Iraqi Ambassador: Shoe Thrower Lucky It Wasn't Saddam

As much as the "mainstream" media and other juveniles loved the shoe-throwing incident against President Bush in Iraq, for anyone with a sense of shame, this was more insulting to the show-thrower and unfortunately to the people of Iraq than it was to President Bush.

In the video below, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie explains the sad truth of this incident to those liberals who have thus far lacked the maturity to understand it.

Responding to a group of Code Pink protestors, Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said: "Had it been Mr. Saddam Hussein he'd be (inaudible). Number 2, in our country, I know that people have told you that showing shoes at someone is an insult. But, it is a bigger insult to the host; in our culture anyone who insults a guest is insulting the host. So in our culture we believe that what Mr al-Zeidi did was reprehensible."

Responsible Reaction from the Left

Earlier today I read about the incident where an Iraqi journalist malcontent (much like some of the "mainstream" media types in this country) threw a shoe at the visiting President Bush.

Frankly, I wouldn't have liked to see such a thing happen to the despicable excuse for a president that Bill Clinton was, nor would I like to see it happen to President-elect Barack Obama.

The President of the United States represents this nation, especially when overseas dealing with international relations. So when this Iraqi journalist (who is obviously unappreciative of the freedom President Bush bought for him and the blood of 4,000 U.S. soldiers have paid for on his behalf) threw a show at President Bush, he threw that shoe at you, at me, and at our country.

Sadly and predictably, in reaction I saw the usual back-of-the-classroom, slumped-down-in-the-seat snickering and chuckling from some on the Left...those who don't have the good sense to put their country first...or even second or third.

But a big hat tip to Todd Epp at the liberal SD Watch for being the grownup in the room.

While voicing his discontent with President Bush, Todd nevertheless condemns this incident:

But in no way do I find today’s attack against him by an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at him funny or appropriate. I was shocked when I saw the footage today.

Thanks, Todd. Thanks for standing up for our president, our country, and setting a good example for others to follow.

The President Bush Snub That Wasn't

The juvenile snickerers and spitwad-throwers have yucked up the supposed "fact" that several world leaders refused to shake hands with President Bush at the G-20 summit.

They hate President Bush so bad that any opportunity to ridicule him--even if it is at the expense of their own country's prestige--is a welcome opportunity.

Just one problem (the usual problem with Leftist claims): it didn't happen that way.

The grownups had to educate the juvenile delinquents as to the background of the event...and perhaps to a little etiquette.

This is what the White House said:

White House Assistant Press Secretary Carlton Carroll said, "The President had already greeted ALL of those leaders prior to this picture--whereas the other leaders had not had the opportunity to greet each other yet that morning."

Typically when I attend a meeting or conference or other gathering of many people, I'll shake hands with people as I meet them the first time that day...and don't anymore that day, no matter how many subsequent times I may re-encounter them as events proceed.

But I suppose if you're a Leftist and love to see your Republican president look bad even if it does reflect negatively on your own country (not a big deal), then it makes for another good slam.

That, or maybe they're just not used to the civilized gatherings like this (kegger-parties and protest marches don't count).

The snub that wasn't. CNN's Jeanne Moos reveals why world leaders weren't shaking President Bush's hand.

President Bush's Resignation Speech?

This satirical speech has been floating around the internet for some time and I'm not sure who exactly wrote it, but Dr. Theo sent it to me today and I thought we should share it with our Dakota Voice readers.

If you've ever felt the frustration I sometimes do with the abstruse, unfathomable ignorance which hovers somewhere around 50% of the American population, you will appreciate this.

There are days when I'd pay good money to see President Bush issue this speech.

================================
Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too darn lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too darn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the butchers are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times,USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that 's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Bush Leaves Pelosi With Few Options

Democrats, lead by friend of Big Tuna Nancy Pelosi, have found themselves out maneuvered once again by the “boy president,” and it is hard to imagine a counter strategy that would not anger far-left supporters and moneyman George Soros. Pelosi and Reid have claimed the increasingly untenable position of the radical environmentalists and America-haters by adamantly refusing to consider proposals to increase production of known U.S. oil and natural gas reserves such as those in ANWR, the Destin Dome in the Gulf of Mexico just off the Florida panhandle and the abundant oil and natural gas in several Rocky Mountain states.

The Democrats’ position on new drilling is a political albatross that is certainly going to have its effects come November and in a bold (and perhaps brilliant) move President Bush yesterday again called upon Congress to end restrictions on drilling for new oil, chastising Democrats for not allowing a vote in the House prior to the August recess.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess.

‘To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home,’ Bush said in his weekly radio address. It was the fourth time this week that he has called for Congress to end the drilling restrictions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

‘But the leaders of the Democratic Congress have refused to allow a vote’ on whether the drilling moratoriums should be lifted, Bush complained.

(My Way News)

By so doing, Pelosi and Company are put in the win-less position of either continuing to resist efforts to increase American oil production, and thus lower fuel costs, as it surely will in both the short term and long term, or (horrors!) concede to the demands of Bush and the minority Republicans. In the latter case Democrats can kiss their base and their major source of money goodbye. In choosing to be obstinate in the face of an obvious remedy and against the sentiment of the majority of Americans, the Democrats (i.e., Pelosi and Reid) have secured a position from which retreat is unthinkable and defense is political suicide. Brilliant!

Tell Us What You Really Think, Nancy

Breitbart.com quotes Madame Pelosi today saying about the President,
"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."

With success upon success in Iraq and the Democrats owning the problems of home foreclosures and rising oil prices, Fancy Nancy, “Dingy” Harry Reid and B. Hussein Obama may find the going a little tougher in November than they’ve imagined. The Speaker’s comments about President Bush don’t sound so much like measured confidence as they do visceral loathing (with a liberal dose of self-deception).

Video here.

Opposition Continues Against Think Tank Inclusion in Bush Presidential Library

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Angela K. Brown
Associated Press Writer
Thu, Jul. 17 2008 08:48 AM EDT

After a nearly two-year losing battle, some Methodist ministers and professors mounted their final big push Wednesday to try to stop President Bush's think tank from being built as part of his presidential library complex at Southern Methodist University.

They pleaded their case to some of the 290 delegates in the church's South Central Jurisdiction, which is meeting this week in Dallas. The jurisdiction is to discuss the matter Thursday and may vote on it.

"We have faculty and research fellows who represent a wide diversity of ideological and political views; that's what strengthens a university. That's what builds its academic reputation. That is undermined when you have on the campus an institute that actually promotes one particular ideology," Valerie Karras, associate professor of church history at SMU's Perkins School of Theology, told reporters before addressing delegates.

Many of those who oppose building the think tank at SMU don't oppose the Bush presidential library and museum. University officials, however, say the public policy institute cannot be separated from the project.

