Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Was Iraq part of the Global War on Terror?
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
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:
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
| 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
Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons System
Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry
Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry
"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland
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
Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency
The view from Iraq: the First Debate
The view from Iraq: the first Debate
Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again
Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again
The Real Struggle for Iraq
The real struggle for Iraq
Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?
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?"
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:
|
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
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
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?
...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?
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
"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
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'
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
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
Former magazine publisher Tina Brown writes in her Washington Post column today that Democrats have tired of hearing what a great closer John Kerry is, and wants the closing to start now rather than later:
I've thought about this reputation Kerry has garnered as some fourth-quarter genius who outlasts his opponents and scores a last-minute victory, but I'm not buying it, and it looks like Brown isn't either. He's won four terms in the Senate and a term as lieutenant governor in highly liberal Massachusetts as Ted Kennedy's protege. Really, how difficult is that to do? The wonder is that he had to come from behind at all, even against William Weld. |
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
| 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!
| 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?
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Arrests made in Plutonium Black Market
The national security service in the remote mountainous republic says it arrested two Kyrgyz citizens and confiscated 60 small containers containing plutonium-239. There is no information on exactly what quantity of plutonium was in the containers. Kyrgyz security agents tracked the men who were attempting to sell the plutonium and arrested them while posing as buyers. The origin of the material is unknown. Security officials say it is not used in Kyrgyzstan, so they think it may have come from one of the neighbouring republics or from Russia... |
Black-Market Plutonium Dealers Arrested In Kyrgyzstan
O'Reilly: the Bush Interview
This contrasts with Kerry who has not sat for an extended interview, or even a short interview, on camera with a journalist since August 1. Kerry cannot do so because he cannot answerer the questions without colliding with himself. So its Letterman, Dr. Phil and Jon Stewart. Some Commander-in-Chief, who won't even risk a meeting with Bill O'Reilly. "[Kerry's] habit of soliciting one more point of view prompted one close adviser to say he had learned to wait until the last minute before weighing in: Mr. Kerry, he said, is apt to be most influenced by the last person who has his ear. His aides rejoiced earlier this year when Mr. Kerry yielded his cell phone to an aide, a move they hoped would limit his seeking out contrary opinions." --Sunday's New York Times on John Kerry. The last person to talk to Kerry will usually be Theresa or Teddy Kennedy. Really. So be sure to read what Teddy had to say at George Washington University yesterday. Kerry's collapse must be across the board to allow the aging lion of the incoherent left to come out and growl. Kennedy is Kerry's mentor. Kennedy will be the decisive voice on foreign affairs. America is fully warned as to what that means by reading through the remarks Kennedy gave yesterday. |
Hugh Hewitt on Bush @ O'Reilly
Kennedy says Bush makes U.S. more vulnerable to nuclear attack
| The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Sunday.
In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ''nuclear 9/11.'' ''The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' he said in the remarks released late Sunday... ...Kennedy's Monday speech details 13 reasons why Bush's policies have not made the United States safer from terrorism. Among other things, he said the war in Iraq created a new breeding ground for terrorists, distracted from efforts to eliminate al-Qaida, alienated America's allies and allowed North Korea and Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. |
Suprisingly, Kennedy made no mention of Madeline Albright's brilliant 1994 negotation techniques with the North Koreans or Jimmy Carter's failure to support the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the current Iranian government.
Kennedy on...
The Narcissist
We’ve heard about Kerry’s legendary elitism. We’ve heard the stories of him bucking lines in small town Massachusetts, chastising those he usurped with a flippant, ''Don’t you know who I am?'' We’ve read accounts of him demeaning Secret Service agents for his lack of balance on his snowboard: ''I don’t fall down. That son-of-a-bitch knocked me over.'' It’s clear that he believes he is above the Everyman. Better than the Everyman. Superior to the Everyman. He is an elitist. He is a narcissist. All of this pales in comparison to the statements he made directly after the speech to Congress by Prime Minister Allawi... |
The Narcissist
Halliburton... Fannie Mae
Beneficiaries of alleged book-cooking by the federally-sponsored housing colossus include: Jim Johnson, who ran Mr. Kerry’s vice presidential search process and is a former Fannie CEO; Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton Justice Department official and partisan member of the 9/11 commission who formerly served as Fannie’s Vice Chairman; and, most of all Franklin Raines, former Clinton budget director and the politically oleaginous current Fannie CEO who has been touted in recent months as a Kerry Treasury Secretary... |
Halliburton... Fannie Mae
PoliPundit's Quote of the Day
“Day One of [Kerry’s] presidency, every child in America will have health care. Period.”
