CliffHanger Hangs One on Hedges

One of the benefits of being Cliffhanger is the opportunity to write at the blog. Unrestrained by the cutting and pasting of liberal opinion page editors. Here’s my response to William Hedges buffoonery

My judgment of the President’s performance is centered on three basic conservative principles and concerns: 1. taxation and fiscal responsibility 2. Judicial selections 3. U.S national security.

President Bush’s tax cuts have led to an economy that has expanded quarter after quarter. Bush has been guided by the irrefutable knowledge that leaving more money in the hands of the producers leads to economic growth. Despite the negative shocks from the housing/mortgage sector and the energy sector, our economy may have slowed, but it continues to grow.

One of my two great disappointments in President Bush has been the massive expansion of government spending during his tenure. It can’t be ignored and although Congress deserves much of the blame, the President wields the veto pen and it should have been put to greater use.

On judges it’s a slam dunk triumph for W. By placing two relatively young, originalist judges on the Supreme Court (Roberts and Alito) and making similar appointments to the lower courts, W has made an indelible stamp on the judiciary. Conservatives are tired of judges who legislate from the bench. When liberals complain about judicial appointments, I know we’re headed in the right direction.

W’s greatest accomplishments are in national security. Everyone I know thought that 9/11 was the opening salvo in a series of terrorist attacks. Seven years later and there hasn’t been one. W has led the way in codifying the intelligence methods that have kept the enemy at bay and he has taken the war against us to the enemy’s own soil.

Anybody who states that the Iraq war was unnecessary is 100 percent ignorant of our enemy’s ultimate goal. Without control of Baghdad, the Islamist movement is a failure. Al Queda chose to meet us in Iraq and they got their butts kicked. When I hear liberals make idiotic statements such as “there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush went there”, I simply ask “where would you prefer them to be.” I’ve never heard a coherent answer.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan were state sponsors of terrorism. No doubt each still contains terrorist elements, but they are not state sponsored. Iraq is inching its way toward a constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. If this project succeeds, Iraq can be an inspirational example for citizens throughout the region who long for freedom.

If the left had their way, Saddam would be sitting on a fortune in petro dollars. The Butcher of Baghdad would have been more wealthy and emboldened than ever. Look at Russia’s behavior this week and ask yourself “What would Saddam be doing?”

My second disappointment in W has been his refusal to take on those who have continuously slandered his administration. Mr. Hedges provides a perfect example. He accuses W of “repeatedly violating his oath”. In true liberal fashion, Hedges makes a subjective statement as if it were a fact and fails to offer a single example. Does he have information the Feingolds and Kusinichs don’t have? It seems to me that leftist zealots in Congress would have acted on Hedges claims. If they had any merit.

Hedges is a little man, writing little letters to little newspapers, but his attacks on W are the type that I would have hoped to see refuted with great confidence and vigor. Unfortunately, they have not been and W’s tenure has suffered greatly because of his failure to defend good policy and good intentions.

Filed under: Chip by Chip