J's Cafe Nette

Archive for September 14th, 2007

I imagine this is a preview of things to come. Let there be many, many more.

It is so important for the Republican candidates to keep the pressure on Senator Clinton and continue to pursue the challenging questions which will never be asked otherwise.

Here was the response to this ad from the Clinton camp.

Later Friday, Clinton’s campaign shot back, saying:

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ‘08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy.”

As statements go, this one does nothing to address the issues in the video. It will be very interesting to see if in the future the candidate herself speaks to these questions.

Tweet This Post

This must be the British version of American Idol and while I am not usually into reality type programming, a friend sent this off to me and watching it to its conclusion, I admit I had the same reaction as the female judge in this competition. What a lovely little girl and what a great voice for someone so young.

If you are prone to children touching your heart, you might just want to have a tissue or two around.

Tweet This Post

After a fly around the web on Friday, here are a few reads I thought I might share. Hope you find them informative and enjoyable.

“On the Theological Basis of Prayer and Liturgy”: is an offering from No Left Turns.
In one brief paragraph Peter Lawler makes some very interesting points about man, God and freedom.

Once again, short and sweet but very much to the point is this post at the Analyst Blog. Good for a chuckle and oh so true.
HT:
American Thinker

Feeling the need to include a 9-11 post which might have been missed by some, I submit one which is simple yet poignant. If you have the time and wish to be inspired again the videos are well worth review. I wish my week would have been as short and sweet as these posts as this one from Classical Values requires only seconds to view sans videos.

Check out this piece at Say Anything and if you are a parent, I am certain that you can relate to this piece. What is particularly wonderful is it proves Patriotism is alive and well in our country.

and last but most certainly not least:

Today was the last day at DOJ for Attorney General Gonzales. This post at the Law Blog in the Wall Street Journal sums up the situation quite well.

Have a great beginning to the weekend.

Tweet This Post

Once the archived records of Senator Hillary Clinton’s White House schedule are ready for release it will be up to former President Clinton and President Bush to decide if either will claim Executive Privilege.

An estimated 10,000 pages of daily schedules from Senator Clinton’s tenure as first lady could be made public as soon as December, though Presidents Clinton and Bush could postpone the records’ release, a National Archives official said yesterday.

“Our hope is to get it done by the end of the year,” the acting director of the Clinton Presidential Library, Emily Robison, told The New York Sun. She stressed that she was only referring to the review and redaction of the records by archivists. Under the Presidential Records Act and an executive order issued by Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton’s representatives then have 90 days to review the records for materials that could be covered by executive privilege. After that review is complete, Mr. Bush has an unlimited amount of time to make his own privilege assertions.

It is unclear whether the disclosure of redacted versions of Mrs. Clinton’s schedules will ultimately have significance for her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, it seems likely that Mr. Clinton’s former aides will have control over the timing of the process just as the nominating contest reaches its peak early next year. The political atmosphere is sure to increase pressure on the former president not to be responsible for any delay.

It would be interesting to see how much information is actually released after the redactions take place, assuming the two presidents agree to release them.

Mrs. Clinton has been in the news a lot this week, but none of it has been good for her.

Do I have Clinton fatigue deja vu?

Tweet This Post

According to this report the national deficit is declining despite having a war and housing crisis going on.

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through the first 11 months of this budget year totaled $274.4 billion, down 9.8 percent from the same period a year ago.

Analysts believe the deficit for all of 2007 will actually be even lower because they are forecasting a sizable surplus in the final month, reflecting in part timing issues that caused about $44 billion in Social Security and Medicare payments that normally would have been made in September to be shifted into August.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that when this budget year wraps up on Sept. 30, the deficit will total $158 billion, down by 36.2 percent from last year’s $248.2 billion deficit.

The government’s books have been helped this year by record flows of tax receipts, which have continued even though economic growth has been reduced by a serious slump in housing.

I just fail to understand why anyone thinks tax cuts are bad for the economy. It has been proven more than once that tax cuts actually bring in more revenue than higher taxes.

The reason is simple: when taxes are cut businesses are able to hire more people who in turn pay taxes which raises the tax collections and reduces the deficit.

It seems simple to me, but then I’m not a Congresscritter.

Tweet This Post

The National Republican Congressional Committee is putting together some videos with spokesmen from the party leadership to discuss issues and bring them directly to the public.

Here is the first of their videos.

If you like this please go over to their site to view more in the series as they become available or to view other videos and read the posted articles.

Tweet This Post

Thanks Mr. Thompson for saying what needed to be said. And in short order no less..we don’t see that very often these days in the political arena.

Also, if you missed it, courtesy of Fox News here is Rudy Giuliani on the President’s speech and Hillary Clinton’s remarks to General Petraeus at the Senate hearings.

We need more of this strong, to the point talk. Lot’s more.

Tweet This Post

A group called Freedom’s Watch is fighting back against Moveon.org’s nasty NY Times ad placed earlier this week, in which they called General Petraeus “General Betray Us”.

