Giving dirty tricks a bad name
I'm detecting... a... pattern.
The World Trade Center. Bali. Madrid. Beslan. These names are synonymous with devastating attacks by terrorists targeting innocent civilians. There is little doubt we are engaged in a global war on terror. There are disagreements, however, with the methods used to defeat terrorists.
Does it strike anyone else as ominous that John Kerry endorses giving Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for promises that the Mullahs refrain from developing WMD's? This is the same Iran that, according to the State Department, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism".
| John Kerry and John Edwards Iran policy proposal has raised eyebrows around the world, offering to give the Iranian hardliners nuclear fuel in exchange for a promise to drop their enrichment program...
...three top financial backers of the Kerry/Edwards ticket may account for the unusual notion of giving fissile materials to the largest backers of Islamofascist terror groups:
Nemazee isn't the only five- to six-figure donor to the Kerry campaign connected to efforts aimed at lifting the economic sanctions against the Iranian mullahcracy. Faraj Aalaei has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the Kerry campaign while his new wife, Susan Akbarpour, has raised a similar amount... ...The article also outlines other positions that Kerry has taken for normalization with the current Iranian regime rather than support the nascent democratization efforts within Iran. It appears that the Kerry campaign's commitment to fighting terrorism and its sponsors takes a back seat to pandering to its financial supporters -- as does American national security... |
The following are highlights from Hugh Hewitt's virtual symposium. Full disclosure: I used a cheat sheet while preparing these items.
| In the debate Thursday night, John Kerry attacked President Bush for underwriting research into bunker-busting nuclear weapons. "I'm going to shut that program down," says Kerry, arguing that we are not "sending the right message to places like North Korea" when we are pursuing such programs. Evidently, Kerry believes that if we provide the proper role model by abandoning such efforts, then North Korea and Iran will be more inclined to abandon their own nuclear programs.
Which makes about as much sense as arguing, in the late 1930s, that Britain and the U.S. should have provided a better role model for Nazi Germany by abandoning key weapons programs--say, the Spitfire fighter and B-17 bomber. Could any sane person believe that such actions would have led Germany to moderate its behavior? And today, could any informed person not believe that the leaders of Iran and North Korea are cut from cloth very similar to those from which the Nazi leaders were cut? |
| Note to John Kerry: a double standard concerning the possession of nuclear weapons does exist. We are America, we are morally better than nations such as Iran and North Korea, we can be trusted to act responsibly with our nuclear arsenal, and our possession and development of bunker busting nukes in no way spurs the development of nukes by other nations. Iran and North Korea (plus Pakistan, India and Israel) developed nuclear weapons programs for their own national interests, not in reaction to our arsenal...
Is the development of bunker busters going to cause Iran to want nukes even more? Who is kidding whom? America is not a proliferator of nuclear weapons, as he implies in his statement. John Kerry has always opposed America’s nuclear deterrence, as evidenced by his opposition to the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet’s movement of nukes into Eastern Europe. John Kerry indicates that he does not trust America’s ownership of nuclear weapons. He is shortsighted on the need for bunker busting nukes as well, as there may be a real military need in the future. |
| Hearing John Kerry's "Not this president!" during the debate gave me flashbacks to childhood. I remembered Jimmy Carter getting nuclear weapon advice from Amy. (In googling to refresh my memory on that, I found this fascinating transcript of an interview with President Carter by Jim Lehrer on the topic of presidential debates). I remembered how President Carter, too, was on the wrong side of nearly every issue. Those were dark times for our country, and I shudder to think of returning to them under a Kerry Administration. Can you imagine having our president, in this age of radical Islamic terrorism, believe that we are in the wrong for wanting to have the best, most precise weapons available? |
| My global test for whether to attack our enemies is twofold:
1. Did somebody attack us or are they acting like they are going to attack us? 2. Are they somewhere on the globe? Two out of two earns a visit from Mr. MOAB and their snake-eating friends. Or a corps or two. Whatever it takes to defeat the threat. And if it takes using small yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy a rogue regime’s nuclear arsenal, I do not think we need to feel any guilt at all wielding them as we tell those rogues to give up their nuclear weapons. We are not morally equivalent. I have no patience with somebody who thinks our possession of weapons designed to destroy enemy weapons is the same as an enemy with weapons intended to slaughter civilians... |
| In all actuality, a new arms race has begun. The race is between the democracies and rogue nations. Democracies need the ability to wipe out rogue nations' secretly located, deeply buried atomic installations. The rogue nations, WHO ARE DICTATORSHIPS that kill thousands if not millions of their own citizens, want to develop and spread these weapons. They may want to give them to terrorist organizations. That must be stopped.
