Keep the Brits in your thoughts and prayers. Their spirits won't be broken by cowardice terrorist acts, just as America's spirit wasn't broken after 9/11.
Another series of attacks took place today in London, again in three subway stations and on a double-decker bus. Not one single innocent person needed medical attention. The only person injured was one of the bombers. Apparently, none of the devices exploded as planned, or else were poorly developed. This will be great evidence and information for investigative officials.
This is pure speculation, but I suspect that if the British elections were held last week instead of a few months ago, Brits would still have voted for Tony Blair. While his fiscal policies might not be the best options for England, Blair's foreign policy nerve and hard stance against terrorism is admirable. While Spain capitulated in the wake of terrorist bombings in 2004, I believe the British people -- even in this age of increased secularism and rapid Arab immigration -- would have stood strong.
Amazingly, some Parliament leaders and even the mayor of London blamed the Western Hemisphere for the terrorist attacks. French President Jacques Chirac proudly told French citizens that they need not model the resolve of the British people in the wake of the London bombings. He actually criticized the Brits for having balls and some common sense. These people just don't get it.
Apparently these people still believe that appeasing terrorists will lessen their hate and their vengeful aspirations toward us. These simple minds spit venom about how if Britain and the USA never invaded Iraq, terrorist attacks wouldn't happen. NEWSFLASH: We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq on September 11, 2001 -- so what's their excuse for that? Appeasement never worked and it never will.
The Karl Rove situation is hilarious. Liberals continue to seek a smoking gun that will "get" Conservatives, particularly the Bush administration, where it hurts. "Downing Street Memos" this and "Downing Street Memos" that were all the talk of online liberals until the Time Magazine reporter admitted Karl Rove was one of his secret sources. But what really happened?
Federal law established under President Reagan forbade federal officials from knowingly revealing the identity of covert federal officials to the press. According to every source and public document released to this point, no laws were violated. The fact that Valerie Plame-Wilson and her hubby posed for a Vanity Fair pictorial doesn't help their defense of wanting to keep low-profile either.
Bottom line is this: We don't know all the details until the attorney researching the case releases his findings. If Rove violated the law, he should -- and will -- be released from the administration. If Rove did not violate the law, he should not be -- and won't be -- relieved of his current duties. It's as simple as that.
Finally, President Bush named John Roberts his candidate for Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, whom liberals accused of being part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy back in December 2000, is suddenly the model of what they want on the bench. I've since lost count how many times Democrats mumbled something about how they "hoped Bush would unite the country" and "bring us together" with his decision.
Seriously, what the heck is that supposed to mean?
It means that President Bush had a chance to appease Democrats, and to give them someone who would liberally interpret the Constitution as a living document susceptible to popular views of minorities and liberal special interests. It is hilarious how Democrats apparently feel entitled to choose Supreme Court justices when they do not win elections. The political Left made this an issue during the 2004 campaign with scare tactics of telling voters that if Bush won another term, Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
Memo to Democrats: If you want to choose Supreme Court justices, WIN ELECTIONS!
National exposure to this (then-potential) event in 2004 was partly why Bush announced Roberts's candidacy in prime time, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary. Another legitimate reason for the prime-time announcement was to avoid overshadowing the Australian Prime Minister, who visited and held a press conference at the White House earlier that day.
Many liberals have claimed this was just a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the Karl Rove investigation. Maybe that was a small part of it, but it is certainly no GOP equivalent to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Gharib.
The current political buzz is that Democrats will not filibuster or put up too big a fight at Roberts's nomination hearings. Not only does Roberts apparently have a spotless record, but every day this process is delayed represents one day longer that Justice O'Connor must wait before resigning in full to be with her ailing husband.
No comments:
Post a Comment