FRIDAY 10/17/03

WILL BUSH BAIL OUT CALIFORNIA

Come on, do the math.  California has 54 electoral votes.  If Bush

wins California next year he is virtually guaranteed reelection. 

California is in trouble and needs money. Bush is in a position to spend money

(our money) on California.  Bush has already shown himself to be a huge

spender ... so you just know that federal money is going to be flowing to him in

no time.  There's just too many electoral votes out there to ignore.

CLINTON'S CYA EFFORTS

Bill Clinton is still trying to cover his philandering posterior in the matter of Osama bin Laden.  Now he's saying that he warned Bush about bin Laden when he left office in 2001.  Clinton claims to have told Bush that Osama bin Laden was our biggest security threat.

Well now, isn't that nice!  Bill Clinton had three different opportunities to either kill bin Laden or to take him into American custody.  Each time Clinton was faced with a chance to neutralize bin Laden, he demurred.  Bluntly stated, if Bill Clinton had spent more time trying to protect America when he was president, and less time screwing around with interns and God knows who else, the skyline of New York City would look quite a bit different today.

THE BIG LIE

Democrats, and particularly Ted Kennedy, are becoming well practiced in the technique of the Big Lie that was perfected by their Nazi brethren several decades ago.  The Big Lie in this case is that George Bush lied to the American people in order to get them to go along with deposing Saddam Hussein.  Remembering that a lie is a statement that is known to be untrue at the time it is made, can anyone point out just what Bush's lies were?

The Democrats say that Bush lied when he said that British intelligence had learned that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger.  It wasn't a lie.  British intelligence had indeed made just such a finding. It doesn't matter whether or not Saddam had actually tried to buy that uranium, it only matters whether or not British intelligence thought that he had.  Deal with it, Bush haters.  There's no lie there.

The Democrats are also fond of saying that Bush lied when he said that there was an "Imminent danger" from Saddam Hussein.  The problem is that Bush never made that statement.  That doesn't matter to Democrats though.  They know that the more they pull their "imminent danger" ploy the more people will believe it.  The Democrats don't care about what the truth is.  They only care about what they can make the Americans believe.

Another lie?  The Democrats endlessly repeat their assertion that Bush tied Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11.  Not so.  George Bush has never said that Saddam Hussein was directly connected or had advance knowledge of the Al Qaeda attack.  When you press Democrats on this particular lie they back down, but just a little, and use the word "infer" instead of "lie."  Bottom line --- Bush never made the connection. 

This conduct is not only outrageous, it's dangers to the safety and security of every American.  The Democrats haven't forgotten that we are at war with Islamic terrorists.  They know that as well as the rest of us do. 

They're just choosing to ignore the fact.  Democrats have made a conscious

decision that sabotaging the war on terror is an acceptable tactic if the

long-term goal is to return Democrats to power in Washington.  Their

visceral hatred of George Bush is so intense that it has overridden any concerns

they may have for the safety of the American people. 

Here's a comparison for you.  Consider a divorced husband.  He didn't want the divorce and he just can't believe that his wife kicked him to the curb for another man.  He's angry.  It's a red-hot anger that voids reason and common sense.  He wants to get back, he wants to get even.  Finally his anger gains complete control and the next day's newspaper contains a story of a triple murder-suicide.  The irrational spurned husband has murdered his wife and his two children, and has then turned the gun on himself.  His hatred for his wife was so strong that he had no concerns for the lives of the children he had brought into this world. If everybody had to die to assuage his anger, so be it.  His dignity and honor must be avenged, no matter who is harmed in the process.

Do you think that's a bit over the top?  Perhaps not.  There has been no change in the desires and the goals of Islamic terrorists.  They still want to kill as many Americans, men women and children, as they possibly can.  They want to kill Americans wherever they can find them, and especially on American soil.  There is one and only one reason why these Islamogoons haven't succeeded with another bloody attack on American soil. That reason is George Bush.  The terrorist made a mistake.  They failed to see the difference between George Bush and Bill Clinton.  They thought Americans didn't have the heart for a fight.  They felt that they could attack, suffer a limited response, regroup, and attack again.  Each attack would represent three steps forward in the drive to rid the Earth of the infidels.  Each mousy response from the weak Americans would represent one step back.