But Kerry, incredibly, views this simplistically. He feels he has no answer if a rogue nation asks us "Why should we stop developing nuclear weapons when the U.S continues to do so?" The answer of course, is that we are democracies and they are dictatorships. When they become democracies, we will begin to accord them the full rights of states. Until then, they are illegitimate and have no rights. |
| John Kerry, who opposed Reagan as a Senator, now wants to once again unilaterally disarm ourselves of a critcal weapon while arming one of our most intractable enemies of the last 25 years. His logic must be that if the US "sets the example" of not moving forward with a critical tactical nuclear weapon, then the psychotic mullahs will see our peaceful gesture and reciprocate. WTF? |
| When asked what is the greatest threat facing us, he replied "nuclear proliferation". Not terrorism, not WMD in general, not even al Qaeda or Osama himself. And he was careful to say that Iraq was a "grand distraction" from the real war in Afghanistan. But all of that is beside the point.
No, the War on Terror is not the greatest threat to us. Not Islamic extremists who want to slaughter each of our children in the name of "divine justice". Not WMD in the hands of terrorists. No, he thinks nuclear weapons in general are the greatest threat, especially those produced by his own country. |
| ... John Kerry goes a' trippin.
First he asserts that the situation in Iraq can be resolved by a summit ... then he tells us that it is hypocricy to tell others to give up their nuclear weapons, even as we develop new, deep-penetration nuclear weapons for "bunker busting"... Once again, his hippie roots are showing -- in particular, the myopic assumption that, if we get rid of the tools men can use for evil, that evil itself will disappear. |
| The underlying assumption in all this is that Americans are, all recent events and facts notwithstanding, exactly as trustworthy and sane and humane as the mooooolahs of Iran and other terror supporters. No, not even that, we are somehow less trustworthy and sane and humane. Now, how many normal, everyday Americans actually believe that? Somewhere in the 10% range? The same percentage that believe the moon's made of green cheese? Such an inexplicable rejection of facts, history, and common sense in favor of some self-flagellating "we are the enemy" position means John Kerry's not fit to teach 7th grade history, let alone lead the nation... |
| Sen. Kerry asserts that development of high-yield Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, better known as the “bunker busters” sends a mixed message. What it does is add force to the message. Not only do we want you to stop WMD development, but if you fail to comply we have the ability to destroy what you have... Sen. Kerry supports a unilateral U.S. nuclear arms moratorium! |
| (Technically not part of the symposium, but worth repeating) I'd really like to live in John Kerry's world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well. |
In reaction to John Kerry's continuing efforts to disenfranchise United States' allies, the president of Poland speaks up. Specifically, he details his reaction to Kerry's debate performance. So far, the Kerry campaign has insulted the entire coalition (calling them a 'coalition of the coerced and bribed'), insinuated that fighting terrorists will increase terror attacks against Australians, and claimed that the prime minister of Iraq was a "puppet".
| In the interview for a Polish channel TVN, President of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski expressed his admiration and full support for President George Bush for his leadership in the war on terror. As a comment to the Bush-Kerry debate, President Kwasniewski said that "President Bush performed like a truly Texan gentleman who was able to notice and fully appreciate the presence and sacrifice of the Polish ally in the war on terror in Iraq. "
"I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.", Kwasniewski commented John Kerry’s stance. "I don’t think it’s an ignorance.", said Kwasniewski. "Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It’s highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world. "That’s why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished", President Kwasniewski commented Kerry’s speech during the debate. "Perhaps Mr Kerry, continues Kwasniewski, thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq. According to poll research centers, Poland is the only European country where President Bush would win the election. What’s more, it would be a landslide victory... |
Many of my regular readers have written in, wondering what John Kerry meant when he refered to "The Global Test". For those who missed the debate, Kerry said, "the president always has the right... for [a] preemptive strike... But if and when you do it, ...you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test."
