Monday, September 06, 2004

"A Kerry Administration would pose... a National Security threat"

Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be TrustedInsight Magazine's John Wambaugh logically breaks down the Kerry campaign and its implications for a Democratic administration.

Wambaugh states that a Kerry administration would, in itself, pose a dire national security threat to the US. Why?

Because a Kerry administration would incorporate Kerry's long-time backers: Left-wing anti-war, anti-military, anti-Patriot act, anti-Intelligence, pacifists, appeasers and the 'Blame America' crowd. And that's without even mentioning the Democratic leaderships' odd meetings with Islamic groups affiliated with terrorists. Read on.

John Kerry faced major challenges at the beginning of this election cycle: first, the popularity and credibility George W. Bush had with the American people post 9/11; second, his anti-war movement with Jane Fonda - to include abusive statements about the 2.6 million American soldiers that served during the Vietnam War; third, his abysmal anti-national security voting record; and fourth, his failure to leave a legislative footprint in the Senate after being there twenty years...

In response to these challenges, Kerry settled on a strategy that maligned President Bush's military service and undermined the peoples' trust in Bush as Commander-In-Chief. At the same time, this strategy called for Kerry promoting himself as a war hero as a calculated offset to his anti-war activities and his extreme anti-national security voting record...

...It's a sad day for the United States when Middle East Terrorist Organizations use the film Fahrenheit 911 and the statements of Left-Wing Democrat Leaders to support the recruiting of terrorists...

...A Kerry Administration would pose, in itself, a National Security threat to the United States... Why? Because a Kerry Administration would incorporate Kerry's long time supporters: Left-Wing anti-war, anti-military, anti-Patriot Act, anti-intelligence gathering people, pacifists, appeasers and the blame America first crowd. These Kerry supporters would be far more interested in dismantling the U.S. military and turning our national security over to the U.N. than in aggressively going after global terrorism.

Kerry's Strategy To Undermine Bush

The Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine:

1. We will fight for freedom. We reject moral relativism.

Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

2. The friends of our enemies are also our enemies.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

3. We reserve the right to hit our enemies before they strike us.

The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

4. We will not negotiate with those who continue to support terrorism.

Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombs. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment, and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah...

The Bush Doctrine

My Letter to 60 Minutes

In anticipation of the long-discredited Ben Barnes story ('Ah got Bush into the National Guard'), the following note was emailed to CBS' 60 Minutes.

Regarding the Ben Barnes story: I believe the New York Times has just reported that Mr. Barnes is a large individual contributor to the Kerry campaign. If the Swiftboat veterans are less credible because they took a contribution from a common contributor to Republicans, then Ben Barnes' status as the third largest contributor to Kerry's campaigns should render any direct testimony from him completely invalid.

And that's without even getting into Mr. Barnes' odd history as a "lobbyist".

The Barnes story, and your reports on this issue, are being carefully fact-checked in the blogosphere (e.g., and ) .

The Swiftboat Veterans have already proven what kind of a force lies in the blogosphere. Simply from your sharedholders' perspective, I would suggest that you not further undermine your credibility as a news organization by publishing only half the Ben Barnes story. CBS' ethical reputation -- and market-share -- hinge on decisions like these. Fully disclosing Ben Barnes' history is a step in the right direction.

Regards, Doug

Out of the Kitchen

The Chicago Sun-Times pillories the Democratic candidate for his inability to roll with the punches. Address the criticisms? Nope. Sign a Form 180 to release all records? Nope. Debate the two approaches? Nope. Kerry's answer is to talk about serving in the National Guard versus serving on a Swiftboat. Hmmmm....

...less than 60 minutes after President Bush gave a sober, graceful, droll and moving address, Kerry decided to hit back. In the midnight hour, he climbed out of his political coffin, and before his thousands of aides could grab the garlic from Teresa's kitchen and start waving it at him, he found himself in front of an audience and started giving a speech. As in Vietnam, he was in no mood to take prisoners: ''I have five words for Americans,'' he thundered. ''This is your wake up call!''

Is that five words? Or is it six? Well, it's all very nuanced, according to whether you hyphenate the ''wake-up.'' Maybe he should have said, ''I have four words plus a common hyphenated expression for Americans.'' I'd suggest the rewrite to him personally, but I don't want him to stare huffily at me and drone, "How dare you attack my patriotism." ...

...That seems to be the way John Kerry likes it. Americans should be free to call Bush a moron, a liar, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally last week) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone). But how dare anyone be so impertinent as to insult John Kerry! No one has the right to insult Kerry, except possibly Teresa, and only on the day she gives him his allowance...

Kerry's showing he just can't take the heat

No comments: