State of the Union...

President Bush gave his last State of the Union address last night.

Overall, you have to admit that the man has produced results. This is something that he does not get credit for, particularly from the right.

As much as it may frost some conservatives to read this, President Bush managed to get a number of conservative reforms enacted in areas like education, health care, and medical research. He did it by being willing to give a little to get the first toeholds for these reforms - and for that, he took a lot of flak from those who decided that his actions were "unprincipled". I'd like to know just what the Ingraham/Malkin/Noonan/Tancredo axis managed to accomplish over the least eight years, other than showing how a few malcontents can wreck a governing coalition over the short term.

Mitt Romney has shown a lot of the same style that President Bush did - just look at the way he handled health care in Massachusetts. He found the problem, then tailored a solution to that problem - even though some think tanks gave him a lot of grief. Again, it is your choice - you can go with a think tank or pundit who can put stuff out in a vacuum, or you can trust someone who's on the ground and who has to deal with the problem.

Hopefully, the GOP can tell off the folks who caused us some very real problems ove rthe last three years - mostly by getting in the way of common sense solutions.

The decisive battle won?

The anti-war movement has retreated from its efforts to de-fund Iraqi campaign, which might not sound like much, but this is probably a sign that the decisive battle may be decided soon.

Let's lay this out very clearly: Our troops were winning on the battlefield. The terrorists have no hope of forcing us out. Their only hope was for the anti-war movement here to force us to prematurely quit.

And the anti-war movement has failed, and in their failure, they have tied the Democrats to working for defeat. Now,they are trying to keep us from a "long-term presence" in Iraq. They are clearly in a retreat, and they will not have the votes to override a veto. Nor can they stop President Bush from making an agreement without looking like they are undercutting the troops.

George W. Bush may have just managed to win the decisive battle in the war on terror.

The difference...

I can bet that Huckabee supporters are claiming that Mitt Romney is attacking Huckabee - and trying to make claims that there is an equivalence after Mitt went after Huckster.

Yeah, right.

Mitt Romney went after Huckabee's Kos-esque criticism of President Bush. He also compared his record on immigration. Neither compare to Huckabee's playing of the religion card.

To claim they do defies logic.

Still, some will try to defend it.

WHACK!

From the Drudge Report:

Bush says Dems beholden to 'Moveon.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters'... Developing...

Given that the Democratic presidential nominees seem to be arguing over who will roll out the most cowardly foreign policy, one has to agree with this on a factual level.

Remember, MoveOn.org even opposed kicking Taliban ass after 9/11.

UPDATE: We have a link.

Bolton's dishonor...

I used to be upset that John Bolton was not confirmed as UN Ambassador.

After reading this, I'm not upset any more.

John Bolton undercut Colin Powell's efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear program. It was insubordination - or its kissing cousin.

Quite frankly, even though I disagreed stringly with his position, I feel that General Anthony Zinni handled his opposition to the liberation of Iraq with far more honor than John Bolton handled his disagreement with the approaches chosen by his superiors.

My response to Pete Stark...

By now, most of you have heard about or seen Pete Stark's comments about President Bush.

President Bush will probably turn the other cheek. Again. We won't see him ask Stark if he'd care to repeat that comment to his face. We won't see him say Stark needs his ass kicked. He won't tell Stark "yob tvoyu maht", even though Condi Rice could make sure he could get the pronunciation right.

I view every one of the deaths the United States has suffered in the Global War on Terror as a tragedy. For amusement, I pay Pete Stark's mamma a visit.

Getting no credit...

One of the biggest frustrations I have on the immigration issue is that President Bush seems to get no credit for steps he has already taken to secure the border.

Look at this White House Fact Sheet and note some key points:
* The Border Patrol has increased from 9,000 agents in 2001 to 13,000 agents now - and plans to hit 18,000 by the end of 2008.
* Funding for border security has gone from $4.6 billion to $10.4 billion.
* Worksite enforcement actions increased from 24 in FY99 to 716 in FY2006.
* Nearly half of the planned 370 miles (at the end of 2008) of fencing/vehicle barriers have been built.

If that is not a significant effort to increase enforcement, then what is? Have the Border Patrol and ICE been playing tiddlywinks? People like Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo cannot have it both ways. President Bush has been making more of an effort to enforce laws that just don't work in the real world, and yet they resist any effort to make changes. In essence, their argument is that the increased enforcement is just a smokescreen to con patriotic Americans into allowing Jorge Arbusto to grant his shamnesty and then carry out his treasonous plan to establish the North American Union.

No wonder people like Lindsey Graham have been losing patience with them - particularly when a Joe Farah proclaims that the White House is disqualified from discussing border issues.

Backing down is not an option.

It seems that President Bush's comments yesterday struck some nerves.

I have long thought that calling his proposal on illegal immigration "amnesty" had about as much truth as Bill Clinton's claims in 1995 that Republicans wanted Medicare spending cuts.

Let's take a closer look at this. Big Lizards has a good, dispassionate take on the bill. The definition of an amnesty is a "general pardon", as dictionary.com states. As Dafydd demonstrates, there is no pardon here. To be more accurate, what we have here strikes me as something that Arthur Branch would have Jack McCoy do: A plea-bargain. Or immunity in exchange for testimony - like what was given to Monica Goodling.

