Well... OUR STRATEGY WORKED: WE SUCCEEDED IN FORCING OBL TO RESURFACE!

Two weeks ago I asserted that the recent Zarqawi announcement (in which he stated the he'd become a full-fledged franchisee of OBL in the Jihadoterror racket) was PROOF that OBL was dead. This post was picked up and linked to all over the blogosphere, (thanks to a link from THE Roger L. Simon).

It was quickly followed by a long and well-reasoned essay by Greg at the Belgravia Dispatch which concluded the same thing - and by an article by Markl Steyn that claimed that he has been saying it for years.

SO WHAT HAPPENS? OBL surfaces.

Proving TWO things: one, that he's alive, and two THAT OUR STRATEGY AND OUR EFFORTS WORKED - we either shamed him into coming forward (for if he was in hiding he was a coward) or we challenged him into coming forward (which is also a possibility because this sub-human piece of kaka is an egomaniac).

In either case, now that he has come forward it is now MORE likely that we can track him down and KILL him.

I think that (1) the quality of the tape (the sound & lighting; and the fact that he is indoors and NOT in a cave) - and (2) the quickness with which it came forward (from the time we challenged him) - and (3) the temporal proximity of its coming forward to the election PROVES that OBL is in a major city in either Iran or Pakistan. A city where elements of the Secret Police can protect him from anti-Jihadi elements. This means he is in Teheran or in Karachi.

The most likely of these two is Teheran - because half of the ISI in Pakistan can be counted on to do their duty - after all: they helped us get KSM and RBS.

We should demand that the Mullahs turn him over, and give them an ultimatum: turn him over before there is another attack, or we will retaliate against you (MASSIVELY)if-and-when there is an attack (and we should "CC" Syria, while we're at it).

They will either turn OBL over - or stop the impending attack.

That's a win for us either way.

FEAR, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE

This presidential campaign has had EVERYTHING to do with FEAR. Because a large chunk of BOTH campaigns has revolved around a discussion of the things we should be afraid of, and how we should deal with them.
Kerry and his minions on the Left has tried and tried and tried to make people afraid by saying over and over and over that Bush will: restart the draft; cut and then privatize social security; ban all abortions; take away your right to free speech; wage an endless war; expand the nuclear arms race and proliferation; put Muslims in concentration camps; and establish a state religion. And oh yeah.,.. That terrorism thing: we’ll defeat them ONLY after we get the Germans and the French and the UN to send their vaunted troops in to replace ours; and the only terrorists we need to worry about are those controlled by OBL - we do not need to deal with the state that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or who might sell them WMD.
Bush tells us the only thing we need to fear is appeasing the Jihadoterrorists - terrorists who have murdered: +150,000 Algerians; 1,500,000 Sudanese, 1,000's of Nigerians; 1,000's of Israelis, 1,000's of Indians; 1,000's of Afghanis; 1,000's of Pakistanis; 1000's Russians; 1,000's of Filipinos; 1,000's of Iranians; and over 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
So... What’s the difference between these two candidate’s campaigns - aren’t they the same - aren’t they like all politicians: running on fear?
NO. The things Kerry wanyts you to fear are PHANTOMS. Fantasies of the Left. The Jihadoterrorists are very real.

Just look and listen to the two videotapes that just came out - from Azzam al Amriki and OBL - these are real Jihadoterrorists, and their real minions want to reestablish the Caliphate and will kill anyone who gets in their way - even other Muslims (in fact: to date, MOST of their victims have been Muslims, followed by Hindus, and then Christians, and then Jews).
Because Kerry would rather you fear Phantoms than real Jihadoterroris, Kerry is nothing more a two-bit demagogue unfit to become CinC.
But it’s worse: Because not only does Kerry say that we should vote for him because we should fear his Phantoms more than Jihadoterrorism, he claims that HIS strategy for fighting alQaeda is better than Bush’s. But his over-valuation of multi-lateralism (treating it as an end in itself, rather than as a preferred means to other ends) and his lifetime record of anti-defense spending and of advocating accommodation with tyrants (the USSR, Castro, the Sandinistas, Saddam) and of advocating unilateral disarmament (as when he advocated the Nuclear Freeze in the 1980's and opposed Reagan’s defense build-up, and when he said during the 3rd debate that he would unilaterally stop the RESEARCH we are currently doing to convert some of our nuclear missiles into bunker-busting missiles which would only detonates after penetrating hundreds of feet underground - ion order to be able to destroy hidden WMD labs and depots in North Korea or anywhere else).
This proves that Kerry could not be any more wrong for the Oval Office - especially in a time of war.
A REAL war - one that is NOT a euphemism, as Holbrooke (Kerry’s chief foreign policy advisor) recently said.

KERRY CABINET PICKS PROVE ONE THING: he knows he's gonna lose

HAT TIP DRUDGE:

LONDON TIMES / Gerard Baker:

"THE man whose presidential ambitions were destroyed when he plagiarised Neil Kinnock is set to become America’s chief foreign policymaker if John Kerry is elected President next Tuesday. Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware has been asked by Mr Kerry to become Secretary of State in a Democratic administration, according to Kerry campaign aides."

