President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem yesterday to denounce those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” . Barack Obama and Democrats took it upon themselves to make it all about them because after all, if the shoe fits….. Here are the President’s comments (with remarks preceding the controversial ones for context) (indented paragraph is the statement Obama believes is about him):

(transcript)

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

Well, Democrats are incensed! Joe Biden called it bulls***! Oh, the outrage! Where exactly did Bush mention Obama?

Good for Bush for making the distinction between so-called Muslims and terrorists.

This is full footage of Barack Obama’s response this morning:

Obama relayed it to the crowd this way:

OBAMA: Instead of celebrating and offering some clear ideas about how to move the situation in the Middle East forward, the President did something that presidents don’t do. And that is launch a political attack targeted toward the domestic market in front of a foreign delegation. ON a day when we were supposed to be celebrating the anniversary of Israel’s independence, he accused me and other democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler.

He goes on to call it an appalling attack that alienates the U.S. from the world. And that Bush’s policy in Iraq has left America less safe.  And there’s a civil war in Iraq.  And last week Obama questioned McCain’s bearings!

Obama didn’t explain how ZERO terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is an indication that we are less safe.  He did say “civil war in Iraq” with a straight face, though.

This is a classic case of “we think the world revolves around us” thinking from the Democrats. Pres. Bush was addressing Israel and our partnership with her.  He must not have listened past the soundbyte to the ovation Bush received for his comments.  Israel is being told that they should negotiate, no, give in, to a terrorist organization like Hamas, give back the Golan Heights and give up their birthright. The comment by Pres. Bush was in perfect context with Israel and its history.

Didn’t D-Senator John Kerry call the Bush administration a “pariah” in front of a foreign audience abroad? Didn’t D-Congressman Dennis Kucinich blast Bush on Syrian TV?  What about Jimmy Carter negotiating with Hamas? 

The argument by Democrats is that the U.S. negotiates in 6-party talks with North Korea or with the Soviet Union when their missiles were pointed at us.  The difference of course is that unlike current and past negotiations with hostile countries, Iran is currently killing our soldiers.  They are not only the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world but they attempt every day to KILL U.S. SOLDIERS.  I don’t recall the KGB killing hundreds or thousands of U.S. soldiers during the Reagan administration or Kim Jong Il targeting U.S. troops in South Korea. 

The issue of whether or not to negotiate with hostile nations, i.e., enemies, is best understood while following this is basic counterinsurgency strategy: You don’t negotiate with irreconcilables, but with reconcilables.  Nations killing U.S. soldiers and plotting the destruction of our allies need a show of force not legitimization. 

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1843278

Should soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be awarded the Purple Heart? That is the question being considered by the Department of Defense. The Purple Heart is awarded “to those Combat Wounded men and women, who as Members of the Armed Forces, shed blood by an instrument of war in the hands of an enemy of the United States of America.” Post Traumatic Stress Disorder refers to an anxiety disorder that can occur after someone has been through a traumatic event.

This reminds me of former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki announcing that the entire Army would go from wearing caps to black berets in late 2000. The problem was that black berets were worn by Army Rangers, and maroon berets by the Airborne, as a distinguishing mark for those serving in elite combat troops. Shinseki’s well meaning attempt to make all soldiers equal denigrated the extraordinary nature of the soldier who volunteered for the very difficult and demanding task of being a Ranger or parachutist diminished their sacrifices.

The effort to award the Purple Heart to soldiers with PTSD is as well-meaning as the dummying down of the beret but as ill-conceived. Physical wounds sustained in combat change the soldier’s abilities for the rest of his life. Purple Heart recipients are an elite group like the Rangers, Special Forces or paratroopers. The soldier with PTSD still has use of his faculties and a stroll through Walter Reed quickly distinguishes between physical and mental wounds.

There’s no doubt more needs to be done to help soldiers with PTSD. The stigma attached to it should be ended and the military community from the DOD to the family level should circle around these brave warriors and offer them the acceptance and support they need and deserve, but at the end of the day the soldier who carries physical wounds deserves different recognition from those who carry mental and emotional ones.

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1839715

Too cool not to post. Tourists on safari in Africa filmed this now infamous video of the battle between a buffalo calf, several lions and an alligator. In the end, the buffalo herd rallies around the calf and wins him back. (Courtesy National Geographic)

Lesson to humans: natural instinct is for the family to defend its young.