So what is the beef with some of these people complaining about the bill? My suspicion is that it's because the bill is providing for punishment short of deportation. For some of these people, anything short of rounding up anyone who looks like they might be an illegal immigrant and shipping them over the Mexican border in cattle cars is amnesty.

Harsh? Well, maybe some of these anti-immigration types deserve this. Certainly, as I have outlined elsewhere on this blog, they have fired off some really nasty comments towards those who favor comprehensive immigration reform. And while Mary Katherine Ham is correct in pointing out that not all of the opponents of the comprehensive approach are bigots, she does seem to have missed that my side of this debate has taken its attacks, too. And being labeled a "Quisling" or a "traitor" tends to not only shorten my fuse, but it makes me more determined to stand my ground and fight. In my case, it led me to be somewhat unfair to Ms. Ham.

Furthermore, there are some bigots out there. I'll even name names: Jared Taylor, Lawrence Auster, and Steve Sailer. For the record, the latter two links ought to dispel any notions that the concern about these folks is just a matter of being PC. The first is from the personal blog of one of the founders of RedState.com. The second quotes extensively from another founder of that forum (the original link is down).

It comes down to two competing principles: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all mena re created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" on the one side, and "The plain fact is that [African-Americans] tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society" on the other. That is an either/or proposition if I ever saw one. One or the other must stand - the other must go to the ash heap of history. Note - the person who made the second quote is on one major conservative pundit's blogroll.

In essence, President Bush now has no choice but to fight. He cannot back down. This is a fight he must carry through to either victory - or to the bitter end. He's been standing firmly against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and against the anti-war movement. I don't think he is the type who will just roll over and play dead on this issue - not after the attacks he has been taking. To do so would be to acquiesce to bullying and false claims of amnesty. He cannot afford to show weakness at this point in time.

I for one, have no desire to back down. I want to see the comprehensive plan the Senate is now debating pass. I wish to see my side of this debate win - and to achieve vindication, particularly after what I feel to have been the misleading label of "amnesty" and the fact that some opponents have labeled me a traitor. If those sorts of political attacks fail, it can only be a good thing for the country.

We may actually be able to solve problems, not merely engage in political posturing.

Dems fail again...

Their effort to take out Alberto Gonzales has failed. This cannot be a good sign for the Democrats. With Bush's alleged weakness in the polls, they should have been able to knock Gonzales off easily.

Instead, they failed.

The speech on Iraq...

Overall, it was very good. See the transcript at whitehouse.gov (don't use .com, you'll get something you'd rather not have seen).

A couple of quibbles, though. One, he should have made it clear the initial decision and the strategy to topple the regime was not a mistake. Given what was believed to be the case, the strategy of a rapid takedown was the right one to use. Remember:

* We did not know just how far along Saddam had gotten with his WMD, and we had underestimated his progress prior to Desert Storm in 1991.

* The Czech government had reported that the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. Several Czech officals have stated so on the record, and I am unaware of any retraction. It has instead been stuck to as late as November 2005.

* There were reports from defectors that the method of operation used in the 9/11 attacks was being taught at a terrorist training facility in Salman Pak.

* There were other terrorists Saddam harbored, including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas.

* Then there was allowing some guy named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to get medical treatment as he fled Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden only named him the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Austin Bay's reasoning only adds to the correctness of that decision. But the WMD and the terrorist ties made taking him down fast essential. Would those who have constantly criticized Bush and Rumsfeld have been happier had they been forced to respond in kind to an attack involving WMD?

My other quibble - Bush should have said that he would not have any part in cutting and running, to the point of threatening that both he and Cheney would tender their resignations. If Nancy Pelosi is so bound and determined to order such a cowardly course, then she ought to give the orders as commander-in-chief herself - and let the voters judge that course.

This is just my opinion. Others may disagree. But those are my thoughts.

No sympathy for conservatives...

It seems some conservatives are complaining that Bush might compromise on Social Security.

There's a penalty to be paid for looking like such dolts that you lose Congress, Republicans. Hard-line conservatives need to grow up and take their medicine. There will be a temporary patch for Social Security. Bush will cut a deal on immigration that will be far less appealing than what the House GOP could have gotten if it had negotiated with the Senate and the President in good faith.

I guess we will find out who the real whiners are.

What the hard-liners gave us...

Besides Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha being in a position to stab our troops in the back, what else did hard-line conservatives give the country?

* Charles Schumer will now exercise extra-constitutional power with regards to judicial nominations.

* Barbara Boxer is planning hearings on global warming. Just remember, there's been talk of Nuremburg-style trials for global-warming skeptics.

* Patrick Leahy wants to give those al-Qaeda scumbags we have in custody more rights than they would give their intended victims. Three guesses what happens if other rights, like discovery, get extended.

Thanks for nothing, hard-liners.

Gates in for Rumsfeld...

President Bush has gone to the bullpen - after a very quality start to the war on terror, including a very heroic performance on 9/11.

Rumsfeld has been one of the best to have ever served as Secretary of Defense. He did so twice. This second time through was one of the more challenging times. On his watch as Secretary of Defense, three state sponsors of terror were taken off the board.

His treatment at the hands of the media and the Democrats is a black mark on both entities. The President's treatment at the hands of conservatives over this is also disgusting.

As for his successor, Robert Gates, I feel good. A lot of it is the complaints from Larry Johnson. I feel good. The war on terror may hit a more covert phase.