The Wrong Man
John Kerry: Wrong Man, Wrong Time, Wrong Message
Iran welcome's Kerry's proposal to give them nuclear fuel
Tehran welcomes Kerry's nuclear proposal
Is the Jihad getting hot enough for you?
Nashville, TN Jihad Watch
Email conversation between B (blue) and I (red). Portions excerpted for clarity.
| What's missing from Bush's vocabulary?
"I made a decision based upon poor intelligence (or I lied)." ""The problem is: I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam," Bush said, adding, "The world is a better place with Saddam in prison, not in power."" Those statements would have earned him my vote. His Texan swagger and inability to even consider that he has erred scares me more than Kerry's 20 year record. I thought it was telling that Bush couldn't answer the last question in the debate. For some reason I respect someone that can admit a mistake and tell me what they are doing to correct it. Bush is incapable of either. |
| Sorry, but you know very well he no more lied than every other world leader, intelligence agency and pundit that said the same thing he did. Have you heard Edwards' quotes from 2002? Should he apologize for that? Of course not. And neither should Bush. That's what every intelligence agency in the West reported.
Bottom line: on September 14, 2001 George W. Bush promised the American people that we would pursue terrorists and those who harbor them to the ends of the Earth. In destroying Hussein's regime, he followed through on that promise. Of that, there is no doubt. |
| This isn't about Edwards. Stop changing the topic. Edward's isn't the president of the United States that lead this nation into an unnecessary war against a foe that wasn't an immediate threat. This isn't a point about Edwards or Kerry. It's a point about Bush. Stop changing the topic and try to focus. Talk about Bush. I haven't seen a single comment on your blog that critically evaluates Bush, his cabinet, or his decisions. You seem to be perfectly happy to jump to the 6 year old's excuse of "all the other kids are doing it" or "he did it first". Have you ever heard of groupthink? That's exactly what happened with the pre-war Iraq intelligence and those that requested the intelligence are as culpable as the intelligence agencies. Fact: Bush's administration was planning for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Fact: intelligence was sought to support that position.
Even your musings lately show that Saddam was years away from having any capability to theaten Isreal, let alone the U.S. and my family (not that I care about threats to Israell, since I'm an AMERICAN and I care about the U.S., not some sandtrap in the middle of a desert on the other side of the planet). Bush wants to justify the war in Iraq after the fact and it won't succeed. The ends do not justify the means. The reasons for entering into the engagement cannot be rewritten after the fact, even if there is some newly identified benefit. Even the average American can understand that.
First, a faulty policy, so I don't agree with the fundamentals of your bottom line. Further, the policy has been inappropriately applied making it doubly in error. I'm suprised that mature adults in this nation buy the simplisitic statements of a simpleton. Likes attract I suppose. Unfunded mandates like no child left behind (better named no child left ntested) will enable another generation of people ill-equipped to participate in our democracy. That's a good thing if you're an oligarch. Look, "terrorists" aren't a threat to us. Specific terrorists are. They should be called out and held accountable. Iraq wasn't in that class. They may have had the ability years later, but not when we invaded them. Others have it today! The priorities were misplaced after Afghanistan. Iraq was not an immediate threat and we were put there based upon faulty intelligence at best, lies at worst. It will continue to sap our strength and attention. Its only value to the U.S. is that it may perhaps redirect the islamic fundamentalist away from the homeland. Either way my government owes its people an apology. Don't even get me started on the apology that is owed this nation for 9/11. Heads should roll but they won't because of the bureaucracy and oligarchy. This is the shame of both parties. How about a few comments on that in your blog? Oh, no, don't speak the real truth as it might tarnish your glorious leader! ...Context: That appears to be biggest difference between the two camps. Kerry seems to understand that the world is not a black and white place where decisions can be made in an instant based upon simple policy statements. The context of the decision is important and needs to be considered. Bush apparently lacks the ability to think beyond the simple set of axioms that govern his worldview. This is why he gets pissed off when people say things that are counter to his viewpoint. If you share his simple-minded axioms and have a modicum of logic, you have to think as he does...as long as you discount context and reality. Policies are a model for the real world. They are an approximation, not reality itself. They need to be evaluated in the context of their application and discarded from time to time if they don't fit. They didn't fit with Iraq at the time. They may have in a future that will not exist. They do fit in other places TODAY, but can't be applied because our attention and resources have been diverted. If I hold as true certain axioms that are absent any evaluation of context, simple logic will lead me to decisions that are erroneous in a given situation. Bush's implementation of policy is a glaring example of this. ...A hidden (or not so hidden) agenda does not remove the fact that Bush needs to take responsibility for his actions. This is a discussion about Bush, not the media, not Kerry, not Edward, not you, and not me. Bush. He's the president and should be able to admit his errors. Even Nixon, Blaire and Clinton did that when they were finally cornered. Admission of error is the sign of true maturity and would earn my vote. Without that I'll be voting against him. |
| I am going to loop back to Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards for a moment and I will explain why. You are, for whatever reason, willing to blithely ignore their role in the march to war. Let's examine Messrs. Kerry and Edwards in context.