Other Senators have been contacted for other high-level Cabinet positions. Baker writes:

"One problem with this lineup, however, for the Kerry team, is that it looks a little Senate-heavy. "

To me, this proves that Kerry KNOWS he's gonna lose. WHY!? Because why else would he ask so many SENATORS to be in his Cabinet, and why else ask them all NOW!?!?!

You see, after he LOSES the election, Kerry won't be able to SUCK UP to these Senators with this "ultimate flattery" - NOW'S HIS LAST CHANCE!

DEBUNKING TWO BIG KERRY LEFTIST LIES: that Bush is a unilateralist and a war-monger

Kerry and the the Left and the Old Media they dominate have lied and lied and lied (they're the real "creepy liars - Heh...) about Bush.

One of the most outrageous lies is that Bush is unilateral.

Here are the facts:

(1) Bush is multilateral vis a bis the North Korean Nuclear Crisis - China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia are ALL involved in MULITILATERAL negotitations.

(2) Bush was multilateral when he de-fanged Libya - the UK had a major role to play in NEUTRALIZING a WMD program that El Baradei and the IAEA KNEW NOTHING ABOUT!

(3) In Afghanistan the US military currently has under its command troops from many nations - INCLUDING FRANCE AND GERMANY AND NATO!

According to YAHOO NEWS/(Reuters): "There are over 17,000 foreign troops under U.S. military command in Afghanistan, hunting officials of the former Taliban regime and members of the Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, the architects of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Another 8,000 NATO-led peacekeepers are mainly stationed in the capital Kabul."

(4) The multinational "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq now has more nations in it - each represented by more troops - than the UN Coalition that was put together to fight during the Korean War (hat tip Mark Levin).

(5) The international fiancial, juridical, and police efforts at tracking down Jihadoterrorists has never skipped a beat - MANY MANY Jihadoterrorists have been rolled up all over Europe and Africa and Asia since the Iraq War.

Therefore, charge that Bush is a unilateralist is false - it is pure DEMAGOGUERY, at its very worst. Don't be fooled by it.

AS for being a war-monger: Did Bush use war to de-fang Libya? NO. Did he militarily attack North Korea for breaking a vital international WMD Treaty. No - not yet; he is using diplomacy. Has he attacked Iran for violating the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty? NO; he is using diplomacy. Has he militarily attacked Syria, for occupying Lebanon and harboring Jiahdoterrorists who are allowed to enter Iraq? No, not yet; he is using diplomacy.

Sounds to me like Bush uses the State Department and diplomacy a lot more than he uses the military and Pentagon.

Of cousre, now that we have gone to war TWICE under Bush - and won BOTH TIMES... BRILLIANTLY, our diplomacy is MORE EFFECTIVE THAN EVER. WHY? Everyone knows that Bush means what he says; Bush is no hollow man, no paper tiger. And this makes future wars LESS LIKELY.

So, contrary to what Kerry and the Left and the Old Media they dominate say - contrary to what's become Conventiona Wisdom - Bush is a multilateralist who uses diplomacy more often than not.

But if and when war becomes necessary - a last resort, Bush will make war, and then do whatever it takes to win the war. If and when we ever reach a critical mass with North Koresa or Iran or Syria, then the ultimatums that would be made by Bush would have meaning. Serious consequences and "final chance" mean just what they shopuld mean when uttewred by Bush.

The same cannot be said about John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry. He's an overly nuanced prevaricator whose nuanced positions would lead to garbled policies and confusing signals internationally.

Nothing could be worse in a dangerous world. In a dangerous world the simple clarity of Bush makes us safer, too.

GUESS: since 9/11 who are the victims of more hate crimes in the USA: Muslims or Jews (or the GOP)?

According to the recently released annual FBI Crime Report:

"Among the 1,300 hate crimes motivated by religious bias, 69 percent were anti-Jewish and 11.5 percent anti-Muslim. "

Overall, hate crimes were flat compared to 2002. There were only 1300 committed. Of them, about 145 were committed against Muslims - all last year. That's too many - even one is too many; nevertheless: Let's put it in perspective - more GOP and BC'04 HQ's and signs were attacked in the last 3 months!

And all the while, (as the Left cries about PHANTOM government-sponsored Bush-induced racism against Muslims), REAL Jews (in 775 separate attacks) and REAL GOP and BC'04 HQ's get attacked all over the USA.

Somehow, I feel it all adds up...

The Left thinks: AsKKKroft is worse than UBL; and that the 2000 election was stolen; and that we went to Afghanistan for the gas and the poppies, and to Iraq for the Oil; that Gitmo and Abu Graib were concentration camps where we tortured innoncent people; that the GWOT is a euphemism; and that Muslims are the chief victims of hate crimes.

It's ALL false.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU?

Well, if the Left - and Kerry and the Democrat Party is SOOOOOO wrong on all that, what is the likelihood that they're right about ANYTHING ELSE?

ZERO.

TODAY I VOTED FOR BUSH! Because I don't want to go back to square one in the GWOT - or back to Ground Zero

Yup. I voted today. Well yesterday; (it's after midnight... ALREADY!?). I voted by absentee ballot. I voted for a GOP candidate for only the second time in my life. The first time was when I voted for Rudy - when he ran for reelection. (I had to admit it by then: he'd been a great mayor. Since 9/11, I say a great man. Since his convention speech I say a great potential candidate for president!)