A political group supporting President Bush’s Iraq war strategy with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign is airing a new TV ad denouncing a liberal group’s sharp criticism of Gen. David Petraeus.

The campaign is the second rollout of ads by the group, Freedom’s Watch, and capitalizes on Democratic Party unease over a newspaper ad run this week by MoveOn.org, one of the leading anti-war voices among liberal activists.

Here is their counter ad:

Freedom’s Watch also plans to respond to MoveOn with a print ad in The New York Times, and has demanded the same $65,000 rate that the liberal group paid for its full-page ad. Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David said his organization paid “significantly more” for another full-page ad Tuesday on the 9/11 anniversary.

That ad, however, was a more expensive full-page color ad, compared to MoveOn’s, which was black and white. The rate also would have been higher if Freedom’s Watch asked for a specific date and placement of the ad. David said The New York Times did not offer Freedom’s Watch the $65,000 rate.

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communication at the Times, said she could not discuss specific advertisers, but said the rate for a special advocacy, full-page, black and white, standby ad is $64,575. At that rate, an advertiser can request that an ad run on a specific date, but cannot be guaranteed such placement.

If you wish to learn more about Freedom’s Watch or view their other videos go here. While you’re at it you may want to send a check to them.

Tweet This Post

I will attempt to transcribe the President’s address to the nation made this evening.

President Bush:

Good evening.

In the life of all free nations there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

We are now at such a moment. In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.

If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies it will mean a more hopeful middle east and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States and tonight our moral and strategic comparitives are one. We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June.

This week General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable, yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving; that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods.

For lasting reconciliation to take root Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it.

As I will explain tonight our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq; especially Baghdad and Anbar Province.

Once these forces were in place our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds.

And finally, in areas that have been cleared we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to insure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out.

Instead we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it so they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity I sent an additional 4,000 to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheikhs, Iraqi forces and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers.

Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding.

Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return and they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show Al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they showed the world that ordinary people in the Mid-East want the same things for their children that we want for ours: a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against Al Qaeda was murdered. In response a fellow Sunni leader declared, “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads, and for most Iraqis the quality of life is far from where it should be.

Yet General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago much of Baghdad was under seige. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are re-opening, citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down and ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baquoba was emerging as an Al Qaeda stronghold. Today Baquoba is cleared, Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside Coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago Shiia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military. They are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government who has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks, and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget, they’re sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with the Iraqi forces they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains.

According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones the Iraqi Army is becoming more capable, although there’s still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police.

Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations and this is improving their ability to hold areas that had been cleared.

Because of this success General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an army combat brigade for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and Iraqis assume more control over their own security our mission in Iraq will evolve.

Over time our troops will shift from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and eventually to over-watching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks including counter-terrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefitted from their advice and I have accepted General Petraeus’ recommendations.

I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is Return on Success. The more successful we are the more American troops can return home. And in all we do I will insure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home have been at odds. Now because of the measure of success we’re seeing in Iraq we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible for the first time in years for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror, and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed and for the safety of future generations of Americans we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq extremists of all strains would be emboldened, Al Qaeda could regain new roots and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare, democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September 11, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military and I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do have confidence that America does not abandon our friends and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who targeted Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help by implementing the international compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the neighbors’ conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you and the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stoudt of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly, yet in their sorrow they see larger purpose. His wife Audrey says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents Tracy and Jeff wrote me this: “We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.”

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stoudt who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just and right and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to Al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

I felt the president touched on every important subject in this debate over Iraq.

The surge is working and if allowed, the new strategy will also work and we can bring most of our troops home in victory instead of defeat.

We already know the Democratic leadership has denounced the Petraeus report and the president’s speech before either was ever heard, but this speech is meant to keep those who have opposed the cut and run strategy of that leadership on the side of victory.

I believe the president succeeded.

If you’d rather see the video go here.

Tweet This Post

I know I’m late with this but I was away last week and didn’t get to see the bin Laden speech to America.

I’ve been catching up on my email reading and found this issue of the Omega Letter by Jack Kinsella to be an interesting read.

With much advance fanfare, world’s most wanted man resurfaced via videotape, fit, (and fat), and sporting an obviously fake beard. In the video, he looks more like one of the Smith Brothers (of the cough drop box fame) than Osama bin Laden.

Transcripts of his rambing, thirty minute speech have already been vetted by the government and released to the public. According to voice analysis, the beard might be fake, but the voice is Osama’s.

The video calls into question if he is even still in the region. Until now, authorities have been looking for a tall, gaunt Saudi fighter wearing a long beard among a population of gaunt Arab fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If Osama shaved off his beard, shed the robes and combat fatigues for a sweater and jeans, he could walk down a main street in Brooklyn without attracting notice.

Judging from his condition, the persistent rumors of his imminent death from kidney disease are pretty much dashed. And Osama, now fifty years old, doesn’t look like he’s seen the inside of a cave for years.