- Teresa Heinz. Would someone please explain to Queen Teresa that, unlike her butlers, the US Congress isn’t at her beck and call?
Links o' the Day
John Kerry has already lost the first debate
New York Times: Nuclear Nightmare
Democrats at it again: If it isn't close, they can't cheat
John Kerry's Health Plan: Nope
MSN: Plans: Next, War on Syria?
Belgravia Dispatch: Maureen Dowd, Marionette
Listen: The ultimate John Kerry Ad
MadTV: Presidential Debates
Bumperstickers:
Monday, September 27, 2004
Allawi KO's Kerry
These three nutworks, TV’s Axis of Drivel, run negative reports on Abu Ghraib prison cruelty, on American soldiers’ death tolls, on terrorist beheadings of relief workers and on the insurgents in just three of Iraq’s 18 provinces... Think about it, skeptics: Iraq will have free elections for the first time in its history. For more than 80 years there was been no such thing as a free vote... For nearly 30 years Saddam was the only person on the ballot … and you voted, if you valued your life. The last time he “ran” for President, a couple of years ago, Saddam received 99.6% of the vote... ...During his reign of terror if you spoke out against Saddam, you could count on being sodomized, having your tongue cut off or watching your teenaged daughter gang raped by Udai and Qusai … or perhaps a combination of the above. Now, that’s not a problem, with Saddam festering in jail and his boys roasting in hell. It was refreshing to get Allawi’s take on the insurgencies in Iraq. He views the terrorists’ flurry of activity not as a sign of strength, but of desperation. They are upping their attacks in a few provinces to derail the coming elections in the US and later in Iraq … kind of like John Kerry trying anything and everything as he tries to salvage his shipwrecked campaign... |
Doug Giles: Allawi KO's Kerry
Battling for Iraq
| Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq... ...there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished... Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight... With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are. |
Battling for Iraq
New York Times on Kerry's Leadership Habits
| ...Kerry is a meticulous, deliberative decision maker, always demanding more information, calling around for advice, reading another document - acting, in short, as if he were still the Massachusetts prosecutor boning up for a case...
...the downside to his deliberative executive style, [his staff] said, is a campaign that has often moved slowly against a swift opponent, and a candidate who has struggled to synthesize the information he sweeps up into a clear, concise case against Mr. Bush. Even his aides concede that Mr. Kerry can be slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details he is so intent on collecting, as suggested by the fact that he never even used the Medicare information he sent his staff chasing... ...His habit of soliciting one more point of view prompted one close adviser to say he had learned to wait until the last minute before weighing in: Mr. Kerry, he said, is apt to be most influenced by the last person who has his ear... |
NYT: Kerry as the Boss: Always More Questions
Former Prime Minister of Spain: Terror Attacks on the Way
| Former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, spoke at breakfast Friday morning at AEI and predicted three spectacular terrorist events in the near future. First, a major destructive action in the United States before election day on November 2, possibly during the last 72 hours, for massive effect in causing confusion and commotion. Second, a dramatic escalation of action in Iraq leading up to November 2, and again in late December and early January to head off the Iraqi election at the end of January. Third, a spectacular attack in the United Kingdom next May to disrupt the re-election campaign of PM Tony Blair.
Aznar's main subject was the serious gap between European elites (and even European popular opinion) and the United States. This gap originated before Bush and it will continue for many years to come. But Americans need seriously to reach out to Europeans, assisting and encouraging our friends (not only fair-weather friends, but friends in difficult times), and making clear to others that gratuitous obstructionism toward the United States is not cost-free. |
Former Prime Minister of Spain: Terror Attacks on the Way
Mark Hatfield Endorses President Bush
| Kerry's band of brothers brought to mind his fellow liberal-pacificsts in the Senate, such as Mark Hatfield of Oregon who boasts: "I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War. In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia. During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill."