|
You have six minutes to complete the test. Please use a number 2 pencil to mark each of your answers. Turn your sheet in at the Front Desk of the UN Building when you have completed the test. 1) Your country is engaged in an unpopular war in Southeast Asia, but one which is necessary to contain Communism. Should you: [] A) Attempt to gain a draft deferment [] B) Join the US Navy's Swiftboat group because you think, "it's a way to avoid the action" [] C) Game the Navy's system by reporting minor injuries in order to gain three purple hearts, which allows you to bureaucratically exit from the combat theater [] D) All of the above 2) You are a veteran returning from a bitterly contested war and have an opportunity to publicize your views on the war. Should you: [] A) Claim that your fellow soldiers, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals , cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side... " [] B) Provide ammunition to the enemy with which they can torture American POW's to solicit confessions [] C) Illegally meet with the enemy in France [] D) All of the above 3) Your country is engaged in a 'Cold War' on Communism. Your president believes that the "Evil Empire" is susceptible to a massive arms buildup, which it cannot possible match. He also believes that such a buildup could bankrupt the Communist regime without a shot being fired and thus result in the spread of democratic freedom throughout Asia. Should you: [] A) Stand up in the Senate and say, "The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability' which we now know not to exist." [] B) Stand up in the Senate and say, "We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use." [] C) Stand up in the Senate and say, "the biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so." [] D) All of the above 4) Your country is combating the Communist Sandanistas in Latin America. Should you: [] A) Attempt to appease the Communists by publicly stating, "We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement…"; [] B) Conduct a pointless witch-hunt of Americans fighting Communists; [] C) Call the American President's actions, "Barbaric" [] D) All of the above 5) Your country is waging a global war on terror. Should you: [] A) Insult our Allies, calling them a "coalition of the coerced and bribed" [] B) Insult the leader of a free Iraq when he visits the United States to speak in front of Congress [] C) Have your sister attempt to shake the confidence of our Australian allies [] D) All of the above 6) For two decades, your country has armed itself to provide protection for the innocent, promote peace, and spread democracy throughout the world. Should you: [] A) Vote against every significant weapons system over a 20 year period, including the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, F-15, and F-16 Fighters, the M1 Abrams Tank, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, and others. [] B) Attempt to curtail funding for every major Intelligence budget [] C) During the rise of Bin Laden and global terrorism (1997), ask, "now that [the Cold War] is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?" [] D) All of the above |
The debates percolated in my brain overnight and I noted three key takeaways, all from the Kerry camp:
SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word [Ed: lied] as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq... Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03) AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03) |
John Bolton, the State Department's point man on proliferation... noted that it is technically possible for Iran to remain in compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, then suddenly renounce the NPT and "breakout" with its own bomb...
...Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control reduced the status quo to three lines: "You cannot verify a lie. You cannot successfully inspect a country that lies. You come to a dead end." ... the Irans and North Koreas of the world are assembling a bomb and the missiles to deliver it. Current "policy" won't stop them. What will? The Bush administration filed its answer two Septembers ago with the National Security Strategy, a 31-page document whose most famous word was "preemption." It said, "In an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." Pre-emption... without a 'global test' |
A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified.
The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man's intentions were unknown... |
Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America today, John Kerry offered yet another explanation for his trademark line "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it": it was late at night, and he was tired:
"It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and didn't say something clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is, I thought, to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted." Just one problem: Kerry made the statement at noon. Maybe his watch was set on Paris time. |

Why the mullahs have their fingers crossed, hoping to be able to keep a lid on all this for another six weeks. From the SMCCDI, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
Deadly clashes rocked, today, Iran's main southern port of Bandar-Abbas located by the Hormoz Strait on the Persian Gulf. Elite commandos of the Pasdaran Corp. entered in action in order to smash a popular protest initiated following the news of murders of three local fishermen by members of the regime's security forces. Rumors had stated that the fishermen were killed as they had refused to bribe the regime's agents. Angry residents attacked several public buildings and the regime forces vehicles with pieces of stones and incendiary devices after that the militiamen started to shoot on the crowd. Several deaths and injured have been reported. The situation is very tense and the accesses to the city-port and the port's facilities are under heavy military watch. Bandar Abbas is the main commercial entry to Iran and its paralysis will plunge the country in an unprecedented chaos from which the Islamic regime won't survive. Why six weeks? Consider this detail from Andrew2's report from Munich: The Democratic representative, John McQueen, took the podium with the trademark shout-out from the movie Good morning Vietnam--"Good morning Munich!" He immediately went to work highlighting the Democratic view of the current administration. "The preservation of civil rights, dialogue with North Korea and Iran, and health care are all important to John Kerry". |
I think liberals are as wrong as can be, and it’s easy to demonize those you disagree with. So I have taken to ascribing all liberal thinking to my best friend for 25 years. He’s a card-carrying liberal, but I love him like a brother. This helps me keep things in perspective - some people are wrong, but they are not necessarily evil. His heart is certainly bigger than most.
