MORE PROOF THAT GEORGE DUBYA BUSH IS A LIBERAL: FOR THE FIRST TIME WINCE WW2, FED JOBS OUTGREW PRIVATE SECTOR

NYTIMES:

George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.

YA SEE: GW BUSH IS A LIB:

• HE WAS FOR AMNESTY.
• HE WAS FOR MIERS.
• HE PUSHED FOR AND WON THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF MEDICARE SINCE LBJ.
• HE PUSHED FOR AND WON THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF EDUCATION SPENDING EVER.
• HE PUSHED FOR AND WON THE MOST MONEY FOR AFRICA EVER.
• HE PUSHED FOR AND WON THE MOST MONEY FOR AIDS - AN STD - THAN EVER.
• AT LEAST HE GOT THE WAR RIGHT.

YUP: LIKE MCCAIN, DUBYA IS A LIB.

MCCAIN IS JUST A LITTLE MORE OF A DEFICIT HAWK AND A TIGHT-WAD.

GIVING LAND TO FATAH IS GIVING LAND TO HAMAS

Happy Labor Day:

At a summit Tuesday, Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert talked for the first time about the core issues that have scuttled decades of peace efforts - Palestinian refugees, final borders and the fate of Jerusalem. It was the first time Olmert and Abbas addressed the issues in depth and it represented an important building block for the November's peace conference. Before the meeting with Olmert, Abbas had warned the November conference would be a waste of time if the big three issues were glossed over. Bush proposed the conference this fall after bloody infighting split the Palestinian leadership into two rival governments. His administration sees the bitter internal split as an opportunity to push for a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Is there a single serious scholar or diplomat who thinks that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians can be achieved without a reunification of the West Bank and Gaza? Certainly not Syria. Because if a three state solution isn't viable, then any Israeli concessions to Fatah will eventually be followed up by reunification between Fatah and Hamas. Which will happen on Hamas's terms, since Hamas is vastly more powerful. Which means that Israeli concessions to Fatah are de facto concessions to the genocidal terrorists in Hamas. And everybody knows it.

[Read an extended version of this post at Mere Rhetoric]

ASYMMETRIC WARFARE AT HOME: THE MSM AGAINST THE TRUTH

After Bush gave a GREAT speech to the VFW, Hewitt asked a good question here:

Will 10,000 Terrorists Killed Or Captured In Iraq In 2007 Lead The MSM News Tonight?

Hewitt's total was off: it's 12,000 enemy killed since January. The enemy is being annihilated, and the MSM won;t tell the people. it won't because it knows that if this was really brought home to the public the public would be MUCH more supportive of our continuing efforts.

So, of course it did not lead the news - nor was it broadcast much at all.

And this is why the free world runs a risk of having a major setback in WW4 - by electing a Democrat to the White House. Because the so-called "anti-war" leftists control the MSM, a significant portion of the public is not getting the whole story and so they are not enthusiastically supporting our continuing excellent efforts in Iraq. And we can expect the MSM's nabobs of negativity to continue to besmirch our efforts until they put a leftist in the White House.

YUP: as far as the MSM is concerned all we will hear for the next year is that Iraq is a lost cause (and the Earth's climate is a catastrophe), and it won't stop until UNTIL THEY PUT HILLARY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Their coverage of the Iraq War and of "climate change" is as accurate as was their coverage of Katrina and "the plastic turkey" and all the other BOGUS BUSH SCANDALS. Which is to say their coverage SUCKED and just plain got the facts wrong, and always got them wrong in a way to hurt Bush.

The blogosphere and talkradio are doing a great job, but neither has the scope or reach to disinfect the part of the public which mostly just gets its news from watching the morning or evening news on TV.

The blogosphere and talkradio are good at energizing the base, but not yet at reaching out to the independents and middle-of-the-roaders, (the free-rangers as the folks at PJM call 'em).

That's why it's primarily the job of the White House. And the White House has NOT done a very good job of this; there's been little consistency and a lot of missteps: The Wilson-Plame Affair was terribly mishandled. And they squandered a lot of good will and support from the base over Dubai and Miers and Shamnesty.

Getting around the MSM's leftist anti-war filter is paramount.

