Thursday, October 07, 2004

Duelfer Report: Saddam Bribed Jacques Chirac To Veto War



Click here for AmazonFrom Captain's Quarters... yup, these are just the guys who I'd want signing off on a Kerry "Global Test".

In yet another revelation that the French conspired to undermine US and global security, the Duelfer report from the Iraq Survey Group provides evidence that Saddam Hussein had bribed the French to not just sit out the war but to actively undermine any attempts to enforce the UNSC resolutions against Iraq:

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.


The Scotsman also reports what the American media is blaring to the exclusion of everything else in the ISG final report: Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD. Most mainstream outlets are playing down the finding that Saddam fully intended on restarting his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were removed, making the entire exercise a waste of time:

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.


The list of the bribed, if not coerced, is long and distinguished. ABC News published an early list of the major players, but the CIA has added a few eye-opening names...

...As I wrote earlier today, the evidence clearly shows that the UN has become hopelessly corrupt and the "global community" consists of a pack of bribed sell-outs who chose to feed their avarice rather than stand up to a madman. Had we allowed them to continue their efforts, sanctions would have been dropped and Saddam would be ramping up his WMD programs as I write this. Putting our national security in their hands is not just poor judgement, it's a recipe for suicide.


Duelfer Report: Saddam Bribed Jacques Chirac To Veto War

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Johnny Kerry's Tall Tale, as seen in True Windsurfing Magazine



Click here for Amazon!My entry in the Kerry Tall Tales contest, as published in True Windsurfing magazine:

You’ve heard about Paul Bunyan, the greatest lumberjack of all time. And you’ve heard about Pecos Bill, the greatest cowboy. Now let me tell you about Johnny Kerry, the world’s biggest, fastest, bestest wind surfer you've ever heard of.

You’d better believe Johnny was biggest! Why, he was six feet four inches tall with shoulders to match, and he weighed two hundred and five pounds, even without his board.

And fastest? Just give him a pond and a few seconds. Flip! Flop! He'd be sailing away, tacking back and forth with the greatest of ease.

And you bet Johnny was bestest! That was on account of his spandex. No one else ever cut through the wind the way Johnny did.

In fact, some folks said he was a little too good.

Johnny’s trouble started with the big storm up in Lowell, Massachussetts.

“Johnny, the sky's turning dark!” said Mizz Theresa, the owner of the local Windsurfing club. “Why, it'd be near suicide to windsurf on the lake in this storm!”

"Never you mind, Mizz Theresa," boomed Johnny, "a little wind never hurt no one." And sure enough, Johnny sailed right through that storm even though he got his board going so fast you could hardly see him.

The story got around, but most folks just laughed, figuring Johnny had just gotten lucky, tacking back and forth with the shifting winds.

“Amazing!” said Mr. Blather, the local newsman, “He changed positions on that thing so fast, I couldn't hardly even see him!".

But a couple of days later, Johnny got news of a really big storm headed in.

Mizz Theresa didn't let up. “Johnny, do not go out there! I hear there's tornados done sprung up out of this storm!”

"Don't you worry your pretty little head about it," guffawed Johnny with an ear-to-ear grin, "I've got my lucky spandex on!"

And, sure enough, he went out to face the most wicked storm anyone around those parts remembers.

Lo and behold if a tornado didn't touch down! And it was right at the edge of the lake right when Johnny was criss-crossing it, full speed. The tornado was moving lickety split... right at Johnny Kerry!

The townspeople, what few of them were there, remember what happened next like it was yesterday. Johnny went back and forth, faster and faster, shifting positions faster than the eye could see... until he unwound that darn tornado and sent it back up into the sky, where it was never heard from again!

Johnny's been moving fast ever since. Of course, if you can't see him, it might because he's changed positions out there. Because whenever there's a little bit of wind, Flip! Flop! Johnny's windsurfing away, without a care in the world.


Kerry's Tall Tales Contest

TKO: VP Debate Highlights



Click here for AmazonHere are some highlights of the VP debate with my smart-ass remarks interspersed throughout.

We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm.

It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues...

A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues.

And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the likes of Al Qaida.


Oouchh... that's a stiff, backhanded b*tchslap.

John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women...

...We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years ago. He just got it wrong.


Why the sour expression, Mr. Edwards?