But guess what? Mark Hatfield has endorsed President Bush. Hatfield explains: "My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power. Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters." |
How Barney Frank Helped the 9/11 Hijackers
...It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al Qaeda sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased. And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies... ...Thanks to Barney Frank, there was no way that the U.S. government could keep these sleeper members of al Qaeda out. Nor could they be tracked after arrival. They came with a lot of money, rented cars and apartments, took flying lessons, worked out at gyms, and took transcontinental flights to familiarize themselves with the interiors of the planes they would be hijacking and the routines of the pilots and cabin attendants. |
How Barney Frank Helped the 9/11 Hijackers
Beldar's Challenge to the Media, re: SwiftVets
Hence my challenge for the weekend to my readers - you're probably a minority, as these things go, but I know from my comments pages that you're out there - who may agree with the NYT or Mr. Sullivan: Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"? A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated" |
What's John Kerry been doing for the last 20 years?
What we have not heard enough of is Senator Kerry tell us what he has been doing for the past 20 years. John Kerry was elected to the United States Senate in 1984. He sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 1993 and 2000. John Kerry has had 20 years to make a difference as a Washington insider, yet he spends little time on the campaign trail discussing what he’s done for two decades. Instead he chooses to focus on his record in Vietnam and regularly attacks the current administration without offering specific solutions of his own. Why won't John Kerry talk more about his Senate record as proof of his qualifications? His voting record in the Senate and public statements contradict his current positions on Iraq, Terrorism, and the Economy, the three most important topics to voters... |
KerrySenate.com
Around the Web
Chicago Tribune: Kerry's looking for American failure -- and he's it
New York Times: Quick. Change the Brand. In Five Weeks.
Weekly Standard: Dan Rather's Day of Reckoning
Terrorism solution: 1-way ticket to paradise
UK Police Arrest Four in ‘Dirty Bomb Plot’
German trader suspected of selling nuclear detonators to Iran
Hamas leader killed in Syria by Car Bomb
Lt. Bush volunteered to fly F-102's in Vietnam
OpinionJournal: The Last Two Weeks in Iraq
Lokisfur: If a man with a gun is pointing it at a cop and he refuses to drop the gun after oh say 14 UN resolutions... and the cop shoots him... and then the cop finds out that the gun was not loaded... does that mean the cop was a liar about the threat. Of course not.
I've got you my pretty!
...And your little dog too!
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Iraq, Iran and WMD's
An Iraqi nuclear scientist's new book details how Saddam hid his nuclear secrets and the dictator's plans to control the Middle East with his nukes. What happened to this 'nuclear knowledge'? An answer probably lies in the fact that Syria is negotiating with Iran to send Iraqi nuclear-weapons scientists to Teheran. In conjunction with Iran's newly deployed strategic missiles, said nuclear warheads reportedly could hit London.
John Kerry's Accomplishments
So what exactly are John Kerry's accomplishments? I couldn't easily find a list on the web, for reasons that will become readily apparent, so I checked his official Senate web site. What I found was a tad... uhmmm... frightening.
Over his entire Senate career spanning two decades, John Kerry lists 25 major accomplishments. No signature legislation. No major bills sponsored or co-sponsored. Apparently, though, he did miss a lot of Intelligence meetings. Nonetheless, here are some of the highlights of John Kerry's career, according to his own Senate web site:
2002
- Massachusetts Telecommunications Council "Policy Maker of the Year"
2001
- Visiting Nurse Association of America's "Legislator of the Year"
- Gerry Studds Stewardship Award from the Boston Harbor Island Alliance for his work to preserve the Boston Harbor Islands
2000
- Massachusetts Association of Home Health Care's "Legislator of the Year"
1999
- Friends of the Public Garden's "Henry Lee Award" for efforts to preserve Boston's green spaces
1998
- Assumption College's "Presidential Medal"
1996
- Armenian Assembly of America's Award for service and commitment to the Armenian people.
1993
- Tri-Community Chamber of Commerce George B. Wells Award for leadership in tourism
1988
- Commencement speaker for Umass/Boston 20th Commencement UMass Boston Honorary Degree
- Brockton Little League's "Appreciation Award" March 7, 1988 for work with special needs division
A tad frightening, no? A Brockton, Massachusetts Little League award is one of his 25 signature accomplishments in a 20 year Senate career? These are the finest accomplishments of a man who would be president? The hair is standing up on the back of my neck.