This exercise keeps me mostly sane - otherwise I’d be driving down the road flipping off Kerry-stickered cars ;-) Sometimes I really have a hard time believing the country is somewhat evenly divided when I look at Kerry. Of all of the disparaging things that are said about Bush, most of them apply to Kerry to a much higher degree. * Lied about service in the ‘Nam era? check * Inarticulate? check * The pawn of someone close to him? check * Can’t ever admit to being wrong, or take responsibility for things going wrong? check * Misses the point on the War on Terror? check I have some hope that a groundswell of sanity will return to the American electorate, and Bush will win 40+ states, thus repudiating Kerry’s current "Iraq is the wrong war" theme. Iraq was exactly the RIGHT war to make the Bush Doctrine stick. Afghanistan was not - that war had to be done in answer to the 09/11 attack. Iraq was the test case that proves the reality of the Bush Doctrine; it is the generalization of the specific case of Afghanistan, and as such the Object Lesson. You DON’T necessarily have to attack us or be an IMMINENT threat. Just a growing threat and an internationally condemned lunatic who supports terrorists. That’s enough to get you your head handed to you courtesy of the US Marines. Those who say that there are no links between 9/11 and Iraq are completely missing the point! The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Attack on Terror Sponsors is a turning point in history, and Iraq was the Test Case. Americans must assert that this war was just, right, and even necessary. Even absent links to 9/11, or actual stockpiles of WMD (besides, those are not "non-existent", they are merely hidden in Syria). Only if the US Electorate confirms and validates the Bush Doctrine will countries like Iran, North Korea, and even psuedo-allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan "get the message". We mean what we say - you support terror, we kick your ass. |
How hard can it be to tie John Kerry in knots over Iraq if even Diane Sawyer can do it? Consider this exchange, as reproduced by PoliPundit:
There's little need to analyze this exchange-- the real story is Kerry's inability, after all this time, to sound coherent on Iraq, and his testiness when a relatively friendly journalist asks for straight answers. But there is another story. Kerry is now claiming that there "absolutely" were ways to "get rid" of Saddam without the U.S. going to war with him. And it is through this claim, apparently, that Kerry intends to argue that it was not worth it to go war, while avoiding a concession that he prefers having Saddam in power to the present situation. Sawyer did not ask Kerry how we could have toppled Saddam without taking him on militarily (why should she have; she was already trouncing him?). If she had asked, Kerry might have responded that eventually the U.S. could have taken him on with a broader coalition, as if (a) France would ever have joined us and (b) having a few Frenchmen on the ground would make the present situation materially different. In any event should Kerry's statement to Sawyer become his latest position on Iraq, he might as well throw in the towel. In the current environment, I can't conceive of Americans electing a president that prone to ducking hard choices through wishful, if not delusional, thinking. |
Captain's Quarters reports that Tina Brown is getting antsy...
Former magazine publisher Tina Brown writes in her Washington Post column today that Democrats have tired of hearing what a great closer John Kerry is, and wants the closing to start now rather than later:
I've thought about this reputation Kerry has garnered as some fourth-quarter genius who outlasts his opponents and scores a last-minute victory, but I'm not buying it, and it looks like Brown isn't either. He's won four terms in the Senate and a term as lieutenant governor in highly liberal Massachusetts as Ted Kennedy's protege. Really, how difficult is that to do? The wonder is that he had to come from behind at all, even against William Weld. |
Is this the same Hamas that was funded by Saddam Hussein? Uhmm... that would be 'yes'.
| On August 20, two suspected high-level Hamas operatives, Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, were detained on American soil and charged with providing material support to Hamas, racketeering, and money laundering.
That same day, accused Hamas money man Ismail Elbarasse was arrested after authorities witnessed his wife videotaping Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Bridge from their SUV as Mr. Elbarasse drove. The images captured by Mr. Elbarasse's wife included close-ups of cables and other features "integral to the structural integrity of the bridge," according to court papers. Given that Mr. Elbarasse was recently announced as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to finance Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel, you'd think the Bay Bridge incident would raise serious alarms. |
Okay, it was a mass emailing based upon a signup I did many months ago. Here's the text of the email with my comments in bold.
| Our mission right now -- yours and mine -- is to make sure John Kerry, John Edwards, and all our Democratic candidates have the support they need to win on November 2. That's why we need you to flood Democratic Party headquarters with a history-making outpouring of financial support between now and our critical September 30th deadline... What, did George Soros pull the plug on this disastrous mess? Why should I contribute when you've got a billionaire on the hook?
