THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

ZERO.

BECAUSE WE ARE THE MAINSTREAM, NOT THE LEFTISTS WHO DOMINATE THE OLD MEDIA, AND WHO HAVE TAKEN OVER THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM!

PARIS, Oct. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- France will be always on the side of the Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier declared Thursday. "France, as I told you (Arafat) in Ramallah on June 30, will be always on your side to back your effort in favor of a just and negotiated peace," Barnier said. "It is with concern and sympathy that I keep informed of the development of your health," said Barnier.

MORE ON SUHA - From Jeruslaem Post(a story from earlier in the year):

The Old Media knows that their bogus polls won't CHANGE MINDS, so... what effect do they REALLY THINK THEY'LL HAVE!?

They can help make the THEFT of the election by the Democrats SEEM valid.

You see, the ONLY hope for the Democrats is to STEAL the election by voter fraud, and they intend to intimidate the courts to support their attempted fraud. If NO NATIONAL POLLS show Kerry in the lead, their case would be thought of INCREDULOUS by the public, and laughed out of the court. The bogus polls are a necessary part of the strategy. The Old Media and the Left - and the Democrat Party they now control - know they need a few bogus polls to help make the phony election results credible!

Oh... oh... oh, you say: "the Old Media would NEVER stoop to that!"

Sure. Yeah. Right. They LIED about al Qaqaa in NYTrogate, and blew ABU GRAIB all out of proportion, and they used FORGED MEMOS to try to rehash a decades old lie about Bush's National Guard service. All to smear the president.

Faking polls may be the LEAST of their crimes! But a crucial one if the Democrats hope to get away with STEALING THE ELECTION.

BOTTOM-LINE: GET OUT AND VOTE, AND WATCH THE POLLS CAREFULLY.

My many UPDATED thanks to the established blogSTARS for linking to my TWO (2) week old (and already a large mammal in the TTLB Ecosystem!) blog:

Man Without Qualities , BETSY'S PAGE , Poliblogger , The American Thinker , Instapundit , Roger L. Simon , VikingPundit , Prestopundit , Mudville Gazette , Martini Pundit , Dissecting Leftism , Outside the Beltway , Beldar , Anti-John Kerry , POWERPUNDIT, Lockjaw's Lair , The Pickle ,
Political Tracker , and of course - B4B

(If I forgot you, please just drop me a reminder in the comments.)

TWO KEY FACTS THE OLD MEDIA WON'T TELL THE PUBIC: (1) The 380 tons of plastique explosives not there when US military forces took control of the area. And (2) that US forces have disposed of (or taken control of) 400,000 tons of explosives since kicking out Saddam. The 380 tons - not even 1% of what was in Iraq, under Saddam's control - were probably destroyed by the USAF during the war.

Why were these facts ignored by the NY Times and their Left-wing buddies in the Old Media?

Because the Left-wingers who dominate Old Media have NO SHAME.

Some time ago, a famous blogger (who was once was a hawk, and is now supporting the dove of all doves, Kerry) wrote about "The Flypaper Strategy" or "Operation Flytrap." Others have called Iraq a sort of terrorist "roach motel" - they check in, but they don't check out - we kill them. The concept is simple, and has since been validated by Bush - in a sense - when he says, as he did in a debate, that "we fight the terrorists THERE so we don't have to fight them here."

I'd like to add, that the Jihadoterrorists who are going into Iraq are not terrorizing Pakistan or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or the West Bank, or Turkey, or Europe - or anywhere else they might have headed if we were not on the offensive in Iraq. Or do you think that - to paraphrase Bush's recent comments about Zarqawi - the Jihadoterrorists who enter Iraq to creat chaos and fear would be peacefully minding their own business and leading quiet lives if we were NOT in Iraq?! Every Jihadoterrorist we kill in Iraq is one less Jihadoterrorist who can takeover a school ANYWHERE, or bomb a bus ANYWHERE, or crash a jet into a building ANYWHERE. And although we - and our allies - continue to confront and kill terrorists all over the world (in The Philippines and in S.E. Asia, and Central Asia, and Russia, and the Caucasus, and in Africa, and South Asia) the main campaign is now in Iraq. If we want to defeat the Jihadoterrorists and win the GWOT then we must defeat them in Iraq.

This will require that the USA have a Commander in Chief who is resolute, who will not waiver or fold when things go badly - as they do in every war.

Bush will stay the course.

Kerry - based on his lifelong commitment to cutting Pentagon budgets, his reflexive embrace of appeasement, and his lifelong pacifism - as proved by his opposition to the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and our actions in Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait - cannot be trusted to stay the course.

Bush will attain victory - at any cost.

Kerry will not. Kerry has said that he will weigh the costs of waging war - what they cost us in terms of multilateralism or alliances or in taxes, or in deficits. Kerry has just as much said that he values those things as much as victory. Kerry confuses "means" with "ends."

If alliances and balanced-budgets hinder our ability to win the GWOT, then we MUST win the GWOT with fewer alliances and with bigger deficits. This is as simple as putting first things first - as the brilliant management guru Steve Covey once said.

Which leads me to the subject of my next long post - "CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY" - which will examine Bush and Kerry in view of Covey's insights into what makes people good effective leaders.

October 24, 2004 The Observer

HEADLINE:

"Why Tony would vote for Dubya"

sub-heading:

"His advisers have been telling Mr Blair he will be best served by regime change in Washington. The Prime Minister isn't convinced"

written by columnist Andrew Rawnsley

EXCERPT:

"Bush has run for a second term as a 'War President'. Even if the reasons for his defeat were more complicated, his eviction from the White House would be widely taken as a vote of no confidence in the war by the country that led it. Even if this was not true, Islamic terrorism would claim it as a great victory."

The enemy will claim a Kerry victory as their own victory. Is there a better reason NOT to vote for Kerry??!?!?!?!

UPDATE: Terry Keenan of FOXNEWS and the NYPOST AGREES!

How would we know if Teresa Heinz-Kerry owned Halliburton, or not.

Or any other big company that does business with the federal government.

Or companies that out-source jobs?

We don't know, now; we'll only find out if they release her tax returns and holdings.

That's why the Kerry's must release their complete tax returns and her total current holdings - AT ONCE.

If Bush had been stone-walling the MSM on his medical records and tax recoirds and miltary records the way Kerry is, they'd be agitating for his impeachment.

First Kerry claimed he was in deep inside Cambodia - which turned out to be a LIE; now Kerry claimed he was in New Mexico - and it turns out he's WRONG AGAIN! Good thing they caught this before he took the Senate floor. From the AP:

"Kerry Stops in Texas Without Knowing It

Sunday October 24, 2004 3:46 AM / By NEDRA PICKLER / Associated Press

ANTHONY, Texas (AP) - Democrat John Kerry briefly relaxed on rival President Bush's home turf Saturday but apparently wasn't even aware of it. [...] When asked which side of the line they were on, Kerry looked at Richardson, who said with a nod that they were in New Mexico. But their waitress and the police keeping watch outside the restaurant said it is in Anthony, Texas, not Anthony, N.M."

Figgers: after all (as his frequent flip-flopping has shown) Kerry NEVER really knows where he stands!

Have the DNC and the Kerry Campaign become nothing more than RACKETS!?

This is NOT a rhetorical question. There are reasons - FACTS - that support this conclusion. Here're a few:

The (1) massive, systematic voter fraud (in several SWING states, no less!), and the (2) the illegal connections, coordination and the "revolving-door" between the Kerry Campaign, the DNC, and the 527's (which are nothing more than "legalized" slush funds), and (3) the general climate of fear & intimidation engendered by what seems to be the systematic targeting of DOZENS of BC'04, and DOZENS OF local GOP offices ALL OVER THE USA, lead me to believe that the Kerry Campaign and the DNC and their Left-wing 527's should be investigated under the RICO laws!

(4) Consider that the Kerry Family has a proven history of criminal political harassment: in John Forbes Kerry's first Congressional campaign 1971 Cameron Kerry - Kerry's brother - was arrested for burglarizing an opponents office. According to the Boston Globe:

To win the primary, the newcomer overcame the election eve arrest of his brother, Cameron, and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely, both then 22, in the basement of a Lowell building that housed the headquarters of Kerry and another Democratic contender, state Rep. Anthony R. DiFruscia of Lawrence. It was almost 2 a.m. - 30 hours before the polls opened - when the two were arrested on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. ... That day's Sun blared a memorable, double-deck headline: "Kerry brother arrested in Lowell `Watergate."' DiFruscia, getting some extra ink in the campaign's waning hours, had drawn the parallel to the break-in at Democratic headquarters in Washington three months earlier. […] Kerry's brother today declines to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding the arrests and the charges, which were dropped a year later. "It was an impulsive, rash thing that we did and that John Kerry ended up having to deal with," said Cam Kerry, now a partner at the Boston law firm of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo. "That's all we're going to say on that one."

