Diversion

I thought President Bush's address to the American Legion Convention was excellent.

As usual, the lib media give Bush's speech a negative spin.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.

With just over two months until Election Day, Bush said opponents of the war in Iraq who are calling for a plan to bring home troops would create a disaster in the Middle East.

No anti-Bush bias there.

Riiiiight.

"Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic but they could be — they could not be more wrong," the president said. "If America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable, and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies — Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al-Qaida terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban."

The president chose a friendly audience in one of America's most conservative states to begin his pre-election series of speeches defending his war strategy. The three-week campaign is tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict," Bush told thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

The President addresses the American Legion convention EVERY YEAR.

It's always a high profile event.

Note to AP reporter Nedra Pickler: The American Legion chose the site of its annual convention, booked years in advance.
See?

Reno, NV - August 24-30, 2007

Phoenix, AZ - August 22-28, 2008

Louisville, Kentucky - August 21 - 27, 2009

Milwaukee, Wisconsin - August 27 to September 2, 2010

Bush didn't "pick" Salt Lake City, in "one of America's most conservative states," to deliver his speech.

...Even in Utah — which gave Bush a wider margin of victory than any other state in the 2004 election — the president's appearance was a source of dispute. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, led thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators on a march through the city Wednesday. He called Bush a "dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president."

And the lib media loved it!

Anderson should be ashamed of himself.

He acted like the mayor of a city in Iran rather than Utah.

Anderson took office on January 3, 2000. So he was the mayor when Salt Lake City hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Did he stage protests against the Chinese Olympic team, calling the Chinese human-rights-violators?

Or, did he welcome the entire world with open arms?

Hypocrite.

The White House countered by organizing a campaign-like rally at the airport for Bush's arrival Wednesday night. A couple thousand cheering supporters, who got tickets from the governor's office and the congressional delegation, stood under flood lights and cheered as Bush pledged to stay in Iraq.

The suggestion is that the White House rounded up thousands of people to pretend to support Bush, as if the enthusiasm at the rally wasn't genuine.


That's nuts. Pickler just wrote that Utah is one of America's most conservative states. Support for the President of the United States is sincere.

Duh.

The pro-Bush American Legion did not have any anti-war speakers or nationally prominent Democrats scheduled to speak at its convention, which attracted at least 12,000 veterans. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed the group earlier this week as part of the high-powered campaign to build support for the war.

Veterans support Bush. Is that a surprise?

Why would the American Legion want to hear from any prominent Dems, other than Joe Lieberman?

I would love to see John Murtha address the convention. Do you think he would have the courage to do that? I don't. I think that's outside his comfort zone.

It's so easy for Murtha to spout off when talking with like-minded Tim Russert. Accepting bouquets of flowers from CODEPINK is about all that Murtha can handle.

Think about it.

Does NARAL invite pro-life speakers to their gatherings? Do they get a spot on the roster?

Does a KKK representative speak at the NAACP convention? (Robert Byrd doesn't count.)

The convention offers speakers that interest the vets. Makes complete sense to me.

This AP article seems to be cutting on the American Legion for supporting Bush, painting it as some sort of fringe group.

That's not too cool to be anti-vet, anti-troops.

The vets understand what it means to confront an enemy. They understand the stakes. They understand how precious freedom is. They understand its cost.

The lib media don't.

Bush's address was filled with great points.

I especially liked this:

Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in Iraq. It would come as news to the number two man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, "the place for the greatest battle." It would come as news to the terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and other countries, who have to come to Iraq to fight the rise of democracy.

It's hard to believe that these terrorists would make long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting, or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad, for a so-called "diversion." Some Americans didn't support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein; many are frustrated with the level of violence. But we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century -- so we will defeat them in Iraq.

It's hard to believe that these terrorists would make long journeys across dangerous borders, endure heavy fighting, or blow themselves up in the streets of Baghdad, for a so-called "diversion."
Counter that Dems.

Bush illustrated just how clueless they are. The differences between Republicans and Dems, when it comes to national security, are so clear.

Simply put, the Dems are not fit to wage the War on Terror. They are appeasers.

They don't understand the enemy. They don't comprehend the threat.

Bush does.