

for

Blessed are they who walk not in the counsel of the ungodly,
nor sit in the seat of the scornful.
But delight in the Law of God
and mindful of His Law
they meditate on how to do God's Will. day and night.

(LJC) The Thoughts of the Master Saint Germain
concerning the November 7, 2006 Election....
asking for clarification regarding world wide political issues.
We saw that you wished for Our Thoughts on what seems a very unfortunate turn
of events coming out of the mid-term Congressional election of November 7.
Allow me to say only this: that you are correct in thinking that the outcome
does allow the nihilistic, socialistic mind-set to have more control of the U. S.
Congress and it does have serious ramifications.
You are also correct in sensing that in the long run the Hierarchy will finds ways
to circumvent and even make use of that negative energy and in the end, make it
work for God-good.
Rest assured Our Plan does not allow for the destruction of
the Constitutional government of the United States,
We will be there to make sure that the final results fall on the positive side of
the scale, and when as you say, 'the smoke clears' mankind will have arrived
exactly where We wish them to be....even though We may have had to bring
them in through the back door....and all may not be quite as many would
choose....but 'believe'...have Faith in Our Intention to hold Control.

(LJC)
For six years President Bush has struggled almost alone with
monumental national and international challenges.
Many of those in Congress who had the opportunity and responsibility to stand for
him and beside him instead looked away....let him down.....almost to a man,
deserted him...often leaving him standing in the storm alone!
Even the conservative media were afraid to unabashedly and completely support
this good man. Those of the media who claimed to be his friend could not resist
proudly boasting almost on a daily basis how they felt free to criticize him when
they thought he was wrong in some decision he had to make...
Decisions they could not possibly understand ....nor did they then or even today
try to understand.
Many supporters, who should never have let a discouraging word pass their lips,
who should have worked with heart and Soul to elect to office those who would
work with him.... deserted him in the last two years....they allowed the massive
storm of vicious lies and attacks, that went on day and night for six long
years, to sway their better judgment....
And now we, who are trying to make some sense of world wide conditions, many of
which will soon affect us here, can only wonder how this election of November 7,
2006 will effect the freedoms, liberty and future security of the United
States.....Freedom, Liberty and Security that this Constitutionally conservative,
patriotic President has worked so hard to encourage and protect.

Now...here are thoughts of several writers
who had similar concerns prior to the election....read on....
Thomas Sowell.... “If you think political spin and political gamesmanship are the answers to this country’s problems, then vote for the Democrats. Some leading Democrats have already announced that they plan to impeach President Bush if they get control of the House of Representatives. In other words, in the middle of a war, they are prepared to bog down the administration in domestic political and legal hassles, putting the winning of the White House in 2008 ahead of winning the war on terrorism. There was a time when we all understood that, whatever we might think of a President, we still had only one President at a time and that wholesale obstruction and undermining of him was obstruction and undermining of the United States in the face of its enemies.” —
Mark Steyn ....“Thomas Sowell says the question for this election is not whether you or your candidate is Republican or Democrat but whether you’re ‘serious’ or ‘frivolous.’ A lot of Americans, and not just their sorry excuse for a professional press corps, are in the mood for frivolity. It’s like going to the theater. Do you really want to sit through that searing historical drama from the Royal Shakespeare Company? Or would you rather be at the sex comedy next door?
In the 1990s, Americans opted for the sex comedy—or so they thought. But in reality the searing historical drama carried on; it was always there, way off in the background, behind the yuk-it-up narcissist trouser-dropper staggering around downstage. The mood of the times was to kick the serious stuff down the road so we could get back to President Lounge Act offering to feel our pain. With North Korea, the people delegated to kick the can a few years ahead—Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter are now back, writing self-congratulatory op-eds about their genius and foresight.
Not at all. Albright’s much-touted ‘agreement’ was a deal whereby Washington agreed to prop up a flailing basket-case state in order to enable it to buy enough time to become a serious destabilizing threat to its neighbors and beyond. Many of our present woes—not least Iran—derive explicitly from the years when Carter embodied the American ‘superpower’ as a smiling eunuch... Life isn’t a night on Broadway where you can decide you’re not in the mood for ‘Henry V’ and everyone seems to be having a much better time at ‘La Cage Aux Foley’.” —
Ronald Reagan ....“Evil still stalks the planet. Its ideology may be nothing more than blood lust; no program more complex than economic plunder or military aggrandizement. But it is evil all the same. And wherever there are forces that would destroy the human spirit and diminish human potential, they must be recognized and they must be countered.” —