Are you sick of seeing the Republicans tell bold-faced lies about John Kerry's military record? You mean like 'Christmas in Cambodia'? The CIA man and the magic hat? Or the rice-bin purple heart? Or the rejected first purple heart application that somehow magically got sent in and approved weeks later? Could you elaborate on which of those are lies, just for my own edification? Are you angry at Cheney, Hastert, and all the rest who keep implying that voting for Kerry leaves America more open to terrorist attacks? Well, don't take their word for it. You can ask the (link) Mullahs, Ayatollahs, terrorists, rogue nations, and other radicals... they're happily endorsing John Kerry. Why would they, unless they could further their agenda? Or have they been frightened into submission by the 'great equivocator'? Have you had it up to here with Bush turning a blind eye to the reality in Iraq? What, that we've collected a bunch of terrorists in one place so we can kill them more easily, rather than having them scattered to the four winds planning attacks in Peoria? Does your blood boil when you see Bush and his administration ignore the hardship caused by the jobs they've lost and the health care crisis they haven't lifted a finger to solve? No, my blood boils when partisan stooges casually ignore events like 9/11, which were the result of repeatedly failed Clintonian policies, and which destroyed a million jobs in a matter of weeks. Or ignore the true health-care crisis: frivolous lawsuits against the medical community by unethical trial lawyers. Well this is it. It's our moment to give John Kerry, John Edwards, and all our Democratic candidates the all-out, no-holds-barred support they need to drive on to victory. Yes, this is it. My wife has some more Instant Tanning lotion your candidates can use. Will that help towards a victory? Let the Republicans know that we're not going to take it anymore. Contribute by our urgent September 30 fundraising deadline...Do you know of I way I can donate lotion online? ...Have you heard all the talk about how "relentless" our Republican opponents are? Well, they don't know the meaning of the word. We'll show them what happens when a slew of right-thinking Democrats fight back. 'Right' thinking? No, no, no, not a faux pas in a fundraising letter! Oh Jeez, what will Colmes think! And don't forget to join Paul Begala and James Carville on September 30th at 8 p.m. ET as they host the National Debate Watch House Party conference call. They'll tell you how to push back against Karl Rove's spin and how you can help win the debate for John Kerry. It all comes down to you and what you do to help John Kerry... Can't you just see Carville and Begala high-fiving each other in the backroom, watching a day-glo Orange Kerry... 'John, this Instatan lotion will really help! You look a little wan, take the whole bottle... scuze me, I've gotta make a phone call... [dials Hillary while walking away]... [whispering]... Hill, looks like we got this thing wrapped up. He looks like the Tropicana Logo... talk to ya...' Let's tell them to get out of our way. October's almost here and we've come to take our country back. Act now to make these last three days of September a turning point in this campaign. Send the biggest donation you've ever sent -- and send it right now. Will do, my 64 oz. bottle of lotion is on the way! |
Authorities in Kyrgyzstan say they have arrested two men who were trying to sell a large quantity of plutonium on the black market. The men were detained last week near the capital, Bishkek, but the news was not immediately released...
The national security service in the remote mountainous republic says it arrested two Kyrgyz citizens and confiscated 60 small containers containing plutonium-239. There is no information on exactly what quantity of plutonium was in the containers. Kyrgyz security agents tracked the men who were attempting to sell the plutonium and arrested them while posing as buyers. The origin of the material is unknown. Security officials say it is not used in Kyrgyzstan, so they think it may have come from one of the neighbouring republics or from Russia... |
President Bush's interview with Bill O'Reilly tonight was a great exchange. O'Reilly asked pointed questions -- tough questions. The president answered them with confidence and conviction.
