Many people say that it has not made the world safer,

Oh, yeah.... Who are those people?  Because they are not the people I know who have spent several years in the region.

Engel is simply using the "Many People say" to list what he WANTS to be true.

Richard Engel is a rude, arrogant SOB. And very disrespectful to HIS President.

Well then, "many people say..." MSM reporters are all Democrat political operatives who don't care how many people have to die or be subject to oppressive regimes in order to discredit a Republican president.

President Bush has reversed the trend of ignoring international Islamic terrorism that started in 1972.  He should be congratulated.

Well..... It seems that the smug offensive Richard Engel did not get the interview that he hoped for. President Bush squashed him and turned his arguements right back on him. Good job Mr. President and can we get an apology from that hack reporter? Didn't think so.

Engel is from NBC? Is NBC still on the air? Not for long, I'll bet.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

It always makes me wonder when people are surprised the terrorists and their sponsoring nations fought back.  Did they think they were just going to acquiesce when their "Great Satan" came marching up to their back door?  It's almost like they don't want a threat to their power structure.  (Hmmm.  Should have thought about that before bombing the WTC.)  Another legacy from the Clinton admin.  USA = weak response.  Don't worry, if the collective you, elect Obama, that perception will be back.  8 years of work, sweat and blood, down the drain.  If he really understood the culture currently in power over there, he would have never mentioned negotiation.  One may be willing to negotiate, however, they have to make the first move.  Is it any wonder Iran is pulling for Obama.  Shouldn't that immediately set off some warning signals?

I posted this on the Open Thread, but bears repetition!  "Front page on Soldier using Quoran for target practice, but no where did we ever have front page for terrorists beheading people!!  These news types are so biased that in trying to take PRES BUSH and the Repubs down, they are destroying everything that is good about the USA!  They use their pens to bring forth anything that would make Pres Bush, military, etc., look bad, but don't think of the consequences of their writings.  Of course it is terrible that a soldier did use it for target practice, but that is in no way as bad as BEHEADING people!"  They, the MSM, including Engel, would never run story on what terrorists do, but will put FRONT PAGE about 1 soldier shoting a terrorist notebook, oops, I meant Quoran. 

Oh come on Richard Engel!

How do you feel that Iran is, its position in the world is rising because of your actions in Iraq?

Naturally enough, you must have missed it last week, when Saudi Arabia, speaking for the Arab League, came out and sternly warned Iran (and Syria) that patience with them is running out and that ties with Iran may be severed if it does not back off, notably over their continued support and funding of Hezbollah in it's effort to destabilize the region (speaking of Lebanon).

And secondly:

ENGEL: If you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you'll be handing over to the next president has, is deeply problematic.

And when George Bush became president in Jan. of 2001, every thing in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries was hunky dory? Let's see, the Intafada left to Bush was in it's full horror; Bin Laden had declared a holy war on the US, and the attacks had begun; Afghanistan had fallen to the radical Taliban (and given a home to Bin Laden; the daily US bombings in Iraq's no-fly zones was in a two year escalation and the inspectors have been gone for two years); 500,000 children had died in Iraq from the sanctions; Darfur was falling into crisis; newly nuclear armed Pakistan and India were toying with the fun idea of a nuclear exchange; Paksitan was aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan (certainly not in our interest - we would soon find out); and the Muslim separatists in Chechnya were in an all out war with Mother Russia.

I would not argue that things are better or worse today; however, but I would definatly argue that as Bill Clinton left office, things in the Mid East, Africa, and elsewhere were definatley falling apart. 

And to the point, I would note that we sure as heck did not see the press hounding exiting president Bill Clinton on his failures in the Middle East; in Africa (were millions were still dying in civil war, genocide and from HIV/Aids; or over the collapsing economy which was falling into recession which would result in millions of workers loosing their jobs, their life savings, and over a $trillion of projected federal budget surpluses disappearing into thin air. 

Nothing here but media bias, Richard Engel.

I would very much like to have a respectful argument with someone who believes as Engel does. Here’s my theory, and I beg for disagreeing people to respond.