George Bush got my vote. Because he's a mensch. A man of deep moral convictions who has courageously weathered the attacks by our enemies, their fellow-travellers, and many of their well-meaning dupes. No president since Reagan has had to contend with so much animosity from the Left at home, or from or ungrateful allies in Old Europe. I thank God that Blair has been as steadfast in his support for Bush as Thatcher was for Reagan.

No president since FDR has had to deal with the same global military responsibilities. And Bush has had to do so with an entirely NEW foe, using entirely new and horrific tactics, in desperate parts of the world. Bush has shouldered these awesome responsibilities with audacity, courage and perserverence. When he says he will do whatever it takes to win - I believe him. I don't believe Kerry when he says he was at a World Series game in 1986 - let alone Cambodia or ANYTHING ELSE!

I'm proud I voted for the man. I think FDR and Truman and JFK would've voted for him, too. They accepted the fact that America is the indispensable nation which must lead the Free World, and which has a solemn duty to help our brothers and sisters EVERYWHERE live with all their INNATE Human Rights.

As the oldest, richest and most militarily strong nation in the world it is simply our duty. One we have always fulfilled with honor.

That's what FDR spoke about in his Four Freedoms speech - which I imagine could have been delivered by Bush YESTERDAY, (but which I could NEVER imagine coming out of Kerry's mouth!). HECK: even Eleanor would've voted for Bush; she believed that all human's everywhere deserve their innate Human Rights, too.

We mustn't let the terrorists take them away from us, or let them deny self-determination for Afghansistan and Iraq. BUSH WON'T LET THEM.

But if the people who fear AshKKroft more than UBL take over... what then?

How many more attacks ALL OVER THE WORLD must occur before they agree this is a REAL war!? That it's NOT a euphemism (as Kerry advisor Holbrooke said a just a few days ago!). How much more must we - or or allies - suffer before everyone accepts that this is indeed WAR!?

If Bush wins I know we will not miss a beat in the GWOT. If Kerry wins... I think we go back to 9/10, back to square one, in effect... or is that back to Ground Zero?

Let's say "OLD MEDIA" and not MSM...

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!

FIVE LIES CORRECTED - by Dick McDonald

A few days ago, while I was checking in at HUGH HEWITT'S blog, I found a simple recommendation there: go to THE RIGHT SCALE and read what should be your talking points (or something like that). I followed HH's advice, and found five simple, direct refutations of five key parts of the Left-wing attack against President Bush. HH was correct; they're great. I also coincidentally found that Dick McDonald, THE RIGHT SCALE BLOGGER had just posted an excerpt of an article of mine (which he found at DISSECTING LEFTISM - another great site.

I emailed Dick to thank him for the link, and to see if he would let me post his five refutations - and he agreed. Here they are (abridged and adapted):

In this poltical season, many people become victims of distortions of fact about many things: deaths in Iraq, deficits, stolen munitions, the draft, economic malaise. Many people worry because Kerry keeps saying that the economy is a disaster, or - as the Manhattan elite put it: "If Bush wins, the world as we know it will end." Well here are the facts in perspective:

1 - Stolen Munitions:
Wow, 380 tons of munitions at one munitions dump 20 miles south of Baghdad are missing. Forget the fact that these munitions went missing before our troops captured that dump. What's 380 out of the 400,000 tons already recovered at 1 dump out of 10,000 dumps already identified. Paul Bremer says that Saddam purchased almost 1,000,000 tons of munitions, mostly from France, China and Germany. Now, John Kerry calls for Bush's scalp for the 380 tons. Numerically brain-dead.

Even if it was lost on our watch, IT IS'NT 1/10th of 1% of what we have ALREADY found and destroyed - over 400,000 tons. And RDX is NOT SEMTEX, and no more explosive than TNT.

2 - Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan:
We have conducted and won two wars and lost less than 300 soldiers in the hot portion of those wars. Apparently the hand-wringers are in a catatonic fit about it. Forget that we lost 58,000 in Vietnam, 50,000 in Korea and 300,000 in WWII. It goes to show that if the NYT has the immaterial and insignificant to blow into a worldwide controversy, they will lie, deceive and omit the issue to their anti-American end. We have yet to lose even 1/2 as many volunteer military soldiers as we lost innocents on 9/11.

3 - The Deficits:
Conservatives are wild about Bush's failure to veto any spending bill in his first term. Discarding the issue that the legislature only asked him to sign what Bush had previously approved, the importance of this particular deficit is totally immaterial and insignificant. Americans GDP is running at $11.7 Trillion this year. A $415 Billion deficit is just about 4% thereof. Now with a war, stock-market bubble bursting, recession-fighting, accounting scandals, tax cuts, etc., please give me a break; (in WW2 we ran up a DEFICIT that was 50% - THAT'S FIFTY PERCENT of GDP.) Has this 4% deficit driven up interest rates. No. This deficit is immaterial and insignificant. And have you forgotten that the net worth of households and non-profit orgs is running at an annual increase of $3.2 Trillion.

4 - The Draft:
Why a draft. There is no reason. Just a scare tactic by the Democrat scoundrels. Why have 400,000 boots on the ground. We won the Afghan war with less than 10,000. And in many cases major encounters were won with air power and small special ops troops. We are now in the era of digital wars. Our capabilities are so sophisticated that no one left Baghdad even though we were bombing day and night. Adults should look at the numbers and get real.