With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that...


Okay... that's gonna leave a bruise.

It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment...


Just repeat after me: Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton.

Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't. And you cannot use "talk tough" during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he's faced as a public official..


Well, that look is just downright crestfallen, Mr. Edwards. John Kerry's record... who'da thought folks would investigate that?

We've never criticized [John Kerry's] patriotism. What we've questioned is his judgment. And his judgment's flawed, and the record's there for anybody who wants to look at it. In 1984, when he ran for the Senate he opposed, or called for the elimination of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the Cold War and are important today to our overall forces.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and '91, he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein back to Iraq. The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction.

And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.

I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.

Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida
?


Knockdown! Someone get the smelling salts for Mr. Edwards!

I think the record speaks for itself. These are two individuals who have been for the war when the headlines were good and against it when their poll ratings were bad... ...If we want to win the war on terror, it seems to me it's pretty clear the choice is George Bush, not John Kerry.


Body blow!

It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process.

You end up with a situation in which -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops...

Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House... And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility.

That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude.


Oh, Mommy that hurts!

We dealt with Iran differently than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council.

...One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done.

This was one of the biggest sources of proliferation in the world today in terms of the threat that was represented by that. The suppliers network that provided that, headed by Mr. A.Q. Khan, has been shut down...


You see, Mr. Edwards, there's this whole nuclear threat that you've been ignoring. I know it's probably not a big deal for you "Continuity of Government" types, but it is for most Americans.

Edwards' story about his visit to Israel: We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed... What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists?... They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves.


...Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee... Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session... The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.


Ohhhh, that's gonna leave a mark. Better put some ice on that, Mr. Edwards.

In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.


Mr. Edwards is now officially sorry he brought up the Sbarro Pizzeria. Ouchie!

...They talk about the top [tax] bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket. Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket. That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.


Oooomph! Another body blow landed by Cheney. Did I hear the word "Halliburton" escape Mr. Edward's lips?

Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax credit. Senators Kerry and Edwards weren't even there to vote for it when it came to final passage.


Gwen, why is Mr. Edwards twitching?

(Addressing gay marriage issue)
EDWARDS: ...Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy...
IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.


That's didn't go over well, Mr. Edwards. Never talk about someone's family. Even Leftie Don Imus is hammering you on that gaffe.

(Addressing healthcare costs and malpractice insurance costs) The rates for a general practitioner have gone from $40,000 a year to $100,000 a year for an insurance policy... We've lost one out of eleven OB/GYN practitioners in the country. We think it can be fixed, needs to be fixed...

We passed medical liability reform through the House of Representatives. It's been blocked in the Senate. Senator Kerry's voted 10 times against medical liability reform, and I don't believe Senator Edwards supports it, either, not the kind that would be meaningful.


Maybe you could tell us about your 'channeling' days, Mr Edwards?

...I think it allows the president to know that my only agenda is his agenda. I'm not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008...


Someone call 9-1-1! Edwards is getting assaulted!

I don't talk about myself very much, but I've heard Senator Edwards, and as I listen to him, I find some similarities.

I come from relatively modest circumstances. My grandfather never even went to high school. I'm the first in my family to graduate from college.

I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for six years. I've been laid off, been hospitalized without health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems that people encounter...

...

I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal with it. I feel very strongly that the significance of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. It forces us to think in new ways about strategy, about national security, about how we structure our forces and about how we use U.S. military power. Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we use force. I would argue we've already been attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. And I'm a very strong advocate of a very aggressive policy of going after the terrorists and those who support terror.


Did someone call 9-1-1 yet, dammit?

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, picking up on that, you both just sang the praises of the tops of your ticket. Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are different from your opponent...

IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked. But we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein. And one thing that John Kerry and I would agree with you about is that it is...

IFILL: You just used John Kerry's name.

EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. I broke the rule.


Wait for it... wait for it... the suspense is building...

EDWARDS: OK. John Kerry has been, as have I, been completely consistent about Iraq.


BWWWAAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA!!!

...the most important and significant change in health care in the last several years was the Medicare reform bill this year. It's the most sweeping change in 40 years. Medicare used to pay for heart bypass surgery but didn't pay for the prescription drugs that might allow you to avoid it. The fact is that when that came up, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted against it.