• Not long ago, we had two Mideast sponsors of terrorism, Iraq and Iran, who combined to present multiple threats. Now, we’ve eliminated one of those sponsors. In the meantime, Iran has exploited the gap and has continued funding their terrorist groups. We wonder if Iran is more dangerous now. Perhaps they are.

• The strategically important question, however, is whether the increased individual threat from Iran is greater than the combined threat we faced before.

In the short term, there’s no doubt that Iran and Syria’s terrorist benefactors have increased their activity in the Middle East. But, to resurrect a forgotten phrase, it’s all “over there,” and none of it is “over here.” When al-Qaeda attacked the US, the US kicked the crap out of the Taliban. We hammered the sponsors of the group that carried out a domestic attack against us. Surely, the other sponsors noticed. I have no doubt that those sponsors made it clear to their terrorist groups that they didn’t want any attack in the United States, because the US would come to destroy the sponsors first. The Iraq War reinforced that dynamic, since Saddam funded some of the groups most likely to attack the US here.

The Democrats imply that because of Iraq war, we lost both the military and diplomatic ability to pressure Iran from developing nuclear weapons and from funding terrorism. But both implications are illogical.

1. Iran was going to continue to do those things anyway. They’ve made clear that they aren’t going to pay any attention to the international community, whom they’ve ignored for the past thirty years or so. And no military attack was going to be launched anyway, because the Iranians (unlike Iraq) learned to disperse their nuclear development to prevent any single quick strike.
2. When we (and the rest of the international community) were convinced that Iraq had WMDs, and presented an imminent threat to security, we asked the world to join us in addressing the threat – just as the Democrats suppose we would do against Iran. Remember, at the time, we had the world’s sympathy and our “prestige” was never higher. But even then, the international community did nothing.
   • Why? It wasn’t because they knew there was no WMD threat (their intelligence agencies agreed with ours).
   • Instead, they knew that the US was going to invade whether they joined or not, so why spend the cash if you’re going to get the result anyway?  
   • So much for the usefulness of international prestige … even when we had it, it didn’t do us any good.

I argue that The Left’s assumptions are simply untrue. Are we less safe than we were five years ago? I don’t think so. The idea that Iran is stronger is, as I argued above, unconvincing. Second, I doubt that even if we “lost prestige” that it would have made any difference.

I would very much like to have a respectful argument with someone who believes differently. Whereas I believe my reasoning is correct, and I'll try to counter any objections, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

A BRILLIANT, HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, ELOQUENT (YES, "ELOQUENT"), HONORABLE AND COURAGEOUS PRESIDENT.

ONE OF THE TRULY GREATS. PERIOD.

It's sickening, just sickening, how the MSM has successfully recreated him in their image -- into some idiot, dolt, a failure -- and how so many have swallowed all of this filthy MSM propaganda whole.

Say what you will about AGW, about gas prices, about the "recession" (well, no, don't say what you will about that one.... another fabrication out of thin air that's a disgusting lie repeated daily in the MSM) but regarding the WOT, this man should be thanked, put on a pedestal, given a dedicated holiday in his name when he's out of office... you name it, he deserves it!

Everyone, check out four pure, truthful -- and even poetic -- bits in this interview. I actually think he's more graceful and articulate when he's off the cuff than when he does prepared speeches:

ENGEL: Do you intend to finish your term in office with a military action of some kind against Iran?

BUSH: Excuse me for a minute Richard. Two ways. One, find them and bring them to justice, what we're doing, and two, offer freedom as an alternative to their vision. And somehow, to suggest that bees would stay in the hive is naive. They didn't stay in the hive when they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You've got that right, Mr. President.

You might not have this from my mom, or my brother, or any of the brainless, self-absorbed idiots in my city, New York, but you have the utmost thanks and appreciation of Mr. Shy (for whatever that's worth :p)

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *

For REAL Change

I saw the interview...good ol' Engel at it again...he has been one of the most maddening reporters there have been for me on msnbc over the years since the war started...he has not and obviously is not for Victory...I wished I could understand why Pres. Bush grants interviews to slugs like him. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill