Monica Crowley

Bush Was Right, Volume 98,759

There was the extension of the Bush tax rates. And the military surge in Afghanistan. And the expansion of the war into Pakistan and Yemen. And the increased use of drones to target terrorists. And the cautious optimism about the development of decent government in Iraq. And....I could go on with the long list of Bush policies that Barack Obama has either embraced as his own or actually broadened, but the internet only has so much space.

One of the most dramatic turnarounds for The Bama has been on Guantanamo Bay. Literally on Day One of his presidency, he moved to try to close the terrorist detainee facility there. In fact, he had barely finished his inaugural lunch when he ordered Defense Secretary Robert Gates to shut down all detainee trials in progress before miltiary commissions there. That, of course, infamously included the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Obama and the Robin to his Batman, Attorney General Eric Holder, set out on a quixotic quest to try to set up trials in civilian courts on U.S. soil for these monsters. Even Democrat members of Congress blew a gasket over that one: you're not going to schlep KSM to my backyard to be tried! The Democrat-controlled Congress even voted to ban the transfer of these terrorists to the U.S. for trial and blocked the funding for it too, in case Batman and Robin over there didn't get the point.

Today, The Bama and Robin seem to have acknowledged not only that they were woefully wrong about Gitmo, but that President Bush was right.

According to today's New York Times: "The Obama administration is preparing to increase the use of military commissions to prosecute Guantánamo detainees, an acknowledgment that the prison in Cuba remains open for business after Congress imposed steep new impediments to closing the facility. Charges might be brought within weeks against one or more Guantánamo Bay detainees. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is expected to soon lift an order blocking the initiation of new cases against detainees, which he imposed on the day of President Obama's inauguration. That would clear the way for tribunal officials, for the first time under the Obama administration, to initiate new charges against detainees."

It's too bad that we had to waste two years to get back to the Bush policy, but at least we're there.

If you want to know why Obama's poll numbers are rising, it's because he's acting like a Republican. Actually, he's acting like President Bush.

Peace Out

Don't let that door hit you on the....

This week, Democrat Senator Kent Conrad announced that he would not run for re-election. Today, Independent-Who-Caucuses-With-The-Democrats Joe Lieberman will announce that he is also not seeking re-election. These announcements come shortly after Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stated her intention not to run again.

What's going on? The Senate is supposed to be the place where politicians who can't be president go to die. And they usually literally die while still in office. So why voluntarily quit?

In the case of the Democrats, there are 23 Senators up for re-election in 2012, many of whom hail from red or purple states. Unless the political winds shift dramatically, they'll be toast in November 2012. Like Evan Bayh and so many members of Congress in 2009 and 2010, these politicians see the writing on the wall. We may see some party switchers. Otherwise, get out now and score some lucrative job before the voters send you packing.

In the case of Republicans like Hutchison, many are starting to see that voters aren't in love with the GOP. They're in a surly mood about ALL establishment politicians. Shake things up, bring fresh ideas about cutting spending and shrinking government, or you'll be primaried. They see the Tea Party starting its engines. If they're a go-along-to-get-along Republican, they will probably be toast too. Get out now and get that lucrative job.

The peace-out from Conrad, Lieberman, and Hutchison is just the beginning of what will be a wave of retirements. Self-imposed retirements, before the voters can put them out to pasture themselves.

We the people are back in the driver's seat, and the politicians are riding shotgun, white knuckles and all.

Hannity---TONIGHT!

I'll be a guest with Sean Hannity tonight at 9pm and midnight ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

Hu's On First?

China's president, Hu Jintao, arrives in Washington tonight for a four day state visit. There is no shortage of topics for discussion between Hu and President Obama.

In 1972, there was only one thing that brought the United States and China together: the growing strategic power of the Soviet Union. That shared worry led President Richard Nixon on his historic trip to Beijing, where the Chinese Communists welcomed him and American help to balance the Soviet threat. Back then, our relationship was defined solely by the strategic concern about the significant build-up of Soviet nuclear weapons.

Today, the relationship between the U.S. and China is almost solely driven by economic matters. My, what a difference nearly 40 years makes.