We've got a bleeder!

Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we've ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities. That threat -- and the presidential leadership needed to deal with it -- is placing a special responsibility on all of you who will decide on November 2nd who will be our commander in chief.

The only viable option for winning the war on terrorism is the one the president has chosen, to use the power of the United States to aggressively go after the terrorists wherever we find them and also to hold to account states that sponsor terror.

Now that we've captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida and taken down the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, it's important that we stand up democratically elected governments as the only guarantee that they'll never again revert to terrorism or the production of deadly weapons.

This is the task of our generation. And I know firsthand the strength the president brings to it.


Someone get a stretcher! Hurry, dammit! We're losing him!

Best recaps of the debate



If I ever need to sue somebody, I'll call John Edwards. If I ever need somebody killed - like, you know, terrorists trying to kill my family - I'll call Dick Cheney.

Tonight's vice presidential debate featured two superb performances. Unfortunately for John Edwards, they were delivered by the incumbent and by moderator Gwen Ifill.

Chris Matthews said: it was a battle between a guy with a water pistol and a guy with a machine gun.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Questions John Edwards should have been asked, but wasn't



Click here for Amazon!From PoliPundit...

- You have served only one term in the Senate and many in your state... would cite your poor voting attendance... You are currently running behind in your home state... Why should the people of the U.S. vote for you, if those in your home state don’t appear ready to do so?

- How do you think the attacks you and Senator Kerry, and your surrogates, have made on the President calling him a liar who misled the country into an "unnecessary war" (your exact words) help attract more countries to the coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

- Why do you think it is that all polls show that an overwhelming majority of those in the armed forces support Bush-Cheney over Kerry-Edwards?

- When you declare things in Iraq and Afghanistan a mess, aren’t you, in effect, criticizing or at least belittling the job our troops are doing there? Why don’t you and Senator Kerry spend any time applauding the good things that America is doing in those countries? Do you not believe that our troops are doing some good things there?


Some questions for Senator Edwards

Giving dirty tricks a bad name



Click here for Amazon!I'm detecting... a... pattern.

Was Iraq part of the Global War on Terror?



Click here for AmazonThe 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.

A major area of dispute lies with Iraq's role in the war on terror. General Tommy Franks, the former commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command, is on record as saying, "There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the… United States of America... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?"

The 9/11 Commission couched its report delicately, perhaps due to political considerations, claiming that Al Qaeda and Iraq had no "operational" links. That statement, however, masks Iraq's involvement with not only Al Qaeda associates, but its longstanding support for extremists.

Terror heavyweights Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were all present in Iraq prior to the war. A terrorist training center at Salman Pak featured a Boeing 707, which was used to train hijackers. The Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam operated in Iraq. And Hussein’s government provided official support and funds for numerous terror groups including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Furthermore, details of Iraq's nuclear weapons program are only now emerging thanks to Mahdi Obeidi, its former head of uranium enrichment. In the aftermath of the war, Obeidi disclosed to American officials that his backyard contained uranium-enriching gas centrifuges. He described the hide-and-seek games Iraq played with UN weapons inspectors. We now know that Iraq was fully prepared to resume its nuclear weapons program as sanctions eased.

In addition, recently disclosed Iraqi intelligence documents -- confiscated by U.S. forces -- confirm that Iraq possessed both anthrax and mustard gas prior to the war.

Iraq was, quite literally, a major terrorist way station in the Middle East. The current fight to bring Democracy to Iraq is an important step in combating global terrorism. If the end of Cold War is any indication, freedom will spread its wings. A Democratic Iraq will bring enlightenment, economic prosperity, tolerance and, hopefully, a repeatable formula to end state-sponsored terror throughout the world.

Monday, October 04, 2004

Kerry's Iranian Fundraisers



Click here for AmazonDoes 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".

Well, it turns out that three of John Kerry's biggest fundraisers are Iranian and have worked tirelessly to normalize relationships between the U.S. and the Iranian terror state. As Captain's Quarters reports:

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:

Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran...

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. ... Nemazee was a major Clinton donor... [and] joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime...

The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring.


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...


Captain's Quarters: Kerry's Iranian Fundraisers may explain his desire to give Nuclear fuel to the Mullahs

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Best of the Symposium



Click here for Amazon!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?