Trackback URL:  
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1839457

Outspoken critic of the war strategy in Iraq LT GEN (RET) Ricardo Sanchez seems to be softening his rhetoric. In this interview with Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition, he admits the current strategy is the right one and is working and that the war in Iraq was not a mistake.

(transcript)

BLITZER: So is it moving in the right direction right now, U.S. strategy, or the wrong direction?

SANCHEZ: No, absolutely, I think the tremendous successes that Dave (GEN Petraeus) and our great young Americans have achieved is, in fact, allowing us to move in the right direction.

BLITZER: General, looking back, knowing what we know right now and obviously we’re all a lot smarter we are now as opposed to then. Was this war a mistake?

SANCHEZ: Well I think when we look at exactly what the decision elements were that were being considered, the intelligence that we believed in, I don’t know that our nation’s leadership, both military and political, could have made any other decision. 

And, in fact, Saddam was a significant threat in the region and we expected that we had some sort of WMD capability that was likely to get in the hands of extremists. So, when you look back, given what we knew then, I don’t believe you can call it a mistake.

This kinder, gentler Sanchez, who commanded the war in 2003 is thought to be a major contributor to what he calls the bungling and mismanagement of the war. He pulled troops off the streets to retreat into the Super FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) making securing the population impossible. This led to increased al-Qaeda activity, a terrorized population too afraid to cooperate with Coalition Forces and a growing insurgency. It’s puzzling that Sanchez has been so critical of a strategy that he was an instrumental part of.

Trackback URL:   
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1836830

LT GEN (RET) Ricardo Sanchez, former Multi-National Forces in Iraq commander, promoting his new book Wiser in Battle; a Soldier’s Story on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, conceded he did tell Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in Iraq that he had enough troops on the ground in 2003. This contradicts his complaints both publicly since his retirement and in his book that throughout his command in Iraq he did not have enough troops.

(transcript)

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1836796

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas chastised Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for her veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act and said Sebelius should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her support for the “serious moral evil” of abortion. Sebelius says she is a Roman Catholic but has one of the most radical pro-abortion agendas in the nation.

Archbishop Naumann’s comments were published in the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, the Leaven.

There is speculation that Gov. Sebelius tops Barack Obama’s vice-presidential list..and wouldn’t that be an interesting ticket?  Essentially America’s two top Democrats running for president and VP have massive church problems.  They are both so far left leaning it would alienate pro-life Democrats and moderates.   

The bill which Sebelius vetoed required abortion providers to keep written records of abortions, including information on why late term abortions were performed. Sebelius supports partial birth abortion and opposed this stipulation in the bill. 

Sebelius also accepted campaign contributions from Wichita’s infamous late-term abortion doctor George Tiller, who professes to have performed over 60,000 abortions with an area of expertise in late term abortions. Kansas restricts abortions after 22 weeks of gestation yet Tiller has performed thousands of late term illegal abortions.  He is known to have aborted the babies of pre-teen girls as young as 10 years old.  In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, Governor Sebelius has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.

Archbishop Naumann’s letter is HERE:

Governor’s Veto Prompts Pastoral Action

by Archbishop Naumann

On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (HS SB 389), which had been passed by significant majorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Last week, an attempt to override the governor’s veto failed in the Senate by two votes.

Governor Sebelius in her veto message claimed: “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them. Evidently, the governor does not approve of legislators devoting energy to protecting children and women by making it possible to enforce existing Kansas laws regulating late-term abortions.

The governor’s veto message demonstrated a lack of respect to the members of the Kansas General Assembly who had carefully crafted and resoundingly passed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, as well as to the many Kansans who find it more than an embarrassment, in no small part due to several previous vetoes by Governor Sebelius of earlier legislative efforts to regulate abortion clinics, that Kansas has become infamous for being the late-term abortion center for the Midwest.

What makes the governor’s rhetoric and actions even more troubling has been her acceptance of campaign contributions from Wichita’s Dr. George Tiller, perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation. In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, the governor has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.

In her veto message, the governor took credit for lower abortion rates in Kansas, citing her support for “adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.” Indeed, the governor and her administration should be commended for supporting adoption incentives and health services for pregnant women.

However, the governor overreaches by assuming credit for declining abortion rates in Kansas. Actually, lower abortion rates are part of a national trend. Our neighboring state of Missouri has actually had a steeper and longer decline in its abortion rate.

