“Americans have a long and honorable tradition of taking exception with their governments, even during wartime. After Mr. Bush’s speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid described Iraq policy as ‘adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections.’ Surely anyone offering such a biting critique won’t object if we examine precisely what ‘corrections’ the loyal opposition has in mind.”

Let’s see: As best we can tell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s main suggestion Tuesday night was that we spend more on veterans benefits. Former General Wesley Clark–a man who should have something valuable to say on the subject of waging modern war (he wrote a book with that title)–lamented that Iraq has become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, as if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only entered his current profession in April 2003. And as if jihadists aren’t also still hitting us in Afghanistan, which is a campaign General Clark says he supports.

By the logic of Mr. Clark’s critique, the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq immediately because the terrorists will then leave us alone. But when Fox’s Brit Hume pursued the question, Mr. Clark backed away. As for helpful policy alternatives, we didn’t hear any.

And you won’t. Democrats don’t have strategy for Iraq, they only offer negative rhetoric — hoping for Bush’s failure. Truth is: the only way they can look good is by making him look bad, regardless of damage it’s doing to our troops and our nation’s reputation. Perhaps that defines the DNC strategy.

The Wall Street Journal has the editorial.

RELATED:
Delivering The Predictable: Democrats
Criticize Bush’s Speech on Iraq

“Critics call for more troops in Germany - Some in GOP accuse Roosevelt of linking Hitler to 12/7 attacks”

It’sAPundit uncovers an old blog post from 1944. Amazing what we can learn from the past, even if we rewrite it.

(Hattip: basil’s blog)

Just when you’re hoping that “reality” shows had run their course, here comes a new one to add to the trash heap.

(Hattip: Michelle Malkin)

Question is: Whose reality is it?

Brian Maloney reports: “It’s the kind of show white liberals in LA and New York develop, hoping for a good pat on the back from civil rights groups, plus a big guilt release.

Too bad the activists hate it.”

That’s because liberals live in their own reality.

Funny how the producers claim to be breaking down stereotypes, when in fact it’s obvious to everyone on the left and right, they’ve done more to reinforce them than anything on television in years.”

Don’t hold your breath. There’s more on the way, including a new network for homosexuals.

UPDATE: AP: ABC Pulls ‘Neighborhood’ Reality Series

RELATED:
MTV Launching GayTV

Reuters reports: “A majority of California voters are not inclined to re-elect Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, marking a sharp reversal of support since February, according to a Field Poll released on Wednesday.”

Said it before, say it again: sounds like wishful thinking.

“The survey found 57 percent of voters are not inclined to vote for Schwarzenegger if he runs for re-election next year, compared with 56 percent who said in February they were inclined to re-elect the Republican governor.

Republicans and conservatives continue to back Schwarzenegger by large margins, but their support is more than offset by large proportions of Democrats, nonpartisans, moderates and liberals who oppose a possible second term, according to the Field Poll’s results.”

Therein lies the duty of all California conservatives: to remain vigilant and spread the word.

“The poll’s findings are based on a random sample of 711 registered voters in California interviewed by telephone from June 13-19 in English and Spanish. The findings have a sampling error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.”

Strange. In all the years of California residency, we’ve never been called on — nor have any of our friends. (But 711 isn’t much of a sample, either)

RELATED:
“Conan” of California: It Takes Great Strength
To Manage The State’s Liberal Democrats

“Documents obtained by Judicial Watch using the FOIA reveal the extent to which Bush’s immigration plan resulted in a spike of illegal immigration, and administration attempts to cover up that fact.”

“The first document is entitled “U.S. Border Patrol Survey Analysis”. On January 7, 2004 (after Bush announced his plan), the BP started asking detained illegal crossers why they came. Approximately 45% said it was because of Bush’s plan, which was widely perceived as an amnesty. The survey only lasted three weeks before the administration cancelled it.”

Chris Kelly reports.

AP reports: “Democrats are criticizing President Bush for raising the Sept. 11 attacks while he defends his plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure peace in the country.”

Some Democrats accused him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad.

“The president’s frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. “He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”

“Exploiting the sacred ground?” Give us a break. If only ’twas true that liberals found some things sacred, America might be better off.

Earth to Pelosi: President Bush never said there was a direct “connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.” However, the fateful attack on America was a result of terrorists that had proven ties to Saddam, the brutal dictactor who also represented a serious latent threat to the world. Some might wish that America had done the same with Hitler before he became as powerful and commited the infamous atrocities.

Now, the critical task remaining for America is to help establish stability in Iraq, so that the “new” nation may pursue democracy and thereby create an anchor of stability in the Middle East. An ally against terrorism.

Bush said as much:

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

[Terrorists] know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Exactly.

“The president’s numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Not true. President Bush was candid:

Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward.

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Unlike throwing money at problems (not their own) while never actually getting their hands dirty with work, as is the liberals’ standard course of action, the rebuilding of Iraq into a democratic nation requires dedication and continued heavy-lifting. It’s a mission.

“Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said it’s because of the lessons of the Sept. 11 attacks that he opposes Bush’s approach to keeping the troops in Iraq without any timetable for withdrawal.

“The U.S. military presence in Iraq has become a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, and Iraq is now the premier training ground and networking venue for the next generation of jihadists,” Feingold said.