This contrasts with Kerry who has not sat for an extended interview, or even a short interview, on camera with a journalist since August 1. Kerry cannot do so because he cannot answerer the questions without colliding with himself. So its Letterman, Dr. Phil and Jon Stewart. Some Commander-in-Chief, who won't even risk a meeting with Bill O'Reilly. "[Kerry's] habit of soliciting one more point of view prompted one close adviser to say he had learned to wait until the last minute before weighing in: Mr. Kerry, he said, is apt to be most influenced by the last person who has his ear. His aides rejoiced earlier this year when Mr. Kerry yielded his cell phone to an aide, a move they hoped would limit his seeking out contrary opinions." --Sunday's New York Times on John Kerry. The last person to talk to Kerry will usually be Theresa or Teddy Kennedy. Really. So be sure to read what Teddy had to say at George Washington University yesterday. Kerry's collapse must be across the board to allow the aging lion of the incoherent left to come out and growl. Kennedy is Kerry's mentor. Kennedy will be the decisive voice on foreign affairs. America is fully warned as to what that means by reading through the remarks Kennedy gave yesterday. |
From, you guessed it, the AP:
| The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Sunday.
In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ''nuclear 9/11.'' ''The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' he said in the remarks released late Sunday... ...Kennedy's Monday speech details 13 reasons why Bush's policies have not made the United States safer from terrorism. Among other things, he said the war in Iraq created a new breeding ground for terrorists, distracted from efforts to eliminate al-Qaida, alienated America's allies and allowed North Korea and Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. |
It isn’t hard to see, or hear. All one has to do is listen to John Kerry for a bit. His every word drips of it. It emanates from his every action. John Kerry is arrogant. This has never been more obvious than in his recent remarks about Iraq in the face of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s speech to a joint session of Congress. John Kerry essentially said that the prime minister didn’t know what he was talking about and that he, John Kerry, did.
We’ve heard about Kerry’s legendary elitism. We’ve heard the stories of him bucking lines in small town Massachusetts, chastising those he usurped with a flippant, ''Don’t you know who I am?'' We’ve read accounts of him demeaning Secret Service agents for his lack of balance on his snowboard: ''I don’t fall down. That son-of-a-bitch knocked me over.'' It’s clear that he believes he is above the Everyman. Better than the Everyman. Superior to the Everyman. He is an elitist. He is a narcissist. All of this pales in comparison to the statements he made directly after the speech to Congress by Prime Minister Allawi... |
It was John Kerry’s very own idea recently to begin popping the Bush-Cheney team over Halliburton, lifting a theme from the playbook of Howard Dean. Fate has now handed the Bush campaign a rejoinder: Fannie Mae.
Beneficiaries of alleged book-cooking by the federally-sponsored housing colossus include: Jim Johnson, who ran Mr. Kerry’s vice presidential search process and is a former Fannie CEO; Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton Justice Department official and partisan member of the 9/11 commission who formerly served as Fannie’s Vice Chairman; and, most of all Franklin Raines, former Clinton budget director and the politically oleaginous current Fannie CEO who has been touted in recent months as a Kerry Treasury Secretary... |
Thank you, Prime Minister, for thanking us and giving us an eye-witnessed, favorable report. We sure aren’t getting either gratitude or an unbiased picture from CBS, NBC or ABC.
These three nutworks, TV’s Axis of Drivel, run negative reports on Abu Ghraib prison cruelty, on American soldiers’ death tolls, on terrorist beheadings of relief workers and on the insurgents in just three of Iraq’s 18 provinces... Think about it, skeptics: Iraq will have free elections for the first time in its history. For more than 80 years there was been no such thing as a free vote... For nearly 30 years Saddam was the only person on the ballot … and you voted, if you valued your life. The last time he “ran” for President, a couple of years ago, Saddam received 99.6% of the vote... ...During his reign of terror if you spoke out against Saddam, you could count on being sodomized, having your tongue cut off or watching your teenaged daughter gang raped by Udai and Qusai … or perhaps a combination of the above. Now, that’s not a problem, with Saddam festering in jail and his boys roasting in hell. It was refreshing to get Allawi’s take on the insurgencies in Iraq. He views the terrorists’ flurry of activity not as a sign of strength, but of desperation. They are upping their attacks in a few provinces to derail the coming elections in the US and later in Iraq … kind of like John Kerry trying anything and everything as he tries to salvage his shipwrecked campaign... |
General David H. Petraeus weighs in on progress in Iraq:
| Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq... ...there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished... Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight... With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are. |
Even the Times is coming down hard on Kerry's tendency to dither, relying upon heavy analysis before decisions are actually made. And the last person to have his ear may, in fact, influence the outcome. Makes you wonder what Theresa Heinz-Kerry's agenda may be...
| ...Kerry is a meticulous, deliberative decision maker, always demanding more information, calling around for advice, reading another document - acting, in short, as if he were still the Massachusetts prosecutor boning up for a case...