(5) And consider too that Terry McAuliffe - chair of the DNC - has a similarly SHADY past. Byron York wrote about it in 9/16/2002 in the National Review:

"Taken together, the union real-estate deals and the Global Crossing investment, although far different in their details, suggest a pattern in McAuliffe's business life. Both involved political connections, insider opportunities, enormous profits, and a lack of attention to sound business practices. The combination made McAuliffe a very wealthy man.

RTWT - especially read about how McAuliffe made $18 MILLION dollars as an inside trader getting special, sweetheart, private "pre-marketplace pricing" deals on Global Crossing stock. And how he "adeptly" made a fortune selling the stock JUST BEFORE THE COMPANY WENT BANKRUPT!

(6) Kerry's personal sliminess goes beyond political burglaries and into out-and-out larceny, too. The Center for the Public Integrity wrote about how the Kerry family's finanical interests may have been served at the expense of our Vietnam MIA's and POW's:

In 1991 the Senate created the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam. Acting as chairman, Kerry helped persuade the group to vote unanimously that no American servicemen still remained in Vietnam. In doing so, he helped begin the process of normalizing U.S.-Vietnamese relations.

But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.

These are six reasons why the Kerry Campaign and the DNC and the 527's seem ripe for a federal RICO investigation.

Maybe Edwards could defend them? He's gonna need a new job next year!

UPDATE: MORE VOTER FRAUD UNCOVERED!

THIS JUST IN: BUSH CINCY HQ BURGLARIZED!

UPDATE #3: YET ANOTHER GOP HQ ATTACKED!

UPDATE #4: CAMPAIGN VIOLENCE IN OREGON!

Seems that Kerry is a phony liar about ANYTHING&EVERYTHING...
About being in Cambodia, and even about THE METS/RED SOX WORLD SERIES in 1986 !!!!!

I'm beginning to think that this Kerry fella couldn’t tell the truth if the safety of the nation depended on it!

I report, you decide:

HAT TIP: SPOT ON / http://www.alarmingnews.com/

http://footballfansfortruth.us/game6.php

30 Yards Away?

John Kerry has spoken many times of his agonized presence at Game 6 of the 1986 World Series:

(1) "I was 30 yards away from Billy Buckner in that famous Shea Stadium game in '86." (Cite:

ESPN Page 2)

(2) "Talking baseball on the plane, he reminisced, "I was at Shea Stadium, 30 yards from Bill Buckner," recalling the error that many consider cost the Sox the 1986 World Series." (Cite: "Sox Detour for Kerry", New York Daily News, 7/26/2004)

(3) "The Bay State senator says he....watched in anguish as the ball rolled through Bill Buckner's legs in the 1986 Series against the Mets." (Cite: "Bogus Bosox Fan", New York Post, 9/19/2004)

(4) "I was about 30 yards away from Billy Buckner when that ball wiggled away" (Cite: Kerry tries to rejuvenate his campaign, USA Today 11/24/2003)

Game 6 of the 1986 World Series was held in New York City, on the evening of October 25, 1986. According to the Boston Globe, John Kerry was at a banquet in Boston on the evening of October 25, 1986:

Boston Globe Archive abstract:

N.M. GOVERNOR DETAILS HIS STATE'S SUCCESS STORYPublished on October 26, 1986Author(s): Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff

"New Mexico's governor, who holds the highest elected post of any Hispanic nationwide, and the head of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination were given awards for political excellence last night by the Massachusetts Latino Democratic Committee.

More than 250 people -- including Gov. Dukakis, US Sen. John Kerry and an array of state Cabinet members -- attended the banquet at the World Trade Center in South Boston honoring Gov. Toney Anaya and Alex Rodriguez."

THE ONLY UNUSUAL THING ABOUT THIS LIE IS KERRY DIDN'T TELL IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, AND IT DIDN'T COST OUR ARMED FORCES ANY LIVES!

- Posted by Reliapundit @ 7:14 PM ; Permalink; |

I just read this CORNER entry from KJ Lopez of NRO - and it moved me so much I want you all to read it... (again, probably!):

"I'M FEELING MUCH BETTER [KJL]
A reporter who has been around the president all day today e-mailed:

I saw your post in the corner yesterday about Bush spending lots of time in Crawford this weekend. I see that you've since noticed him stumping Florida today. I've been with him...all day and am now awaiting him to arrive in Jacksonville where 40,000 or more people will fill Alltel Stadium (where the Jags play) for a rally. He helicoptered in to his first event in Ft. Myers, landing in centerfield of the Red Sox (ha!) Single-A affiliate to the screams of the crowd of 12,000 Even cynical members of the press corps were impressed. He will finish the day completing four rallies in Republican-friendly areas of Florida, giving his speech to perhaps more than 70,000 people all told. This is undoubtely an impressive get-the-base-fired-up stretch by any definition or sense of history. And while he overnights in Crawford tonight, we're out on Sunday afternoon for a rally in New Mexico. He originally had no public events scheduled for Sunday (he traditionally likes to rest on the Sabbath), but the NM event was added early this week. I think he learned his lesson in 2000: Run hard all the way through the tape. Monday it's another hectic day, with one rally in Colorado and two in Iowa. Then it's on to a four-city bus tour through the heart of rural Wisconsin on Tuesday. Wednesday is one stop in Pennsylvania, two in Ohio and one in Michigan (obviously Corner speculation that Michigan might be winnable is shared by Rove). He's wearing out the press corps, but his energy seems endless. And he's using it."

Bush is working hard, and it seems the people are responding! Compare this to the tepid reviews that kerry gets for his recent stump appearances and you gotta believe: if it weren't for the Left-wing bias of the MSM and the skullduggery of the DNC, this race would be a 45 state BLOWOUT!

Kerry is the phoniest panderer ever to run for the presidency.

"Lambert Field." [...] "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists." [...] "I will bring my faith with me into the Oval Office." [...] "I will make the blind see, and the crippled walk" - or was that Edwards????? And how about all those plans he has, but never EVER has any time to really go into...

But the goose chase he took reporters on today - 10/21/04 -tops them all. Today, Kerry went goose hunting in OHIO.

As this quote from the AP proves Kerry is a phony panderer: "BOARDMAN, Ohio (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said he bagged a goose on his swing-state hunting trip Thursday, but his real target was the voters who may harbor doubts about him."

Cheney quickly SHOT DOWN any idea that Kerry's hunting safari was anything except a SHAM: Cheney said Kerry's camouflage jacket was ``an October disguise - an effort he's making to hide the fact that he votes against gun owner rights at every turn.'' [...] ``My fellow sportsmen, this cover-up isn't going to work,'' Cheney said, speaking to supporters in an upscale Toledo suburb that borders the Ohio-Michigan state line. ``The Second Amendment is more than just a photo opportunity.''

That's right: the Second Amendment is all about the right to Self Defense - not hunting. And owning a gun for self defense is right which Kerry's Senate record proves he believes can be and should be severely abridged.

If you believe that we all have the right to defend ourselves and our property - with guns if we so choose - then you cannot vote Kerry.

Kerry's position on gun rights is DEFENSELESS.

More links via VIKINGPUNDIT.

When the going gets tough in Iraq, and a few new forces are needed to protect the small UN contingent, who steps up to the plate?

The French? NO. The Germans? NO. The Russians? No. ANYBODY FROM OLD EUROPE, OR NATIONS SERVING ON THE UNSCR? NO. Fiji.

From the BBC:

The United Nations says Fiji's government has become the first to agree to provide troops specifically to protect UN officials in Iraq. The 35 UN officials in Baghdad are currently protected by troops from the US-led multinational force. But the BBC's Susannah Price at the UN says there are fears that this could make them more of a target. The UN is very worried about the safety of its personnel after the bombing of its Baghdad headquarters last year. [by Zarqawi] [...]

... on Wednesday UN spokeswoman Maria Okabe announced that 130 Fijians would provide security details for senior UN officials and a guard unit to protect UN facilities in Baghdad. "These contributions are critical to the UN's efforts to strengthen the security arrangements for its personnel in Iraq," she said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency. "This would make it possible for the United Nations to consider expanding its activities in Iraq as circumstances permit." [...] Australia has already agreed to provide training and equipment for the Fijians. [...]