Opponents say the think tank does not meet SMU or church rules because it would not be used for educational or religious purposes and would be outside the university's control.

They also say its goal of promoting the Bush administration's policies — such as the Iraq war and harsh interrogation techniques of military prisoners — conflicts with church teachings.

The jurisdiction owns the land, but SMU officials say the library complex is a done deal. In March 2007, the Methodist church's mission council — a smaller body that votes on important issues cropping up between the jurisdiction's meetings every four years — gave its blessing for SMU to lease the land for 99 years to the Bush Foundation.

The agreement has already been signed, and SMU continues working with the Bush Foundation, which will manage construction and raise money for the project. SMU was officially named the site for the library complex in February, more than a year after it was chosen as the lone finalist.

"The Methodist community continues to be true to its tradition of having many views ... and we respect all points of view," Brad Cheves, SMU's vice president for external affairs and development, said Wednesday. "The mission council spoke, and the process was followed. The real winners of this are the students, faculty and community of SMU and Dallas. We continue to be honored that SMU was chosen."

Bishop Scott Jones, an SMU board of trustees member who supports the library project, said the mission council's decision was final and that the jurisdiction does not need to vote on it.

But opponents are placing their hope in the jurisdiction's delegates, who may vote on the matter Thursday through at least one resolution after it is brought to the conference floor.

If delegates are denied a vote, opponents of the think tank may be able to appeal to the judicial council, the church's highest lawmaking body. The council would not vote on the library issue itself but could decide that proper procedures were not followed and order a vote by the jurisdiction; the whole process probably would take months.

The fight already has been long for some professors and ministers, who have garnered more than 12,000 signatures on an online petition launched some 18 months ago.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

President Bush Pressures China on Religious Freedom

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Jul. 15 2008 08:07 AM EDT

President Bush pledged to maintain pressure on China for its religious freedom violations in his speech Monday in honor of the 10th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act.

“We remember those seeking religious freedom in China, and we honor those who press for their liberties,” Bush said.

He recalled the meeting with Chinese dissident and human rights lawyer Li Baiguang last month at the White House. Li, a “house church” Protestant, has been repeatedly attacked and jailed for his work.

A few weeks ago, the human rights champion was scheduled to meet members of Congress, but Chinese authorities had blocked the meeting and detained him.

“This determined man has pledged: ‘I’ll continue to seek justice for victims of rights abuses, and promote the rule of law in China,’” Bush recalled. “And my message to President Hu Jintao, when I last met him, was this: So long as there are those who want to fight for their liberty, the United States stands with them.”

Bush had met President Hu Jintao last week on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in Japan.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on Monday urged Bush to use his upcoming visit to the Beijing Olypmics to visit with prominent human rights defenders and religious leaders and make a strong public statement about the importance of religious freedom and human rights to U.S.-China relations.

“The international community awarded China the 2008 Summer Games with the trust that Beijing would improve its protections of fundamental human rights, including the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief,” said Commission Chair Felice D. Gaer. “The Commission concludes that China has not lived up to its promises and continues to engage in serious violations of religious freedom.”

"We know President Bush has a strong, personal commitment to the issue of religious freedom in China. We hope he will convey his convictions in tangible ways, not only to China's leaders, but to its people," Gaer said.

In his speech, Bush specifically mentioned religious freedom violators Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. But China received the president’s most detailed comments and expression of concern.

Bush did note, however, that some countries had made progress on religious freedom, including Vietnam.

“And so as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act, we pray that all those who seek their God will be able to do so free of oppression and fear,” Bush concluded.

The International Religious Freedom Act established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to monitor the state of religious liberty worldwide. It has also established the position of ambassador for religious freedom, required annual updates on the state of religious freedom in every nation and authorized sanctions against regimes.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Iraqi Yellowcake Sent to Canada

There's a veeeeeeery interesting article at Investor's Business Daily today concerning 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The piece says it was recently and quietly sent from Iraq to Canada for processing into nuclear fuel.

But I thought "Bush lied, people died?" I thought Bush just invaded Iraq for all that cheap oil (that's selling in the form of gasoline at over $4.00 a gallon)? I thought Saddam was peaceful, had gotten rid of all his WMD materials, and was blissfully tending to his flower garden?

Or was he just biding his time until the noodle-spined UN walked away completely, and he could resume his WMD program unhindered?

This is clear, since Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff. (The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to have known about the yellowcake in the 1990s, but did nothing to force Saddam to get rid of it. It's duplicating its error today with Iran and North Korea).

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.

The American Thinker Web site reported four years ago on the scary math behind Saddam's uranium hoard: 500 tons of yellowcake, once refined, could make 142 nuclear weapons.

But yellowcake wasn't all they found at Tuwaitha. According to the AP, the military also discovered "four devices for controlled radiation exposure . . . that could potentially be used in a weapon."

How did our "objective" "mainstream" media miss a story like this? How did they miss it in 2003? How did they miss it now?

Did it simply fail to fit the "Bush lied people died" motif favored by our "mainstream" "objective media?

Maybe it was just the media that failed to find WMDs...

Something New: Honesty from the Left on Iraq

I'll admit it: I'm stunned. I can't remember the last time I saw honesty on a polarizing issue from the Left--especially not from the "mainstream" media. Yet NewsBusters points out some amazingly refreshing honesty from a Leftwing newsman.

James Kirchick, the assistant editor of The New Republic, not only admits in the LA Times that President Bush didn't lie about Iraq, but provides information which illustrates that truth.

Even the report released earlier this month being touted by the Left as containing proof that "Bush lied, people died," doesn't really say what they claim.

Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Kirchick's piece points out that a number of liberal politicians who were reading the same intelligence as President Bush were making the same alarmed statements before the 2003 invasion. The difference: when we didn't find the smoking gun we gave Saddam plenty of time to hide, the liberals became political opportunists, while Bush stayed the course for the greater good.

Were we wrong about some things? Maybe. Was Saddam in violation of the agreement he made at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Absolutely. Did we have justification and an obligation to take action. No doubt. Does that matter to those who prefer to rip the country apart for a few political points? Nope.

But perhaps there's hope that some on the Left still know how to be honest. Kirchick has restored some of my faith.

Scott McClellan Considering Vote for Obama?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ain't that intriguing? Bush administration turncoat Scott McClellan likes what he hears from Obama?

So says the Politico:

Scott McClellan, making the media rounds to promote his book and push back against the ferocious counter-attack by Bush loyalists, declined to come out tonight for John McCain and said he liked what he had heard from Barack Obama.

"I haven't made a decision," McClellan told Katie Couric on CBS's "Evening News," when asked if he was backing the Arizona senator. McClellan paid homage to McCain, saying that the Republican nominee had "governed from the center, and that's where I am."