Uh oh.  A bit of a miscalculation there.  George Bush was not Bill Clinton.  The fight was taken to the terrorists where they live.  The Taliban was routed in Afghanistan.  A huge hunk of the Al Qaeda leadership was captured or killed.  Osama bin Laden, in all likelihood, was killed.  George Bush also saw the danger of further carnage against Americans with the help of Saddam Hussein.  He knew that if the United Nations continued to allow Hussein to ignore resolution after resolution it would only be a matter of time before Hussein allowed WMD technology, or the weapons themselves, to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization.  There was already ample evidence of Saddam's support for Al Qaeda, and much publicized news stories of Saddam writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  Saddam hated George Bush, possibly as much as Democrats do, and the rational mind would realize that it was only a matter of time before Saddam offered the aid and support to some terrorist group that would lead to thousands more American lives being lost on American soil.

Thanks to the resolve of George Bush we are fighting Islamic terrorism over there instead of here.  Yes, sadly, American troops are dying.  That happens in a war, and we are damned sure in a war.  It is a war we are winning, and it is a war the Democrats will gladly sabotage with their lies and demagoguery if it means they get to unseat George Bush and return to power.

THE WORLD SERIES?

The Yankees and the Marlins?  Words can't express how little I care about either of these two teams.  I guess I've watched my last baseball game for this season.

IDIOT QUESTION OF THE DAY

Sorry, Alan Colmes, but you're the winner this time of the "Stupid Question of the Day" award from the Neal Boortz show.  It happened last night on Hannity & Colmes.  Colmes was questioning Craig Silverman, a former Chief Deputy District Attorney in Denver, Colorado. 

The question came up about whether or not Kobe's accuser had sex with someone

other than Kobe a short period of time before here Kobe encounter.

Here is Colmes' question ... one I'm certain he would like to recall:  "Why is it everyone's talking about who she may or may not have had sex with, how much in proximity to this alleged incident. Nobody's talking about what Kobe may have done and with whom he many have been involved and did he have other sexual liaisons.  It seems very one sided here, doesn't it?"

Earth to Alan: Kobe Bryant hasn't accused anyone of rape.  He has been accused.  What in the hell are you suggesting, that testimony that Kobe had sex with his wife the night before the rape would serve to prove that the rape

occurred? Explain that to me, would you?

Kobe's prior sexual contacts have no relevance to the question of whether or not he raped this woman.  Now, if you can show evidence that Kobe has a habit of raping Concierges at hotels you might have something the court should allow into evidence.  Can't you imagine some prosecutor telling the jury "We will prove to you that Kobe Bryant had sex the night before the attack."  The jurors would be sitting there saying "So?"   It doesn't make sense.  It does make sense, though, for a defense attorney to say to the jury "Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution will tell you that this young lady suffered vaginal tears when she was raped by Kobe Bryant.  We will show you that she had sex with another man, not Kobe Bryant, less than 24 hours before the alleged rape, and ask you to consider whether or not those injuries may have been suffered in that prior sexual act."

You're still a great guy, Alan, and I'm sure this won't happen again.

READING ASSIGNMENTS AND INTEMPERATE THOUGHTS

Who da thunk it?  Remember Jimmy (Dy-no-mite!) Walker from "Good Times?"  Here's a column he wrote about Limbaugh's situation with ESPN.  I think he'll surprise you.

Johna Goldberg on this "imminent threat" nonsense that is part of the Democrats Big Lie campaign against George Bush.

America's pastime is NOT baseball.  America's pastime is trying to figure out ways to absolve ones self of the responsibility for conducting your own life in a responsible and dignified manner.  Baseball isn't even number two. Sex is number two.  Then baseball.

Mona Charen is calling the media the "failure brigade."  Leftist Americans seem to always want to believe the worst about the United States.

Bruce Bartlett tells us what's ahead with the American economy.  For one thing, look for rising interest rates.

Was an Al Qaeda operative in Canada looking for the materials to make a "dirty bomb?"  You folks think $87 billion is a lot to spend to fight terrorism in Iraq ... what do you think the economic costs would be if someone actually succeeded in detonating a "dirty (nuclear) bomb" in America?

In my notes above I said that the skyline of New York City would look different today if Bill Clinton had done his job as president.  Here's Rich Lowery's take on Clinton's do-nothing terror policy.

The Senate says that $20 billion of Bush's funding request for Iraq should be a loan.  Good news!

OK .. This is as far as I got with the reading assignments and intemperate thoughts this morning.  My wife came into my office and asked me if I wanted to go to breakfast with her before I left for work.  She wins ... you lose, and this is as it should be.