Who is Feingold kidding, besides himself? Training ground and networking venue for terrorists? If so, how would withdrawing the troops make things better?

Just another Democrat offering a negative rhetoric soundbite for a quote in the New York Times. One would hope these elected “leaders” aren’t as stupid as they make themselves sound.

Since the new Iraqi government is learning to walk, the worst thing to do would be to abandon the nation before it’s prepared to defend itself. If Democrats want a timetable for that, they should be asking the Iraqis.

As President Bush suggests, setting a timetable for withdrawal would only encourage terrorists to hang on. Something to set their watches for. Giving them hope towards having success in their efforts to destroy Iraq’s efforts for democracy.

It’s so obvious, it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Bush presented the case perfectly:

“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.

And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”

Exactly. We must stand firm. See the job through.

UPDATE: Making the connection: Iraq and 9/11
(6/29) Lorie Byrd has more. Captain Ed, too.
SoCalPundit joins in.

RELATED:
Bush Speech on Iraq: Examined
Bush on Iraq: The Sacrifices Are Worth It

With calls for “bring the troops home” and references to “quagmire,” liberals are evoking (maybe exploiting, Pelosi?) “sacred” images of Vietnam, as a way to misrepresent the situation in Iraq.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in with an excellent essay:
“The Defeatist Caucus — Some on Capitol Hill seem to yearn for a repeat of Vietnam.”

The lifeblood of every media outlet is advertising. So, what’s driving this?

AP reports: “The prospect of a television channel entirely devoted to gay programs for gay people may strike some as unnecessary and others as a sign of immoral times. Media giant Viacom thinks there’s money in it.”

Really? What’s the percentage of the homosexual population in America?

“Logo General Manager Lisa Sherman cited studies saying there were some 15 million openly gay people in America, an attractive demographic for advertisers, considering that many will have no children, meaning more disposable income.”

With total U.S. population of nearly 300 million people, that would represent 5% market. Even if you cut the population in half, that would only represent 10%. No matter how you slice the numbers, they don’t add up to make a strong business case. It’s political.

“Logo’s advertisers include travel company Orbitz, carmaker Subaru, mobile phone maker Motorola and Miller Lite beer.”

Why should advertisers care? Are gays not buying the same brands as straights today? Clothes, cars, cereal, and appliances, etc? Is Miller Lite going to introduce a special “gay” beer? Or Motorola a “gay” phone? It’s ridiculous.

Why segment the market? Thought the point is to accept gays as being no different, except for sexual preference. At first, it was simply asking the public for tolerance: “no body’s business what happens in the bedroom.” Recently, the “gay rights” fight has been to be broadly accepted: “loud and proud.”

By defining a special market, it’s promoting the opposite of unity: it’s underlining the fact that homosexuals are different, see themselves as a special class, and suggesting they don’t want to assimilate. Ultimately, that’s the message conveyed by having a network dedicated to them.

“Logo, launching on Thursday under the MTV Networks umbrella, is not the first channel to target gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, but it is the most widely available, on cable boxes in 10 million homes.

…Logo’s promise [is] to deliver family-friendly entertainment…”

If Viacom hasn’t been able to do it yet, it’s questionable that this effort will deliver.

“Logo has been in the works for more than two years under the guidance of Brian Graden, the man responsible for such MTV hits as ‘The Osbournes.’“

Oh, now there’s a “family-friendly” show. A virtually incoherent rocker from years of drug abuse (the father), an egotistical wife and self-promoter (the mother), rampant vulgarity from both parents and kids (even to each other). It was a show glamourizing a dysfunctional family, packaged as interesting only because they are “celebrities.”

“[Paul Colichman, head of Here!, a video-on-demand gay satellite channel launched in 2003,] said more than 30 percent of his viewers were straight — a figure he says includes feminists and liberals sick of the way women are portrayed in the mainstream media, and straight men who will watch anything about lesbians.”

Guess he knows his audience.

Hopefully, major advertisers will not forget their core demographics: the numbers speak for themselves.

CNET reports: “Witnesses testifying before the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday said campaign finance rules should not be extended to the Internet until there’s actual evidence of online corruption or abuses.”

Sounds reasonable. The story here.

With a compelling rebuttal of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday on the Ten Commandments, George F. Will writes: “The Supreme Court rendered two more hairsplitting, migraine-inducing decisions yesterday about when religious displays on public property do and do not violate the First Amendment protection against “establishment” of religion.

“Never mind the court’s minute reasoning about the finely tuned criteria it has spun over the years. Instead, consider — as the court should have done years ago, when it began policing religious displays — a few facts about the era in which the establishment clause was written.”

The article here.

Will offers a strong conclusion:

“Here is a one-sentence opinion that should suffice in such cases: “Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent — does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects — the display is constitutional.”

Amen.

RELATED:
Kentucky Fried: Anger At The Court Ruling
Against The Ten Commandments

“The Democrats have been promising for weeks to start rolling out specific reform proposals responding to the agenda Gov. Schwarzenegger laid out in January. Today they finally delivered. And it wasn’t a very promising start.”

Daniel Weintraub reports.

RELATED:
Fighting The Political Power of Unions