Doug Ross @ Journal

Liberty's Century

The president's speech was outstanding. By the end of the first half hour, though, I was not expecting much. I was a bit bored. It sounded, as the analysts put it, like a typical State of the Union speech. But the president warmed up in the second half... and was outstanding.

He described the rationale for Afghanistan and Iraq - and the difficulty of the decision-making process. He, and many others, are convinced that freedom in Iraq will ignite Democracy and it will spread like wildfire throughout the Middle East. The only safety we can hope to achieve is by destroying dictatorships and fascist regimes, not only to disrupt the flow of WMD compontents, but to liberate entire populations.

The president's mentor in this regard is none other than Ronald Reagan, who was equally convinced that the Soviet Union would collapse once its constituent states tasted freedom. This approach requires a visionary... and someone with steadfast conviction.

Despite the vocal and long-running opposition of the Left (Senators Kerry and Kennedy come to mind), Reagan's instinct proved right. As will President Bush's belief that this is "Liberty's Century". Once again the Left has been Left Behind. They've been wrong throughout history, and they will continue to be wrong. And that is why they must be defeated again.

Some highlights of the president's speech.

...My opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called American allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others--allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget. ...Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had X's branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein's secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth.

What we're fighting against

Lest Michael Moore and Al Franken forget, this is what we are trying to avoid on our soil.

Extremists who value nothing, not even the lives of innocent children.

What will it take for the Left to understand the stakes? Will it take a nuclear weapon detonating in New York City? How can the Left not understand that equivocation and nuanced approaches will result in a nuclear holocaust if the enemy is not struck with massive force and punishing persistence?

Slothower on Iran

Having studied the Middle East for some time now, Slothower's opinion is that the center of fundamental Islamic terrorism was never Iraq; it was Iran. Iran is feeling very threatened in its determination to build and obtain nuclear facilities and weapons. Iran's government, ruled by radical fundamental clerics, knows a showdown is coming over its nuclear program, especially if President Bush is reelected as president. With U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, to the east of Iran, and U.S. military bases in Iraq, to the west of Iran, the ruling clerics of Iran believe the United States and Israel are readying themselves to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities after the election. Rather than wait, Iran is threatening its own preemptive strike and may bring on the battle before the presidential election in order to damage Bush's reelection possibilities. Slothower thinks this is an extremely dangerous situation, and Iran's control of al-Qaeda and radical Shiites in Iraq make this a powder keg that could explode at any time. He is on guard for something to happen before the election. He can't imagine Iran would be so foolish as to pick a fight with the most powerful nation on earth. But the clerics may believe Iran can gain strategic long-term benefits if it can damage President Bush's reelection chances. Slothower is sure they will try to commit an act of terror between now and the election; he prays each night that he is wrong. With all these factors weighing on the stock market (and Slothower's mind), the Fed is not letting me sleep any better at night.

Here's my take on Iran and the Election: if not dealt with quickly, Muqtada al Sadr will rise from the ashes once again with his "Religious Militia". Whether in Sadr City or Najaf, he will attempt (with Iran's backing) to wreak havoc with the new government. This will allow the Left to raise the "quagmire" issue once again, breathing new life into Kerry's campaign.

What does it say about the Kerry campaign that its most effective strategy is to have our avowed, mortal enemies succeed?

Slothower on Iran

Selling out on core issues

Even the San Francisco Chronicle (not what I would term a bastion of conservativism) has labeled the Democratic party... sell-outs.

...A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq... The same poll found that 19 percent of GOP voters and 3 percent of GOP delegates oppose the war... That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush. That's how fanatical their hatred is. Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to lose an election for a cause they believe in. Bush knew when he began that the war in Iraq could cost him the election, but he did what he thought was best. And he still isn't flinching... ...Kerry won the nomination because many Democrats believed they had to pick a pro-war candidate in order to beat Bush. They were able to look at Kerry's vote against the Persian Gulf War and determine that he did not believe his 2002 Iraq vote and does not mean the pro-war statements he has made during the campaign. Some of the very folks who bellow, "Bush lied," are crossing their fingers in the hope that Kerry lied...

San Francisco Chronicle: Deserving victory

Vets for Sale?

In honor of Kerry's speech to the veterans, Ralph Peters blistered the content of the speech and the substance of the man himself.

...Before getting to a few examples of his breathtaking cynicism, let's put two crucial questions to the junior senator from Massachusetts: First question: Sen. Kerry, will you admit that you lied to Congress and the American people when you stated that our troops routinely committed atrocities, and that rape, torture and murder were sanctioned by our military chain of command? Second question: Will you apologize to our Vietnam-era veterans for the lies you told? This means a direct, no-waffling, public apology. Will you tell our vets, the living and the dead, that you're sorry? Of course not. John Kerry wants to have it both ways. But he isn't going to get the military vote. Perhaps the best line making its way around veterans' Web sites these days is: "A Kerry defeat would be the welcome-home parade we never had..."

Ralph Peters: Vets for Sale?