Tuesday, January 31, 2006

State of The Union...


Hugh Hewitt provides a great analysis of the President's fourth State of Union address. Hugh notes... the key paragraph:

It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have – and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it – because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
Emphasis added. I listened to the speech on the bus ride home, so I missed the visual nuances conveyed by the the cameras of the media. Hugh makes a visual note...

Unfortunately, as Republicans rose to applaud this resolve and the president’s defense of his NSA program, Democrats remained seated and did not applaud. Fox cut to Senator Clinton who shook her head slowly with a tight and disapproving smile.
Emphasis again added as I observe that the Democrats resolved to sit back and wait to be hit again. And doesn't this tell Americans all that they need to know about the Democrats as a governing body? As they have become, if they are let anywhere near leadership again, the state of this union would be constant catastrophe and chaos. Afterall, as President Bush observed...

... there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

Indeed! And insufferable obstinance is no substitute for statesmanship.


dueler88 said...

One of the comments from the left included something about the difference between words and actions. He's got a good point, but I think it's coming from the wrong perspective. That perspective comes from somebody who feels that government should make decisions for people.

The U.S. President's role is not only to be the C.E.O. of the United States. An equally important role is to provide LEADERSHIP and INSPIRATION. We don't remember Presidents for the brib--er--handouts he/she gave to their constituents; we remember them most for their inspiring words. Frankly, I don't know how anybody couldn't be inspired by that speech. For Democrats to remain seated during discussions about the importance of liberty is not only shameful, but very descriptive of their attitude about it.

Until the Dem's get over their hatred of W they will remain a second-rate political party that can only nip at the heels of leadership and only dream of inspiring people.

Major Mike said...

Bush knows what the Dems cannot seem to get through their thick heads...leading this country is not about corraling a bunch of circus acts and pulling a bunch of partisan "stunts"... but it IS about leadership and inspiration.

Blatant, contrarian only politics will only cement the Dems demise, and likely hasten it. MM

Elizabeth said...

"Blatant, contrarian only politics will only cement the Dems demise, and likely hasten it." -- MM

One can only hope that to be the case since the 2006 mid term elections are coming up fast and all the MSM doomsters (phrophesies that are combinations of doom and the content of dumpsters)have the chances for a take back of at least the House a distict possiblity. I tremble to think of the damage that will be done to America and America's interests including in the War on Terror and of that portion of that war which pertains to Iraq.

I recall that the Democrat Congress withheld all funds to the South Vietnamese as they attempted to wage war against the Communist forces of the North which were inundated with war materials from the Soviets and to a lesser degree, China. When they ran out of the means to fight they were forced to retreat into Saigon and into defeat.

This cold, deliberate sacrifice of the South Vietnamese to the north which was idealogically closer and more acceptable to the Dems was the bitterest event and lesson of my life.

Iraqis no more deserved this than did the South Vietnamese. But a rerun is not impossible should the Dems take over in Congress. They have endlessly drawn comparisons between VN and Iraq; there are none at present but that could certainly change if they are returned to power.