John Kerry's Accomplishments
An Email Conversation - continued
> I appreciate your effort to provide an academic feel to your rhetoric
> through citations. That might be another difference between us. I don't
> care to spend my time creating citations that I can provide for each of
> my points. These are opinions; not facts. In fact, I think you'd be
> hard pressed to separarate the facts from the fiction in these
> discussions. Too much rhetoric and too little truth....it's an amazing
> time to be alive.
While it is easy to smear the citations themselves as rhetoric, they are not. Did party A meet with party B? Did party C cast a vote against legislation D? I'm guessing that close to 100% of my citations point to facts. Now, ascertaining what those facts mean -- I would agree -- are subjective. But the citations themselves are, almost entirely, related to fact... while their interpretation consists of opinion. But at least my opinions are built upon fact. I would ask you to point to _any_ of my citations that is, of itself, rhetoric or opinion.
> I don't have the sense of paranoia, panic, etc that you appear to have
> because I don't think that we're in the ultimate struggle for the
> survival of western civilization...
This is obviously my opinion, but I completely disagree. For all of human history, marshalling the forces necessary to destroy a city required raising an army, feeding it, supplying it, transporting it, and providing for its logistics. Only then could a city be leveled and its residents killed, dispersed or sold into slavery. History is replete with examples of wanton barbarism of this type, from the Mongol hordes to present day Darfur.
Today, leveling a city requires only acquiring, positioning, and detonating a suitcase-sized package. Further, the primary actors are no longer nation-states that fear massive reprisals (the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the Cold War). Instead we must now deal with suicidal extremists who believe that their ascent into heaven will be accelerated by killing infidels.
Contention #1: At the intersection of these two trends -- availability of highly portable, massively destructive war machines and suicidal religious extremists -- lies a not insignificant probability of a worst-case scenario as described in the book _EndGame_.
Contention #2: If NYC and DC were vaporized tomorrow, our economic and governmental infrastructures would be devastated. Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and untold other Federal systems would stop printing checks. Brokerage accounts would be, at a minimum inaccessible for weeks, if not months. Tens of millions of jobs would instantly disappear. The best case scenario in this eventuality would be a depression. End of civilization? I don't know, but it's close enough for my tastes.
Now, which of these contentions is invalid? Subject matter experts who are paid to simulate and hypothesize on topics such as these are rightfully concerned. So am I.
> If I thought the struggle was that critical I'd not be talking about
> it; I'd be doing something about it.
And some of us are.
> These are opinions, as are yours,
> no matter how many cites you care to give me. I can find a source for
> any opinion I care to take. That's one of the interesting things about
> this election.
Again, please point to a single citation of opinion and not fact.
> 1) We are not at war in the traditional sense. Yes we were when we
> invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We aren't in the "war on terror"TM. Iraq
> was done without a plan, based upon false information, for the wrong
> reasons, and at the very least at the wrong time.
Now we've got some rhetoric! I let the results (and the facts) speak for themselves. Since the hostilities began:
- The AQ Kahn Nuclear Parts Network, possibly the most ominous threat to world peace on the planet, has been destroyed. Part of the war on terror? I think so.
- Libya has re-entered the world community and shed its WMD aspirations. Part of the war on terror? I think so.
- Afghanistan, formerly home to one of the most brutal regimes (the Taliban) in modern history, is poised to hold national elections next month
- Iraq, formerly a home to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, a Boeing 707 used to train hijackers, Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam, and which funded Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is now poised to become a secular Democracy. Despite the bleak picture you see from the MSM in select cities, 15 of 18 provinces could hold elections tomorrow (ref: Allawi). And that accounts for 75% of the population. Need proof? Check the ever-increasing Iraq Blog Count. More and more Iraqis are blogging, not fighting.
These are facts. Not rhetoric.
> 2) Yes, there is a struggle and yes it's important, but casting it in
> the light of "war" is the wrong way to view it. We won't win treating
> it like "war". Nor would we win if we treat it like a criminal/police
> event either. We need a new way to look at it. It certainly isn't a
> threat to western civilization as we know it.