The South Pacific country has a long and proud history of sending its forces to the world's trouble-spots. The most recent deployment was in the Solomon Islands as part of the Australian-led intervention. Fijian soldiers have also served with the UN in East Timor and Lebanon. More than 1,000 Fijians are currently serving in the British Army, some of them in Iraq.

WHAT WILL KERRY SAY? Will he disparage the brave Fiji soldiers? Claim they've been bribed, or coerced?

Rather than shame Bush, the reluctance of Old Europe to help liberate Iraq shames Old Europe.Rather than praise the important and brave contribution that small nations (like Fiji and others) are making to Iraq, the Left uses it to try to besmirch the coaliton in Iraq and to personally attack Bush.

How can Kerry, the cowardly leaders of Old Europe, and the Left look at themselves in the mirror?

Either they have no shame, or THEY HAVE NO MIRRORS!

FRANCE BOLDLY TAKES THE LEAD IN WAR ON TERROR?

Well, they've just expelled the first few Muslim kids (link to a Haaretz article)(and a couple of Sikhs - link to the BBC)for merely wearing their traditional religious clothing to school.

Oh the French are oh so tough on Jihadoterrorism.

Yeah right.

AND WHERE'S THE OUTCRY FROM THE WORLD'S LEFT -- (THE CHATTERING CLASS THAT GETS ALL BENT OUT OF SHAPE IF WE TURN UP THE HEAT ON SLEEP-DEPRIVED JIHADOTERRORISTS DOING WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE HARD-TIME IN GITMO?!) -- SHOULDN'T THEY BE DECRYING THE LOSS OF A SIMPLE CIVIL LIBERTY - THE RIGHT TO DRESS AS ONE PLEASES!?

If this kind of thing keeps up, the next thing you know, the xenophobic and chauvinistic French (aided by radical vegans) will try to ban kosher and halal meat!

These kind of misguided policies have no beneficial effect - except to expose the utter hypocrisy and simple, irrational stupidity of the anti-War Left.

Meanwhile, the USA - and our coalition are boldy liberating Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan from tyranny - and letting be as Muslim as they want to be. While France cowers in the face of real combat, and instead picks on little girls and boys for merely wearing their people's age-old head coverings.

Ce'st incroyable!

Remember: the Jihadoterrorists in Iraq, who kidnapped the two French guys, were originally demanding that France repeal the head-scarf ban.

But Chirac decided it made more sense to pay the Jihadoterrorists RANSOM ($5million - which will buy the terrorists a lot of explosives with which to kill Americans), then to let little girls wear head-scarves.

France: they're not our side.

NYTIMES / DAVID BROOKS:

"On Monday, Kerry told seniors in Florida that Bush is plotting a "January surprise" to cut their Social Security benefits by as much as 45 percent. "That's up to $500 a month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild."

ASSOCIATED PRESS / ECONOMICS WRITER, MARTIN CRUTSINGER:

Social Security Gets 2.7 Percent Boost

"WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 47 million Americans receiving Social Security will get a 2.7 percent increase - an extra $25, on average - in their monthly checks next year, but much of the increase will be eaten up by higher Medicare premiums. The Social Security Administration announced the cost-of-living adjustment Tuesday, and the increase will start showing up in checks in January. The latest increase was the largest since benefits rose by 3.5 percent in 2001. A 2.1 percent increase went into effect at the beginning of this year. "

OF COURSE, the AP had to get in that biased "dig" about higher Medicare premiums - which were mandated by a bi-partisan law in order to keep Medicare SOLVENT; rather than say that the bigger social security checks "will cover increased costs of Medicare," they make it sound as if the increase in social security payments was absolutely meaningless.

BUT AP BIAS DOESN'T CHANGE THE "NO NUANCE ZONE" BOTTOM-LINE: Kerry - in a bald-faced attempt to scare the elderly into voting Democrat - told the the wrong lie, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Steven the Poliblogger agrees...

General Tommy Franks wrote - and The NYTimes has published - a GREAT op-ed piece. Franks is again fighting the "enemy" on two fronts:

(1) he's NOT preaching to the choir when he writes in the Times; he's attempting to "deprogram" their readership - the "hip degenrati" and Left-wing "pomo" moral relativists who think the GWOT will go away if we stop retaliating; and (2) he TOTALLY takes on Kerry. Here's the gist - (so you don't have to patronize the NYTimes website):

"President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.
[...]
According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job [of getting OBL] to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.
[...]
... we did not "outsource" military action.
[...]
Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. [...]
Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.
[...]
Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons [ my emphasis - reliapundit]. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not. "

The General has said it all. Kerry is a dishonest distorter, and inconsistent, and he would likely withdraw prematurely. That's no way to make love - or war.

Seriously: see another one of my posts to find out why Kerry is LIKELY to abandon Iraq.

SCANDAL #1

Abu Ghraib: the US Army uncovers some abuse of prisoners, and investigates.

In the middle of the investigation, the perpetrators defense lawyers enlist the Old Media in the defense of their slimy clients by giving the Old Media salacious personal photos of some of the abuses.

The Old Media runs RELENTLESSLY with the story for weeks - driving Bush's poll numbers, and poll numbers for supporting the Iraq War, from the mid 60's to the low 40's.

SCANDAL #2

Iraqis and the ISG uncover systematic corrution in the UN's Oil for Food Program - which in dollar terms is MUCH bigger than either the ENRON or Halliburton or even the California power crisis scandals, AND OLD MEDIA DOESN'T COVER IT AT ALL.

Even though the corruption involves high level managers of the UN bureaucracy - including Kofi's son and the director of the program, and member states who were against using force to enforce UNSCR#1441 and hold Saddam accountable for all the other UNSCR's which comprised the terms or armostice for the 1991 Gulf War.

In spite of the fact that the corrupt thieves who plundered the UN Oil for Food Program stole money from the Iraqi people - ALL 25 MILLIUN of them, and enriched Saddam and his tyrannical, genocidal regime.

WHY WOULD THE OLD MEDIA BLOW ABU GHRAIB OUT OF PROPORTION, AND BURY THE OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL?

Because the Abu Ghraib scandal could hurt Bush, and the Oil for Food Scandal would help him.

The Old Media has no shame.

They are not objective, centrist or merely anti-Bush; they are FOR the enemy.

HAT TIP: LORIE BYRD OF POLIPUNDIT AND BYRD DROPPINGS WHO NAILED THIS OBVIOUS BIAS FIRST.

Here's partial list of OUTRAGEOUS Kerry/DNC/Left-wing demagoguery:

Bush will restart the draft

Bush will take away your civil liberties

Bush will privatize social security

Bush’s Medicare bill was a designed as a windfall for the pharma’s

Bush will intimidate black’s trying to vote

Bush will make sure you don't get a flu shot, so you get the flu

Bush will establish an official religion

Bush will destroy the ecology

Bush will make unnecessary wars against our enemies in order to enrich his buddies who own the military industrial complex and deal drugs - even if it means making France and Germany and the U.N. angry with us

Bush will out-source your job

Bush will destroy the education system in America by letting parents decide where to send their kids to school

Bush will destroy the V.A. hospitals

Bush will be mean to Iran and North Korea and Cuba

Bush will continue to inflame our enemies by fighting back

Bush will do whatever his controllers Rove - and the neocons, Prince Bandar - and the Saudis, and Sharon -and the Likud, want him to do

Kerry and Edwards will make sure that embryonic stem cells are able to make the crippled walk and the blind see …

and the Lefties who dominate Old Media will reiterate these outrageous lies, ever more frequently and loudly between now and 11/2.

From an article at news.BBC.com:

"... subsidies on offer in the late 70s and early 80s were providing some New Zealand farmers with up to 40% of their income.

Today government financial support for farmers amounts to less than 1% of average farm income across New Zealand. And most farmers are thriving without the subsidies. Their removal, far from destroying New Zealand agriculture, appears to have re-energised it. Agriculture contributes slightly more now to the total economy than it did in the era of subsidies and there is plenty of evidence the land is being farmed more creatively.

Twenty years ago the wine industry was too small to be measurable. Today in some areas grapes have replaced sheep as the main source of revenue. Dairying is now a bigger foreign exchange earner than sheep for New Zealand and there are more than two million farmed deer across the country. And the farmers themselves? Well I did not meet a single one who wanted to go back to subsidies. But I met several younger farmers ... who could barely get their heads round what subsidies were! "

This kind of news has been the norm for the last 30 years - ever since Deng Xiao Peng introduced market reforms to China and transformed China from an impoverished Marxist basketcase into a thriving economy. Thatcher & Reagan revitialized the Free World by shrinking the size of the State and reducing the role of the government because they knew that free markets create wealth, whereas Big Government & socialism are the "roads to serfdom."