And this is why I think the VFW speech SHOULD have been delivered to a Joint Session of Congress. It was that good and that important. And before Congress - in prime time - more people would have seen it UNFILTERED.

Our next nominee had better do a better job of communicating and controlling the terms of the debate. I think Romney is the most effective on TV. Rudy has the cred's and gravitas. Fred says all the right things. Some combination of these three might make a great ticket.

In the meantime we have to continue to wage our battle against the MSM. Damn the asymmetry, full speed ahead!

WW4 & BUSH'S POLL NUMBERS, AND THE CIVL WAR & ABE LINCOLN'S

Bush is now back up in the polls - in the 30% area. It's simple: the better the Iraq Front goes, the better his numbers get.

It was the same for Lincoln.

In fact, Abe - who is now regarded as the greatest president in our nation's history - had much lower numbers: Lincoln was - in his lifetime, and during his two-terms - THE LEAST POPULAR PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME:

Lincoln was elected with half the vote in half the nation (which INCLUDED the south), or 25%.

And six months before the election of 1864, he was less popular than that - maybe as low as 20%! In fact, he thought he was going to lose. Only a succession of war victories boosted his popularity. With just six months to go before re-election.

Bush has more time before his second term is up, and there is ample time for things to continue as they are - to such a degree as to push him well over 50% again.

Victory has a thousand fathers don't you know...

I expect this to be the case.

What is sad for me is the fact that the numbers reveal that most Americans still do not grasp what is at stake, or the need to confront it now rather than after the enemy (any part of this transnational extremist enemy) has WMD, even nukes.

It is a far FAR safer world without the RISK of Saddam getting WMD.
And with Libya out of the WMD game, and without Pakistan in the WMD racket, literally.
And with North Korea coming back into the fold.

It will be a far FAR safer world when we stabilize Iraq and "neutralize" Iran - which will neuter Syria and Hizballah and Hamas.

At that stage, all the wobbly Western nations and dubious Arab and North African and Muslim nations around the world will be much more able to openly and unreservedly combat these extremists. And the global war against islamic extremism - WW4 - will be then won.

This war is at least as important to the Free World and the 21st Century as the US Civil War was to the USA and the 19th C. A loss in this war would be like losing to Hitler and Stalin and Mao COMBINED.

We must go wobbly and let the 21st Century Copperheads get control. If they do - if Hillary or Obama or Edwards or ANY DEMOCRAT gets in the White House, then we shall surely lose. If not SURRENDER.

Bush is like Lincoln, and the Democrat Party of today is like the Copperhead dominated Democrat Party of 1865. (More HERE. AND HERE.) [Great post on Lincoln here. And Murtha and the Copperheads HERE.]

Look at it this way: the islamic extremists are like a global KKK-cubed and on speed - and all us non-extremist Muslims are ni**ers. The West should no more give into the islamic extremists than the USA give into the Confederacy or the Klan.

TONY BLAIR'S FAREWELL

Some may belittle politics. But we who are engaged in it know it is where people stand tall. Although I know it has its many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster.

If it is on occasion the place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes, and I wish everyone, friend or foe, well.

-- British Prime Minister Tony Blair

Conservatives may not agree with Tony Blair on a lot of issues but he has been a great friend to the U.S. and he "gets it" when it comes to the war on terror. I thought the above quote by him was an excellent quote to say in his farewell speech. Pretty impressive!!

Gateway Pundit also points out how Tony's wife, Cherie Blair got a little dig in at the media on her way out. You go Cherie!!

To top it all off, Bush got a great dig in about Jimmy Carter in his remarks on Tony Blair.

INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT

This was Bush's Spokesman's response to Carter:

I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," Fratto told reporters. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.

I couldn't think of a better phrase to sum up Jimmy Carter than "Increasingly irrelevant". Its just too bad Carter doesn't realize it.

Allies Cheerfully Betrayed - In Advance

It's Vietnam Time again. The House of Representatives has passed a Cut and Run Bill disguised as a Support the Troops Bill. How clever.

However, we have a lot of clever citizens in America. One of them has something very useful to say.

We must stop this "Hate George Bush" war at any cost.

It is a tremendous roadblock, stalemating the Iraqi war, and tying up the Congress as it tries to come up with more ways to thwart or embarrass the President through the war. Mistakes have been made. But Hating George Bush isn't going to correct them.