But without prompting, he said he was "intrigued by Sen. Obama's message."

"It's a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000," McClellan said.

Similar to the one Gov. Bush ran on in 2000? Boy, I don't remember being on Mars and having a bad transmission, but I could swear that while Bush's 2000 message in no way brought back memories of Ronald Reagan, it wasn't even in the same solar system with Barack Obama's empty message of "hope," "change," appeasement and celebration of homosexuality.

Are some true colors finally shining through, here?

The Horror of the 2000 Florida Recount

This is so like liberals: if you can't get reality to conform to your vision of how things ought to be, make a movie about it and retreat into fantasy land.

You may have heard about HBO's exercise in revision called "Recount" about the 2000 Florida hanging, dimpled and belching chads (or whatever) and how the evil Republicans "stole the election" from Al Gore.

This farce is apparently spawning a wave of suffering across the fruited plain, in the form of post-traumatic-stress-disorder, shell-chock and "repressed memories" of police intimidation and thuggery exploding back into the minds of fragile liberals.

As Marlon Brando in "Apocalypse Now" said, "The horror!"

NewsBusters relates some of these tales from poster called "Lorien" at Democratic Uncerground.

So why haven't we heard of these and other such incidents related by Lorien? An answer is provided:

I was shocked, however, that NONE of these local stories made it into the Orlando Sentinel or any other Florida papers or news outlets. Thousands of affidavits had been signed, but the media didn't give a crap.

...My next door neighbor is the news director for our local PBS station, and even she won't do a story about it because her boss-a repug-won't allow those kinds of stories. Neither she nor her top reporters even knew that these things had happened!

Go pull my other leg, now. Like the "mainstream" media wouldn't have rode that pony till it dropped? Like taxpayer-funded Democrat propaganda arm PBS wouldn't have beat that horse into a pulp?

Maybe even this PBS manager had enough sense to realize when the horse is dead and can never be resurrected.

Without resorting to cheating (more cheating than was already going on), there was no way Gore was ever going to win that recount. The votes he needed JUST. WEREN'T. THERE.

Have you ever noticed how spoiled children just can't let a "No" rest? They always have to keep bringing things up? Just can't live with cold, hard reality?

Notice any parallels with the 2000 Florida vote?

Video: Bush Speech on Appeasement to Israeli Knesset

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, President Bush said Thursday, 'some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.' Democrat Barack Obama has interpreted the remark as a slam against him. (May 15)

Examining the Iraq-al Qaeda Connection

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard has an interesting piece on the (perhaps intentionally) confusing picture sown by the media concerning al Qaeda ties to Iraq.

He specifically examines the nature and extent of any relationship the two may have had:

Let me make a more basic point. A relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda need not have been "operational" to have warranted military action to eliminate it. The Clinton Administration, for example, argued repeatedly that Iraq supplied assistance to al Qaeda on chemical weapons. Such as relationship, if that's as far as it went, would not have qualified as "operational," but certainly would have been -- and was -- cause for tremendous concern.

The piece reminds us that even 911 co-chair Tom Kean said, "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Looking back at what the Clinton administration knew and believed, the Weekly Standard in 2004 says:

On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon, warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Later that spring, the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in the preparation of the indictment, testified before the 9/11 Commission. He said the intelligence behind that assertion came from Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al Qaeda terrorist who before the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S intelligence community its first intimate look at al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald, al Fadl told his interrogators that bin Laden associate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other--sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend--and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there,
which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."

The article continues on to say that after our two embassies were bombed in Africa, the Clinton administration cited an Iraq-al Qaeda connection as justification for the strike on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

On August 24, 1998, the Clinton administration made available a "senior intelligence official" who cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq." The following day, Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of a handful of Clinton officials involved in the decision to strike al Shifa, briefed foreign reporters at the National Press Club. He was asked directly whether he knew "of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX" nerve gas.

Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

More on the connection:

Berger explained that al Shifa was a dual-use facility. "We had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity," Berger wrote. "Other products were made at al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before--in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan."

Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official under both Clinton and Bush, confirmed this in an interview with the Washington Post on January 23, 1999. Clarke said the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq was behind the VX precursor produced at the factory. The story continued, "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

The article also says that Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before the September 11 Commission on March 23, 2004 that an executive from the pharmaceutical plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

Still more from the 2004 Weekly Standard article:

But now the New York Times--a newspaper heretofore dismissive of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection--has revealed the contents of an Iraqi Intelligence document that discusses the Iraq-bin Laden "relationship" and plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia. The document states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

So, we see a lot of information pointing to an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, whether it was an "operational" relationship or merely one of opportunity.

Yet, according to the anti-war Left, we are supposed to believe that President Bush is holding the bag? We are supposed to believe that Bush made the whole thing up because of some imperialistic neocon conspiracy? We are supposed to believe Bush fabricated an Iraq-al Qaeda connection that even they admitted was not substantiated as "operational" so they could plunder the oil fields of Iraq?

How is it we are to conveniently forget about all the officials from the previous, pre-911 administration, even Clinton himself, who had evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection and believed in such a connection, even believing WMD activity was occuring?

Text of President Bush's Speech to National Religious Broadcasters

WASHINGTON, March 11 /Standard Newswire/ -- President George W. Bush spoke yesterday at the 2008 National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, TN. Congressman Mike Pence attended the speech at the invitation of the President. Below is the portion of the speech pertaining to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," as well as acknowledgment of Congressman Pence's work in bringing the Broadcaster Freedom Act before Congress. Congressman Pence's release can be found HERE.

"This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways -- America's airways -- stay open to those who preach the Good News. (Applause.) The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away. (Applause.)

"I mention this because there's an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington's definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don't like. (Laughter and applause.)

"We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don't acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice -- (applause.) The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions.

"If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what's called a "discharge petition," that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

"I do want to thank Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden, for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I'll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.)

Statement by President Bush on John McCain

WASHINGTON, March 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following text is of remarks by President Bush with Senator John McCain:

Rose Garden

1:10 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: It's been my honor to welcome my friend, John McCain, as the nominee of the Republican Party. A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party -- except he knew he would be here, and so did his wife, Cindy.

John showed incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment. And that's exactly what we need in a President: somebody that can handle the tough decisions; somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger.

We also need somebody with a big heart. I have got to know John well in the last eight years. I've campaigned against him, and I've campaigned with him. Laura and I have spent time in their house. This is a man who deeply loves his family. It's a man who cares a lot about the less fortunate among us. He's a President, and he's going to be the President who will bring determination to defeat an enemy, and a heart big enough to love those who hurt.

And so I welcome you here. I wish you all the best, and I'm proud to be your friend.