Even Blair - gets this.

Which is why I find it so hard to fathom why there're still ANY Lefties left at all... ANYWHERE; Left-wing policies simply do not work; they fail to accomplish what they set out to. Always have; always will.

SO... how can anybody anywere still advocate left-wing policies? People like Kerry.

EASY: it's IRRATIONAL.

According to the AP, "Tawid and Jihad" - the terrorist group in Iraq which is led by the Jordanian Zarqawi - announced its offical alliance as a franchisee to alQaeda and UBL.

Here's an excerpt:

Zarqawi Movement Vows al-Qaida Allegiance

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's Militant Group, Operating in Iraq, Declares Allegiance to al-Qaida

BAGHDAD, Iraq Oct. 17, 2004 (AP) - The most feared militant group in Iraq, the movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden on Sunday, saying it had agreed with al-Qaida over strategy and the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The declaration, which appeared on a Web site often used as a clearinghouse for statements by militant groups, began with a Quranic verse encouraging Muslim unity and said al-Zarqawi considered bin Laden "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates."

The statement, whose authenticity could not be independently confirmed, said the two had been in communication eight months ago and "viewpoints were exchanged" before the dialogue was interrupted.

"God soon blessed us with a resumption in communication, and the dignified brothers in al-Qaida understood the strategy of Tawhid and Jihad," the statement said.

The annoucement comes from Zarqawi. NOT UBL.

Why wouldn't UBL - by voice or video - announce he had "signed" the terrorist who is doing the most terror in the world, right now?

I guess because UBL is dead, and that Zarqawi made the announcement because he trying to motivate his minions - who are currently getting their asses whupped in Fallujah.

Predictably, the MSM is playing this as a major setback for the USA.

The MSM: (as the man once said), they're not neutral; they're on the other side.

After our GOTV for BUSH efforts on 11/2, the article below points us toward what will be the next BATTLE: the DNC efforts to use LAWYERS to overthrow the results.

They are positioned already on TWO FRONTS: (1) with their own massive voter registration fraud efforts and (2) with lawyers poised to preemptively charge the GOP intimidation - in OH, PA, FL - and probably CO.

In addition to false registrations, and a plan for lawyers to preemptively attack the GOP and all the pro-Bush results in these states, I predict they'll mobilize demonstrations which will rapidly devolve into riots - with the MSM's pre-positioned lights & cameras rolling to show the rioters in a flattering light - just as they do with the terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank.

According to the AP, they're already stirring things up in Missouri. (Hat tip Matt at BLOGS FOR BUSH)

They will do this in an attempt to steal the election, or - at the very least de-legitimize Bush's victory.

Let's not let the DNC and the MSM STEAL the election: vote; be vigilant; and be prepared to weather a massive legal storm.

KERRY CAMP PREPS ARMY OF N.Y. LAWYERS
By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

October 17, 2004 -- As many as 1,000 New York-based lawyers will be dispatched to Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio on behalf of the John Kerry campaign in an attempt to combat voter fraud in the hotly contested battleground states, The Post has learned. Four years after Democrats leveled charges of voter intimidation against Republicans in Florida, lawyers from states where the outcomes aren't in doubt have volunteered to poll-watch in states still too close to call.

"We're going to be there to make sure that every eligible voter gets to vote and every vote cast gets counted," said Henry Berger, New York state counsel for the Kerry campaign.

For months, New York lawyers — almost none of whom are election-law specialists — have been briefed on election laws by local experts. On October 30, three days before the election, they will be sent to their assigned states to receive crash courses on those states' specific election laws and practices. Of the 1,000 New Yorkers volunteering their time for Kerry, more than 600 will go to Florida, with the other 400 spread out across Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Jerry Goldfeder, a prominent election lawyer who has held briefings across New York state.

Similar tactics — which were conceived in New York during the summer — will be employed across the country. For example, Massachusetts attorneys will go to Maine and New Hampshire; California lawyers will travel to Nevada and New Mexico; and counselors from Washington, D.C. will cross borders to Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina. Altogether, more than 10,000 lawyers will fan out to at least 15 competitive states on Nov. 2, according to Berger. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP is relying upon state parties to recruit local attorneys already trained in state election law to monitor their home states.

"These guys are the experts on what's going on, on the ground," said RNC spokesperson Christine Iverson.

Months ago, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie sent a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe proposing that Democrats and Republicans each submit a list of 1,000 precincts that they'd like monitored. But Gillespie's plan — in which a lawyer selected by each party would be accompanied by an independent journalist to each of the precincts — is unlikely to be agreed upon, Democratic sources say.

Already, a number of voting-related problems — including alleged fraud — have popped up around the country. Last week, a local Colorado TV station reported that a woman had allegedly registered 35 times as a Democrat. In Ohio, a dispute is ongoing as to whether voters who show up at the wrong polling site should be allowed to vote.

And two leading Democratic senators have requested a Justice Department investigation into accusations that a company under contract by the RNC destroyed hundreds of voting-registration forms filled out by Democrats.

NOTE: if you don't visit the NYPOST regularly for news and opinion, YOU SHOULD: http://www.nypost.com/

WRETCHARD WRITES (10/17/04: "The Return of Steven den Beste"):


I truly question whether the Left and the so-called MSM were EVER a "winning combination." What did the Left and the MSM EVER win? Did McGovern win? Or Dukakis or Mondale? No; they all lost - BIGTIME! Kerry won't win either because he's FURTHER to the Left than any of them!

"Oh," you say, "what about Carter and Clinton?"

Carter and Clinton ran as southern moderates. That's why they won: Carter was for zero-based budgeting and he was a overt born-again Christian (ASIDE: Carter's religiosity didn't seem to be a portent of fascism to the Left THEN, as Bush's open faith seems to them now; how hypocritical!); Clinton was pro-death penalty and pro Free Trade. Ands that's just for starters. (YES: How they governed is ANOTHER thing!)

I assert that Left-wing political parties are never - or best rarely - popular enough to win MAJORITY control of democracies ANYWHERE. The Left in the Cuba and North Korea and China and Vietnam maintain power ONLY because they are totalitarian tyrannies. (This was how the Left maintained power in the old USSR, too.) The Left ONLY wins elections in Old Europe because of proportional representation schemes. New Labour in the UK is a true center-left party - and still only polls just over a third of the vote.

The reason the USA is now a majority center-right/GOP country (in all 3 branches of the federal government, and in most state houses and most governorships) is because most people are center-right.

The Democrats - since 1968, have moved further and further to the Left - EXCEPT for the Clinton aberration. I call it aberration because while Clinton won twice, the Democrats lost control of Congress and most governorships - and of course: Clinton NEVER won with a MAJORITY of ballots cast.

So, there never was a winning combination of the Left and the MSM.

This is what makes the Left-wing control of the MSM SO VERY FRUSTRATING: because it is utterly so out-of-touch with who the majority of the people really are! That's why FOXNEWS gets more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. If the MSM reflected popularly held political views, it would be center-right, instead of LEFT LEFT LEFT.

As the ratings of the MSM have declined, so to has the power of the Democrat Party. Because both have lurched Left.

Since the fall of the wall, and the collapse of the USSR and 9/11 most Americans have inched rightward. Hence the HUGE disconnect.

Kerry and the MSM do have a hard-core Left-wing constituency/audience, but it's only about 30% of the overall electorate - at best. Another 5-10% of the elecotrate who are centrist registered Democrats are still partisan enough to vote Kerry (even though they do it while holding their noses - this is the anti-Bush vote, and may comprise a MAJORITY of those voting for Kerry), and are still addicted to the Big Three evening news broadcasts. But they are dying out - literally and figuratively.

As they die out, the Big Three Network news outfits and the Democrat Party respond by either moving back to the center, or they'll with them. As they should. WHY? Because Leftism is essentially failed ideology. Take it from me, a former Leftist!

And this gets back to why Left-wing parties never really get majorities anywhere: because most people everywhere want to be as free as possible, and they see the State as something that diminishes their freedom.

Bush gets this. Kerry does not.

Bush signs anti-Semitism act

West Palm Beach, FL, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush signed legislation Saturday requiring the State Department to monitor anti-Semitism around the world, the White House said. The Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act was sponsored by California Democratic Representative Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor.

Under the legislation the State Department would be required to form a special office to monitor anti-Semitism, produce an annual report on anti-Semitism, rate countries annually on the treatment of Jews and make recommendations for action to correct anti-Semitism practices.

The White House announced Bush's action in Florida, where he was campaigning Saturday.

******

This is sure gonna piss off the chattering classes in Old Europe, and their Arabist fellow-travellers in the State Department. Something that Kerry WOULD NEVER DO!