"Hate George Bush" involves waiting another two years during which we expend money and troops while awaiting a Democrat president who will inherit, in the least, the same conundrum, two years and perhaps two trillion dollars later. Meantime we will still owe this tremendous moral debt to the Iraqi people.

Here we have another case, like Vietnam, of not supporting our allies.

At least in the case of Vietnam we had the decency to wait until most of the American troops were out of the country.

Cross Posted at Power and Control and at Classical Values

U.S. ATTORNEYS FIRING "SCANDAL" A SIGN OF THE TIMES

Heard a little bit of Rush in the car this morning and he was talking about how this U.S. Attorneys firing scandal isn't a scandal at all.

It's true... President Bush can fire who he wants and his actions are hardly unprecedented.

Bill Clinton after all fired all the U.S. Attorneys (93) when he first came into office. It was his right and even back then, I didn't blame him.

We elect presidents for a reason: to lead. It's not out of line to want to bring in your own like-minded people, hell, I would think it's to be expected. Bush's failure to do so himself will probably go down as the biggest mistake of his presidency. He tried so hard to make his "new tone" work, and to wit he held onto a lot of Clinton people in the Executive Branch. The DOJ should have been cleaned out top to bottom, as well as the CIA and the State Department. But no, Bush let the stay and they continued to do their best to undermine his policies at every turn.
I should have seen it coming when the White House tried to cover-up the vandalism left by the Clinton thugs (remember the graffiti-ed walls and missing W's on the keyboards?).

No fight...no fight at all.

Now with this U.S. Attorney thing, Chuck Schumer says, 'well, yeah, Clinton fired all of them in '93 but Bush fired U.S. Attorneys that were investigating cases detrimental to him or not investigating cases that were beneficial to him.' However, no one seems to know what these cases are. This mountain of evidence seems to be for Chuck's eyes only, but even if there is evidence, it's still the president's prerogative.

Bottom line, we have a Stalinist movement to make it a crime for a sitting Republican president to exercise his executive powers.

How is this able to happen? One, our President refuses to fight back. Two, few people in the general public even know what U.S. Attorneys are and how they fit into our system of government. This in turn makes point three possible: We have an Orwellian up-is-down, black-is-white argument coming from the Democrats. The MSM reports it, doesn't question it and it becomes common knowledge that 'Bush illegally fired U.S. Attorneys.' That's all it takes in today's society. More at Jim-Rose.com...

THE NEXT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT BETTER BE TOUGH

As most of you know I love George W. Bush. Yet, one of the things that frustrates me is his lack of backbone and how he is TOO NICE!! He came into the presidency with the "new tone". The problem is the Democrats had absolutely NO PLANS to reciprocate that. So what has the "new tone" gotten Bush? Nothing but headaches!!

If you want to know what one of the biggest reasons for the Scooter Libby fiasco is because there are still a bunch of people in Government positions loyal to the Democrats. Bush didn't clean house when he took office and as a result many actively sought to work against him from day one.

This latest non-controversy over the firing of the U.S. attorneys is a perfect example. If Bush had done what Clinton had and cleaned house from the beginning of his presidency we wouldn't be talking about the absurdity of receiving flack about getting rid of 8 U.S. Attorneys. Clinton gets rid of all 93 his first year in office but Bush decides to get rid of 8 in his 7th yr. and its a national tragedy. The hypocrisy is astounding and yet Bush doesn't even really call the Dems and the Drive By Media on it. Instead he's upset about how it was handled. Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!

I also have to point out that the audacity of Hillary constantly shocks me. She is calling for Gonzales's head when her husband did the same exact thing except fired them all. After her atrocious actions in travelgate she has unbelievable nerve. My jaw is on the floor. She constantly does this. She or her husband commit a much more offensive act and then she turns around and points a finger at someone and accuses them of the same act that they aren't even really guilty of but she is. What do you call that? Audacious doesn't seem to be a strong enough word.

The bottom line is whichever Republican wins the nomination and goes on to be President in 2008 better have a backbone. That person needs to come in and not be afraid to clean house so there are no back stabbers undermining him during his entire administration. I would have to say that this is another reason I'm favoring Rudy. Do you see him hesitating to clean house? I don't!!