The enemy is treating it like a war. And my two contentions above, which I personally believe are true, indicate that -- indeed -- this war is a threat to our basic way of life.
> This needs to be addressed with a long view as I've stated numerous
> times in our discussions. It requires that we change the way we live
> (true energy independence) which is a lot more difficult than sending
> our troops abroad to die without a plan to win the peace (or the
> long-term struggle).
That's all fine, you're saying 'we need to fix the system'. Agreed. But to fix the system, you must have a system to fix. There won't be a system to fix if NYC and DC go up in mushroom clouds. Or it won't be a system we recognize. Perhaps you don't mind that scenario. I do.
> 3) Both candidates from the major parties involved in this coming
> election are pathetic. Bush has shown his inability to unite, lead and
> bring effective change during his four years. His cabinet is rife with
> cronyism and they have skewed views on what this country should be going
> forward.
I don't dispute that both candidates are sub-optimal. But skewering folks like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, who seem to me to be both honorable, ethical and intelligent, does nobody any good.
> Kerry is a lame offering that is an embarrasment. I cut him more
> slack than you because I understand that when he is attacked it's only
> half of the story. This is particularly true with respect to his voting
> record.
Yes, Kerry is an embarrassment. Joe Lieberman? Sure, I could get behind him. And, yes, John Kerry's voting record is egregious. Watch for a later post regarding his accomplishments. There's nothing to dissect in his record because, according to his own Senate web site, three of the 25 most important accomplishments of his career are:
- Gerry Studds Stewardship Award from the Boston Harbor Island Alliance for his work to preserve the Boston Harbor Islands
- Friends of the Public Garden's "Henry Lee Award" for efforts to preserve Boston's green spaces
- Brockton Little League's "Appreciation Award" for work with special needs division
The man is an empty suit and there is no positive half to his Senate record. In fact, I promise to highlight on my blog any keystone legislation he sponsored, any single act that made a difference to the United States.
> 4) There is a lot of noise and very little truth out there. If you go
> in with bias (and I have mine...see #1, #2, & #3) you can find a source
> that will support you. You can always discount the information you get
> that doesn't match your view so that you can avoid the discomfort of
> having to change said view (and perhaps your behavior). Sure, I can
> cite links that support my view. However, most of those links would be
> opinions which you would discount because they can always be said to
> come from the liberal media. And we know they are out to get us and
> turn the country to communism.
I return to my citations. Please find a citation that does not refer to a fact and instead references an opinion or judgment. And speaking of the media, a peer-reviewed academic study entitled A Measure of Media Bias indicates that the MSM truly does have a liberal agenda. CBS's egregious forgery topped off a string of four consecutive 'hit pieces' on President Bush, while the Swiftboat Veterans -- all 250+ of them -- have yet to be heard from on CBS.
And a quick sidetrack on that topic: so far, it's been Kerry who has backtracked on the areas in dispute, not the SwiftVets. Christmas in Cambodia? The CIA man with the magic hat? The rice-bin purple heart? Kerry refusing to sign a Form 180 and release his medical records? That should have been a huge story and, if it hadn't been for the blogosphere, FoxNews and a ton of grassroots support, you'd have never heard it. Instead we get forgeries, apparent collusion with the Democratic National Committee, and ignored witnesses... all intended to influence a presidential election... but I guess there's no news story there.
> Look, we're all citizens of this great country and I'm of the belief
> that we all love our country. There are very few of us that want us to
> be socialized or "communized" and certainly less that want us
> terrorized. However, we're more than happy to speak of our countrymen
> (including Bush and Kerry) as if they are traitors. Both sides use
> this rhetoric and can support it with "citations". I think it's all
> useless bullshit that excites the emotions without accomplishing
> anything other than to support the existing oligarchy.
It sounds like we're both on the same page with respect to the two-party system. It's both tragic and counterproductive that we can't choose from a larger pool of candidates. But, again, this is the system we have. Fixing the system is much easier if there is still a system around to fix.
John Kerry's history of indecision, poor decisions, appeasement and political expediency is unacceptable from where I stand. And his statements, votes and continual position-shifts on matters of war and peace are neither rhetoric nor opinion. They are a matter of record.
MSM Turnaround?