5 - The Economy:
John Kerry says the economy is a mess. Gee, A third of every dollar spent in the world ends up in an American's bank account. What a mess. What a greedy ingrate this Lurch is. He has no executive experience. No concept of the job he is aspiring to. Elevating him to Commander in Chief is tantamount to putting a bus driver in charge of Harvard. His managerial skill is questionable, suspect and untested. Unemployment at 5.4%. Wow. Best percentage in 20 years. And the economy grew by more than 4% in the last quarter. Kerry's Hoover comparison is pure demagoguery.

An Ailing Arafat and the decadently amoral French: PERFECT TOGETHER!

*****UPDATE::::: (hat tip DRUDGE)

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.

Yahoo News via Drudge (also AP via FOX) HEADLINE: "Ailing Arafat 'Being Taken To Paris'" For medical treatment. His wife Suha and his daughter live there. She will accompany him on his flight - it seems:

"Meanwhile, his wife Suha has arrived in the West Bank, having travelled from France. She has not seen her husband since a Palestinian revolt against Israel broke out in 2000."

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

"French prosecutors said on Tuesday that they had opened a preliminary inquiry into transfers totaling 9 million Euros ($11.5m.) into Suha's bank accounts at The Arab Bank and at French bank BNP in Paris. The Paris public prosecutor has confirmed the report, originally published in the Le Canard Enchaine weekly, that an inquiry has been launched against Suha on the basis of information provided by the Bank of France and a government anti-money laundering body. The CBS News Sixty Minutes program reported in November that Arafat continues to send his wife Suha $100,000 from PA aid funds each month to Paris, where she lives with their daughter. The New York Daily News reported that Suha had been staying in the luxury Bristol Paris Hotel and had rented an entire floor for herself and her assistants at a cost of $16,000 a night."

Arafat - a genocidally murderous and utterly corrupt man - is dying; that is a good thing - one less vile terrorist on the loose, and also the prospect that after he dies there will be an internecine war in which more bad people will kill each other. THAT'S VERY GOOD.

WILL SUHA BE KEPT ON HER GINORMOUS $25,000/week ALLOWANCE (which comes to her at the expense of poor Palestinians)? Amoral Parisians sure hope so, I bet...

ARAFAT & OLD EUROPE: or why Bush is unpopular on the continent

Arafat's journey to his home-away-from home - Paris, makes me think...

One of the major reasons Old Europe hates Bush is because Bush refused to meet with Arafat. After all, Arafat was the foreign leader whom Clinton had met with MORE THAN ANY OTHER during his two terms. But Bush felt that Arafat could not be trusted, and that Arafat was an obstacle to peace. Bush was right. Old Europe and Clinton - WRONG.

Bush's refusal to meet with Arafat must be seen in tandem with his open declaration IN FAVOR of Palestinian statehood - IN FACT: Bush was the FIRST president to openly advocate that position. But Bush PREDICATED that eventuality on Palestinian democracy and transparency - two things IMPOSSIBLE as long as Chairman Arafat - a terrorist - held on to his dictatorial powers (essentially running the territories as his personal fiefdom - if not a crime family's territory).

Perhaps after Arafat's death - (may it come at the right time, and after real suffering!) - Old Europe will embrace democracy and TRUE self-determination for Palestinians -- (which of course will require destroying Hamas and Hizballah and the rest of the Syrian and Iranian and alQaeda suppported Jihadoterrorist groups).

(I have a feeling that would require the death of anti-Semitism in Old Europe - and that is too much to realistically expect. We can pray for it, but we must not expect it.)

So what's in store for Israel? Well, if Kerry is elected we can expect him to curry favor with Old Europe by adopting a more so-called neutral position - which CAN ONLY MEAN a more neutral position on Palestinian terrorist groups. But where is the MORALITY of that!? Should terrorist groups which advocate the destruction of Israel and genocide of all Jews be treated as the equal of the democratically elected government of a pluralistic state like Israel!?

Such a proposition would be simply absurd - if it weren't so immoral and depraved.

But Kerry really wouldn't have any other choice, would he? Would Kerry risk alienating himself from all of Old Europe over Israel? NOTHING in his life or in his Senate career or in this campaign argues that he would stand up for Israel. In fact his life, and career and campaign argue for the opposite. He openly called on the USA to abandon South Vietnam, and the Contras - and the Kuwaitis.

I guess that's why so many anti-Semites all over the world - and a few terrorist organizations are for Kerry. And why a majority of Israelis are for Bush.

OBVIOUSLY: from all that he has done in the GWOT, Bush has repeatedly proved he has the courage to stand up for Israel, and against Old Europe. Bush has done - and will do - whatever it takes to defend the USA and our allies in the GWOT - of which Israel is one.

Even if it means remaining UNPOPULAR in Old Europe.

Was the recent Venezuelan election an omen... OR THE DRY RUN FOR KERRY AND THE DNC?

In August, in Venezuela, there was a national election. The election was a presidential recall - not unlike what Californians did gubenatorially. The Venezuelan president, Chavez, trailed the opposition in EVERY poll by 2-1. BUT, on election day Chavez WON by 2-1 - even as EXIT POLLS DONE BY A USA firm showed that the oppositon had indeed won by 2-1.