From POWERLINE:

October 16, 2004

An effective rate

Vincent Morris and Deborah Orin report on Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 income tax information released yesterday:

"Scouring Teresa's taxes."

They report: John Kerry's near-billionaire wife, Teresa, reported more than $5 million in total income last year but paid only 12.5 percent in federal taxes — less than the average middle-class family — according to documents released yesterday by his campaign.

Teresa Heinz Kerry reported a total income of $5,072,533, including nearly $2.8 million that escaped all federal taxes because it was on interest-free investments from state, city and other public bonds. She paid $628,401 in federal taxes, or a rate of 12.47 percent. The average middle-class family pays more than 20 percent.

Posted by The Big Trunk

What is even more troubling to me, is that her EFFECTIVE EARNING RATE on her wealth (estimated at between $500,000,000 and $3.5 BILLION) is evidently so paltry. If we take the low estimate of her wealth, then she earned only 1% on her wealth. That is simply not credible, and indicates to me that her holdings have been rigged in such a way as to avoid showing any income at all.

This is not illegal - but it is HYPOCRITICAL coming from the slate that promotes itself as being for fair taxes and for rich people paying their fair share.

This is PRECISELY why Mrs. Heinz Kerry refuses to release anything but the FIRST TWO pages of her taxes; the other pages would reveal how her accountants and lawyers have exploited the tax code with a maze of tax-shelters available only to the very wealthy.

The Kerrys evidently are not entirely shameless.

- Posted by Reliapundit @ 10:50 AM ; Permalink; |

Everything by Hitchens is a must read. Here's another. A review of a new book - The Bomb In My Garden, a memoir by Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear physicist.

HITCHENS:

"Under the orders of Qusai Hussein, Dr. Obeidi had buried a huge barrel in his back garden. The barrel contained Iraq's crowning achievement in perverted physics: the components of an actual centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium."

This barrel would've NEVER been found by Inspector Blix; it was unearthed ONLY because of Bush's invasion. This alone proves that further inspections were worthless, and that the invasion was correct. WHY? Because it PROVES that Saddam's declaration - filed as part of the requirements instituted as a result of UNSCR #1441 - WAS FALSE; this alone is a casus belli. WHY" Because the UNSCR's banned any and all WMD programs, and the buried centrifuge parts prove that Saddam had a LATENT program, which - as Duelfer said under sworn testimony - Saddam intended to start up agaiun as soon as he could (also contrary to the UNSCR's.) Furthermore, it proves that inspections would have NEVER worked. WHY? Because the inspectors were sent only to audit the declaration, not to pretend to be detectives looking for a needle in a haystack the size of California! And the proves that the inspectors were NOT given unfettered access to any and all locations or all the scientists - which is another casus belli, in and of itself.

But you won't read about the buried nuclear centrifuge parts - ( or Obeidi's book ) - in the MSM. The MSM has buried the story - because it proves that Bush acted properly, and that the war was justified, and that would hurt their boy Kerry.

YUP, and that's why I say Saddam's nuke program was buried twice. Once by Obeidi, and again by the MSM. Read Hitch and Obeidi and you can un-bury the truth.

Here: RTWT ...

Glenn Reynolds knocks out Andrew Sullivan...

HERE'S WHAT INSTAPUNDIT POSTED on 10/14/04:

STILL MORE: Andrew Sullivan writes: "The usually even-keeled Instapundit says that Kerry's 'position on gay marriage is the same as the President's.' I can't see how that's even remotely the case."

Well, it was this Kerry statement that led to my conclusion:

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position."

Call me crazy, but I took that to mean that they had the same position. Since it was a Kerry statement, I should have realized that I was probably missing out on a crucial nuance. My bad. Andrew also writes: "One last gripe about Glenn: he also writes that Kerry 'dissed' Mary Cheney. How? Is calling an openly gay person gay an insult?" Of course not. It's not even an insult to call a straight person gay. But it is disrespectful to drag people into debates on sexuality on national TV. And it's disrespectful to do so as an effort to -- as Mickey Kaus suggested -- swing the votes of homophobes. I'm surprised that Andrew is so untroubled by this.

I think this illustrates that those who are expecting some special degree of sensitivity toward gay issues -- or privacy in general -- from a President Kerry are likely to be disappointed. Apparently, it's all just stuff to be manipulated for advantage.

********

As I wrote to Glenn, Sully only proved that he's twice deluded:

(1) He thinks Kerry is a hawk, and (2) he thinks Kerry is pro gay-marriage!

This type of delusion (a willing suspense of disbelief induced by BDS) is prevalent - AND NECESSARY - among Kerry supporters because Kerry has been on every side of every issue.

And, it seems to me that Kerry supporters seem to think (or want to believe) that he's winking at them whenever he expresses a view OPPOSITE of one they hold dear.

For example, Kerry's dove supporters think he will be a dove; Kerry's hawk supporters think he will be a hawk.

And so on - on every issue.

Kerry's ambivalently nuanced, wishy-washy flip-flopping and reflexive straddling - on virtually every issue - SCARES the bazeejus out of me.

What might president Kerry do in a crunch - when a president has to be decisive!?

WHO CAN SAY? Your guess is as good as mine....

I find Bush's resoluteness, decisiveness, and clarity more assuring. Kerry supporters see this and say Bush too simple.

But I wonder: If Kerry is elected, what will be his compass, his bedrock - the foundation and North-star of his administration? I fear it will be whatever is popular - at home, and with his comrades in Old Europe and the UN. And I believe that will mean we will be in for 4 years of ineffective leadership - unlike any administration since Carter.

BUSH EXPOSES THE KERRY HEALTHCARE SHAM.

Even NBC utterly debunked this; in fact the Pharmaceutical companies will make abiout 1% LESS! IN FACT: The 17% Medicare increase in co-pays was mandated by a different law meant to keep Medicare SOLVENT!

10 - KERRY: "This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country."

Kerry is a bad man. Kerry has ALWAYS been a dove - soft on defense, cozy to tyrants: (Ho, Fidel, Ortega, Saddam, Kim), and too much a Europhile - like his father. Kerry is an unrepentent statist and Leftist and a liberal who would expand the state's role in the economy and in our lives, and raise taxes to accomplish this. Kerry'd make a terrible president.

On a comment thread at POLIPUNDIT, commenter opa-opa made an OUTSTANDING comment.

opa-opa asked who will have a statue erected in their honor in Baghdad, Kerry or Bush?

I suggest that we might ask the same with regard to Afghanistan.

A Kerry statue in Iraq or Afghanistan is ABSOLUTELY impossible to imagine.

A Kerry statue in HANOI, (or one in Canada which ALSO glorifies Vietnam draft-dodgers, or one in Havana, or one in France or one in Fallujah would be much more fitting.

At debate #1 Bush's podium had hotter white spots on it than Kerry's.

HOW DO I KNOW?

Because I reviewed a rebroadcast of it and noticed that when the candidates shook hands in the center of the proscenium they had the same skin color. BUT, when they took their places at their podiums, Kerry's skin color stayed the same, and Bush's looked whiter/paler. This could ONLY happen if the lighting was different. This "dirty trick" - putting harsher lights on Bush - made Bush look more tired than Kerry. This dirty trick made Bush look pale, and Bush's paleness hurt him as much as Nixon's five o'clock shadow hurt him.

At debate #2, this dirty trick wasn't attempted - probably because the candidates roamed the proscenium.

If you watch the debate tonight, take a look, and see if they try the dirty trick again.

From Fox News:

"Last week, Bush and his party spent about $15 million on advertising, compared with about $17 million for Kerry and his party. The Democrats are slated to spend about the same amount this week; Republicans have bought about $12 million worth of TV and radio airtime for the week.

Since their party conventions, Kerry and the DNC, including the party's independent advertising operation, have spent about $80 million on advertising compared with about $70 million for Bush and the RNC. "

My question: WHY ARE BUSH AND THE GOP BEING OUT-SPENT?!
THIS SHOULD NOT BE!

When you add the MSM's bias to the spending imbalance, then it's a miracle that Bush is leading at all!

Apparently, she - and her husband and the rest of the loony Left - have forgotten the CARTER DOCTRINE:

The Carter Doctrine was issued in the State of the Union Address on January 23 1980 by President Jimmy Carter. Responding to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan that had recently taken place, the President stated:

Kerry was opposed to the 1991 Iraq War - when Saddam INVADED KUWAIT and threatened to takeover the Persian Gulf oil supply.

As a result of that invasion - and in order to protect the Persian Gulf from any other threatening invasion - the USA kept 10,000 troops and maintained a state-of-the-art airbase in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Ridding the Kingdom of this airbase and these troops were a MAJOR and oft stated goal of the Jihadoterrorists.

