Good For Mr. Bush

Good for Mr. Bush! In an address to the Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, Mr. Bush delivered a passionate, reasoned, and specific justification for not quitting, cowering, and running from our unfinished business in Iraq.

With the exception of perhaps two U.S. Senators, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, the Democratic party has become the political party of defeatism that supports cutting, quitting, running and abandoning the Iraqi people to the car bombers, suicide bombers, assassins, and insurgents who support not only terrorism but the return to power of Saddam Hussein. Democrats Kerry, H. Clinton, B. Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, Murtha, Dean, Boxer, Pelosi, and Feingold have taken the same position that Ted Kennedy’s father Joe Kennedy took with Hitler prior to US involvement in WWII: APPEASEMENT. For the record, appeasement was a colossal failure in WWII, and it will be a catastrophic failure with Islamist Fascists extremists Jihadists.

So the loud, whinning, criticizing political party once known as the Democratic Party has become one of pacifism, hide, run, cower, appease, and caving in to terrorist totalitarianism in foreign policy. The extremist radical liberal obstructionist party hides from its own shadows, stands for nothing substantive, and fails to produce any viable alternative solutions to foreign and even domestic policy for that matter. The sad fact is that the Democratic Party once stood for democracy, and now they run from it, oppose it, and support the return to power of the totalitarian dictator Saddam Hussein.

We would not be in this situation today had Jimmy Carter been more decisive and brave when the Iranians took 52 Americans hostage in 1979 for 444 days. What did Carter do? Well, in reality, nothing but cower, hide, and slither into a corner in the Oval Office and occasionally act like the Wizard of Oz making a feeble yet ill planned and totally unprepared attempt at rescuing these captured Americans.

Again the opportunity to stand up to totalitarian terrorists was never taken during the administration of William Jefferson Clinton who failed to respond to the first World Trade Towers attack in 1993, did nothing to retaliate the attack on US forces at the Khobar Towers, feebly attacked an aspirin factory when two US embassies were attacked, chose not to stand up to the Taliban in 1998, twice turned down the opportunity to be given Osama Bin Ladin in 1998, and in 2000 ignored the terrorist attack on the US Cole.

In addition to his cowardice in the face of the totalitarian zealots, Clinton's personal dislike for the military and intelligence community resulted in a weakened and incapacitated military as well as a watered down, token intelligence community that couldn't find a terrorist if their life depended on it. Clinton's administration also was the recipient of Chinese political monetary donations at the same time the Chinese were stealing willy-nilly our nuclear missile codes.

No wonder the Democratic Party today is imbued with defeatism and resorts to appeasement as their only viable alternative solution to Islamist Fascist Jihadism. The Democrats along with their comrades the liberal, leftist main stream media are anti-American military, anti-American intelligence, and anti-U.S. in everything. They delight in any reports of U.S. failures and glee with enthusiasm when reporting any U.S. military set backs. Their latest inept spokesman John Murtha said that "Our military is our problem." Now he says our military is broken and not up to its capacity. Well, Mr. Murtha, which President did everything he could to destroy our military? Which members of Congress failed to go to that President and plead with him that his actions were wrong and deplorable? Why Mr. Murtha do you refuse to accept email from anyone outside your Congressional district yet you round around the country blathering like a mad man who is obsessed with being an obstructionist?

The last two Democratic Presidents, Carter and Clinton, were the consummate appeasers who ran, hid, cowered, slithered and failed to stand for democracy but were superb at defeatism.

Extremist Radical Liberal Obstructionists

What major issues now pose a problem for the Bush Administration? The question seems simple to answer, but the response is not. For those of us who are Monday morning quarterbacks, we can easily spout off a response. But the problem with our response is that we aren't the ones walking in the President's shoes.

A President of the United States, unlike his counterparts in most other nations, has been given numerous roles to play at the same time. Often these roles are in conflict with one another to the point that they totally derail one another. For example, we expect the President to be the Commander in Chief while at the same time we expect him to be the Chief Diplomat.

Mr. Bush is also expected to be the Chief Legislator who has to work with a bicameral, bipartisan legislature that views itself as a co-equal branch of the government. ( At times, Congress reflects an inflated ego and hubris that reveals a Congress that believes it is the dominant branch of goverment.)

Mr. Bush is presumed to be the leader of his party who must work with the opposing party which of late has assumed the characteristics of an extremist radical liberal obstructionist party that seeks to destroy and demonize its political opposition.

So, what do we list as the President's most challenging issues? 1. To promote the common defense: stop terrorism--wherever it is. 2. To provide for the general welfare: social security, healthcare, and education reform. 3. To insure domestic tranquility: stop illegal immigration by shoring up our national borders.

Are these issues easily solved? No, and certainly not if the extremist radical liberal obstructionists in Congress (Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, Durban, Leahy, Boxer, Pelosi, and Murtha) continue to stall, insult, pitch hissy fits, and simply act as domestic insurgents. The only option remaining for the Bush Administration is to attack these political hacks for what they are: extremist radical liberal obstructionists who seek one thing: power instead of solutions to very serious political, economic, and social issues.