SENATOR McCAIN: Thank you, sir. Well, I'm very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]. We -- he and I, as is well known, had a very good competition in the year 2000, and I was privileged and proud to have the opportunity to campaign for his election and reelection to the Presidency of the United States.

I appreciate his endorsement. I appreciate his service to our country. I intend to have as much possible campaigning events together, as it is in keeping with the President's heavy schedule. And I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to the chance to bring our message to America.

Last night, as you know, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton called to congratulate me. I pledged at that time, and I pledge again, a respectful campaign -- a respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences in vision that we have for the future of America.

I hope that the President will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me, and I will be very privileged to have the opportunity of being again on the campaign trail with him -- only slightly different roles this time. (Laughter.)

I thank you, Mr. President, and it's a pleasure.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we'll answer a couple of questions.

Abramowitz. Sorry you got such a lousy seat back there. (Laughter.)

Q I wanted to ask about the -- the voters, according to a lot of the exit polls, seem to be searching for change this year. And I'd like to ask both of you -- excuse me -- I'd like to ask both of you how the Republican Party, which has been here for eight years, is going to make the case that you're going to provide the change that the voters seem to want, both on Iraq and the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, vote for me, I'm an agent of change. In 2004, I said, I'm not interested in change -- I want to continue as President. Every candidate has got to say "change." That's what the American people expect.

And the good news about our candidate is, there will be a new President, a man of character and courage -- but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world, and I understand we better have steadfast leadership who has got the courage and determination to pursue this enemy, so as to protect America.

John McCain will find out, when he takes the oath of office, his most important responsibility is to protect the American people from harm. And there's still an enemy that lurks, an enemy that wants to strike us. And this country better have somebody in that Oval Office who understands the stakes, and John McCain understands those stakes.

SENATOR McCAIN: Thank you, sir. I don't have anything to add. (Laughter.)

Q Can I follow-up, sir? How would you --

THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't follow up. Thank you. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, on --

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, not you. Kelly.

Q Senator McCain, given President Bush's low approval ratings, will this be a negative or a positive for you? And how much do you hope he'll campaign for you on the trail?

SENATOR McCAIN: I hope that he will campaign for me as much as is keeping with his busy schedule. I'll be pleased to have him with me both from raising money and the much needed finances for the campaign, and addressing the challenging issues that face this country. I'm pleased to have him as is -- as it fits into his busy schedule.

Kelly.

Q Mr. President, Senator McCain, sir, how would you counsel Senator McCain to choose a running mate, how quickly? And given the fact that Democrats will field a nominee who will make some kind of history -- a woman, an African America -- should Republicans consider that in selecting a Vice Presidential nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: I'd tell him to be careful about who he names to be the head of the selection committee. (Laughter.) Look, he's got plenty of experience. He knows what he needs to do, which is to have a process that vets candidates, and the person -- somebody he's going to be comfortable with and somebody whose advice he relies upon. And he can answer his own question on that, but --

SENATE McCAIN: Could I just say, Kelly, I didn't think it was appropriate to contemplate this process, as I've discussed before, until after we had secured the nomination of the party. Now we'll begin that process.

Q Should history make a difference with a woman or an African American on the Democratic side?

THE PRESIDENT: People don't vote for Vice Presidents -- as much as I hate to say that for those who have been candidates for Vice President -- they're going to vote for who gets to sit inside that Oval Office and make decisions on how to protect the country and keep taxes low and how to have a culture that respects the dignity of every human being. That's what the race is all about. I know there's going to be a lot of speculation on who the Vice President, this and that, but the speculation is over about who our party is going to nominate.

Liz.

Q Mr. President, do you -- how much do you intend to do for Senator McCain? And do you think, in some cases, that your help could actually hurt him more than help him?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, if it -- if my showing up and endorsing him helps him, or if I'm against him and it helps him -- either way, I want him to win. (Laughter.) You know, look, this is an age-old question that you -- every President has had to answer, and there's an appropriate amount of campaigning for me to do.

But they're not going to be voting for me. I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's been a fabulous experience, by the way. And they're going to be voting for the next person to come in here and make the tough decisions about America -- America's security, America's prosperity, and, you know, America's hopefulness. That's what this race is about, and it's not about me. You know, I've done my bit.

And, by the way, I'm not through, and I'm going to do a lot. And John is right -- I do have a day job to keep, and I plan on keeping it. I've told the people that follow me in this press corps that I'm going to sprint to the finish, and I mean what I say. I've got a lot to do. But I'm going to find ample time to help, and I can help raising money, and if he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'll be glad to show up.

But they're going to be looking at him, you know. I'm going to be in Crawford -- (laughter) -- with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in there behind that desk, making the decisions on war and peace, and I'm thankful our party has nominated somebody plenty capable of making those decisions. And when the American people take a hard look, they're going to feel comfortable, like I feel comfortable, in recommending him to take my place.

Listen, we thank you.

Wolf, where's Wolf? No, I'm not calling you. Wolf. No, not you, either. Where's Wolf?

Q Right here.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask something, will you? (Laughter.)

Q Where do you think you can be most helpful campaigning for him around the country?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, look -- I mean, if --

Q And Senator McCain, where would you like the President to campaign with you?

THE PRESIDENT: As I told you, you know, if he wants me to show up, I will. If he wants me to say, "You know, I'm not for him," I will. Whatever he wants me to do, I want him to win. And, you know, Wolf, I don't know where. I mean, look --

SENATOR McCAIN: Could I start out with --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm focusing on, you know, protecting America, and succeeding in Iraq, and dealing with the North Korea, and dealing with the Iranian, and dealing with the issues around the world where we're making a difference in terms of keeping peace. I want to get this in as good as a position as possible so that when John McCain is the President -- and he will be -- he can deal with these issues in a way that yields peace.

SENATOR McCAIN: Wolf, could I say -- one state springs to mind: Texas. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: He's not going to need me in Texas. He's going to be a landslide in Texas.

SENATOR McCAIN: Could I just say that I do intend to campaign all across the country. I think that literally every section in this country is at -- in play. And I will be glad to have the President with me, in keeping with his schedule, in any part of America. And we're going to go everywhere in America with this campaign.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, thank you all very much for coming.

Q Did you talk names for Vice President? (Laughter.)

Q One press conference every week if you're elected, Senator?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. It's been a pleasure to see you. Obviously we've invited some unruly members of the fourth estate here. I'm disappointed in the conduct of some of the people that have come. I told John it would be a nice and polite crowd. Thank you all very much.

END 1:20 P.M. EST

President Bush Remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 /Standard Newswire/ -- The following text is of remarks by President Bush to the Conservative Political Action Conference:

Omni Shoreham Hotel
7:21 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Good morning. I thank you for coming. I apologize to my friend -- he likes to sleep in. (Laughter.)