...the downside to his deliberative executive style, [his staff] said, is a campaign that has often moved slowly against a swift opponent, and a candidate who has struggled to synthesize the information he sweeps up into a clear, concise case against Mr. Bush. Even his aides concede that Mr. Kerry can be slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details he is so intent on collecting, as suggested by the fact that he never even used the Medicare information he sent his staff chasing... ...His habit of soliciting one more point of view prompted one close adviser to say he had learned to wait until the last minute before weighing in: Mr. Kerry, he said, is apt to be most influenced by the last person who has his ear... |
Important predictions from someone who's been there.
| Former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, spoke at breakfast Friday morning at AEI and predicted three spectacular terrorist events in the near future. First, a major destructive action in the United States before election day on November 2, possibly during the last 72 hours, for massive effect in causing confusion and commotion. Second, a dramatic escalation of action in Iraq leading up to November 2, and again in late December and early January to head off the Iraqi election at the end of January. Third, a spectacular attack in the United Kingdom next May to disrupt the re-election campaign of PM Tony Blair.
Aznar's main subject was the serious gap between European elites (and even European popular opinion) and the United States. This gap originated before Bush and it will continue for many years to come. But Americans need seriously to reach out to Europeans, assisting and encouraging our friends (not only fair-weather friends, but friends in difficult times), and making clear to others that gratuitous obstructionism toward the United States is not cost-free. |
From Powerline:
| Kerry's band of brothers brought to mind his fellow liberal-pacificsts in the Senate, such as Mark Hatfield of Oregon who boasts: "I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War. In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia. During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill."
But guess what? Mark Hatfield has endorsed President Bush. Hatfield explains: "My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power. Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters." |
I have just finished reading the 500-page ''9/11 Commission Report,'' and what becomes quite apparent is that the weakest link in our antiterrorism defense system prior to 9/11 was the Immigration and Naturalization Service...
...It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al Qaeda sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased. And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies... ...Thanks to Barney Frank, there was no way that the U.S. government could keep these sleeper members of al Qaeda out. Nor could they be tracked after arrival. They came with a lot of money, rented cars and apartments, took flying lessons, worked out at gyms, and took transcontinental flights to familiarize themselves with the interiors of the planes they would be hijacking and the routines of the pilots and cabin attendants. |
My lawyer readers will immediately recognize this as an invitation to Kerry supporters to make a motion for partial summary judgment on the SwiftVets' claims...
Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers - you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there - who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan: Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"? A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated" |
During Candidate John Kerry’s quest for the Presidency he has brought up many topics. He’s told us about his service in Vietnam. He tells us he can do a better job against Terrorism and that he has a plan to recruit reluctant allies to help out in Iraq.
What we have not heard enough of is Senator Kerry tell us what he has been doing for the past 20 years. John Kerry was elected to the United States Senate in 1984. He sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 1993 and 2000. John Kerry has had 20 years to make a difference as a Washington insider, yet he spends little time on the campaign trail discussing what he’s done for two decades. Instead he chooses to focus on his record in Vietnam and regularly attacks the current administration without offering specific solutions of his own. Why won't John Kerry talk more about his Senate record as proof of his qualifications? His voting record in the Senate and public statements contradict his current positions on Iraq, Terrorism, and the Economy, the three most important topics to voters... |

In the final report from the Iraq Survey Group, a team of weapons inspectors in Iraq determined that Saddam Hussein had no WMD stockpiles at the time of the US invasion, but that Iraq had plans in place to produce them as soon as economic and military sanctions were lifted.
In response to a question from B, I decided to research John Kerry's record and accomplishments. We know that he is the Senate's most liberal member (more liberal than both Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy). We know that he has voted against funding virtually every important defense and intelligence program, including one so "reckless that it had no co-sponsors".
Here's the email conversation from yesterday, continued.
Even WaPo is turning around. Columnist Colbert King has had a change of heart regarding the Swiftboat Veterans. Quoting Democratic Vietnam Vet Rodney Coleman:
From Polipundit:
One thing that fascinates me about the Leftie blogs: like the Daily Worker of years past, the truth tends to disappear when it no longer matches their vision of the way the world should be. The Daily Kos is an excellent example.