Governor Sebelius’ inclusion of public school sex education programs as a factor in the abortion rate decline is absurd. Actually, valueless sex education programs in public schools have been around for years, coinciding with increased sexual activity among adolescents, as well as increases in teen pregnancy and abortion. On the other hand, the governor does not acknowledge the significant impact of mass media education programs, such as those sponsored by the Vitae Caring Foundation, or the remarkable practical assistance provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers which are funded through the generosity of pro-life Kansans.

What makes the governor’s actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, throughout her public career, even more painful for me is that she is Catholic. Sadly, Governor Sebelius is not unique in being a Catholic politician supporting legalized abortion.

Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.

It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.

Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.

I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”

I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

More from GetReligion.Org

Trackback URL:  
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1832975

COL (RET) George Day is the most decorated serviceman since Douglas McCarther. He was also a POW at the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam with John McCain and has more than 70 military medals representing his service. Here Day talks about his experiences and torture in captivity with McCain.

Truly amazing heroes.

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1831319

Michelle Malkin’s appalling new series on her blog, Stuff Muslims Don’t Like: A new feature, is inflammatory, insulting and ignorant. My husband is a MSG in the Army and a Religious Leader Engagement subject matter expert in the war on terror, particularly relating to Iraq, and he is equally appalled. She justifies her series by comparing it to a blog called Stuff White People Like:

“Of course, Stuff Muslims Don’t Like doesn’t purport to characterize the entire Muslim population anymore than Stuff White People Like purports to characterize the entire population of white people. It’s a look at predictable predilictions, proclivities, and trends.”

Sure it doesn’t, Michelle.  She makes no distinction between an entire population and whoever her swipes are intended for.  Her flawed analogy doesn’t consider that Islam is a religion, not a race.

What’s worse is her comment section. The ignoramuses posting their have listed these examples of Stuff Muslims Don’t Like:

God (and all He stands for).

The United States of America

The Armed Forces of The USA

Out - respect and love for family

In - killing your daughters because they “shamed” you by having boyfriends

Grilled pork chops and chardonnay.

Daylight Savings Call to Prayer

Truth, Justice and the American Way!

Bathing…above the ankles.

People who think for themselves.

Women (in general)

and God forbid that they should see a woman bodybuilder!!

Learning how to land a plane.

Good hygiene

Unbelievable. It goes on with comments of blathering ignorance of proportions that make me shudder.  Do Malkin readers hold those views toward this man and his son? Or these Muslim women who are laying down their lives for their country?  How about this man?  Or these blind children and their amazing teacher?  They’re Muslim, too. How about this Muslim who teaches children that the United States is their friend?  Or this man and his son?  Or these Muslims who reached out to the Vatican in a gesture of unity and peace?  How about this Iraqi volunteer who saved U.S. troops and civilians by throwing himself on a suicide bomber?  

Funny, because I thought she and her readers typically praise these Muslims, despite the fact that they don’t bathe and don’t like “God and all he stands for.”  FOOLS!

What if her feature were a What Catholics Don’t Like?  What Philippino-American Women Don’t Like?  What Mormons Don’t Like? 

Malkin and her commenters ought to be ashamed of themselves. They say they support the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq but systematically insult the allies GEN Petraeus and our troops are making on the ground in the combat zone. Their words are as poisonous as any Democrat’s who continue to call Iraqis too lazy to fight for their own country. While politicians like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich argue that a U.S. presence in the Middle East in and of itself has provoked Muslim nations to take aim at U.S. interests around the globe, it is sentiments like Michelle Malkin’s that make it more difficult for Muslims to want U.S. soldiers on their soil. If these people are the friends of the troops, who needs enemies?

I realize it’s easier to paint a broad stroke of Islam because it is a very complicated religion and that I have turned off some of my readers defending Muslims, but this isn’t about condoning Islamic theology, it is about condemning Islamic apostates and heretics like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and defeating terrorism. I don’t condone Mormonism but I love Mitt Romney. See how that works?

It boils down to this: Do we want to win the war or not?  Do we want to defeat terrorism or not?  Do we want world peace or not?  If we do, we must stop flaunting our enormous cultural and religious ignorance and arrogance before it’s too late.

PREVIOUSLY:
GEN Petraeus on Relationships (including with Muslims, who want the same things we want) 

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1825115