James Lewis, a frequent contributor to American Thinker
wrote the following article:
It’s very unfashionable these days to say nice things about George W. Bush. After six years of being screamed at by the press, even W’s friends are getting worn down. But that’s no different from Lincoln and Truman. Being screamed at long and hard is practically an entrance test for presidential stature in America.
I’ll bet right now that Bush 43 will come to be seen
as one of the most important presidents,
not because he has solved the challenges of the war we now face,
but because he is the first president to try to do so with all his heart and soul.
In the Long War on Islamofascism, future administrations will learn from George W. Bush, just as Cold War presidents learned from Harry S Truman. Truman didn’t win the Cold War, but he defined it for the next forty years. Like Truman’s, this is a watershed administration, gifted with the intelligence and courage to recognize the times we live in.
Sad to say, our Democrat Party isn’t ready to govern. The only thing more terrifying than nuked-up mullahs is the Democrats’ eagerness to give them whatever their tiny hearts desire. It was Bill Clinton who gave two nuclear reactors to Kim Jong Il in exchange for a promise to be good— but with no actual inspections for five years. It was Jimmie Carter who allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to seize power in Tehran, because a religious person like Khomeini just had to be a lot sweeter than the Shah. The sadomasochistic nature of the Khomeini regime is incomprehensible to Carter, who naturally still thinks he was right all along. The dictionary doesn’t have a word for that kind of folly. It is beyond words.
Great PR does not make for great presidencies. Passing the buck doesn’t do it. Had Lincoln chosen to ignore those shots fired at Fort Sumter in April, 1861 he would have enabled the end of the United States. Had Harry Truman failed to drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would have lost hundreds of thousands more lives—or settled with an Imperial Japan that was only a decade away from nuclear weapons. Such decisions are inhumanly difficult, but they must be made with clarity and courage. And that is why Truman and Bush 43 may be among our best.
For our greatest presidents it’s not “book learning” but character that matters.
Moral intuition is the key.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that FDR had a third-rate mind but first-rate political instincts. What Lippmann didn’t say was that most of our lives are governed by finely honed instincts:
that only intellectuals try to define every word they say, and it constantly gets them snarled up when they try to act: It’s the Hamlet syndrome.
In contrast, moral intuition is cherished in Anglo-American conservatism because our intuitions capture truths that cannot be fully articulated. Karl Marx was a creature of German and French philosophy, which is precisely why his ideas have been so immensely destructive of human lives and happiness.
Marx represents the triumph of ungrounded intellect over reality-based intuition.
Our chattering classes think that ordinary Americans are stupid,
because they don’t know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia. But they know the
difference between right and wrong: which is a lot more important, and is an insight in painfully
short supply among those who fashion themselves of superior mental capacity.
By the measure of moral clarity and courage,
George W. Bush is right up there with the best in American history.
Thank you, James Lewis.
By Tony Blankley
December 13, 2006
The American presidency has been called "A Glorious
Burden" by the Smithsonian Museum, and the loneliest job in the world by
historians. As we approach Christmas 2006 Anno Domini, President Bush is
surely fully seized of the loneliness and burden of his office.
For rarely has a president stood more alone at a moment of high crisis
than does our president now as he makes his crucial policy decisions on the
Iraq War. His political opponents stand triumphant, yet barren of useful
guidance. Many -- if not most -- of his fellow party men and women in
Washington are rapidly joining his opponents in a desperate effort to save
their political skins in 2008. Commentators who urged the president on in
2002-03, having fallen out of love with their ideas, are quick to quibble with
and defame the president.
James Baker, being called out of his business dealings by Congress to
advise the president, has delivered a cynical document intended to build a
political consensus for "honorable" surrender. Richard Haass (head of the
Council on Foreign Relations) spoke approvingly of the Baker report on "Meet
the Press," saying: "It's incredibly important... that the principle lesson
[of our intervention Iraq] not be that the United States is unreliable or we
lacked staying power... to me it is essentially important for the future of
this country that Iraq be seen, if you will, as Iraq's failure, not as
America's failure."
That such transparent sophism from the leader of the American foreign
policy establishment is dignified with the title of realism, only further
exemplifies the loneliness of the president in his quest for a workable
solution to the current danger.
Not surprisingly, the most recent polls show just 21 percent approval of
his handling of the war -- an 8 percent drop since the election, and that
mostly from Republicans and conservatives. Overall, his job approval level is
down to 31 percent.
If Washington gossip is right, even many of the president's own advisers
in the White House and the key cabinet offices have given up on success.
Official Washington, the media and much of the public have fallen under the
unconscionable thrall of defeatism. Which is to say that they cannot conceive
of a set of policies -- for a nation of 300 million with an annual GDP of more
than $12 trillion dollars and all the skills and technologies known to man --
to subdue the city of Baghdad and environs. Do you think Gen. Patton or Abe
Lincoln or Winston Churchill or Joseph Stalin would have thrown their hands up
and say "I give up, there's nothing we can do?"
Or do you suppose they would have said, let's send in
as many troops as we can assemble to hold on, while we raise more troops to
finish the job. If the victory is that important -- and it is -- then failure
must be unthinkable, even if it takes another five or 10 years.
And yet, when I exclusively interviewed two members of the Baker
commission last week they explicitly told me that they didn't propose
increased troops strength because their military advisers told them it wasn't
currently available.
Well, in 1943 we didn't have the troop strength for D-Day in 1944, and in
1863 we didn't have the troop strength (or the strategies) for the victory of
1865. But we had enough to hold on until the troops could be recruited and
trained (and winning strategies developed). And so we do today. I have been
told by reliable military experts that we can introduce upward of 50,000
combat troops promptly -- enough to hold on until more help can be on the way.
Sometimes, current tactical logistical weaknesses must not be used as an
excuse for, or a signal of, strategic failure. In 1861 newly elected President
Abraham Lincoln faced such a dilemma over the siege of Fort Sumter. Lincoln
had decided to ignore his military advice to surrender the fort. While the
final published version of his explanation for this decision in his July 4,
1861 Message to Congress did not reflect his personal anxiety in coming to
that decision, it might be useful to Mr. Bush to read Lincoln's first,
unpublished, draft -- which did reflect his mental anguish as he tried to
decide. All his military advisers, after due consideration, believed that Fort
Sumter had to be evacuated.
Lincoln was alone in the self-same rooms now occupied by George W. Bush. All his cabinet and all his military advisers had counseled a path Lincoln thought would lead to disaster. He was only a month in office and judged by most of Washington -- including much of his cabinet -- to be a country bumpkin who was out of his league, an accidental president. Alone, and against all advice he made the right decision -- as he would do constantly until victory.
The ghost of Old Abe is on your shoulder.
God Bless you