There will be some strategic issues discussed this week. China has been increasingly assertive in the South China, East China, and Yellow Seas, where the U.S. fleet operates. It has also issued careless claims of sovereignty over disputed areas, provoking unnecessary conflict. It has let its client state, North Korea, run wild. Over the past few months, the North has attacked and killed citizens of South Korea (our ally) with impunity. And China has been engaging in a military build-up not entirely unlike the Soviet one that had Deng Xiapeng so panicked in 1972. Today Beijing is building new aircraft carriers to dominate not just the Pacific Ocean but global waters; it is developing a new ballistic missile capability; and it just tested a new stealth fighter jet. These are serious military and strategic matters that will be discussed this week. The American president will challenge the Chinese president on his plans and intentions. At least I hope he will.

But economic issues will dominate the week. Obama will speak to Hu sternly (again, I hope) about the undervalued Chinese currency, the subsidies doled out to state industries, and the theft of intellectual property, all of which give Chinese goods hugely unfair advantages. Hu will listen politely, make a note to talk to his communist leadership about them, and then go back to China and continue business as usual. That's when he's not publicly dissing the dollar. But it's still important to air these issues publicly and get Hu on the record about them.

For the Chinese, their major concern is the value of their holdings of U.S. assets. They hold nearly $1 trillion of our debt. If they were to stop buying our debt, we'd be screwed. They're worried about potential losses from a rapid sell-off in Treasuries, so they're looking for Obama to reassure them that U.S. debt remains safe. They will also lecture Obama about astronomical government spending and debt, and the dangers of inflation.

Savor the irony of that: the Chinese Communists will lecture the American capitalists about too much spending and the need for fiscal responsibility.

Well, if Obama won't listen to the American people, maybe he'll listen to the Chinese commies.

It would also be nice if Obama got tough on human rights. In 2009, Hillary Clinton dissed everyone suffering under the jackboot of Chinese oppression by giving a speech that gave the Chinese a complete pass on human rights. The Chinese heard that and went to town, jailing, torturing, and killing democracy advocates, ethnic minorities, and Catholics, among others. As of last week, she has backed away from her previous "see no evil" position, and it would be heartening to see Obama take the Chinese on on this life-and-death issue.

Who's on first? Hu's on first on many issues. But Obama has a real chance this week to step up and be an authoritative and principled American president. Let's see if he does it, for once.

Facts? Not A Problem.

In the week or so since the Tucson shooting, we've been subjected to the pathetic, absurd, and destructive attacks of the Left as they've flailed around, trying to tie the shooter with conservative "talk."

As the days passed and no evidence was found to substantiate such a tie, those on the Left redoubled their efforts to keep their insane meme going. Democrat Congressman Brad Sherman went so far as to say that even though conservative "talk" didn't inspire this shooting, it would most certainly inspire "the next one." Nothing like setting the stage for future violence, huh Congressman?

As even more time passed and the Left's narrative was completely discredited, we learned that not only was the shooter not a conservative or inspired by talk radio, Fox News, or the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but whatever politics he may have embraced were of the Left.

Today we learn that he bore the hallmark of a card-carrying left-winger: he was a Bush-hater. Buried deep in a lengthy story about the shooter in today's New York Times was this nugget: "His anger would well up at the sight of George W. Bush..."

Sounds like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, or any of the Lefties that suffered (and suffer still) from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

This weekend, ABC taped a townhall on the Tucson shooting for broadcast on "This Week." One of the shooting victims, Eric Fuller, began yelling and threatening the life of the spokesman of the Tucson Tea Party, Trent Humphries. "You're dead!" he screamed to Humphries. He was promptly arrested and involuntarily committed for a psych evaluation.

And yet, the Far Left continues with its incessant, malicious lie: all of the violence is committed by conservatives. All of the crazies are on the Right.

For the Left, no facts on its side? No problem!

Fortunately, to the rest of us, facts matter. So does the truth.

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us for another freewheeling edition of "The McLaughlin Group" this weekend. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.McLaughlin.com for more information.

Back to Business

After pausing for a week after the Tucson shooting, Congress is getting ready to get back to work. It's always rather scary and depressing when Congress decides to "go back to work." The American people prefer them to do nothing. To cease and desist. To leave us alone. To scram.

