Today, President Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset, or parliament and in amazingly blunt and stark language condemned those who would want to negotiate with terrorists and or their patrons http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4861337.
As the video link showed, President Bush never said any one person and or groups name, but for some reason, the Sen. Barack campaign, its allies and the Democrat party went into hyper overdrive in denouncing the President Bush remarks.
Look at the video. Did President Bush say Sen. Barack Obama? Did he say the Democrat party?
No and no.
What the president did was lay bare what the position is of not just the American left, but much of the rest of the world.
Europe has long been in the appeasement business when it comes to its dealings with much of the rouge states of the Islamic and radical Arab world. Just look at the involvement of the former French president, Jacques Chirac, in not just his dealings with Saddam Hussein, but in the United Nations Oil For Food scandal.
Europe has also bought into the Arab League boycott of Israel and companies that trade and or deal with Israel.
And yet, what has it brought? Has Europe been spared the scourge of radical Islamofacsist terror?
Once again, no.
What President Bush was trying to articulate, in blunt language, is that the United States can not cut deals with tyrants and terrorists in a vain attempt to stave off the inevitable.
If Sen. Barack and his minions take that as an attack against his stated positions and likely policies should he, God forbid, be elected president, then so be it.
Sen. Barack has tried to explain his position about "talking" with our enemies with no preconditions. Why, he even tried to resurrect former President Ronald Reagan. Sen. Barack claimed that Mr. Reagan talked to our enemies. And, that is true. But, what Sen. Barack fails to mention is that he did not talk to any Soviet thug since there were three different ones in his first term. Once Mikhail Gorbachev took the reins, and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sized Gorbachev up did Mr. Reagan begin conversation. And, there were preconditions. Primarily, the reduction of nuclear weapons, not what previous administrations had done in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. And, Mr. Reagan wanted not to accommodate the Soviet Union, but defeat it. Period.
Since we are dealing with rogue states that do not care about international convention, and terrorists that are not bound by any nation, treaty or concern of world opinion, how do we get to the talking Sen. Barack? What do we ask them for? What do we give up. Who do we give up? What will we get in return?
So, what President Bush was saying is what should be the obvious. We can not deal rationally with rouge states and must utterly defeat the Islamofacsist terrorists.
Since that seemed to rattle the Sen. Barack campaign, it seems like someone got the President's message.
What I will miss from President Bush is, to coin a phrase, straight talk. Something we can really use now more than ever in dealing seriously with the Islamofacsist terror threat.
4 comments:
It's the first time in years I've felt like the man who inspired us after 9/11 was talking.
One thing that disappointed me about Bush is he didn't do enough straight talk. I thought that during the course of the war he should have been talking to Americans from the heart, and that would have kept him on offense instead of defense. And his poll #s (not that it matters) would be much higher.
I agree with all of you...W seems to have given up. I can see that he is a bit defeated by public opinion but at the same time he is still very resolute in his commitment against terror, unlike most of the country. I am glad to hear I am not the only W fan left standing. Let's put another nickel in him. enjoyed the read. :)N
the sad thing that is lost in bush's speech is it was directed at a nation who's protection is dependent in some regard on the united states. and obama and the rest of the left couldn't acknowledge that fact.
Post a Comment