NOW... with Saddam GONE... we HAVE removed the airbase and the troops. And as a result - a direct result of the Iraq War - a major recruiting point for the Jihadoterrorists is GONE.

And the Persian Gulf oil is no longer threatened by Saddam.

But it is threatened by the Mullahs of Iran and the Jihadoterrorists.

If billionaire Mrs. Teresa Heinz-Kerry is correct about her husband, and if John Kerry would not act militarily to protect this ESSENTIAL energy supply - as Carter swore he would do, as GHW Bush DID do, and as GW Bush has done - THEN KERRY IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE.

I have been pissed off about the way the MSM describes the GWOT for YEARS!

They have routinely called terrorists "militants" for years.

And lately, they call the terrorists trying to take over Iraq "insurgents."

The ongoing "Battle for Iraq" is no more an "insurgency" than the fight the Taliban are putting up in the fringes of Afghanistan are.

The real REVOLUTION is the one the USA started in 1776 - and that one has been ongoing, throughout the world ever since. The only REAL revolution is the march of freedom and self-government.

Currently, the USA - and our stalwart democratic allies - are battling the latest attempts to reinstitute an old form of tyranny: religious tyranny. This war began in 1979 - in IRAN, when the Khomeini crowd took over Iran (as Carter watched, just letting them). Khomeini was not a revolutionary, he was a reactionary and a counter-revolutionary, a tryant who led a Nativist movement to turn back the clock - no: the CALENDAR a thousand years - (a clock that the Shah had advanced, bringing Iran into the modern era).

The Left is fond of calling terrorists "insurgents" and/or "revolutionaries." They still call the overthrow of the Russian Czar a "revolution." BUT the FACT is that communism/Marxism ALWAYS only professed to be substituting the "dictatorship of the aristocracy" for a "DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat." That's what they called it, themselves!

I say: No dictatorship is a good thing. Only by instituting a democracy can the overthrow of one regime be called truly "revolutionary." When one dictatorship is replaced by another, it's merely a regime change brought on by new thugs replacing old ones.

As Bush says, the GWOT will end when all people everywhere are liberated from tyranny, ignorance and the poverty that tryanny and ignorance inevitably bring.

Kerry and the Left think that the Global WAR On Terror will be over when we stop fighting. And that then, terror will lessen to a point where it's merely a tolerable nuisance - like gambling, drug crime and prostitution. (I GUESS KERRY FEELS THAT WAY ABOUT GAMBLING, DRUG CRIME AND PROSTITUTION BECAUSE THERE'RE NO BOOKIES, DEALERS OR HOOKERS HANGING OUT WHERE HE LIVES. BUT HOW WOULD HE LIKE IT IF BOOKIES, DEALERS AND HOOKERS CAMPED OUT IN FRONT OF HIS BEACON HILL ADDRESS!? WOULD HE THINK IT'S JUST A NUISANCE, AND LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT!? I DOUBT IT, VERY MUCH.)

Getting terror down to a "nuisance level" doesn't sound real, or even like "peace" to me; at best that sounds like some sort of "deal with the devil" - and presupposes that we should accept terror as part of any future "equilibrium.

This is the same DEFEATIST attitude that permeated NYC before Giuliani. Rudy got tough on crime and criminals, and instituted a ZERO TOLERANCE for crime (from the squeegee guys and turnstile jumpers to dealers and gangs), and that's how he lowered crime EXPONENTIALLY - thereby SAVING THE CITY!

Had Kerry been mayor of NYC, the city would've probably remained racked with high crime rates; they'd just would've been "tolerated."

Kerry is FLAT OUT wrong about what REAL peace is,
and how REAL peace is achieved.

Peace will NOT come when we stop FIGHTING BACK.

Because the enemy will go on fighting - all over the world - until they achieve their goal: reestablishing the Caliphate, and instituting Wahhabist Sharia.

Peace will only come when we win.
When we DEFEAT THE ENEMY.

Peace is the fruit of VICTORY, not of appeasement or containment.

Electing Kerry now - and firing Bush - would be like if the Brits fired Churchill and hired Chamberlain in 1942, while the war was still YEARS from being over.

Kerry fails - as Chamberlain did - to see the gravity or breadth of the threat our enemy poses to us, and Kerry - like Chamberlain - has a lifelong temperamental opposition to the use of military force, and predilection for the VAGARIES of diplomacy.

Had Chamberlain stayed in power - or been returned to power - Britain might have folded, and the NAZI hold on Europe been with us to this day.

If the USA elects Kerry, he will revert to form and unilaterally stand-down (in stages) from the war that we are in: unilaterally halting R&D into the bunker-busting nukes, and unilaterally dealing with North Korea - for starters.

If and when the going in Iraq gets worse, Kerry will most likely revert to form and bail out on the fledgling democracy there - forcing the newly liberated Iraqis to fend for themelves - as he agitated the USA to do with South Vietnam from 1967 (as a student) to 1975, when the SVG fell because the Democrat controlled Congress stopped supporting them financially.

I pray that the electorate of the USA does not put an anti-defense spending dove in the Oval Office while we are at war.

The war will NOT get better if the enemy thinks we are MORE LIKELY to cave in if we are hit hard. Which is EXACTLY what Kerry promises.

According to the NY Times Sunday Magazine article, Kerry simultaneously claims that the Iraq War was a diversion from the Global Terror, and claims that there is no "real" war on terror at all - that it should be fought using law enforcement techniques.

If there is really no GWOT, then how can Kerry's charge - that "the Iraq War is a diversion" - hold any water?!
It can't. It doesn't. Kerry's "diversion charge" is a koolaidoscopic contradiction.

Kerry - by implication - MUST buy into the "Michael Moore-ish" corollary: that the GWOT is merely the means that the Bush Administration uses to create the climate of fear necessary to wage an "endless war" (the Left's term for it) which does nothing but enrich the friends of Bush (like Halliburton, according to Moore's acolytes). That's why they say the current counter-offensive is bad and wrong; in a way, Kerry would have us fight the Jihadoterrorists with Eliot Ness instead of George Patton.

Kerry wants to use the military as police to capture terrorists - after the fact/after they attack - and then only up to a point where the level of terrorism became a "mere nuisance", something we could learn to live with.

This obviously proves that Cheney was EXACTLY RIGHT when he said that after the next attack - (and there will likely be one, some time that succeeds) - and if that attack occurs during a Kerry administration, that they will respond as previous administrations responded, and in effect the US policy will be going BACKWARD.

I think Kerry is wrong on ALL COUNTS: we are at war; we MUST stay on the counter-offensive and use our military power to preemptively destroy the terrorists - ELIMINATING them and their terror.

It is a war the Jihadoterrorists declared long ago - LONG BEFORE 9/11.
It is war which we are counter-attacking only since and because of 9/11.

The Jihadoterrorists are not attacking us because of Bush, or Iraq, or our support for Israel - or because of so-called USA hegemony. They attack us because we are the nation they must destroy if they are to achieve their overall objective: reestablishing the Caliphate under Wahhabbist Sharia.

Need proof?

When the Jihadoterrorists destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, they were NOT attacking the USA or Bush.
When the Jihadoterrorists throw bombs in Shia mosques in Pakistan they aren't attacking the USA or Bush.
When the Jihadoterrorists attack a school in Beslan they are not attacking the USA or Bush.
When they set fire to a train full of Hindu pilgrims they are not attacking the USA or Bush.

I could go on.

But I will only add this point: while listening to a news report about the recent Taba bombings I was struck by the UTTER ludicrousness of the debate about who perpetrated the attack - was it Hamas, or Hezbollah, or alQaeda - or whomever.

To me, these groups - and Tawid and JI, and the Chechens, and the Kashmiris, and the rest - are all the SAME ENEMY; they are divisions on the SAME ARMY. Debating which one is responsible for which attack is pointless - like debating whether an attack was perpetrated by the 1st Army or the 2nd; the 3rd Division or the 4th. They are just different divisions of the same enemy. An enemy we must defeat.

In a global war they declared.

Kerry doesn't get that, at all.

And you know what makes it even more absurd?

Kerry would have us fight the Global War on Terror as if it were the War on Drugs - as if that the War on Drugs was successful!

As the ginormous amounts of illegal drugs, drug use and drug crime in the USA PROVES: the War on Drugs is an abject failure.

And, Kerry's "War on Criminoterrorists" would be an abject failure, too.

And that would mean that we'd have to expect more Jihadoterrorism. and that'll always be much worse than a mere nuisance.

