Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 11, 2006
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bush's greatest midterm weapon: Truth
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



President Bush has dramatically enlarged the issue of terrorism in the 2006 midterm elections by revealing the names, faces and confessed plots of the Islamic radicals held by the CIA.

In a sweeping, lay-it-all-out White House address that elevated the issue of the deadly dangers Americans still face from terrorism, Bush confirmed the existence of foreign-based CIA prisons where terrorists have been secretly interrogated by intelligence agents and even disclosed some of the plots they planned to execute against the United States and our allies.

Last week's speech, part of a series of speeches to remind Americans of the increasing threat terrorism poses to this country, demonstrated several things that will have an impact in the war on terror -- and on the midterm elections. It showed how the president, despite his political weakness in the polls, can use his bully pulpit to put the spotlight on an issue -- in this case, the war on terror -- that his critics have tried to play down and diminish, but on which he and his party still command their strongest approval ratings.

Democratic leaders were caught off guard by a news-filled address that struck back at them on multiple levels.

To those who charged that the military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had abused prisoners and should be shut down, he said 14 "high value" terrorist prisoners would be transferred there to stand trial under a military tribunal system still to be worked out.

With one stroke of a presidential pen, Bush moved the 14 terrorists into a facility that was slated to be closed, thus turning it a temporary repository of some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. To those who said he abused his presidential powers by allowing inhumane interrogation practices, the administration issued new rules that repudiated tactics such as forced nudity, hooding, military dogs and water-boarding. In political terms, this is the equivalent of nuking an issue while staying on offense.

To those who complained that terrorist suspects were not accorded any rights to defend themselves and that Bush's military tribunals had no basis in law -- accusations the administration denied -- Bush proposed legislation to create a new military-run judicial commission under which the detainees will be tried. It remains for Congress to sort through competing proposals and enact a bill before adjourning for the midterm elections. But the political masterstroke of Bush's speech was the decision for the first time to acknowledge the existence of the CIA prisons and the killers that were held there -- giving names, faces and murder plots to the war on terrorism that has largely become a faceless, shadowy, remote conflict in the minds of most Americans.

Those faces included Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the evil mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked airliner attacks on Washington and New York, where nearly 3,000 people perished. Bush detailed once-top-secret information that came from Mohammed and the others, "information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else," he said. Among the information interrogators learned: details about training to blow up skyscrapers; a foiled anthrax plot; a planned terrorist attack on a Marine camp; and the recently thwarted plot to blow up passenger jets on their way from London to the United States. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Fletch on the run
Your method of argumentation if really typical of the Bush cult: assert your position, without evidence, but provide evidence which generally contradicts your assertion, assert there is no contradiction, and then insult those who disaree with you.

Perhaps you didn't take them time to read my original post, but if you had you would know that it wasn't just the Robb-Silberman report that cast doubt on Iraq's attempt to seek uranium from abroad, but George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence. So try and follow the steps here: 1) President Bush includes those pesky "16 words" in his SOTU address 2) then the uranium documents are exposed as forgeries by the IAEA and 3) then George Tenet says those "16 words" should never have been in the SOTU address because there is not sufficient other reporting to suggest Iraq sought uranium from Africa. However, if there was other intelligence besides the forged uranium documents and the intelligence reports on it, then there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to say those "16 words" should not have been in the President's speech. This illustrates that all the intelligence regarding Iraq's attempt to procure uranium was a pitiful forgery.

So the Bush cultists try to hang their conspiracy theory on al-Zahawie's trip to Niger, while forgetting to mention that he also visited three other Africa nations -- Burkina Faso, Benin, and Congo-Brazzaville-- and his trip was known to western intelligence at the time.

So the Bush cult whines: what else could "commercial relations" mean other than uranium? Well evidence shows that Iraq has an interest in selling its oil, as verified by the ISG and at the time Iraq was trying to find a new country to put some of its toxic waste after Nambia told them they would not longer provide Iraq with any dumping groud. So al-Zahawie was searching out another country that would accept Iraq's hazardous waste in exchange for money ie expanding "commercial relations."