Photon Courier

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.


Bill Roggio

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?


Palmtree Pundit

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...


Brian James Dunn

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.


penraker

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?


FroggyRuminations

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.


NonBoxThinking

... 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.


Casebolt

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...


Minutiaman

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!


Pajamahadin

(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.


Lileks

Saturday, October 02, 2004

A vote you may one day pay for with your life



Click here for Amazon!...John Kerry's position on Iraq has been a model of inconsistency and flip-flopping. But his position on providing America and its military with the tools needed to defend America has been consistent his entire political career: He was against properly arming America before he was against it. And he's still against it.

We don't want to look back 20 years from now, watching news pictures of the smoking rubble of an American city devastated by a North Korean or Iranian nuke brought in by terrorists and remember the day President Kerry canceled the program that could have developed and deployed the weapon that could have destroyed that North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons facility before the nuke ever got passed to the terrorists.

A vote for John Kerry is a vote to risk the lives of millions of Americans on the proposition that a strong defense is risky but having no defense against madmen is sane. It is, quite literally, a vote you may one day pay for with your life...


Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons System

Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry



Click here for Amazon!...Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.

Have I got that right?

Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit...


Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry

"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland



Click here for Amazon!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".

This is diplomacy, John Kerry-style.

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...


"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency



Click here for Amazon!U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday.

Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it."

"We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.
The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.

"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson.

Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there."

Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.


Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

The view from Iraq: the First Debate



Click here for Amazon!I have been in Iraq almost 9 months and I have seen the good and the bad of this war. Terrorists from other regions have been “pouring over the borders”, but certainly not for the first time. They are making contact with other members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporters on the inside of Iraq...

...Terrorism was not born when the US rolled in on March 19th, 2003! Terrorism has been networked across the globe, and Iraq has been a major hub for terrorist activity long before we arrived.

The 1st debate between Bush and Kerry has highlighted a chasm between the two campaigns, more importantly, the two men regarding the question of Iraq and its role in terrorism. This is a split that is impossible to comprehend from where I stand!

Of course the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror! When Senator John Kerry said “the president made a colossal error of judgment by diverting attention from the war on terrorism and the hunt for terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden”, he could not be more wrong.

When Senator Kerry said that “Mr. Bush was not candid with the public about his reasons for invading Iraq or the difficult fight ahead”, besides exhibiting a poor memory, he showed an incredible lack of ability to see that no mission will ever go exactly as you plan it.

A candidate for the US presidency ought to know that your enemy is going to have something to say about how the fight is fought. The enemy is going to do the unexpected, and plans will change. I am sorry that it’s not an ideal scenario for Senator Kerry, but no war is.

I am repeatedly asked what the soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Soldiers in the US armed forces come in all shapes and sizes… and viewpoints. I don’t pretend to speak for all soldiers, but I do believe that most men and women in today’s military share something very close to these same beliefs.

Most soldiers here believe in the mission in Iraq. They know, like I do, that the former regime in Iraq was an important component in the war on Terror. There is no doubt that terrorist cells have been allowed to operate within these borders for some time, and that Hussein’s regime most likely provided financial support as well...


The view from Iraq: the first Debate

Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again



Click here for Amazon!Kerry’s insane, nuclear freeze-inspired position on the development of bunker-busting nukes-the very weapons we’re going to need most if Kerry’s other foreign policy initiative comes to pass, and he supplies the mullahs of Iran with nuclear fuel:

And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States (!) is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, "You can’t have nuclear weapons," but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is moral equivalence at its lowest ebb. John Kerry will help the mullahs of Iran develop a nuclear program, but wants America to disarm-because if we disarm and stop researching the mean! evil! bad! nukes, the rest of the world will join us in the world of colorful butterflies and laughing flowers, and we’ll all dance happily through the meadow. Tra la!

Remember: a vote for John F. Kerry is a vote for Armageddon.


Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again

The Real Struggle for Iraq



Click here for Amazon!The "insurgency" in Iraq is going nowhere fast. It will be as roundly defeated as were its predecessors in so many other countries. The danger for Iraq's future lies elsewhere.

It comes, in part, from Americans who want Iraq to fail because they want President Bush to fail. Some 81 books paint the president as the devil incarnate; Bush-bashing is also the theme of three "documentaries" plus half a dozen Hollywood feature films. Never before in any mature democracy has a political leader aroused so much hatred from his domestic opponents.