The war in Vietnam ended in 1975 - two years after American forces withdrew.

The war ended when the North Vietnamese communists invaded and over ran the forces of the South Vietnamese government.

The South Vietnamese forces were overrun because the Democrat controlled US Congress had ended all financial support for them.

The Left-wing anti-War movement led by John Kerry and Jane Fonda and Democrat Party doves in the Congress believed that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of US hegemony, and no longer deserved support - either military or financial.

The result of the fall of the South Vitnamese government was (a) the largest refugee airlift of all time, and (b) 2 million Boat People fleeing (only 1.5 million surviving their trip), and (c) 500,000 Vietnamese put into "re-education" camps, and (d) th fall of Cambodia to the communists lked by Pol Pot and the genocide of 3 million Cambodian - the Killing Fields, and (e) the 35 year long suffering of the Vietnamese people under communist tyranny and poverty. [ASIDE: if I recall correctly, not many people flocked INTO Vietnam for free health care!]

If we had NOT ABANDONED our allies in the South of Vietnam, it is likely that they would be living as well and as freely as the South Koreans (whom we never abandoned) are, instead of living impoverished and tyrannized lives that have more in common with North Korea.

The abandonment of South Vietnam is - in the light of these FACTS - the lowest point in all of American foreign policy history - barely beating out our abandonment of the Shah and of Iranians (in 1979 when Democrat President Jimmy Carter allowed the Jihadofascists led by Ayatollah Khomeini to take over), and our abandonment of the mujahadeen to the Taliban.

To this day, the Left still considers their anti-War stance - and their abandonment of the South Vietnamese to be their crowning achievement (along with allowing the SHah to fall, and forcing Nixon to resign).

They still DON'T GET IT --- those were low points!

That's why I am so concerned about the possibility of a Kerry victory in November.

Kerry is an unrepentant left-wing dove.

In his 20 year career in the US Senate, he consistently voted against ant increase in Defense or Intelligence outlays - in fact proposed cuts, supported the Nuclear Freeze, supported the communists in Nicaragua and opposed the Contras; he even voted against the first Iraq/Kuwait War in 1991.

This - along with his ambivalence in the current Iraq War, makes me believe that - should the going get tougher - Kerry would abandon the fledgling governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And maybe even abandon Israel - let’s say, perhaps, after Israel were to unilaterally and preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities (as they did Iraq’s ).

A pattern of moral equivalence, appeasement of, accommodation to, withdrawal and retreat from - or AT BEST AMBIVALENCE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST the forces of tyranny is NOT what we need in the president - ever; we especially do not need that in a time of war.

We need a man of resolute decisiveness who knows the difference between tyranny and freedom and who is willing to put the USA squarely on the side of freedom.

That’s why I could never ever vote for Kerry.

His Left-wing Dove record indicates that he is likely to abandon the emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq -as soon as the going gets tough, and to withdraw from the war against Jihadofascism when the costs and casualties begin to mount.

If FDR had been as timid in the face of casualties and costs as Kerry, then he would have withdrawn from WW2 on June 10th - for on and after D-Day the USA took its heaviest losses of the entire war. But FDR - and Churchill - knew that the war had to be won, and that any losses along the way would be worth it -IF WE WON.

Only defeat makes the losses of war meaningless; only defeatist appeasers like Kerry can make the losses we have suffered to date seem in vain.

At least the British had the good sense to leave Cburchill in power until AFTER WW2 had been won.

I hope the American people show the same good sense.

I pray we do.

And if my prayers are answered, then Bush will win reelection, and we will win the war against Jihadoterrorism. Which is the most important thing we do.

NOTE:

Let no one - not a single one of you out there - think for a minute, or single second that Kerry will not abandon Karzai and Allawi, and their compatriots, if the going gets tough.

The signs are EVERYWHERE he will do just that:

1 - Neither Kerry or Edwards deigned to attend the historic speech Allawi gave a special Joint Session of Congress; in fact, Kerry followed it by castigating Allawi, and his Senior Spokesman Joe Lockhart called Allawi a puppet.

This harkens back to the Left’s similar charge about the South Vietnamese government and the Shah.
Like their insane rants about Iran, they claim all the USA wants is the oil in Iraq; they chant: "BLOOD FOR OIL" as if everything would be hunkie-dorrie if and only if the USA would stay out of the affairs of other nations.

Can one among you truthfully say that the Vietnamese are better off now - or for the last 35 years - under communist tyranny!? Can anyone say wioth a straight face that we fought in Vietnam for their oil!? NO. But it was said then.

The "PUPPET TALK" - and the idea that the USA only fights wars to expand our empire, our hegemony - is knee-jerk Left-wing jargon; it is false, and it only serves to bolster our enemies and the enemies of democracy.

2 - The same knee-jerk jargon is rampant in the Left’s discussion of Afghanistan: they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul", and claim alternately that we fought in Afghanistan for a GAS PIPELINE, or for the poppy crops.

This talk is ridiculous - Iraq and Afghanistan are better now then under Saddam or the Taliban.

They have a true chance at self-rule. That makes our efforts there NOBLE.

The Leftist Dove knee-jerk talk is dangerous, too.

It's a harbinger of future abandonment.

If we let them.

Don't let them.

Vote Bush.

In last night's Veep debate - Cheney rhetorically asked whether we should trust Kerry-Edwards with our national security when he suggested that Kerry and Edwards had flip-flopped on support for the Iraq War when Howard Dean -- as an ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE -- started to catch on in the democratic Primaries.

Cheney asked - "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 that was a GRAND SLAM HOME RUN!

When Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 supplemental Bill, they proved themselves to be "CAVE-MEN."

There are countless examples of Kerry-Edwards caving in: they've basically caved in to the peacenik/anti-war Left-wing of their party.

Which is unlike the CENTRIST CLINTON; EXAMPLE: Whereas Clinton "dissed Jesse Jackson in 1992 (when he refused to give JJ a prime-time slot at the DNC Convention), Kerry-Edwards caved in and gave AL SHARPTON a prime-time slot. Kerry's "GLOBAL TEST" is essentially caving in to the UN and the EU. They flip-flopped on Bush's Education Bill in order to curry favor with the teachers' unions. When Kerry went from being anti-death penalty - even for terrorists - to being pro-death penalty for terrorists. Kerry was caving in again --- just as when he says he believes "THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION" ( July 5th, 2004) but also favors abortion on demand; he favors what he MUST BELIEVE IS MURDER because he has sacrificed his deep personal moral and religious beliefs to an important Left-wing Democratic pressure group; this is caving in.

BUT THE HEIGHT OF INSIPID COWARDLY PANDERING, was - as Cheney pointed out - when the CAVE MEN caved in to the MUJAHOWARDDEAN. That's when Kerry-Edwards proved themselves to be UNWORTHY of the Oval Office, because the man in the Oval Office has the responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution, and not our image in the world, our popularity, his relationship with certain political pressure groups.

Political leaders who put their popularity with foreign leaders - or certain specific domestic political pressure groups - above their responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution are UNFIT FOR THE OVAL OFFICE.

The CAVE MEN - Kerry and Edwards - are unfit for the Oval Office.

Or as Marty Peretz wrote in today's WSJ:

"I can't count how many times I've heard Kerry people -- not Kerry -- tell me that the Germans and the French, the Swedes and all of the Arabs dislike Bush and want Kerry to win. So what! Or, on the other hand, maybe it is really quite telling that the Arabs so much prefer Kerry."

The French shipped weapoms to Saddam a few months before the war, and were getting billions in bribe money from Sadfdam through the corrupt UN oil-for-bribes - I mean oil-for-food program.

These are the people you stand with IF YOU SUPPORT KERRY.

NOW... I AM NOT - REPEAT - NOT suggesting that if you stand with these folks, then you are as guilty as they are for their anti-social crimes: bribery; mendacity/propaganda; genocide; racism.

I AM SAYING that if they support Kerry, IT MUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT KERRY, and you should consider that; it should make you consider whether or not you really feel Kerry is really fit for the office, fit to be Commander in Chief - ESPECIALLY while we are at war.

I think this proves that Kerry is unfit, because those who oppose our vigourous efforts to spread democracy and expand Human Rights in AFGHANISTAN, in GAZA & THE WEST BANK, and in IRAQ, want Kerry to win. It's that simple.

If you vote for Kerry, you are doing the bidding of the enemies of democracy.

Your vote - in effect - becomes the proxy vote of tyrants.