I really do want to thank you all for adjusting the schedule. Right after the speech I'm going to get on an airplane and fly to Tennessee. I'll be taking the prayers of the American people to those who suffered from the devastating tornados. (Applause.)

Mr. Leader, thank you for that introduction -- and I appreciate your outstanding leadership in the United States Senate. (Applause.) You know, Mr. Leader, I used to think that leading a group of strong-willed senators was one of the toughest jobs in the country. I may have found one even tougher one: father of the bride. (Laughter and applause.) You know, I told Laura I was going to say that and she said, well, you might add another one: son-in-law to the President. (Laughter.)

I thank you for the invitation. I appreciate the fact that you've invited our candidates to your forum; and thank you for the hearing you gave them. (Applause.) These are good, honorable people. And I appreciate the fact you invited Vice President Cheney here. (Applause.) He is the best Vice President in history. (Applause.) Mother may have a different opinion. (Laughter.) But don't tell her I said this, but my opinion is the one that counts. (Laughter and applause.)

Since I spoke with you last, some things have changed. It seems like my hair is little grayer. (Laughter.) And my jokes are a little older. And some say my speeches are a little windier. Some things haven’t changed: the principles I believe in and my deep, abiding faith in the American people. (Applause.)

It just doesn't seem all that long ago that David invited me here, but it's been about seven years, and during that time we have stood together and we have advanced a philosophy of freedom and responsibility that's made our nation a better place and a stronger place. And today I want to talk to you about what you and I have achieved together, what it tells us about the stakes in the year ahead, and why it is so important that we keep the White House in 2008. (Applause.)

I thank the leader, David Keene. He's a good guy. You know, this is the 35th -- yes -- anniversary, which means he started the deal when he was 15. (Laughter.) At least that's what he claims. (Laughter.) But thank you for your leadership. I thank you for your board. I've got a lot of friends up here at the head table and a lot of friends in the audience, and I really do appreciate what you've done.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, George.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. (Applause.)

A lot has happened over eight years -- that was the last time I spoke to you, was eight years ago. And we've seen vigorous debates -- a lot of debates -- on nearly every conceivable issue: matters that affected the prosperity and peace.

Our views are grounded in timeless truths. During these debates we stuck to timeless truths. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. (Applause.) We believe our culture benefits from a diversity of faith, a respect for values, and the guidance of a higher power. (Applause.) We believe in personal responsibility. (Applause.) We believe in the universality of freedom. We believe our nation has the right to defend itself -- even if sometimes others disagree. (Applause.) And we believe America remains a force of good in our world. (Applause.)

There's another philosophy, and it's advanced by decent people who see the world differently. They tend to think Washington has the answers to our problems. They tend to believe our country only succeeds under the expansive federal government. They tend to be suspicious of America's exercise of global leadership -- unless, of course, we get a permission slip from international organizations. (Laughter.)

Over the past seven years, we have engaged this opposition with a clear and consistent philosophy. We didn't take polls to decide what to say. We didn't seek the advice of editorial pages to decide what to think. And we darn sure didn't seek the approval of groups like Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do. (Applause.)

We applied our philosophy on issues relating to economic prosperity. When I took office, we inherited a recession -- and then we acted. We were guided by this principle: the best way to help our economy grow is to leave money in the hands of those responsible for our prosperity. (Applause.) That, of course, would be the American people. And so with your support, we passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history -- and then we cut taxes again. (Applause.) In all, we delivered nearly $2 trillion in tax relief over the past seven years.

Our critics wanted a different approach. They believed that the best way to keep the economy -- to help the economy was to keep taxes in Washington and expand the size and scope of the federal government. One columnist wrote this -- one columnist said this, "Tax cuts -- any tax cuts -- are the wrong way to go." A prominent newspaper said my administration was on a tax cut rampage and called our tax relief unfair and unaffordable. A think tank expert called our tax relief a reckless gamble.

Despite these dire predictions, the tax cuts we passed contributed to a record 52 months of job creation. (Applause.) They helped produce strong economic growth -- and the increased revenues from that growth have put us on track to a balance our budget by 2012. (Applause.) Here is the bottom line: tax relief works. (Applause.)

We're in a period of economic uncertainty, and we've acted again. I want to thank the members for passing a good piece of legislation which I will sign into law next week. I want you all to understand that this bill reflects our principles. It is robust. It is pro-growth. It stimulates business investment. And it puts money into the hands of American consumers. (Applause.)

In the longer run, the best way to make sure that our economy continues to grow is to make the tax relief we passed permanent. (Applause.) Unfortunately -- unfortunately, the other side still hasn't learned the lessons. They want to let the tax cuts expire -- and some are claiming, of course, this isn't a tax increase. Yet if they have their way, 116 million American taxpayers would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Listen, I'm not known for my English -- (laughter) -- but in my way of speaking it sure sounds like a tax increase to me. (Laughter and applause.)

You and I know the American people are not under-taxed. The problem is Washington spends too much of your money. (Applause.) One of the things I have done is I have set priorities. And you must understand my passion about protecting America. My number one priority is to protect you. And after 9/11, we have substantially increased spending on defense, intelligence, and homeland security. And we will continue to provide for our troops; we will make sure the men and women who wear the uniform have the best and strongest support they need to do their job. (Applause.)

And so we've worked hard to make sure we hold the line on spending in other areas. For five years in a row, my budget requests have kept the growth of non-security discretionary spending below the rate of inflation. I set clear spending limits, told the Congress I was going to veto them if they -- veto bills if they exceeded those spending limits. The Democratically-controlled Congress, at the end of last year, cut spending plans by billions of dollars. Last week, I proposed a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs. Those programs total more than $18 billion. And if Congress sends me appropriations bills that exceed the reasonable limits I have set, I will veto the bills. (Applause.)

Last month I issued an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not actually voted on by the United States Congress. (Applause.) This executive order will extend beyond my presidency -- (applause) -- it will stay in effect unless revoked by a future President. What that means is any President who wants to return to the old ways of unaccountable and wasteful spending will get to do so publicly. (Applause.) And if that happens, that President will have some explaining to do. (Applause.)

In the long run, you and I know the greatest threat to our fiscal health is the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending. We all know the painful choices ahead if America stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits. I have laid out specific proposals to reform and strengthen these programs. On Social Security, I took the issue head on -- that's what you expect a President to do. I proposed a way to make this program solvent without raising taxes and with personal saving accounts that will give individuals more control over their retirement savings. (Applause.)

On Medicare and Medicaid, I sent Congress a budget this week that saves nearly $200 billion over the next five years. (Applause.) I hear all the talk from the other side on Capitol Hill about fiscal responsibility -- but they haven't put any of their ideas on the table for programs. It is time to stop talking, it is time for them to stop acting and not pass these problems on to future Congresses and future generations. (Applause.)