But Congress loves to "get back to work for the American people," so here they go. This time, however, the Republicans are in charge. The GOP leadership has announced that the big vote to repeal ObamaCare will occur on Wednesday. And that's not a moment too soon.

The phony and dishonest debate over political rhetoric over the past week has Republicans wary about the words they're using to describe ObamaCare and the impending repeal vote. Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office said yesterday that they will "resume thoughtful consideration of the health care bill next week." Rep. Mike Pence dispensed with calling it a "job-killing bill" and now refers to it as a "government takeover of health care."

Gimme a break. I just hope that their change of language is the only thing they're going to change. I worry that if they can get cowed over the expression "job-killing," they may cave on more important things.

Congress is "getting back to work." We have no choice. There are serious issues in front of them---and us: spending, the deficit, the debt, ObamaCare, unemployment, inflation. Let's hope that the Republicans haven't been intimidated in terms of policy by a lone psychopath in Arizona. The American people voted for their agenda of shrinking government, cutting spending, and reducing the oppressive regulatory and tax burdens. In the words of the great Margaret Thatcher, now is not the time to "go wobbly."

The President's Speech

President Obama strode to the podium at last night's "memorial service" in Tucson for the victims of last weekend's shooting and promptly gave his first speech of his 2012 re-election campaign.

Set aside, for a moment, the absolutely ghastly inappropriateness of holding a memorial service in a sports arena. Set aside, for a moment, the appallingly raucous reaction of the audience. Set aside the disgusting use of the service to distribute campaign-style T-shirts and flyers.

Consider what Obama said. No, not what he obviously said, which was rich with words of "healing" and "civility" and can't we all get along.

Go deeper, as one always must with Obama.

During the 2008 campaign, he presented himself as a blank slate, a blank screen onto which each person could project what they wanted or needed him to be. It worked. And then we got what we got, which was a radical progressive---which is what he was all along.

During last night's speech, he offered up a lot of feel-good lines that got roars of applause: "we can do better." Referring to the 9 year old victim, Christina Green, he said, "I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it."

When he says things like he "wants us to do better" and that he wants our "democracy to be as good as she imagined it," he is leaving the meaning of those things deliberately ambiguous. He wants you to supply your own meaning to it. And every member of that audience did, and then applauded their own interpretations.

But what Obama means by a "better" democracy is not what most of us think of when we hear that. He means a democracy based on social justice and wealth redistribution, as seen in policies like ObamaCare. That's what HE meant when he said it, but he deliberately left it undefined so that you could pop it whatever it means in your mind.

But since he's president and you're not, you'd better listen more closely to his words, and realize that when you're applauding his words, you're applauding his ideology and his agenda.

Sneaky, isn't he?

Yes, he is. Which is why you need to listen not just to what he says, but to what he's REALLY saying.

Demons Wanted

Well, that didn't take long.

The Left cannot survive without an enemy. They need a foil whom they can demonize, smear, tear apart, and hold up as The Worst Thing To Ever Happen To America. And the reason the Left needs to do this is because they cannot win on their principles. They cannot win on policy. They cannot win with their arguments (such as they are). They cannot win in the free market of ideas. Every time we have run their big government, big spending, wealth redistributing experiment, it has resulted in a complete, destructive failure. In a center-right country, progressivism ends badly, both politically for the Left and economically for the rest of us.

Because they cannot compete with conservative principles, they must do things that are beyond the pale, such as hope for some horrific event----as Clinton pollster Mark Penn did a few weeks ago when he suggested that President Obama needed "an Oklahoma City" event so he could "reconnect" with the American people. The Left is often as mentally deranged as the psycho who shot up the Tucson Safeway.

They also need to demonize their political opponents. They attacked President Bush and Vice President Cheney mercilessly for eight years, often in the most vile and violent terms.

They have now moved from Bashing Bush to Bashing Palin. They have settled on the former Alaska Governor as the Next Available And Easy Political Target for their venom and hatred. Of course, they've been at it for a while, but the Arizona shooting let them refresh their assault.

