Bush's State Of The Union Speech & The Questionable Democrat Response

President Bush's State of the Union Speech was, as usual, stellar and right on the mark. I'm not going to respond point by point to each item of agenda in his speech now. However, I do want to comment on some of what he said.

One of the immediate "take away" points he made in his speech was, that no matter how one voted on the war in Iraq no one voted for failure. That is most certainly true of the votes at that time. However, now many democrats have decided that failure in Iraq is preferable to Bush's unwarranted war in Iraq. Democrats want, as Democrat Senator, Jim Webb stated in his "Democrat's Response Speech" that they want the troops to withdraw and return home as fast as possible.

This, of course, would as Bush rightfully pointed out in his speech, (and is the second "take away" point from his speech), that if we withdraw now, we will leave Iraq in a dangerous position. Rivaling sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni that would soon spill out into the whole population of Iraq. The vaccum left by the American military withdrawl would be filled by both internal and external fighters the result of which would allow Iraq to become one bloody battlefield. In the end Iraq would become a stronghold for those bloodthirsty, murderous terrorists who hate us and what we stand for. They would be then better able to establish their Islamo-Fascist regime and develop weapons of mass destruction to turn against us and the rest of Western Civilization.

Our failure in Iraq would bring even more senseless violence to our shores.

I noticed that throughout Bush's speech, the left aisle, (the Democrats) only managed to stand and applaud when it meant their political ass was on the line with their constituents if they didn't stand and class. In particular, his call for Immigration reform and the importance in respecting the sacrifice that our troops are making.

To be fair, I did see a few Democrats rise at times. These must have been the conservative (is that possible?) and moderate members of the Democrat party. Probably those that were recently elected based on their moderate stance. That was probably to demonstrate their resolve to maintain their stances that they made during their election campaign.

The Democrat response, delivered by Democrat Senator, Jim Webb was typical. His main "take away points were a socialist/communist resentment that CEO's earn salaries far largers than the company's employees, and an unsubstantied claim that the majority of the American military is against the war in Iraq, and that Bush ignored the advice of many military advisers, (probably military advisers active under the Clinton Adminstration) and just rushed headlong into Iraq regardless of the "sound warnings" of the disatrous consequences of this.

Webb also contadicted himself when he first said that the Democrats weren't interested in just pulling out and risking failure, and then calling for the withdrawl of our troops ASAP.

As Fred Barnes stated in his assessment on Fox News immediately after Webb's Democrat Response speech, Bush presented the view of a victorious win in Iraq while Webb called for an honorable end, which I guess we can conclude is to "cut and run"

Webb also concluded his shrill diatribe with the threat that if Bush didn't go the Democrat way, he would be shown the way. Shown the way? To the door?

Based on the Democrat Response it clear, now more than ever, that trusting them with majority of power and, God forbid, a Presidency, would be disasterous to our National Security. A Democrat vote is an indirect vote for the Islamo-Fascists and their murderous agenda.

The Democrat response to taking the fight to the terrorist threat is to cut and run.

We, and the rest of the free world can't afford that option if we cherish liberty.

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to convert to their demonic religious viewpoint.