Monday, September 25, 2006

DEOMOCRATS UNLEASH REID, PELOSI, DEAN

There aren’t many press releases sent out on weekends as a rule. This Sunday was different, with the ‘Three-headed Democratic Monster’ each, issuing, statements. Here’s a taste of Harry Reid’s statement:

“Once again, the American people have learned that the Bush Administration has not been honest with them about the war in Iraq. Press reports say our nation’s intelligence services have confirmed that President Bush’s repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe. No election-year White House PR campaign can hide this truth. It is crystal clear that America’s security demands we change course in Iraq. The war in Iraq is now in its fourth year and Congress has yet to ask the tough questions and get the honest answers our nation’s security demands. Tomorrow, that will change. With the Democratic Policy Committee’s hearings into the conduct of the war in Iraq, we will finally take America in a new direction.”

Democrats insist that this NIE proves their case that the Bush administration’s policies have made us less safe than we should be but how credible is this information? Let’s consider that the NIE is a classified document, meaning that someone with an anti-Bush agenda leaked this information. It’s worth remembering another leak of NIE information claiming that the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence to lie us into war. When that NIE was declassified, it was clear that the leaker was the one who cherry-picked the information.

Let’s next look at Reid’s statement that “It is crystal clear that America’s security demands we change course in Iraq.” Why is it “crystal clear” that present Bush administration policy must be changed to protect America? The fact that we’ve gone 5 years without getting attacked again by terrorists? Or has America’s being in Iraq prevented us from aggressively interrogating AQ terrorists which thwarted other terrorist attacks?

That’s all the attention that that statement deserves. Let’s next look at Pelosi’s brief statement:

“The news report on the National Intelligence Estimate is further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror. Five years after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is still free and not a single terrorist who planned 9/11 has been caught and brought to justice. President Bush should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism.”

Let’s first establish that this wasn’t just a news report about the NIE; it was a leak by someone with an anti-Bush agenda. That alone should call into question the leak’s veracity. Second of all, Pelosi’s statement that President Bush “should read the intelligence carefully” won’t fly with the American people, who’ve known from the first days after 9/11 that President Bush has, to appropriate a Clinton phrase, focused like a laser beam on stopping all other terrorist attacks. In fact, most Americans recognized long ago that President Bush, Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party are the only ones who’ve been serious about fighting the GWOT.

Finally, Ms. Pelosi’s lamenting that Khaled Sheikh Muhammed hasn’t been brought to trial is disingenuous. She’s aware that the CIA has been interrogating KSM all this time, with the CIA getting alot of information from those interrogations. This gives Ms. Pelosi a choice: Would Ms. Pelosi rather get additional information that prevents additional terrorist attacks or would she rather have sped KSM into a trial, after which his information would have likely remained secret.

Now let’s look at Gov. Dean’s statement:

“President Clinton did exactly what Democrats need to do in this election. Democrats need to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine and tell the truth. Washington Republicans’ attempts to twist history and recast the truth do not help us win the war on terror or bring us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. President Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda machine. As the NIE that was reported on today showed, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration’s failed policies have hurt our ability to win the war on terror. As President Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror.”

All that Clinton did was go ballistic on Chris Wallace because his track record on fighting terrorism was lackluster at best. Dean doesn’t do his party any favors by calling Chris Wallace, a very fair-minded journalist, part of “the right-wing propaganda machine…” That simply won’t fly with most people. Obviously, it’ll excite the Moonbat Kos Kidz but it won’t bring new voters into the Democratic Party, something that they’re badly in need of.

CLINTON RAGE; THE MORNING AFTER

redface.jpg
Photoshop by David Lunde

On Fox and Friends this morning, Chris Wallace had some interesting comments about his interview with the Finger-Jabber:

His reaction to Clinton accusing him of having a "smirk:"

"What it was was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."

Heh. On what happened after the interview:

"There was no making up with him. He was angry. And when he left, he chewed out his staff."

The Finger-Jabber. Always, always blaming someone else for his failures.

Noel Sheppard at The American Thinker weighs in on "Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions." Howard Kurtz does a brief take on Clinton's finger-wagging moment.

Our take on Slick Willie's Day of Rage is here.

Scott Johnson at Power Line:

The most striking feature of Bill Clinton's bloviations on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday was the incredibly low ratio of facts to whoppers. If Chris Wallace could prompt that red-faced response with such an innocuous question, I wonder if a few minutes with Richard Miniter (author of Losing bin Laden, interviewed by NRO here), might not send him to intensive care. I would love to hear Miniter ask Clinton a few questions about Clinton's treatment of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- an attack that Clinton shrugged off in a few paragraphs of his subsequent Saturday morning radio talk, never to return to the subject. (Miniter quotes the relevant paragraphs of the radio address at pages 28-30 of his book.)

Ronald Cass at RCP minces no words:

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

***
Previous: He doth protest too much