Take this as a PLEA from a 4th generation Democrat who's been voting since 1974 - and has NEVER voted for a GOP presidential candiate before, and who is voting for Bush: PLEASE DO NOT LET YOUR PARTISAN AFFILIATION DETER YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT. BE GRATEFUL THAT U.S. WEALTH AND MILITARY POWER IS BEING USED TO PROTECT AND EXPAND HUMAN RIGHTS - AND VOTE FOR BUSH.

Today (Saturday), CNN.com is running a big story on how grueling the presidency is, how it requires good health and good medical care.

EXCERPT:

Northeastern University professor Robert Gilbert notes that more than two-thirds of presidents have failed to reach their era's life expectancy for white males, "despite the fact that they have received the best medical care that you can imagine."
[...]
The significance the public and media places on a president's health, says Gilbert, is healthy for the country."It's important to everyone," he says. "If [political leaders] are in good
health, they do their jobs better and they live their lives better."

Just look at photos of Bush in 2000 and compare them to photos of him now, and you can see the HUGE physical toll that the last 3 years have taken on his health. But, Bush is healthy - we know this because Bush has released his complete medical records.

Yet, Kerry REFUSES to discloses his medical records.

In spite of recently having surgery for a malignant cancer in his prostate gland.
And in spite of still being treated for it.
And, in spite of what might be a lifelong problem sleeping.

For a complete discussion of why Kerry must release his medical records please see:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3789.

Kerry should release his complete medical records NOW.
The MSM should not let him off the hook.
Too much is at stake.

At least 10 (ten) times,
on 10 (ten) DIFFERENT subjects
KERRY GAVE IRREFUTABLY HORRIFIC ANSWERS:

1 - Kerry would have the USA join the ICC, and make US citizens - AND US SOLDIERS - subject to foreign laws we didn't vote on to be tried by judges we didn't elect.

2 - Kerry would re-start BI-LATERAL TALKS WITH NORTH KOREA. As Bush explained, we gain leverage on North Korea when we put multilateral pressure on Kim Jong Il - especially from China, whose material support to North Korea is essential to their survival.

3 - Kerry said Iraq was a diversion, but (a) Tommy Franks has written that THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF MATERIEL FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ; and (b) Subsequent to the Iraq War LIBYA has "voluntarily" given up its DECADES OLD WMD PROGRAMS, and SYRIA has withdrawn after nearly 30 YEARS OF OCCUPYING LEBANON!

Since these beneficial results were in large part a result of the IRAQ WAR NO ONE CAN REASONABLY ARGUE THAT IRAQ WAS EITHER A DIVERSION FROM OUR OVERALL OBJECTIVES, or REQUIRED A DIVERSION OF MATERIEL.

Kerry is flat out WRONG, AGAIN...

4 - Kerry criticized Bush's stance on Kyoto, and claimed it's a reason why the USA is "isolated".
BUT: (a) The USA is NOT ISOLATED (NATO, France and Germany are in Afghanistan; NATO is training police for IRAQ; the USA is in MULTILATERAL talks with North Korea, and using multilateral avenues on Iran); (b) KERRY VOTED AGAINST KYOTO on July 25, 1997.

5 - Kerry said he visited the KGB in Moscow, under Treblinka Square, BUT TREBLINKA WAS THE NAME OF A INFAMOUS NAZI DEATH CAMP, NOT THE NAME OF A SQUARE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, let alone MOSCOW, who fought against Hitler in WW2!!!!! Kerry was trying to show-off his longtime foreign policy knowledge and experience, instead he showed he is a phony. This is NOT just a mis-speaking flub; for ANY(ONE - let alone a presidential candidate with Jewish Heritage - to confuse Treblinka with anything else, ANYWHERE is UNACCEPTABLE.

6 - Kerry would UNILATERALLY DISARM THE USA of potentially life-saving and war-preventing/war-winning weapons systems: he would not deploy National Missile Defense, and he would halt all research into Bunker-Busting Tactical Nukes. Both of these weapons systems are ESSENTIAL if we are to effectively confront rogue states like North Korea. And that means AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, as well as - God forbid - if there is a war.

These two weapons systems are ESPECIALLY useful against rogue states who try to hide their illegal WMD programs underground (like North Korea and Iran) and they might prevent their missiles from reaching the USA - or our allies. Kerry's UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT is a throwback to the failed DOVE POLICIES of the last century; Reagan proved appeasement doesn't work. Strength works. Kerry would make us WEAKER; that would make us MORE VULNERABLE and MORE LIKELY TO BE ATTACKED.

7 - Kerry would GIVE RADIOACTIVE FUEL TO IRAN! This APPEASING ACTION failed in North Korea, and it will fail with Iran.

8 - Kerry claimed he just MIS-SPOKE when he said he voted for the $87billion before he voted against it, but the PROBLEM IS N OT WHAT KERRY SAID about the vote; THE PROBLEM IS HOW KERRY VOTED!

9 - Kerry claimed we outsourced the Tora-Bora battle to warlords and Pakistanis, when we should have used ONLY the USA MILITARY, because ours are the best in the world, AND that as a result UBL is STILL in Afghanistan, BUT.... Kerry then criticized Bush for not signing up more allies in the Iraq War, as if a few thousand foreign troops who are less well trained and less well equipped than our troops would have actually helped us. SO: Kerry is hypocritical on this issue. Furthermore, we actually have more troops in Afghanistan now than at any time, and UBL is in Pakistan.

10 - Kerry AGAIN repeated the canard -- and THEREBY MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC -- about the 16 SOTU words, CLAIMING THAT BUSH MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC when Kerry said in last night's debate: "First of all, we all know that in his state of the union message, he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist."

THE TRUTH IS THAT Bush said the following in the SOTU: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." And according to FACTCHECK.ORG, these words are TRUE. The British Government STILL stands behind their intelligence that Bush cited.

SO... this CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AN INSTANCE OF BUSH MISLEADING ANYONE.
I repeat: Kerry is the one misleading the public on this point.

That's just my TOP TEN. There were many other instances of Kerry hypocrisy and obfuscations.

In summary: In last night's debate, Kerry CLEARLY stated some of the WORST policies ever advocated by any candidate ever. Other times he advocated bad polices less clearly.

Anyone examining the substance of the debate MUST conslude that Kerry is STILL UNFIT FOR OFFICE.

KERRY (in yesterdays's debate): "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."

So... if the USA's effort to maintain military superiority includes adding a small tactical nuclear weapon ( anuclear bunker-buster) that might deter ROGUE STATES (such as North Korea) from hiding their WMD programs in underground bunkers, then the USA is destabilizing the world, and setting a BAD example?!?!?!?!?!?

WHOSE SIDE IS KERRY ON?!?!

DOES KERRY BELIEVE THAT A STRONG USA, WITH AN INDISUPUTABLE MILTARY EDGE -- WHICH MIGHT INLCUDE AN INDISPUTABLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EDGE -- MAKES THE WORLD LESS SAFE!?!

DOES KERRY PUT THE USA IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS IRAN?
It sure sounds to me like he does!

I BELIEVE A STRONG USA MAKES THE USA SAFER, AND THE WORLD SAFER, TOO.

Kerry loses my vote on this issue ALONE.
I do NOT want my president to unilaterally DISARM.
Especially in war-time!

After Iraq, Is War more or Less Likely? Is the World a Safer Place?

Lehrer asked the president if the Iraq War made it more or less likely that the USA would have to go to war again.

Bush said (in part):

"... So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it. So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force."

Libya's voluntary WMD disarmament, and serious withdrawal of troops from Lebanon PROVE that Bush's Iraq War and his forward-leaning foreign policy (which DOES NOT SEND "MIXED SIGNALS" and which clearly shows there are "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" --- the very words used in UNSCR#1441 --- for threatening the national security of the USA and our allies) WORKS!

These two actions - accomplished by Bush WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE,
(but certainly accomplished because Libya and Syria have greater reason to fear American RESOLVE and USA military action) - HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD SAFER!

Which PROVES TWO THINGS: (1) Kerry is WRONG; Iraq was NO DIVERSION; and (2) more wars are less likely.

BUSH: "... My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."

Kerry tried to paint Bush as a unilateralist. (Ignoring that we have allies in Iraq - and that even the French, the Germans, and NATO have TROOPS in Afghanistan! AND further ignoring that we used trilateral negotiations with Libya, and are in 6-way talks with North Korea!))

One tactic Kerry used was to imply
that Bush's rejection of certain international treaties
has isolated the USA. For example:

KERRY (in last night's debate): "You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, ..."

Urr... uhmmm... but... Kerry voted AGAINST Kyoto (when presented as the BYRD/HAGEL ACT )- on July 25, 1997.

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.

OF COURSE, BUSH IS RIGHT, AND EVERYONE INTUITIVELY KNOWS THAT!