"Kerry still hasn't satisfied me and many others. . . . It's September and I'm still conflicted. Speaking for myself, it is NOT enough that he served!" Those aren't the thoughts of a Republican-funded, right-wing, over-the-top Swift boat veteran. Ignore them, Kerry camp, at your peril.
Kerry's Unlikely Detractors
Suggested Debate Zingers
My opponent’s habit of following the prevailing winds may work for windsurfing. But it is not a strategy for dealing with our enemies.
Senator Kerry, I’ve faced undecided voters before. But until this moment I’ve never met an undecided candidate.
My opponent has had twenty years in the Senate to fix that problem.
Senator Kerry we have some common ground-neither of us was in Cambodia.
As your running mate once said, that was the longest answer to a yes-no question ever.
The senator says this is the “wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Makes you wonder why he voted for it.
No, not “Are you sure?" The correct zinger response to anything Kerry says is, “Is that your final answer?"
I saw a press release from my opponent’s campaign yesterday, and it looks like they used the same word processor my commander did way back in ‘72.
As you all know, the world economy has suffered since 9/11. And my policies have brought much of the world back. But a lot of credit has to be given to Senator Kerry’s wife, whose company has created over 10,000 overseas jobs.
I believe America knows where I stand on the war on terror. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kerry so that he can debate himself.
After Kerry states his opposition to the Patroit Act.., 'Sen. Kerry which part of the Patriot Act were you against that we used to round-up an al Queda cell in America that was planning to execute a Beslan type school attack?’
I do not care to be all things to all people. To our friends around the world, I care to be a voice for America’s interests. But we have also heard from some evil people - and I am only one thing to them: a mortal enemy.
Our coalition of [x] nations is larger then the [y] allied nations who won World War II. One nation with right on its side is stronger than a whole axis of evil.
Expanding on the “Is that your final answer" add, “or would you like to poll the audience?"
Senator, since 9-11, we have taken the battle to the terrorists and prevented them from attacking our homeland again; not one major attack since then. What is your plan, sir, to improve on this record?
Sen. Kerry says he would’ve done “everything" differently with regard to Iraq. I guess that means he would’ve lost the war."
"Sen. Kerry says the situation in Iraq is disastrous. He hasn’t been there to see for himself, but he says that Dan Rather has given him memos about it."
“You’ve spent 20 years in the Senate, and you have created or sponsored exactly zero bills that have been passed into Law. What exactly have we been paying you for?"
Bush: “Senator Kerry has changed his position on this issue so many times I had to be prepared for both of his answers."
Suggested Debate Zingers
Daily Worker^H^H^H^H^H^HKos
At the onset of RatherGate (9/10), Kos published a well, rather, detailed treatise on how the forged memos could, in fact, be real. On 9/12, it followed up with another astonishing article whose central contention was that the documents were, in fact, real (I think... however, the tortured logic is admittedly hard to follow). From that point forward, all of the discussion on this topic... disappeared. The pathetic attempts at forgery... the wanton, desparate swipes at the Right to shore up the forgeries... all of the pandering discussion about experimental hybrid, space-age 1972 typewriters that could have existed to create the memos... well, those topics just disappeared.
Nice work, Kos! There might be a blogosphere Pulitzer in your future with work like this!
And today: the big story in the rest of the world? Kerry's comments regarding Allawi - for good or ill. Guess what, on the Kosmonaut site, those comments never happened.
And those with opinions that differ from the Kosmunist are... banished to Siberia. These persons, even reasonable and civil folks who disagree with the majority, never existed. And their comments are banished with them. Gone... without a trace.
Truth is the best weapon to use against the Left. Sites like Chronwatch and Polipundit, which lean to the Right, accept all opinions, from the Left and the Right... and, at that, even trolls. No one is banished to Siberia. Major issues of the day are always discussed, and mistakes are categorized and even owned up to.
That doesn't happen in the socialist, moonbat world of the Left. Truth is on vacation in Fantasyland. Or it was banished to Siberia.
Heard around the Web
Captain's Quarters: Iraq Hid Nuclear Program Intending On Rebuilding It
A Physicist's Perspective: Nuclear Iran, and bombing by Israel?
Power Line: The AP: Toast
Althouse: John Kerry's Final Mistake
Claremont: Apocalypse Kerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