Others want Iraq to fail because they want America to fail, with or without Bush. The bitter tone of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he declared the liberation of Iraq "illegal" shows that it is not the future of Iraq but the vilification of the United States that interests him.

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies - the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others - but on the side of the "insurgents."


The real struggle for Iraq

Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?



Click here for Amazon!UN officials are investigating a video showing Palestinians loading suspicious, elongated objects into UN ambulances after Israel released the images and accused UN personnel of collaborating with the terrorists:

UN officials said Saturday they are investigating a claim by the Israeli military that Palestinian terrorists transported a rocket in a vehicle with UN markings, but accused Israel of having made false allegations in the past.

On Friday, the IDF released video footage taken from an unmanned aircraft, or drone, flying over the Jebalya refugee camp. The blurred black-and-white video showed three men walking toward the U.N. vehicle, including one who carried an elongated object. The army said the object was a rocket.


Don't expect too much from this investigation, however. As the above indicates, the UN "investigator" assigned to the case has started out his probe by assuming the Israelis are a bunch of liars...


Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?

Links o' the Day



San Francisco School of Jihad

John Kerry: Peace Criminal?

Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France

John Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops from the Debate

Humor from IowaHawk: Classic TV script

Friday, October 01, 2004

What is "The Global Test?"



Click here for Amazon!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."

Through some friends at CBS News, I've been able to acquire a rare copy of The Global Test (hat tip: Danny... I owe ya one!). From what I gather, the Global Test was written in 1972 -- on a highly advanced typewriter (with proportional fonts, no less!) -- and reads as follows:


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



If you answered "All of the above" on each and every answer, odds are you're John Kerry!

More Debate Reaction



Click here for Amazon!The debates percolated in my brain overnight and I noted three key takeaways, all from the Kerry camp:

1) Kerry - no pre-emptive war: Kerry will not pre-emptively use force to protect the United States unless such action passes a 'global test'. What in the hell is a 'global test'? This statement, in and of itself, should disqualify Kerry from serving as CINC.

2) Kerry - unilateral disarmament: Kerry would unilaterally halt U.S. development of advanced weapons systems. This 'show of weakness' approach didn't work during the Cold War and it certainly won't work now. What in the hell is he thinking by promising to unilaterally disarm? This is a classic Neville Chamberlain approach that gets innocent people killed.

3) Kerry - provide nuclear fuel to the Iranians: Kerry would help Iran build their nuclear facilities by providing them with nuclear fuel in exchange for promises. What in the hell is he thinking? Shipping nuclear fuel to the world's greatest state sponsor of terror is just wrong-headed. It's catastrophically wrong.

I don't like John Kerry because John Kerry is going to get me killed.

Lies about Lies



Click here for Amazon!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)


Who do you trust?



Click here for Amazon!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'


Think you can avoid the global war on terror?



Click here for Amazon!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...


Terror surveillance on U.S. School Systems?

Another Kerry Fable



Click here for Amazon!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.


A problem telling it straight

Remembering




Click for WTC Slide-Show


Iran in Turmoil



Click here for AmazonWhy 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".


JihadWatch: Deadly clashes rock Iran's main southern port

Iraq, the Bush Doctrine Test Case: 'You Support Terror, We Kick Your Ass'



Click here for AmazonI 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.


Bush Doctrine

Links o' the Day



Esquire: The Pentagon's New Map (Updated)

Government Archives: World War II Photo Archives

LGF: WTC slide show (warning, this is very graphic)

Peter Brookes: An Iran/Israeli War

JihadWatch: US President says Islam has "declared undistinguishing and exterminating war...against all the rest of mankind". John Quincy Adams, that is.

The Corner: Kerry/Mexico... "If FDR had followed the Kerry plan, we wouldn’t be going after Japan so much as those pilots who were flying those planes over Pearl Harbor. I can almost hear Kerry circa 1944, 'it’s been three years and those pilots are all still at large!'"

The Corner: GLOBAL TEST ALL OVER W'S ALLENTOWN RALLY RIGHT NOW -
"The presidents job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America."

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Debate Reaction - What exactly is the 'Global Test'?