How was this possible? FRAUD. Massive voter fraud. In spite of which, the election was certified by... who else: Jimmy Carter. The certification kept in office a LEFTIST, virtual tyrant and Castro's closest ally.

I now feel that this massive voter fraud was probably a dry-run for the DNC/Kerry campaign. And that the DNC/Kerry campaign has added 2 key TWISTS in order to make their THEFT seem less blatant than the one in Venezuela: (1) PHONY POLLS THAT SHOW THE RACE CLOSE (a definite improvement from the polling situation in Venezuela), and (2) a COORDINATED ASSAULT by the Old Media in the weeks before the election - a media assault built on UNPRECEDENTED BLATANT LIES AND DISTORTIONS

This theory is the only one that can explain why the Old Media would publish such OUTRAGEOUS LIES in the days before an election: to provide a cover - a reason for a "shift" in the polls from Bush to Kerry.

And if the blogosphere wasn't around - THEY MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT. What else can we do? GOTV! GOTV! GOTV! And watch the polling places until Bush is declared the winner.

UPDATE: NO, I am NOT paranoid - but I'm not a racist, either; if CORRUPT politicians can pull of a massive voter fraud in Venezuela, then CORRUPT politicians HERE can do it, too - WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN VENEZUELANS.

The GREAT political observer and commentator HUGH HEWITT has written a great book - "If it isn't close, they can't cheat". The Venezuelan model indicates that MAYBE they can - even when it's not close. That's what frightens me. The Left stole the recall election in Venezuela; the Left will try to steal our election, too.

(For more on the Venezuela election fraud.)

An abbreviated post...

Who do you really trust with your security? CBS? The UN? The EU? NPR? The DNC? The IAEA? Not I. I trust W and the GOP. SO... LET'S GOTV!

Bush is real a mensch and a warm human being. Kerry is a phony liar bereft of any real emotions

Anyone looking at these two men have to agree: Bush is a really nice guy, a genuine human being and a mensch, (which is Yiddish for a man's man who will always do the right thing - even if it's real tough and very unpopular). Bush's genuineness is one reason why he beat Gore in all three debates in 2000. Bush is as warm as a Crawford summer afternoon.

Kerry is the opposite: Kerry is an aloof dissembling sanctimonious liar. Kerry is as cold as Soviet ice.

I defy anyone anywhere to find me on clip of Kerry displaying any real emotion - ever.

A stark example comes from the 3rd debate, when Bob Schieffer asked the two candidates about their wives and daughters influences on their lives.

Bush's response was at first HUMBLE - he made a joke (AT HIS OWN EXPENSE - that "the first thing the taught him was to listen!"); everyone laughed - including his wife and daughters. Then he talked about meeting Laura (again - they had been in grade school together) at a backyard barbecue friends were hosting just to set the two of them up. Bush said it was love at first sight - and he was nearly in tears. That's true love - we could ALL tell, and Laura beamed.

Kerry's response was to immediately make a joke about his wife's well known wealth - many people laughed, but mostly out of shock that he would so baldly make fun of her; Theresa did not laugh. Then Kerry went on to tell the story about his mother being on her death bed. It was told without a shred of emotion.

Now my papa died some years back - I was with him at the end. EVERY time I think about it, let alone try to talk about it I get choked up.

But Kerry? He was as cold as Soviet ice. There is not a real human being beneath Kerry's skin; he's a phony through and through - which is why he has so much trouble being consistent on anything & everything, on any policy: because he has no core beliefs -- other than to reflexively berate the US military, and favor BIG GOVERNMENT.

That's why I'm urging everyone to get as many people to watch the latest TV ad from BC'04: "WHATEVER IT TAKES."

It shows us how good and warm a human being Bush really is. It must've been hard to make - only on account of there being so many instances when Bush has shown real emotion in public - appropriate emotion, true emotion. As may have said: it's one of the reasons so many people connect with him.

There is not a single such moment in all of Kerry's career.

ANYHOW, this new TV ad is made from snippets from W's convention speech. It is so moving. And so GENUINE. So TRUE. As powerful as W's appearance at Ground Zero - when he proclaimed after the crowd shouted that they couldn't hear him: "But I can hear you! And the rest of the country hears you! And soon, the people who did this . . . are going to hear from all of us!" The crowd spontaneously shouted back: "USA! USA! USA!" That's when Bush became MY PRESIDENT.

This TV ad uses the following quote from W's acceptance speech. Here is the text of the ad (for those of you that don't have a fast internet connection). BUT REMEMBER: the text doesn't tell the WHOLE story when it comes to George W. Bush - you have to hear him or see him to KNOW how deeply felt the words are, because for George W. Bush, they're NOT MERELY words; they're how he really feels.

One can NEVER say the same thing about any spoech ever given by Kerry. Even when Kerry speaks about events SEARED SEARED SEARED into his memory. I wonder why? Heh...

Here's the text:

"These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget….I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers… who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom. … I've met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag and … And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation… Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan and making America safer… I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes."

With W in the Oval Office I feel - YES FEEL - that I will have a president who will never relent in defending America.

