Free In Idaho!

One of the things I remember most about Reagan was the way he went directly to the people with what he was thinking.  It used to get the MSM so P.O.ed, but he would just go straight to the folks and tell ‘em what it was.  I think that served him very well, in most cases, and caused a lot of folks who would have dismissed him out of hand just for his party (or for the lies the MSM told about him) to really give what he had to say a chance.

I miss that with Mr Bush.  I thought for a time, directly after 9/11, that he might have “gotten it”, but time has proved that false.  One of the biggest problems he has is in not being able to get his message in front of the American people often enough and effectively enough.  Instead, the Surrender Party and the media keep him effectively muffled, and he can’t seem to get around them.

So it’s good to hear him get a little airtime this morning, and sounding good as he tells ‘em what it’s really all about in Iraq.

..There’s a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There’s also a debate about al Qaeda’s role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it’s independent of Osama bin Laden and that it’s not interested in attacking America.

That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He’s proclaimed that the “third world war is raging in Iraq.” Osama bin Laden says, “The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.” I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda.

He then lays it out, just who it is we face in Iraq… he begins with Zarqawi (a Jordanian), and gives a little history lesson

..In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi’s Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam’s fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to “follow his orders in jihad.”

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the “Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq” — and instructed terrorists in Iraq to “listen to him and obey him.” It’s hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden’s al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

That’s not a difficult concept, unless you have a political agenda that requires reality to be otherwise.  But he explains a bit more history, for those who seem determined to ignore it, and then he said this

..And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden’s goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports — and I quote — “compared with [other leading Sunni jihadist groups], al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq’s borders.”

Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is “public enemy number one” in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we’ll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand.

BRAVO! To those who insist it’s all our fault for being over there (like that clueless loser Kerry)

..Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion — and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence — and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid; slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere — in Afghanistan, or other foreign capitals, or on the streets of our own cities.

The emphasis is mine, for the benefit of the “Religion of Peace” ostriches…

I would have loved to see GW take this speech before the American people, the way Reagan used to do, instead of mid-morning at an airbase in South Carolina, giving the MSM and the Surrender Party plenty of time to spin and soundbite it away.  John Kerry reacted by calling Bush’s remarks

..”a phony argument,” Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said that “the principal threat” in Iraq is not Al Qaeda but a civil war that pits Sunni against Shiite and an Iraqi government that is not joining the fight.

“All of us are committed to destroying Al Qaeda,” Kerry said, adding that “if we reduce our footprint (in Iraq) Al Qaeda will reduce its footprint.”

Where in the world did he get THAT nonsense?  Which goes to show why he remains as totally unfit for duty today as he was during the election, as do the rest of the Surrender Party candidates.  Moron…

I find it interesting that so many people, including the President, will jump on an idea that sounds kinda good, and they will ride that hobby horse off into the sunset, looking for all the world more like Don Quizote than the Lone Ranger.

Do they ever look at what the actual numbers are on some of the proposals they make?  I’m not even talking about the costs… I’m all for paying the price when it makes sense.  But you have to ask “does it make sense?” first.  Lately it seems we get the band playing loudly before anyone asks that question.

Take ethanol, for example.  Here are some numbers for ethanol production that make me question why so many people think that corn ethanol is such a great America saving idea

…”Look at the numbers: Americans use 150 billion gallons of gasoline [a year] … we make six billion gallons of ethanol,” said Durante. “What rational person could say that next 144 billion gallons is no problem for us? Nobody is saying that.”

Durante is Doug Durante, executive director of the ethanol advocacy group “Ethanol Across America”.  He was responding to a report from a liberal environmental group that was critical of ethanol as the energy alternative answer.  It’s just a guess, but could their criticism be because Bush seems to be for it?  I’m critical of it as well, but for different reasons.

…Yet Durante, with Ethanol Across America, said the industry as a whole and the corn ethanol industry in particular are fulfilling their intended mission — to provide an alternative to foreign-produced oil.

“There are lots of reasons to support domestic renewable fuels … what if we got to 10 percent [of domestic consumption]? That’s 15 billion gallons times three bucks [a gallon saved over the price of regular gas],” said Durante. “We’re going to spend that here and create roads and schools and jobs.”

Let’s see, to go from 6 billion gallons to 15 billion, is two and a half times the corn production we have now.  What does that translate to in acreage?  What effect would that have on the food industry?  And what happens the next time we have a drought year in the corn belt?  Just askin’… I don’t remember the answers to those questions coming up when the politicians were touting ethanol as the next big idea.  And it completely ignores the fact that ethanol doesn’t address the other things our petroleum based economy uses oil for (textiles, paint and other coatings, roads, plastics, etc).

It reminds me a bit of the compact flourescent bulb, which was not only going to save energy, it was going to stop global warming to boot.  I’m all for new ideas, and for saving energy, and if something I’m doing is really causing the earth to get warmer (which I doubt, but for the sake of discussion I’ll concede for now) I’d love to change it, but you know what?  Compact flourescents are a bad joke.  The light they make is still poor quality, they don’t last as long as they first told us they would, and if you break one your home becomes the next superfund site.  Did anyone estimate the effect on landfills?  At the same time they’re trying to ban plastic grocery bags, they’re also trying to get everyone to switch to these little mercury bombs (which, by the way, take more energy to make as well).  And I’ll believe in LEDs when they actually deliver a home product that works.  In the meantime, I’ve got a good mind to head down to Lowe’s and buy a lifetime supply of NORMAL bulbs and hide them in my crawlspace.  And on the way home I think I’ll stop at Freddie’s and get a couple steaks and some corn on the cob for the BBQ.