Sunday, September 03, 2006

What Bush Should Have Said

Joe Klein, in a column that may forever stand the test of time as what happens when one inhales too much liberal exhaust, has published a piece on what the President would have said, had the President been a 40 watt bulb on the order of… Joe Klein.

Well, two can play that game… Here’s what the President should say:


“Ladies and Gentlemen,

As part of my summer reading, I looked over the columns of Joe Klein, mostly because I enjoy a good laugh as well as the next man. It would be tough to find a more mis-informed person with a regular column. Oh wait, I forgot Helen Thomas…

As you know, we face grave difficulties and dangers, both in the middle east, and here at home, from Islamo-Fascist terrorism. The great religion of Islam may mean ‘peace’ to the vast majority of it’s followers, but there are sects and extremists within Islam that seek to pervert the message of ‘peace’ into one of ‘submission’. These extremists seek to wage total war on civilization.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have overthrown totalitarian dictatorships, and are working to build peaceful, democratic societies. As I have always said, this will be a long and difficult struggle. Would be dictators and minor league Furhers do not surrender easily. Indeed, many of the terrorists operating in Iraq are sponsored, supplied, and trained by Iran. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is likewise complicit in allowing their subjects to fund extremist groups.

In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, which was debated for an extensive period in the US Congress, as well as the United Nations, Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to comply with a number of UN resolutions.

He refused to do so.

Given his prior use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, and his obstruction of UN inspectors, as well as his totalitarian regime, genocidal tendencies, and payments to families of terrorists, as well as harboring terrorists such as Abu Nidal, it required no great stretch of the imagination to believe that he was building up WBD capability.

Indeed, the UN’s ability to contain Saddam’s regime was weakening rapidly, since Saddam had used the ‘Oil for Food’ program to corrupt the sanctions that were intended to contain his regime. Indeed, the UN, since Korea, has proven to be a broken reed, unable to manage even the simplest peacekeeping tasks without scandal.

As you know, the situation in Sudan, where the Islamic government in Khartoum has been engaging in genocide against the Christians and Animists in the south, has been up for UN debate for months. Just this week, it was admitted that the UN would only send peacekeepers if Khartoum agreed. It’s amazing that those committing genocide should have a say in whether or not it should be stopped.

But that’s what the UN is – a collection of governments, most of which are totalitarian, covering up for each other.

We have made several critical errors in the prosecution of this war; We did not commit sufficient troops to seal both the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq. This has allowed the terrorist groups in Iraq to use these countries as supply lines, and allowed the flow of more terrorists.

We didn’t kill Muqtada Sadr when we should have. As events in Lebanon have recently shown, when you have a non-state militia comprised of terrorists such as Hezbollah operating independently, chaos results. I’ve ordered the US military to rectify this situation concerning Sadr as soon as possible.

We have allowed the EU and the UN to take responsibility for leading the negotiations with Iran over their programs to construct nuclear weapons. Neither of these two organizations has either the inclination or ability to make or enforce a difficult decision. The result is a policy of appeasement, to which we have allowed ourselves to sign on to.

As for negotiations with “President” Ahmadinejad, I don’t need to tell you that, in the words of a radio talk show host, he’s 12 kinds of crazy before breakfast. His strategy is to stall, stall, stall, and hope that the West continues to pony up bribes and that his Russian and Chinese sponsors prevent any concrete action while he works on the bomb.

Our opponents think that we are weak, that they can lull us into replaying the failed policies of appeasement that many in the 1930’s thought would bring us peace.

Unfortunately, they may be right. There are significant voices, even in America, that urge a policy of retreat, disengagement, appeasement, withdrawal to out of the way places like Okinawa, where our military would be unable to quickly respond to threats. There are some who object to our government’s even attempting to intercept intelligence regarding terrorist threats within our own borders.

These are difficult times. Even well meaning people can disagree about how to meet the threat to our civilization. What well meaning people cannot disagree on is that our civilization is under attack, and that America must engage the world, not hide behind the corruption and incompetence of the UN.

To conclude, I’m calling upon all Americans to understand the nature of the threat we are facing, and to move to action toward making our country safe. If you disagree with the approach of my administration, that’s fine. America has always tolerated disagreement, and this administration is no different. What we do require is constructive proposals for defeating the enemy. Make no mistake, we are at war. This is not a police issue to be settled by the courts. We can, and must, show the resolve to defeat our enemies in the field, as well as in the arena of public opinion.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America.”