The President used his speech for political purposes.

Good grief, when the hell are these sub-human, brain dead, moronic, drivel-spouting lumpen going to shut up?

Of course the president's speech had political overtones, he is the PRESIDENT! He is the PRESIDENT of the most powerful nation in the free world, thus the most visible member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and anything he says and does in public is going to have a political overtones!

This is what constitutes news these days? The president speaks on the anniversary of 9-11 and the Democrats pitch a hissy fit because it had political overtones? He spent the entire day visiting the sites where the planes went in that day, hugging and grieving with survivors, reliving a level of sadness we all still feel - at least those of us who actually have feelings.

Then he gives a speech talking about our continuing efforts to combat the terrorists who did this and he isn't supposed to say "Iraq?" He isn't supposed to mention those who continually undermine the war effort by leaking secret information to the media, and hence to our enemies? He isn't supposed to mention cases of outright treason that would have resulted in well-deserved executions a generation ago?

And all this carping comes from the so-called leadership of the national Democratic Party. What do they call what they have been doing for the past three years, bipartisanship?

Let's get it straight. The whole concept of national unity in winning the War on Terror in the wake of the 9-11 attacks is and has been a farce from Sept. 12, 2001 onward.

Want a trip down memory lane?

Let's revisit the Sen. Jay Rockefeller memo, suggesting how to get the most advantageous spin off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo, dated Wednesday, November 05, 2003, was first aired by Fox News. A partial transcript follows:

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission.

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority.

Frankly, I think the response to this kind of manipulation is far, far too kind and gentle. I know the president is a devout Christian and I know he is a living example of his belief. But I long since have been of the opinion that turning the other cheek, which I also learned when I was a child, has gotten old, domestically and internationally.

I think it is time to strike back, much, much harder than we have thus far. For example, I heard a woman caller on the Rush Limbaugh show today ask that he refrain from using the term Islamo-fascists, because the terrorists may be fascists, but they aren't following the true dictates of the Koran and they aren't true Muslims.

Limbaugh was firm, yet very kind and gentle to her, and asked why other Muslims don't speak up. The caller said they do but don't get news coverage.

That may be true, but I kept wondering why the leaders of the Muslim countries in the world, especially the Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs haven't risen up en masse to denounce these criminals. Why haven't there been mass excommunications from the Muslim religion? Why haven't the Islamic leaders railed against the terrorists for making false claims about their faith?

We'll stop using the term Islamo-facists when the leaders of Islam show that they are willing to take an open and aggressive stand against them too.

In the meantime, we have loyal American servicemen rotting in brigs and stockades on what may well be trumped up charges of murder in a war zone. Meanwhile the real terrorists are living the life of luxury in Guantanamo and their supporters in Congress pule and mewl about the terrible conditions they are enduring, and "What will the world think of us?"

Who the hell cares? I for one am sick of the US turning the other cheek because all we get is hit on the other cheek.

I think it is time to go back to the Old Testament. Remember that passage? "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

Now those were leaders who knew how to deal with an enemy.