These gentlemen were both members of an exclusive, one-hundred person club that helps set the direction of the United States government called the Senate. Furthermore, both were members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Not only were they among the most important decision-makers in the land, but they were also privy to highly classified intelligence reports on Iraq to which only the top echelon of government officials had access. Furthermore, in these positions of leadership, both Kerry and Edwards were beating the drums of war.
In their positions as Senators and members of the SSCI, they were among the leaders of an overwhelming groundswell of bi-partisan support for military action against Iraq. Did, as you seem to imply, some malevolent neocon cabal furtively plan and execute the war on Iraq? No. The entire government -- both parties -- constructed the case based upon wide-ranging evidence collected over decades from thousands of sources. The conclusions of the comprehensive bi-partisan review (Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq) indicated the following, "the [CIA] reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. [Other portions redacted]". Yes, you heard that right. The July 2004 after-action report, by a bi-partisan committee, indicates that not only was it a major concern that al-Qaida and Iraq were cooperating, but -- even more ominously -- the major topics of their intercourse were WMD's. And along the road to war in Iraq, John Kerry and John Edwards stood together, beating the drums of war, until Howard Dean's poll numbers reached their zenith. Clinton-appointee George Tenet? Janet Reno? Louis Freeh? If we are seeking apologies from our officials, I'd want to start with them, not George W. Bush. Bush inherited nothing less than a viper's nest of terror cells (including one in Columbus, Ohio - is that close enough to home for you?) that were methodically planning the execution of 3,000 American civilians for over half a decade. You'll get no apology from George W. Bush. He has done exactly what he promised to do on September 14, 2001. John Kerry and John Edwards stood with him then, applauding. They get no free pass on this war from me. Nor should they from you. |
...FFor about 9 months, I've been listening to Kerry. I've been trying to put my finger on something thats been bothering me about Kerrys vocabulary and I think I finally figured it out what it was.