I thought Kerry did as good a job as his constantly shifting positions would allow. His 'tan', newly whitened teeth and manicure all looked good. And Bush refrained from calling him a "wrinkle-tard" (ref: Conan O'Brien).

InstaPress reaction will be that Kerry edged Bush. But I think the Bush strategy was much craftier than that of the Kerry camp. Kerry was speaking to the mainstream press, trying to cement his positions after making so many, divergent statements. At that, he did reasonably well. But his content was vastly inferior to that of the president.

In contrast, President Bush was speaking to the people, hammering home the point that Kerry is an equivocator and that in this, the nuclear age of terrorism, equivocation equals catastrophe.

The reaction will come two, three, four days out as the messages are digested. People will remember three things about the debate: Kerry's ultra-bright teeth, Kerry's comment regarding pre-emptive attack... provided it passed the 'global test' (big mistake), and Kerry's return to a nuclear freeze (another monumental error).

The 'global test' will not pass the 'smell test' for most Americans. Nor will unilaterally stopping development of weapons system. So... Kerry goes full circle, returning to his anti-Reagan roots instinctually, promising to unilaterally stop development of necessary weapons system.

John Kerry... I don't like you, because you're gonna get me killed.

Jonah Goldberg: "WHY Does Kerry keep saying we didn't secure Saddam's nuclear facilities if he thinks he didn't have any?"

InstaPundit: Bush is hitting Kerry on North Korea, contrasting the Clintonian bilateral strategy with his own multilateral strategy -- see, he can bring in allies! "Now there are 5 voices speaking to Kim Jong-Il." Kerry straddles in response to a Lehrer followup: I want both bilateral and multilateral talks!

Hugh Hewitt: Biggest mistake by Kerry: "The Global Test." The FoxNews panel agrees: "Global Test" is the takeaway. On substance, Kerry wants appeasement of North Korea and Iran, gloablization of conflict resolution, and a summit. Bush wants to take the war to the terrorists. Kerry wants meetings... tomorrow and for 30+ days I'll be playing the 'global test' clip, because it was the window into Kerry's soul, and Bush immediately rejected it because Bush wants nothing of it. As I wrote below: Game, set, match.

DJ Drummond: Now I know Kerry does not respect the voters, he actually denied ever wavering or being equivocal. He brought up domestic issues again. FUMBLE??? Did Kerry just say he would STOP US development of Nuclear Weapons UNILATERALLY, in order to stop proliferation?

Kerry tied in Knots by Diane Sawyer



Click here for AmazonHow 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:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately - and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat - there were no weapons of mass destruction - there was no connection of Al Qaeda - to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people - plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]-

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s - I mean look - we have to succeed. But was it worth - as you asked the question - $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things - there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing - you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane - don’t twist here.


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.


Kerry tied in Knots by Diane Sawyer

Tina Brown gets Antsy



Click here for AmazonCaptain'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:

With all the mythology about Kerry's gift of coming from behind, New Yorkers are watching and hoping like fundamentalists awaiting the rapture. "What will it be like?" they ask one another. A mysterious subtle transformation of will that suffuses Kerry with winner's luck? A defining moment when he soothes his wounded honor with a shaft of killing wit that at last unmasks Bush? If so, could it please happen in prime time tonight? (Maybe, just in case, Kerry should wear cowboy boots to reduce the president still further to the size of Dr. Ruth.)

Among the big-donor crowd, the good-closer cliche has worn out its welcome. They have had it with reading in the New York Times that the past two months of flubs were part of some weird subliminal strategy. Who does Kerry think he is? Bob Dylan? Enough already with the near-death experiences. Mr. Closer, give us closure.


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.


Captain's Quarters: Tina's getting Antsy

Links o' the Day



Kerry concedes Missouri, Florida next?

Gallup reports Bush leads Florida by 9 points

'Enthusiasm gap' threatens Dems

Watch for 'the race is tightening', after the debates

MIT determines that all 6 billion people on the planet are descended from one man who lived 3,500 years ago

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Hamas in America



Click here for Amazon!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.


Hamas in America

I just received a letter from Terry McCauliffe!



Click here for Amazon!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!


Links o' the Day



Rudy Guiliani: Unveils Debate Briefing Book

Frontpage: Is Islam Tolerant?