July 22, 2007
"W" Still Stands for "Win"
By Mark Noonan at 12:20 AM
Taking a step out on a limb, Bill Kristol explains why he think President Bush will be remembered as a successful President:
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.
Kristol goes into depth on all three of those things, but as this is the blog I write for,
I think I'll put out my two cents.
Having no attacks on American soil since 9/11 is something that most people don't think about - the absence of a thing tends to drive it out of mind; but the plain fact of the matter is that we were proved horribly vulnerable on 9/11 and to have nearly 6 years go by without another attack - at a time when the terrorists would give just about anything to carry out an attack in the United States - shows that President Bush has made the right moves in making America secure. Not 100% secure - there is no way to do that; but secure enough that the fear of another attack has faded from the public mind. For all the carping of some that we haven't done enough and all of the downright stupid statements that we are no more secure than we were then, the fact of no new attack is something greatly to President Bush's credit.
President Bush inherited a recession, a stock market slump, a corporate corruption scandal and then had that whole economic morass topped off with a terrorist attack which cost the American economy greatly. From these economic doldrums, President Bush has cleared the way for an economic boom the likes of which America has never seen. Oh, to be sure, a lot of people don't see it - because the MSM simply will not tell the people the truth about what is happening in the economy. But for anyone paying attention, it is clear that we've never had it so good - and all of this economic growth was fostered by President Bush in the teeth of what he inherited, and the desperate attempts by Democrats to get President Bush to kill the economy via tax hikes.
Iraq was the central act of courage of President Bush - he could have avoided it altogether. In other words, after toppling the Taliban he could have called it a day and basked in the glow of a low-cost and successful military campaign which exorcised a lot of the anger and fear Americans felt immediately after 9/11. But he knew that to leave things alone after Afghanistan - and even if we really stepped up our non-military anti-terror campaign - it would be to just kick the problem down the road...perhaps until after President Bush left office, but still a gathering threat which would be best met as early as possible.
And so, into Iraq - but first he, mistakenly, gave his critics their UN due and did the diplomatic dance which merely allowed Saddam and the terrorists time to prepare; but President Bush had promised a new tone in Washington, and he felt bound by that promise, even if the other side was spitting in the extended hand. When diplomacy inevitably failed, the military which had been refurbished by President Bush since 2001 gave the world the most magnificent display of armed might ever seen. And, once again, President Bush could have cashed his chips in and come home - like his father, he could have declared victory, held a big parade and then basked in the glory of it all...and, unlike his father, this would likely have propelled President Bush to re-election with something on the order of 60% of the vote...but votes weren't important; heck, getting re-elected wasn't important...what was important was changing the dynamic of the Arab/Moslem world as the only means to actually solve the problem of terrorism - and that meant we'd have to stay in Iraq and make certain it got fully on its feet before we left. And thus the tight election of 2004, and the continued hammering of the President's popularity as the campaign has gone on far longer than anyone wanted, or hoped.
Many times since 2004 President Bush could have given up - to the applause of many, he could have pulled the troops out after declaring victory...but that, once again, would be to just delay the day of reckoning. One thing President Bush has certainly proved is that he has no lack of courage - and that courage will be rewarded.
It might take some time, but I don't think it will take much time - it could be as soon as 2010 or so that we're already getting people saying that "President Bush would have done such and such" in the face of some crisis, or that "President Bush wouldn't have backed down the way so and so did". President Bush's courage and sublime disregard for his own position will become a standard of reference - it will be asked if "so and so" has the courage to risk his political career the way President Bush did.
A man like President Bush comes along rarely in a nation's history,
and I am grateful we have had him through these difficult times -
the next President will have less trouble to deal with and a smoother ride...
and will likely reap the political benefits he didn't earn, but that is ok -
all President Bush ever needs to know is that he did his duty,
and that is enough for any man.
by Mark Noonan