With Kerry I feel that the USA would relent to GLOBAL PRESSURE, and we would abandon the emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq - maybe even toss Israel to the wolves - if Kerry felt it would increase his standing in Old Europe and in the UN (WHICH OF COURSE SCAPE-GOATING ISRAEL WOULD ACCOMPLISH; so of course we must expect it, since Kerry has said over-and-over that increasing US multilateralism is the chief aim of his foreign policy.)

WHAT ELSE CAN BE SAID?! The choice is pretty clear. One man is a mensch who will never relent. The other man is a phony who will never stop pandering or lying. Well, I choose truth, honesty, and genuineness. I choose the mensch.

Hunch on why the Old Media is touting Bogus national polls which show a slight Kerry lead: they're aiding and abetting a theft....

Over the last week, a few "national" polls from the Old Media have shown Kerry with a slight lead, (ABC & WaPo).

We all know HOW they could do this: they tweak the sample in order to skew the results.

BUT WHY WOULD THE OLD MEDIA PUBLISH FAKE POLLS?

Other "astute bloggers" like POLITICAL VICE SQUAD have written that it's too depress the turnout of the "silent majority" - conservative voters. Other cliam that's it's merely an expression of wishful thinking, which inadvertantly HUGH HEWITT has written that it doesn't matter if WE GOTV, because if it's not close, they can't cheat!

I see something more sinister afoot....

HERE's MY REASONING: for the last week Bush has been gaining in several BLUE states - Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico - and Bush has substantial leads in Iowa and Wisconsin. ALL BLUE STATES.

The Old Media NEEDED these BOGUS polls in order to be able to claim that the race as "tightening" - when in fact Bush is consolidating his his lead.

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.

THE BEST REASON TO VOTE FOR BUSH: the terrorists support Kerry

From The Washington Times (hat tip Drudge and The Command Post):

"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people." said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances. "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."

During ther Vietnam War , the North Vietnamese communists liked Kerry for the same reason the Jihadoterrorists like him today: they know he better serves their interests.

I ask you:

HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR THE MAN THE ENEMY WANTS!?

IS THERE A BETTER REASON TO VOTE FOR BUSH!?

I don't think so....

Hey BlogSTARS: "Thanks for the Links!"

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.)

NYTrogate: The Old Media Lies, and Kerry Swears to it!

UPDATED: go to the KERRY SPOT, and read the accounts of soldiers who were there. They refute MUHAMMED El BARADEI, and the NYTIMES, and Kerry and the NBCNews producer who is trying to retract some of their earlier CONTEMPORANEOUS reporting from the scene.

BOTTOM-LINE: YA GOTTA JUST ASK YOURSELF THIS: Do you think that the US military would've taken over a weapons depot and not checked the bunkers for weapons or enemy personnel!? It's absurd to think they wouldn't've. And - as the emailers to KERRY SPOT write, if they found anything they'd've called in special task forces AT ONCE.

THIS IS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF SLANDER AGAINST OUR MILITARY BY THE LEFT, OLD MEDIA, AND THE KING OF ANTI-MILITARY SLANDER: JOHN FORBES KERRY.

LIKE THE ABU GRAIB SCANDAL, THIS PROVES ONCE AGAIN THAT THE OLD MEDIA AND KERRY WILL SLANDER OUR ARMED FORCES IF THEY THINK IT ADVANCES THEIR LEFTIST AGENDA.

If you click on NYTrogate, you'll see the new Kedwards TV ad which exploits the NYTrogate lies and distortions. This whole disgusting episode proves - once again - only one thing: the Left-wing Old Media lies, and Kerry swears to it.

ADDENDUM: Fascinating how quickly the Kedwards Camp has jumped on the NYTimes story and made a commercial - why... why... it's almost as if they knew it was coming! Ya think!?

FURTHERMORE: The ad is a series of non-sequitors built on a blatant falsehood - much like the rest of the Kerry Campaign and the Left-wing agenda of the Democrat Party.

FINALLY: Once again, Kerry demonstrates how eagerly he does the bidding of the anti-American internationalists. His act really has NEVER changed: he was opposed to AND LIED ABOUT the US military in 1971, and has been ever since.

WHY THE LEFT DOESN'T CARE THAT KERRY IS A PROVEN LIAR

Since his very first appearance on the national scene - as a water carrier for the communists of North Vietnam - Kerry has continuously LIED and EXAGGERATED. And he's been caught, over and over and over again... He slandered the US military in 1971; he lies about being at World Series games, about meeting with foreign leaders or UNSC members, about being in Cambodia - to name just a few!

Yet his LYING has not ever hurt him.

WHY? HOW?

Because since WW2 the Leftist meme has included a basic tenet of the post-modernist meme: a belief that there is no such thing as REAL TRUTH; they believe that truth is just subjective or culturally relative. People who do not believe in truth have no problem lying or voting for liars if it advances their cause. The Leftist cause is as it has always been: making the state bigger; having the state run by elites - it's fundamentally anti-libertarian and anti-democratic. And : it has failed miserably EVERY TIME, AND EVERY PLACE, AND IN EVERY MARKET IN WHICH IT HAS EVER BEEN TRIED.

Part of PERMANENTLY defeating Leftism requires permanently demolishing the culturally and morally relative post-modernist meme which underlies and underpins their ideology. Only after this is accomplished can the Free World have a truly united front in the GWOT.

