Democrats: Bush Too Tough on Terrorism

Ever since 9/11, Democrats have grappled over how to most effectively criticize President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism. The Democrats faced a political dilemna: How could they placate their nutty, far-left base, while still managing to convince a majority of voters that the Democrats could be trusted on national security? Is Bush a bungling wannabe war leader who is asleep at the wheel while terrorists plot another strike, or is he a paranoid warmonger who sees threats everywhere, and who will stop at nothing--not even pre-emptive invasions, Big-brother intimidation, and torture--to wipe out an exaggerated (or imaginary) enemy? Which is it: Is Bush too soft on terrorism, or too tough?

Well, after the New York Times recently revealed that in the weeks after 9/11, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on domestic calls linked to al-Qaeda, the Democrats seem to have finally settled on the latter caricature of Bush the out-of-control tyrant who takes this anti-terrorism business a little too seriously. Senator Barbara Boxer even went so far as to say that in his press conference today, when the President not only admitted authorizing the wiretaps, but vowed to keep doing it, he was admitting an impeachable offense. The Democrats have their new scandal-of-the-month on which they will make their stand.

All I have to say is, please, keep it up. Every time Boxer or Dean or Harry Reid or any other prominent Democrat gets up and accuses the Bush administration of going too far and doing too much to protect American lives, voters will see yet again why the Democrats first earned their soft-on-national-security reputation in the first place.

A Striking Contrast

President Bush just finished delivering the latest in a series of speeches responding to the increasingly shrill critics of the Iraq war. The President has been using a different tone of late--more conciliatory, more open about past mistakes--that seems to be making some headway in the face of the never-ending drumbeat of defeatism emanating from most of the Democratic party and national media.

The message of the speech was little different from what Bush has been saying for years, but the personable style of delivery is what really made it one of Bush's most effective war speeches. The President seemed assured, yet sober. It was a striking contrast to the hysterics frequently employed by Howard Dean and other Democrats, who often seem to think the war is of minor importance compared to trashing the president and undermining public morale. We need a serious opposition in this country, one that can debate Bush's speech and war strategy on the merits, and thoughtfully lay out an alternative view. Such a battle of ideas would be beneficial to both sides. Instead, we are given the likes of Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who deride the war as "unwinnable," and when asked what they would do differently, invariably reply with irrelevant and nonsensical condemnations of the war itself. Rather than doing something to contribute to victory, they seek to maximize partisan advantage. Say what you will, but Bush's mistakes in the conduct of the war have been committed in the pursuit of victory. The Democrats' sole contribution to the war, on the other hand, has been to undermine it since the day it began (indeed, even before it began). And then they have the audacity to say that Bush is the one who has lost all credibility on the war. It is enough to drive a man to unleash a Dean-like scream of frustration.

The historical magnitude of the last week's elections in Iraq cannot be overemphasized. After decades under the rule of one of the most brutal, repressive regimes in history, Iraq is now governed by a freely elected parliament. A recent poll shows that Iraqis are optimistic about the future; ironically, much more so than Americans. It is a telling testament to the power of modern media to shape public opinions that Americans, who are bombarded with daily reports of bad news from Iraq, are actually more pessimistic than Iraqis, who are literally being bombarded. Could it be that Iraqis have a more complete view of the situation, and recognize that there is more going on in the country than the one bombing on one street that the American news networks choose to focus on? The Democrats may blithely ignore the unprecedented changes going on in Iraq, but history, I believe, will not.

Walk the Line

This excellent biographical film of iconic country music singer Johnny Cash covers his life from his boyhood years on the family farm in Arkansas, to about 1970, when he made his famous live recording at Folsom Prison.

As his music so famously and soulfully indicates, Cash led a hard life growing up. His older brother--and his father's favorite--died while working at a saw mill to help provide for the struggling family. We are shown the young "J.R." with his face buried in his pillow, as Cash's father, in a fit of despair and rage, shouts at Cash's mother that "the Devil took the wrong boy." The next scene shows a grown-up Cash (now played by Jacquin Phoenix) as he leaves the farm for good, bound for two years of Air Force duty in Germany. As Cash walks down the long dirt road, it evokes the image of a man who is alone in more ways than one.

After his tour of duty, Cash returns, gets married on a whim, and starts a small-time Gospel trio. He makes his big break singing "Cry, Cry, Cry" to a skeptical record producer, and from then on, his rise to fame seems assured (at least as far as the movie is concerned). But although success came relatively early in his music career, it served only to exacerbate his old demons, while also creating news ones.

At one of his first concerts on tour, Cash literally runs into June Carter (played with a twinge of melancholy by the heretofore perennially perky Reese Witherspoon), and so begins an on-again, off-again love story that lasts for over a decade before June finally relents. June was a member of country music's most famous family, and she was painfully aware of the sacrifices one must make to live in the public eye. Cash was less concerned with keeping up appearances, creating an endless source of tension between the two performers.

The narrative follows the familiar pattern of all the biographical movies of celebrities you've ever seen: Initial poverty, stunning and rapid success, good times, infidelity, drug and alcohol addictions, a crumbling life, lots of drama and awkward moments (indeed, judging by Walk the Line, sometimes it seems as if Cash's entire life was just one awkward dinner scene after another), then--sometimes--redemption and recovery. For Cash, the redemption came in the late 1960s, when after wallowing in misery for years, he goes to church one Sunday with June. It is a brief but moving scene.

The performances are first-rate throughout. Most remarkably of all, Phoenix and Witherspoon did their own singing, mimicking Johnny and June Cash's distinctive voices so well that even devoted fans of Cash assumed they were hearing the Man in Black himself. Most of Cash's biggest hits are performed over the course of the movie, and on the drive home from the theater, you'll be singing them all.