On matters relating to our economy, our record is clear. You and I succeeded in cutting taxes. We're reducing wasteful spending. On these issues, both sides have made their case. The results are in. And they are proving us right. (Applause.)

We applied our philosophy to questions affecting the moral fabric of our nation. We believe that all human life is precious and deserves to be protected. (Applause.) In 2001, I had a grave decision to make on the question of embryonic stem cell research. I believed we could empower scientists and researchers to discover cures for terrible diseases -- without crossing a moral line. (Applause.) So I authorized research on existing stem cell lines, and stood against any effort to use federal tax dollars to support the destruction of human life. (Applause.)

Our critics had a different view. They thought my defense of life was short-sighted and harmful. When I vetoed two bills that sought to use tax dollars to destroy human embryos, some academics described my position as ridiculous and scientifically naïve. One publication predicted our plan would not hold up over the long haul.

Then last November, scientists announced a landmark achievement. They found a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. (Applause.) This discovery has the potential to end the divisive debate over stem cell research. It will allow us to expand the frontiers of medicine, while maintaining a culture of life. (Applause.) In the coming year, we will increase funds for this type of ethical research. And I will continue to push for a ban on the buying, selling, patenting or cloning of human life. (Applause.)

When I took office, our society was grappling with a troubling rate of drug use among our children. A new generation of young people was in danger of being swept up in a cycle of addiction, and crime, and hopelessness. We believe people should be held responsible for their actions and we know that people can change their behavior. Sometimes all it takes is the help of a loving soul -- somebody who puts their arm around a troubled person and says, I love you, can I help you. We also know that --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: My soul is not that troubled, but thank you. (Laughter and applause.)

We also know -- we also know that the drug crisis requires us to reduce both supply and demand. And so in 2002, I set our country on an ambitious goal: to cut drug use among young people by 25 percent over five years. Critics didn't think that was possible. Some thought the drug war had already failed. Some said we focused too much on interdiction and not enough on treatment. An influential magazine and assorted commentators wanted to declare defeat and legalize the drug trade. A left-leaning drug prevention group said that our aggressive strategy was very unlikely ... to produce any different result than we have seen so far.

We stood our ground. We worked with international partners to interdict drugs into our country. We increased funds for drug treatment programs. We helped move drug addicts from a culture of victimization to a culture of responsibility. And we have gotten results. Since I took office, the overall use of illicit drugs by young people has dropped 24 percent. (Applause.) Marijuana use fell by 25 percent, steroid by a third, the use of ecstasy by 54 percent. Methamphetamine abuse has plummeted by 64 percent since 2001. (Applause.)

On matters relating to America's moral compass, we have defended human life. We promoted strong families. We confronted the crippling cycle of drug dependency. We challenged the critics, the self-proclaimed experts, and the status quo. Both sides made their case. The results are in. And they're proving us right. (Applause.)

We've also applied our philosophy to issues of national security. Six-and-a-half years ago, our country faced the worst attack in our history. I understood immediately that we would have to act boldly to protect the American people. So we've gone on the offense against these extremists; we're staying on the offense -- and we will not relent until we bring them to justice. (Applause.) We recognized that this is a war, not just a matter of law-enforcement. We recognize that we're engaged in the decisive ideological struggle of our time.

The first battle in this war against the extremists centered on Afghanistan -- the 9/11 attackers had trained and planned in Afghanistan. We believed our military could remove the Taliban from power and that we could help aid the rise of a stable and democratic government.

Critics had a different view. One commentator said most Afghans would oppose an American invasion and fight the foreign occupiers. Another declared: "We're not headed toward a quagmire, we are already in one." Another commentator scoffed: "Afghanistan as a democracy? Forget it."

Well, we stood our ground -- and we have seen the results. Al Qaeda lost its terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and the Taliban was driven from power. The Afghan people braved threats of violence to elect a new President and a new parliament. Roads and hospitals are being built. Girls who were once forbidden from going to school are now going to school. (Applause.) America, 25 NATO allies and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people secure their country. The Taliban, al Qaeda, and their allies are on the run. Afghanistan has a long road ahead, but they have a future that offers promise and hope. We're going to stand with the Afghan people, we're going to help millions claim their liberty -- and we will always work to make sure Afghanistan will never again be a safe haven for terrorists and extremists who want to do us harm. (Applause.)

The war against our enemies also brought us to Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a ceasefire agreement, attacked its neighbors, sponsored terrorism, and had a history of using and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and a threat to the world. My decision to remove Saddam was the right decision at the time -- and it is the right decision today. (Applause.)

Because we acted, 25 million Iraqis are free. We've seen them go to the polls. We've seen them elect a representative government. We've also seen an enemy determined to roll back this progress through horrific acts of violence designed to pit Iraqis one against another.

One year ago, things were not going well in that country. Terrorists and extremists were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. You see, they wanted to deny Iraqis their liberty -- they can't stand freedom; they wanted to establish safe havens in Iraq from which to launch attacks against America and its allies. I strongly believe that America's security and peace in the world depend upon defeating this enemy. (Applause.) So we reviewed our strategy. Things weren't working, I need to know why and what it would take to make things better. And that's why you review a strategy.

I made up my mind. I listened carefully to a lot of folks. And I decided to send more troops into Iraq -- (applause) -- in a dramatic policy shift -- (applause) -- and the policy shift has become known as "the surge."

Our critics had a different view. They looked at rising violence in Iraq and declared the war was lost.

AUDIENCE: Boo!

THE PRESIDENT: Some concluded the surge had failed EVEN before it had fully begun. Two foreign affairs experts proposed, "a well-managed defeat ... to boost U.S. credibility."

We stood our ground -- and we're seeing Results. (Applause.) A year after I ordered the surge of forces, high profile terrorist attacks in Iraq are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives. (Applause.) There is more work to be done. It takes a while for young democracies to take root -- but reconciliation is taking place. I recognize the progress in Iraq is fragile and there's going to be tough days ahead. Yet even the enemy recognizes the progress we're being [sic] making. They recognize they're on the wrong side of events. They are disheartened. They are demoralized. And they will be defeated. (Applause.)

We can have confidence in Iraq's ultimate success because we believe in the transformative power of freedom. We believe there is an Almighty God. (Applause.) And a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of this Earth is freedom. (Applause.) We have seen that free societies become peaceful societies. We know that a free Iraq will be a friend of America, an ally in this war against these extremists, and a source of hope and stability in a dangerous part of the world. (Applause.)