ASIDE: Old Europe is also under the hypnotic sway of post-modernism and moral/cultural relativism. One reason they are drawn to it is because they are - after the bloody 20th Century - very war weary, and because they blame nationalism and ethnocentrism for all the blood-spilling.

Cultural relativism allows them to go on being who & what they are culturally - (Frenchy French or Germanic Germans) - without making it necessary to belittle their neighbors. By asserting that "all cultures (and value systems) are equal" they believe they can avoid a repeat of WW1 or WW2. That's why they reflexively seek accommodation and appeasement. Chamberlain epitomized this: his revulsion towards WW1 made him appease Hitler, rather than confront Hitler. As we all know, that appeasement didn't work - in fact it made WW2 worse than it might have been because Hitler was confronted later than he might have been, and he was much stronger militarily in 1941 than he was in 1936.

The same is true now - in the GWOT, or WW4. The Bush Doctrine is the anti-Chamberlain doctrine; it rejects the "let's wait & see" and the "let's only counter-attack after we've been attacked" strategies. The Bush Doctrine does this because of two things:(1) the Jihadoterrorists cannot be deterred; (because to the Jihadoterrorists death is a promotion). And (2) in an age where portable WMD's can kill millions, retaliation is not sufficient.

Bush's belief that there are such things as GOOD and EVIL is precisely WHY the Left hates him; Bush's belief is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of post-modernism; it's why they think he's a rube, or a religious fanatic. Bush believes that there are such things as goodness and truth; the Left does NOT; in fact, they think this is what makes them SOPHISTICATED. Well... the Emperor who had no clothes on thought he was sophisticated, too! IOW: It's just as Orwell said - some things are so dumb only an intellectual can believe them!

Bush says: if the perpetrators of 9/11 - or of Beslan - are not evil, than evil does not exist. Because 9/11 and Beslan are real, all logical people must conclude that evil is real. And that only by confronting it and counter-attacking it can we EVER hope defeat it and thereby live in a world of peace and prosperity and liberty - something that all humans EVERYWHERE deserve.

Clinton's Coattails

In the NY Times today, there's another little example of Left-wing bias. I only point it out because I think it's an example of how UTTERLY PERVASIVE their bias is. Here's the headline:

THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
Clinton Tries on His Long Coattails for Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN
Published in the NY Times: October 26, 2004

The UNEXAMINED PREMISE or presupposition of the piece is that Clinton has long coattails that could pull in votes for the Kerry Campaign. AND THIS IS PURE RUBBISH.

(1) Clinton NEVER polled a majority of votes - not in 1992 or in 1996. Gore out-polled Clinton; in fact: Gore was the 2nd best vote-getter the Dems have had since FDR; only LBJ got more.

(2) In 4/5 of the national federal elections that took place during the time Clinton had a starring role in the Democrat Party THEY LOST SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND IN EVERY STATEHOUSE, AND ON THE GUBENATORIAL FRONT, TOO!

THEREFORE, one must conclude that Clinton's personal political magnetism NEVER helped any other candidate or the party. Clinton never had ANY coattails, let alone LONG ONES!

BUT THERE"S MORE: Clinton was successful because he ran as a centrist; he was pro-free trade, and pro-business - and even ran to the right of Bush 41 on foreign policy. (That's why people like me - centrist DLC/Zell Miller Democrats - voted for him; he even "dissed" Jesse at the '92 convention and promised to govern from the center - promising to "end welfare as we know it.") BUT, even as a centrist Democrat, Clinton couldnt get 50% of the popular vote. (And don't tell me it's because of the third party candidate! If Clinton was truly a strong candidate himself, he would have pulled the voters that went to Perot, marginalizing Perot as Gore and Kerry and Bush have marginalized Nader.)

In spite of these FACTS, the NY Times - and the rest of the Left-wing dominated fonts of the Old Media - continue to promote Clinton as some wunderkind - a vote magnet. Nonsense.

Clinton SURELY outshines, out-performs -- and would even out-poll Kerry, but that's ONLY because Kerry is so weak a candidate, and because Kerry is much much much MUCH further to the Left than is Clinton.

What does it say about the Democrats that their biggest vote magnet is an impeached president who presided over the biggest bubbles since Hoover - "Bubba's Bubbles" - and who did the least to make America safe; in fact: the president who made us MUCH MORE VULNERABLE!

(How? DURING CLINTON'S TWO TERMs, THE US MILITARY WENT FROM 18 DIVISIONS TO 10, AND THAT'S WHY HE'S THE BLAME FOR OUR MILITARY'S RELATIVELY WEAK DEPLOYMENT CAPABILITY. Not to mention the fact that Clinton responded FEEBLY to numerous attacks against the USA and our allies by the Jihadoterrorists. Which only encouraged more attacks. And Clinton let UBL get away. And the fact Clinton met with Arafat more than ANY OTHER FOREIGN LEADER, aggrandizing the master terrorist, strengthening Arafat even as Arafat grew ever more recalcitrant in negotiations and tyrannical toward his own people.)

So what does this say about the NY TIMES description "CLINTON'S LONG COATTAILS"!? It's says that in addition to being biased Leftists - they are fantasists. Or jerks. Or both. Grabbing hold of "Clinton's Long Coattails" is impossible: they're phantoms of the Left's imagination, a product of wishful thinking, and revisionist history.