Fortunately, Palin isn't taking it sitting down. After being crucified by the Left as being responsible for the shootings, Palin took to the video-waves to calmly and methodically push back against their irresponsible attacks and frankly, pure insanity. (See her video here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=487510653434 )

Palin has been the Left's Target Du Jour for many days and months. She will continue to be. Good for her for not taking it.

And every other major Republican should be on notice that they might be next on the Left's political demonization hit list. Bush, Cheney, Palin, ?

Hillary Strikes Again

Simply by virtue of being married to Bill, being a woman, and being as left-wing and progressive as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton gets a pass on pretty much everything.

The media swoon over what a trailblazer she's been, how brilliant she is, and what a spectacular job she's doing as Secretary of State. None of those things are true, particularly that last one.

She is the most overrated Secretary of State in modern times. She has either been a failure or AWOL on every major foreign policy issue: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. When the crud has hit the fan, she's always managed to be far away, like in Papua New Guinea or someplace, talking about something irrelevant. She's been incredibly deft at self-protection, letting others take the criticism for things such as: the Russians moving tactical nukes closer to the border with our allies in Eastern Europe; the Chinese building up their military, proliferating nuclear technology, and letting North Korea run wild; the Iranians slaughtering their own people while pressing ahead with nuclear weapons; the North Koreans killing our South Korean allies with impunity; the collapse of the Middle East "peace" process; the lateral movement after the surge in Afghanistan, while the Afghans continue to wallow in outright corruption; and the growing alliances between bad guys such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

Rodham has either tried and failed to manage these problems, or she has checked out altogether.

Great SecState? Even Warren Christopher was better than this.

Of course, just when you think she can't get any worse, Rodham strikes again.

Over the weekend, she was in the United Arab Emirates. In a townhall-style meeting, she was asked about 9/11, and she responded this way: "We have extremists in my country," and then, referring to the Arizona shooting, she told her Arab audience that a Congresswoman "was just shot by an extremist in our country."

This is so many kinds of wrong that I hardly know where to begin.

First, there is NO moral equivalence between a lone psychopath and terrorists acting in the name of Islam out of a Koranic command to "strike terror" in the hearts of the infidels and who operate as part of a global jihadi movement. I know that's stating the obvious, but apparently the obvious needs to be stated to our Secretary of State.

Second, Hillary immediately bought into the despicable, depraved, and dishonest Far-Left narrative that the Arizona shooter was a "Far-Right extremist" without any evidence whatsoever to prove it. Very responsible for the woman tending to our diplomatic relations, no?

Third, she made this outrageous claim while in a foreign---an Arab---country. This is beyond the pale, an egregious act of the kind that only anti-American losers like Michael Moore commit.

Fourth, as today's New York Post points out, her deputy, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, told the Chinese in talks last year that we had human rights issues too, and cited Arizona's new illegal immigration law as evidence of our "abuses." I guess the destructive moral equivalence travels down the chain, from Hillary at the top. Perhaps the Arizona shooter heard Mr. Posner.

And finally, Hillary also said this while in the Middle East this weekend: "The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV---that's not who we are." The point left unstated about Hillary here is that while she buys that rhetoric CAUSES this kind of behavior, from a policy point of view, she has completely ignored her earlier demand that Palestinian media stop inciting violence as a precondition for U.S. assistance. Testifying before Congress in April 2009, she said this: "We will only work with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles: A commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map."

All you have to do is go to the website of the Palestinian Media Watch (www.palwatch.org) to see how the Palestinian media---an official department of the Palestinian Authority---incites extreme violence every day. But Hillary not only ignores that, she rewards it. She just OK'ed another $100 million of your money to the Palestinian Authority.

Meanwhile, she turns Israel into the CAUSE of the violence because of the settlements issue. This is strikingly similar to the absurd and destructive thing she has done here with her comments about the Arizona shooting. In discussing the shooter, she implicates political rhetoric. In the case of the Middle East, she directs her fire toward Israel and NOT toward the insanely and incessantly violent rhetoric coming out of the Palestinians.

Hillary Clinton is a full-on disaster as Secretary of State. She needs to start getting called on her failures, disingenuousness, ineffectiveness, and straight-out BS.