So the Bush cultists automatically conclude that "commerical relations" equals uranium even though uranium never came up in the conversation and even though there were other "commerical relations" Iraq could have with Niger.

So President Bush is guilty of using a forgery to start a war, and while that's morally grotesque, it is one of his more minor offenses.

Gil says...
“When you compare World War II's strugle to the war in Iraq you are making a mockery of rational debate.

Oh, really? So, only you lefties are allowed to draw war parallels? What exactly do you call it when all those DNC sh*theads tell us how Iraq has become another Vietnam quagmire? You think we’re just going to stand by in silence and let these asinine talking points go unanswered? And, you guys are the ones who've corned the market on making a mockery of rational debate.

Gil says: “In World War II we had a draft…”

And now we have (YIKES!) a volunteer army. So, is it your point that the people now serving in our military aren’t real Americans?

We had a draft during the Vietnam War, too. I got my induction notice in May of 1969 and spent all of 1970 in Vietnam. How about you?

And the funny thing is, back then you guys on the left hated the draft (you may be too young to remember all those burning draft cards.) Yet, now you claim we shouldn’t be fighting a war because Americans have had the impudence to actually volunteer to serve their country? So, now our volunteer military negates the very thing you guys hated back during the Vietnam War, and still you guys complain about it. So, when are you lefties going to be happy about how we organize our military—when we disband it?

Gil says: “In World War II we had no choice after Pearl Harbor.”

News flash, Gil...lots of your countrymen believe we had no choice after 9/11.

You do remember 9/11, don’t you, Gil? It was a decapitation strike against your country, more deadly than Pearl Harbor, and more monstrous, too--being aimed, in large part, at civilians. On the other hand, maybe the fact that they were trying to eliminate President Bush and his administration resonates with you.

Gil says: “In World War II we were fighting for our survival as a Nation and as a Democracy.”

Second news flash, Gil...lots of your countrymen believe that’s what we're fighting for now.

Gil says: “In World War II free Europe's survival depended on our help.”

Regretfully Gil, as a result of Islamic encroachment, many people believe that the survival of a free Europe may no longer be in the cards.

Gil says: “In World War II we had our taxes raised.”

What’s your point, Gil? You don’t seriously believe that FDR would have raised taxes to finance the war if he could have avoided it? Or, do you think FDR was such a huge “tax and spend” liberal, that he would have raised taxes even if he didn’t have to? Say it ain't so, Gil.

Gil says: “In World War II everithing was rationed.”

See my point above about taxes.

Gil says: “And most importantly in World War II in FDR we had a President that put Country above politics and did everithing in his power to UNITE US as only great leaders can do.”

You hit a home run with that greasy little pigskin, Gil. So, the Democratic Party fights President Bush tooth and nail, calling him every name in the book, doing everything in its power to derail our war effort and demoralize our troops, and you have the audacity to claim it’s President Bush’s fault we’re not UNITED? What a load of horsesh*t. The only reason FDR had so little political dissent was because the Republicans understood the threat our nation was facing, and put politics aside. See if you can draw a current day parallel. I'll understand if you can't. So, the Democrats haven't put politics above the Country? You can't be serious, Gil? If you are, go sell that "lack of unity" malarkey on some other blog.

Gil says: “Bush IS NO FDR, Debishop I consider your implied comparison between Bush and FDR naive at best and insulting at worst.”

Get a grip, Gil. You need to reread the posts. I never compared FDR to GWB—your buddy, Jay_in_Milwaukee was the one talking about FDR. I was merely responding to his comments. Surely, in the name of “rational debate,” I should be allowed to respond to something another poster says; even if you disagree with what it is I’m saying.

But, now that you mention it, Gil, you’re right, GWB is no FDR. FDR was a liberal social engineer, GWB isn’t.

Gil says: “You should never blame or question the motives of the people from dessenting from their leaders, but the leaders from dissenting from the people.”

One last news flash, Gil; I reserve the right to question anyone’s motives, intellect, and patriotism. And you’re coming up short in all those categories.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.