We'll fight the enemy overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And as we do so, we must take measures to protect America, the homeland. We must give our intelligence officials the tools they need to uncover terrorist plots and prevent new attacks. (Applause.) And one of the most important tools is the ability to monitor terrorist communications. (Applause.) My most important job is to protect the American people. In order to do that job, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to; we need to know what they're saying; we need to know what they're planning. So Congress passed the Protect America Act. This law modernized an outdated surveillance law and closed dangerous gaps in our intelligence.

Now, critics had a different view. One liberal interest group called the law an end run around the Constitution. Others falsely claimed law-enforcement officials wanted to spy on Americans. Still another summed up the initiative as, "a groupthink travesty."

We countered these critics -- and we stood our ground. Our ability to monitor the communications of terrorists overseas has helped us gain crucial elements on terrorist cells, and helped keep our country safe. (Applause.) The Protect America Act is working. The problem is that Congress set the law to expire one week from tomorrow. I don't think the al Qaeda threat is going to expire one week from tomorrow. (Laughter.) Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. (Applause.) The time -- the time for temporary fixes has ended. Congress must pass this law -- and they must pass it now. (Applause.)

On matters of war and peace, we have taken the fight to our enemies abroad and we are defending our people here at home. We're standing with new partners in Afghanistan and Iraq to help them build free nations. We refused to yield when the going got tough. And when the history of our actions is written, it will show that we were right. (Applause.)

We will face other challenges ahead that will require new energy and before long, new leadership. I'm absolutely confident, with your help we will elect a President who shares our principles. (Applause.) As we take on the challenges, we must be guided by the philosophy that has brought us success. Our policies are working. The American people support our points of view. They share our philosophy.

And consider our advantage on other great questions before us. On health care, one side says we should expand the federal government's control over your private medicine. You and I say we should expand access to health care, empower consumers to make choices, and ensure that medical decisions are left in the hands of patients and their doctors. (Applause.)

On education, one side says -- one side says we should spend your tax dollars without measuring whether or not our children are actually learning to read and write and add and subtract. You and I believe in accountability. We believe parents should have more options. And we believe in liberating children from failing public schools. (Applause.)

On the rights of the unborn -- the most vulnerable among us -- one side supports abortion on demand. You and I believe in the worth of every human being, the matchless joy of adoption, and the right to life. (Applause.)

On the federal judiciary, one side says we should confirm judges who believe in the "living Constitution" -- which basically means they can make up laws as they go along. I say we need judges who respect our values, do not follow the political winds and revere the plain meaning of our Constitution. (Applause.) We need more judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito. (Applause.)

On America's role in the world, some believe that our nation is often the cause of global turmoil -- a mentality once called "Blame America First." You and I believe that America is a leading light, a guiding star, and the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. (Applause.)

You see, I know of America's greatness because I get to see it up close, and it is a privilege to see it up close. I see it in the foot soldiers in the armies of compassion, who perform acts of kindness and hope every single day. I see it in the courage of ordinary citizens, like those who rushed toward danger when the Twin Towers fell and our Pentagon burned. I see it with military families who've lost loved ones -- and every time I come away moved and inspired by their valor, their grit, their pride, and their love of country. (Applause.) I see it when I exchange salutes with the finest young men and women our country has ever known. (Applause.) These Americans give me endless optimism about our future. And they have made my presidency a joyous experience. (Applause.)

You know, since I've come to Washington, I've been reading a lot of history. Laura notes it's probably because I'm making up for lost time. (Laughter.) Over the past few years I've read three books on George Washington -- or as I call him, the "original George W." (Laughter and applause.)

It is interesting to me that they are still analyzing the record of our first President. My attitude is if they're still analyzing Number 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. (Laughter and applause.) I'm not going to be around to see the final history written on my administration. The truth is that history's verdict takes time to reveal itself.

But we don't have to wait on history for one thing: in the year ahead, the pundits, the so-called experts, commentator, analysts will offer more gloomy predictions and more big government solutions. And when they do, let us remember their record: this is a group that is seldom correct -- (laughter) -- but never in doubt. (Applause.)

You and I have seen that in our own time. Ronald Reagan was called a "warmonger," "an amiable dunce," a movie actor detached from reality. Yet within a few years after President Reagan left office, the Berlin Wall came down, the Evil Empire collapsed, the Cold War was won. And over the years a strange thing has happened. A lot of people who spent the 1980's criticizing President Reagan now tell us they were with him all along. (Laughter.)

You were with him all along. (Applause.) And over the past seven years, you've been with me. I appreciate your support. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. I appreciate the chance that you've given me, help me get this opportunity to serve our country. It's been a fantastic experience. (Applause.) I appreciate the countless phone calls you've made. I appreciate the volunteer work you did in two tough campaigns. I'll always -- always -- be grateful [to each of you] for supporting our cause, for giving me a chance, and for loving our country. I thank you for that. (Applause.)

I look forward to working with you this year. My energy is up, my spirit is high, and I will finish strong. (Applause.) And in the meantime, we will elect a new President. We've had good debates and soon we'll have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond. Listen, the stakes in November are high. This is an important election. Prosperity and peace are in the balance. So with confidence in our vision and faith in our values, let us go forward, fight for victory, and keep the White House in 2008. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:06 A.M. EST

Statement by President Bush on the Economy

KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Feb. 1 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following text is of remarks by the President on the Economy:

Hallmark Cards, Inc.
10:47 A.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Thank you for letting me come by to say hello. A couple of observations -- one, you work for a fabulous company of caring people. I appreciate, Don, your hospitality. I am still trying to recover from the kindergarten experience. (Laughter.) I mean, you talk about sapping a person's energy. (Laughter.) But it was a fabulous experience.

I got to see Hallmark cards being made, and the fella kindly made me one that said, "For your daughters." It was sweet, but it just didn't have any warning in there about how to conduct myself for the upcoming wedding. (Laughter.)

I'm here in Kansas City for a couple reasons. One, I do want to spend a little time on the economy. I had breakfast this morning with entrepreneurs, small business owners; I want to find out what's on their mind. I'll tell you that there's a sense of optimism I was pleased to hear. People are confident about the future -- at least, these business owners were -- and they should be. Interest rates are low, inflation is low, productivity is high. But there are certainly some troubling signs. There are serious signs that the economy is weakening and that we got to do something about it.

Today we got such a sign when after 52 consecutive months of job creation, we lost 17,000 jobs. The unemployment rate went down, but nevertheless, a serious matter is that for the first time in 52 months that we didn't create jobs.

And so the question is what do we do about it? Does government have a responsibility and, if so, what is it? I do think government has a responsibility. I think government can take decisive action to help us deal with this period of uncertainty. One such action is to help people stay in their homes. We got some of our citizens purchased mortgages that they can't afford now. Hopefully the reason -- hopefully they didn't get deceived, and if they did, the government has a responsibility to take care of that. In other words, we don't want people buying a mortgage and the person who sold them the mortgage didn't fully disclose the reset inherent in a subprime note.