Earlier this evening I noticed a parallel between Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971 and something he said today. In 1971, he said this: We cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now. Now, bear in mind that when he said this, this was the prevailing world opinion. Communism was something to be tolerated. We had to maintain the status quo. A great many learned men believed that this was so. It took one man of faith and another of conviction to free the world of the foolish idea that Communism was something that should be tolerated. Today we accept it as a given that Communism has as much relevance in the world as does zoroastianism, but it wasn't always that way. Today, Kerry said this: There are 60 countries around the world with al-queda cells in them. Many of these countries have clearer ties to alqueda than did Iraq. Did we invade Russia? Did we Invade China? Now, to my mind what Kerry was trying to say was obvious. What Kerry said in that little line was the 2004 version of his 1971 defeatist statement. To paraphrase: We can't fight Terrorists, and I would have thought we would have learned that by now Kerry went on to say that sanctions were working and that they did not have to be lifted if we had used the "good diplomacy". "Good Diplomacy", who talks like that? And then it hit me, the little nagging thing that had been bothering me for 9 months. It was the word I never heard Kerry use in the context of the Jihadi War. Kerry does not talk about Victory. Oh sure, He uses it it terms of himself prevailing over "the evil Bush", but Kerry never discusses the word or the concept of Victory by the Western Democracies. Kerry has said that he would "fight the Terrorists", but Kerry does not use the word "Victory". He has given up before he has started. Kerry - doesn't believe in Victory. Kerry doesn't believe in us! ...Kerry believes only in Kerry and says so with his every breath. To Kerry, There's no enemy of America worth fighting and no virtue in America worth defending. From now till election day, We need to buck up our spirits by playing the first few notes of "Beethovens fifth" we need to flash the "V for Victory". We need to remind everyone what our goal is, and that is Victory. It is only by being victorious over the Jihadis that can we have peace. There is no co-existance possible with these murdering parasites. Senator Kerry has said his strategy is to have a "Summit". I say the only "summit" we should have is on the deck of the USS New York after the last Islamic country has had a free election. Then, and only then, can we have peace... I need to find some paratooper crickets, I'm getting a real "Longest Day " vibe going here. Bumper stickers? I want to go into a grocery store and hear paratrooper crickets from every corner, and know what it means while the democrat defeatists shake their heads and wonder what that sound means... |
Today's New York Times op-ed is well worth a read. Even the "Gray Lady" makes a compelling case that taking out Hussein's government was exactly the right thing to do. Any questions?
| Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.
They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means. Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction... With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter... both Israel and America. But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before. The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic. Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions... Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal. It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq. France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions. With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem." And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale. But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent. But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay. We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare. |
I had some friends over last night to watch the second presidential debate. If we were drinking men -- and were playing one of those drinking games where you downed a shot of tequila every time John Kerry said "I have a plan" -- well, I might be dead of alcohol poisoning, T would be passed out on the lawn, and M would be in a coma at Bethesda Hospital.
Don't miss this excellent recap from PoliPundit on the election cycle, the mainstream media, and track record of their pollsters.
| When George W. Bush won the White House, in year 2000, he became the first GOP President in generations to begin a term with control over Congress. And that catastrophic blow to the left wing of our political spectrum followed a ten-year period in which the country experienced an astonishing political realignment away from liberalism and towards GOP dominance.
As recently as January 1991, the Democratic Party had 267 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Now, they have under 210 seats, and the GOP has won five consecutive House elections. And there are so many more conservative Democrats than liberal Republicans (and the re-election cycle is so short), even arch-conservative measures often pass the House by overwhelming margins (fifth and sixth grafs). Furthermore, since 1990, the Democratic Party has lost eight U.S. Senate seats. The Republicans have gained seven U.S. Senate seats during that period. Since 1990, the Democratic Party has lost eight state governorships. The GOP has gained ten governor’s chairs in that time frame. And the GOP controls the governorships of five of the seven largest states in the country: California (for 17 of the past 22 years), Texas (since 1994), New York (since 1994), Florida (since 1998), and Ohio... |
Frustration and desperation. That's the only way I can explain the behavior we're seeing from the Left. With tactics borrowed from the National Socialist German Worker's Party circa 1930, there's no other explanation that comes to mind. How else could you explain multiple shootings at campaign offices, reports of rampant vandalism, "tongue-in-cheek" offers to pay for votes, ransacking of campaign offices, storming campaign offices in an effort to intimidate volunteers, stealing computer systems from campaign offices, even burning swastikas in GOP supporters' lawns.
From 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:
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:
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. |
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. |
Here 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. |
| 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. |
| With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that... |
| 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... |
| 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.. |
| 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? |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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... |
...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. |
| 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. |
| ...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. |
| 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. |
| (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. |
| (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. |
| ...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... |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| EDWARDS: OK. John Kerry has been, as have I, been completely consistent about Iraq. |
| ...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. |
| 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. |
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? |
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. |
...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... |
...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... |
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... |
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. |
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... |
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. |
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." |
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:
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... |