily dose of the goings-on of the Crawford Crackpot, Cindy Sheehan. She's the anti-war protester that has set up shop down at President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch the past couple years. She drifts in and out of the news, doing one thing or another to get some attention. But the latest headlines concern her new house she's planning on building.
You see, she bought a plot of land down there near the Bushes, but she had somebody buy it for her, knowing that nobody would want to sell to her. She was right. Once the person who sold realized it was for her, they immediately regretted the transaction. But Cindy Sheehan has her property. And now she wants to build a house. But not just any house.
According to "Mother Sheehan," her new digs will be a tree house. She gave an interview to the Waco Tribune in which she talked about her plans. Actually ... it's rather appropriate. A moonbat treehouse. I wonder if she'll put some straps in there so she can hang upside-down from a limb while sleeping at night.
Come on now ... is this the best the peace-at-any-price movement in the U.S. can come up with?
boortz.com |