But we can help people stay in their homes by connecting the borrower with the mortgage industry. Now, what makes it difficult in this day and age is that when I bought a home, I sat down with the saving and loan officer -- and had I gotten in a financial bind, I would have gone back to that same officer and said, you own my note, help me refinance so I can stay in my home. Today, that financial institution probably doesn't own the note anymore. Somebody else owns the note, and therefore we're trying to make sure we connect the borrower with somebody in the mortgage industry that will help them refinance.

And that's why we started what's called the HOPE NOW Alliance. Security Paulson and Secretary Jackson are bringing people together from the private sector, and they couple that with an information campaign, so that people who have a subprime loan know how to refinance and can find somebody to help them refinance. It's been a complicated matter, but nevertheless we're very much engaged in helping people sort through what is definitely a difficult period in their life.

The government can help. The Federal Housing Administration has got the capacity to help refinance homes, and they need to expand the authority of the FHA to do it. And Congress needs to get that bill passed. I mean, this will be a positive step toward helping people stay in homes. And that's what we want to do. See, you notice, I'm not saying we're going to bail out the lenders -- we're going to help the individual person be able to keep their home. It's in the interest of the country we do that.

Secondly, there are bonding authorities, tax-exempt bonding authorities that are now used to help people buy new homes. States and local governments ought to be able to use that money to help people stay in the home they have. And that will be helpful as well. So here are some constructive measures that we can take. There's a cyclicality when it comes to housing interests -- housing industry. But in the meantime, or during this down cycle we want to help individual Americans.

Secondly, a concern is whether or not our consumers will lose confidence in our economy. You don't want that to happen at Hallmark -- you want the consumers to still buy your product on a regular basis. And one way to address that issue is to have a temporary, robust tax rebate. And that's what we're working on in Congress. You hear this discussion of a stimulus package -- well, a key component of that package is to give you some of your money back so you can spend it.

And the House of Representatives passed a good package. The administration worked with the House -- it may surprise you that Republicans and Democrats can actually get something done in a constructive fashion, but it happened in this case, for the good of the country. And now the Senate is debating the bill, and it's very important for the Senate to finish their work quickly because the sooner we can get money into our consumers' hands, the more likely it is, is that this economy will get back -- recover from this period of uncertainty.

The fundamentals are strong, we're just in a rough patch, as witnessed by the employment figures today. And I'm confident we can get through this rough patch and one way to do it is for Congress and the administration to work collaboratively and get this deal done.

Now, a key component, as well, of a growth package is to encourage businesses to invest. Why would you do that? Well, if Hallmark buys a new piece of equipment, somebody has to make that equipment. In other words, job creation happens when people make investments. And if you, therefore, stimulate businesses, both large and small, to make investments this year, as quickly as possible, it means somebody is more likely to keep work and the economy will continue to be strong.

So the two key components of this package are, one, enhance consumerism by giving consumers money. It's not like a great gift -- after all, it's your own money, we're just giving it back to you and encouraging businesses to invest. I believe we can get this package done; I know it has to be done quickly. I appreciate the fact that the Senate is trying to work through this as quickly as possible, so I'm just urging them to get it done. Because the sooner this package makes it to my desk, that actually focuses on ways to stimulate growth, the better off our economy is going to be.

Finally, we need to be thinking about how to effect economic growth in the long-term. We'll deal with the short-term issue, but as we do so, we also need to be wise about policy so that we can continue this period of growth that we've had.

A couple points I want to make to you on that. One is it's important for Hallmark to be able to sell your cards overseas. I mean, the more people that are exposed to the Hallmark product, the more likely it is that they'll buy. You just want a chance to compete. And so trade is an important aspect of -- to making sure our economy remains strong. There are some folks who worry about trade. They want to protect America from products from overseas. I am concerned about protectionism, and so should you, because if we end up having trade wars, it's going to be less likely Hallmark products will be sold overseas.

My attitude is, just give us a chance, let's level the playing field. We can compete with anybody, any time. We've got to have confidence in our capacity to compete in the world. And trade is an important aspect for keeping economic vitality alive. Education is important. You've got some awfully smart people working here, but they need to be -- the future of Hallmark depends upon having an educated work force. That's the way it is in most U.S. companies.

And so I'm very much focused on making sure our education system gets it right in the beginning -- "right in the beginning" means teaching kids to read and write and add and subtract. I cannot stand a system that refuses to measure. I think it's an appropriate question to ask, can a child read, and if not, what do you intend to do about it?

Accountability is an integral part of making sure this system doesn't leave people behind. I am passionate on the subject of measuring because I used to be a governor of a state and I knew who got shuffled through the schools: inner-city kids; "These are people too hard to educate, let's just move them through"; parents who -- kids whose parents don't speak English as a first language. It's unacceptable to America not to insist that every child gets a good education. And so I'm going to work with Congress on this No Child Left Behind law, which is a very important part of making sure the workforce of the future is educated and ready to compete in a global economy.

Finally, taxes -- you know, I'm sure you've heard that, well, we need more money in Washington; therefore, we're going to raise your taxes. Of course it's disguised by saying, we're only going to tax rich people -- but that's not the way it works. Rich people tend to hire lawyers and accountants, and you get stuck with the bill. We don't need more money. We need to prioritize your money. We need to be wise about how we spend your money.

Raising taxes in a time of economic uncertainty would be bad for the economy and it would be bad for our people. I believe we ought to trust Americans to spend their money. I mean, the truth of the matter is you can spend it more wisely than the government can. And so in my State of the Union the other day I called upon Congress to make the tax cuts permanent. I want to deal with this aspect of uncertainty. See, if you think your tax bill is fixing to go up -- which it is, unless Congress acts; it will be going up in a couple of years -- it could change your behavior. It could cause people to pull back and not be confident about the future.

And I also called on them to stop this business about putting special projects in legislation without being voted on. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, our process is one where there should be transparency and -- like, if a project is important enough for a member of Congress to slip into what's called a conference report, that project ought to be important enough for there to be a full vote -- members of Congress get to look at and see if it makes any sense.

So I've got an agenda for Congress. I'm looking forward to working with them on how to stimulate the economy in the short-term, but make sure we remain a strong economy in the long-term. And I'm looking forward to working with them. I like the spirit I found up in the halls of Congress. There's still a little politics in Washington, D.C., but that's not to say we can't work for the common good.

I appreciate you all giving me a chance to come by and visit with you. I hope you can tell I'm optimistic about the future of the country, realistic about the issues we face, and have -- got a plan to deal with them. God bless you. Thank you. (Applause.)