Now....here is the Truth plainly spoken by a good and sincere man...
President George W. Bush
43rd President of the United States of America
October 6, 2005
Excerpts from speech discussing the War on Terror given for the National Endowment for Democracy
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.
Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.
In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)
Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil 'Islamic radicalism'; others, 'militant Jihadism'; still others, 'Islamo-fascism.' This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.
Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.
The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)
We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.
First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders.
Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.
Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles.
And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.
This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.
Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror.
The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.
Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies.
For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.
Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens.
And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.
The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced.
They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.
Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.
In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years.
With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people.
We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)
As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.
Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)
The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next.
If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.
America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow.
We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)
As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.
After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.
Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)
With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people.
Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.
We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
George W. Bush
![]()
Scroll
down to order and press "Add to Basket"![]()
|
![]()
A Matter of Character
by
Ronald Kessler
More than seventy-five books attacking George W. Bush have been published so far.
Now, finally, there's a book that sets the record straight against a backdrop of media bias. And it's by an award-winning independent reporter who set out to find the real President Bush behind the two-dimensional public image.
Ronald Kessler was granted unique access to the West Wing and interviewed the key players of the Bush administration-from Condoleezza Rice to Karl Rove to the president himself. Kessler also interviewed Bush's close friends, college roommates, and former aides.
His surprising conclusion: George W. Bush isn't the most articulate or scholarly president in history, but he scores very high on the factors that count most: character and leadership.
President Bush has a more clearly defined moral instinct, management style, and self-awareness than any other recent president. And without question, President Bush is the driving force behind his administration, not the pawn of anyone else.
In an age when politicians notoriously hem and haw while trying to please everyone, he makes deft decisions very quickly. He is bolstered by his strong Christian faith and the resolve he gained after giving up alcohol.
Kessler's unconventional book-filled with news hooks about life in the West Wing-will help them understand the real George W. Bush. And for readers who already support the president, A Matter of Character is the book they've been waiting for.
Ronald Kessler is the New York Times bestselling author of sixteen non-fiction books. Kessler began his career as a journalist in 1964 on the Worcester Telegram, followed by three years as an investigative reporter and editorial writer with the Boston Herald. In 1968, he joined the Wall Street Journal as a reporter in the New York bureau. He became an investigative reporter with the Washington Post in 1970 and continued as a staff writer until 1985.
Finally we say, 'God
Bless and help you, Mr. President...

Some of us recognize that you are in a battle
with America's enemies who are ruthless and relentless.
Many of us believe this is God's World
and that Godness will win in the end.
Thank you for standing tall and testifying to that fact.

Inaugural Speech 1-20-05
This link takes you to an article on the U.S. Constitution
This link takes you back to Pathways

Lois J. Crawford
2006....2008