When the Left tries to pull themselves up by Clinton's coattails, they'll only end up pulling down Clinton's pants. But that's something he won't mind...

Old Media's al Qaqaa Cacaphony turns out to be "ALL KAKA" and PHONY

As first reported by NRO's "THE KERRY SPOT," and now by the indispensable DRUDGE, the whole entire Al Qaqaa "missing explosives story" is "all kaka" - which is Yiddish for "sh-t."

As in: "when the Old Media tells the truth about Bush - I'll make kaka in my pants!"

It turns out that this bogus story is merely another attempt by the Left-wing dominated Old Media to derail a second Bush term, and THEY'VE FAILED AGAIN.

All that Old Media has succeeded in doing is PROVING that they will LIE to hurt Bush and help Kerry. Just as they did with the infamous "16 words" in the SOTU, and the relentless display of Abu Graib photos, and the endless fawning over the hypocritical assertions of Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, and Secretary Oneill, and the bogus Rathergate documents.

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.

The coming "KERRY INTIFADA": My 10/17/04 prediction of DNC election riots confirmed by Elizabeth Edwards (via DRUDGE)

On October 17, in this blog, I predicted that in addition to the DNC legal challenges to a Bush Victory, the DNC probably planned RIOTS. I wrote:

"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."

Elizabeth Edwards has confirmed this to be a fact. IN FACT: THE WIDESPREAD VIOLENCE AGAINST LOCAL BC'04 HQ'S AND LOCAL GOP HQ'S ALL ACROSS THE USA MUST BE SEEN IN THIS LIGHT; IT PROVES THAT THE KERRY INTIFADA HAS ALREADY BEGUN!

UPDATE: NEED MORE PROOF? Here's a list (with links) of KERRY INTFADA attacks (from an LGF commenter): Bush/Cheney HQ in Flagstaff, Arizona vandalized http://www.azdailysu... Bush/Cheney HQ in Cincinnati, Ohio burglarized and ransacked http://www.enquirer.... Bush/Cheney HQ in Miami attacked by mob http://www.miami.com... Bush/Cheney HQ in Orlando, Florida attacked by mob http://www.local6.co... Mob attacks Bush/Cheney HQ in Tampa, Florida http://www.freerepub... Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in Knoxville, Tennessee http://www.usatoday.... Shots fired into Bush/Cheney HQ in West Virginia http://www.freerepub... http://www.wowktv.co... Bush/Cheney HQ in Spokane, Washington burglarized and vandalized, computers stolen http://seattletimes.... Bush/Cheney HQ in West Allis, Wisconsin attacked http://www.wisgop.or... Bush/Cheney HQ in St. Paul, Minnesota attacked http://www.startribu... list of incidents by date http://www.gop.com/N... Bush/Cheney HQ in Gettysburg, Pa. attacked http://209.157.64.20... Kerry/Edwards HQ in Bozeman, Mt attacked-mentions earlier attack on GOP HQ http://www.mountaint... Bush/Cheney HQ in Fairbanks, AK attacked http://www.news-mine... Bush/Cheney HQ in Oxford, Ms vandalized http://www.thedmonli... Bush/Cheney HQ in Edwardsville, Il vandalized http://www.zwire.com... Bush/Cheney HQ in Bloomington-ARSON http://www.idsnews.c... Bush/Cheney HQ in Canton, Ohio burglarized and vandalized http://www.freerepub... Bush/Cheney HQ in Mt. Vernon, Il vandalized http://www.morningse... Bush/Cheney HQ in Edmond, OK vandalized http://edmondsun.tea... Bush/Cheney HQ in Gainesville, Fl. attacked by union mob http://www.wcjb.com/... Santa Cruz, CA Republican Congressional candidate receiving death threats http://www.theksbwch... Escambia County (Pensacola) Republican HQ vandalized for 4th time http://www.wear3.com... Rochester, NY Republican Congressional candidate's office ransacked http://www.wroctv.co... Vilas County (Arbor Vitae, WI) Republican County HQ vandalized, ransacked http://www.waow.com/... Democrat thuggery in Longmont, Co. http://www.dailycame... York, Pa Republican HQ vandalized http://ydr.com/story... SLC, UT Republican gubernatorial candidate's office vandalized http://tv.ksl.com/in... Democrat thuggery in Lake Havasu City, Az http://www.searclub....

DRUDGE has the proof that the DNC leadership is aware of this - maybe even behind it: an audiotape (from C-SPAN) of her telling a Kerry supporter that there will be riots, but only if the Kerry Campaign LOSES! Either she knows it's the plan, or she believes that Kerry supporters are lawless thugs. Probably both!

Go to DRUDGE; listen to her - and then decide for yourselves.

To me this is just more proof that the DNC has devolved into a racket that should be charged under RICO laws.

The Flypaper Strategy or "Operation Flytrap"

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.

Guardian/Observer - the leading Left-wing British Newspaper -admits a Kerry victory is a victory for the Jihadoterrorists

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??!?!?!?!

Teresa Heinz-Kerry Owns Halliburton

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.

This time Kerry really DID stray over the border - but didn't know it!

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!