Regarding Democratic talking points on Chavez, apparently Iowa
Sen. Tom Harkin didn’t get the “don’t attack our
president” message that Pelosi and Rangel harmonized on earlier
“I thought they were incendiary comments, certainly,” Harkin said, adding, “Let me put it this way: I can understand the frustration and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush’s policies.”Realizing his goof, Harkin released an e-mail statement late this afternoon:
Harkin, also said immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, every country in the world, including Venezuela, supported the United States.
“Just think - in five years, President Bush has squandered all that, just totally, totally squandered it all,” Harkin said. “I can understand the anger and frustration of a lot of poor people around the world, who see us the richest country in the world putting $350 billion in a war, unnecessary, unprovoked war in Iraq and yet they can’t get clean water.”
“While I understand the frustrations of many in the international community because of George W. Bush’s policies, I do not believe that gives them the right to come to our country and personally insult and attack the President of the United States.”It’s our fault and our responsibility to get other countries clean water? Is that what Chavez’s problem with us is?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online