Counterterror and intelligence officials confirmed it was bin Laden on the tape, which they said appears to have been recently made. Bin Laden mentions the Aug. 6th sixty-second anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. By itself, that proves nothing about when the video was made.

But Osama also mentions British Prime Minister Gordon Brown among leaders of the West with a “flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings.” That inclusion dates the video sometime after June 27, when Brown became PM. Taken together with the reference to Hiroshima, it suggests sometime after August 6th.

Osama specifically expresses disappointment in his erstwhile allies, the Democrats — for whom Osama stumped in October, 2004 by endorsing John Kerry) — for failing to force a withdrawal from Iraq.

“Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.”

Osama’s speech is addressed to the American people, but it is clear that his intended audience was exclusively the American Left. “People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped.”

He hit all the ‘hot buttons’ that stir them; Vietnam, corporate greed, hinted at the reemergence of the 1960’s “Military-Industrial Complex” and even took pains to deny involvement in the Kennedy assassination so as to not further alienate his perceived allies.

Osama even singled out Noam Chomsky, one of America’s most prominent Marxists and iconic thinker of the American Far Left, calling him “the most capable of those from your own side.”

“And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.”

Osama is very specific here; “your representatives in the Democratic Party” and, “your desire to stop the war. . .” — it doesn’t leave much doubt as to where Osama believes he’ll find a sympathetic ear, does it?

Having carefully and specifically identified his intended audience, Osama launches into a tirade against the Republicans that could have been scripted by Nancy Pelosi’s scriptwriter:

“And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.”

Then, still speaking to those Americans ‘whose Democratic representatives failed to stop the war’, Osama offers them one more chance to surrender or die.

“However, there are two solutions for stopping it [the war]. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. . . I invite you to embrace Islam . . . ”

Osama goes on to say, “embracing Islam will also achieve your desire to stop the war as a consequence, because as soon as the warmongering owners of the major corporations realize that you have lost confidence in your democratic system and begun to search for an alternative, and that this alternative is Islam, they will run after you to please you and achieve what you want to steer you away from Islam.”
(So you don’t really have to believe it — you can just use Islam as a tool to get what you want politically.)

And wait. . . there’s more! Low taxes!
“There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling only 2.5%. So beware of the deception of those with the capital. . .”, meaning, of course, the Republicans.

Assessment:

As already noted, anybody with a brain the size of a walnut can see that Osama views as his strong suit in his war against America — the Democrats in general and the American Left in particular.

It has been the Democrats’ practice to continually bring up analogies to Vietnam. Continuing the analogies, Osama is simply using the same tactics that resulted in Saigon being renamed Ho Chi Minh City three decades ago.

Uncle Ho learned it from Josef Stalin, who learned it from Vladimir Lenin. Referring to those in the West who denied the existence of the Communist police state, Lenin called them “useful idiots,” noting that the “capitalist dupes will sell us the rope with which to hang them.”

Osama is just tapping into his “Useful Idiot” tool box.
What is remarkable to me is the way that the mainstream press is reporting the story. Sean Hannity was blistered by them for saying Osama sounds just like the Democrats.

Thundered the website “Newshounds” (slogan: “We watch Fox News so you don’t have to”:

“Perhaps at a loss as to how to spin the new video of Osama Bin Laden in favor of President Bush, Sean Hannity decided he’d use it to attack his fellow Americans. The self-styled “Great American” proved just what kind of patriot and freedom lover he truly is by twice likening Democrats to Osama bin Laden.”

Asks Newshounds, “Is there any partisanship more despicable?”
(Actually, yes. The kind of blind partisanship that would find Sean Hannity more despicable than Osama bin Laden)

It isn’t partisan to say Osama sounds like the Democrats — which is what Hannity said — IF Osama sounds like the Democrats. It would only be partisan to say that if he didn’t.
But not only does Osama sound like he’s reading from the DNC’s talking points, he makes a point of addressing the Democrats by name!

Following Osama’s description of “their side” to the letter, the Democrats immediately reacted to Osama’s speech by attacking the “other side” — not Osama bin Laden, but George Bush.
Senator Robert Menendez said bin Laden was “out there and breathing easy, in a safe haven, and helping direct global attacks” because the US military is distracted by Iraq.

(Osama: “This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports.”
“Not only is Osama bin Laden at large and back in business, but the Department of Homeland Security continues to receive failing grades.”

(Osama: America’s “prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically.”
Fellow Democratic senator Bob Casey said the Iraq war was a ‘digression’ from the hunt for bin Laden. “Having to police a civil war is drawing resources from that effort,” he said.

(Osama: “Then Bush talks about his working with al-Maliki and his government to spread freedom in Iraq but he in fact is working with the leaders of one sect against another sect, in the belief that this will quickly decide the war in his favor. And thus, what is called the civil war came into being and matters worsened at his hands. . “

Frankly, I think Hannity got it exactly backwards. Osama doesn’t sound like the Democrats. It’s the Democrats that sound like bin-Laden.

Tweet This Post