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!
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS HEINZ
From POWERLINE:
October 16, 2004
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.
October 16, 2004
Vincent Morris and Deborah Orin report on Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 income tax information released yesterday:
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.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Saddam's Nuke Program: BURIED TWICE!
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 ...
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 ...
Bush Derangement Syndrome: EXPOSED!
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.
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.
My Dirty Dozen Debate Highlights...
FROM: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html
1 – KERRY: "I’ll hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them. We'll do whatever is necessary to be safe. But…"
1 – KERRY: "I’ll hunt them down, and we'll kill them, we'll capture them. We'll do whatever is necessary to be safe. But…"
Kerry's "BUT" exposes him as an appeaser.
2 - KERRY: "I have a plan to cover all Americans. We're going to make it affordable and accessible. We're going to let everybody buy into the same health-care plan senators and congressmen give themselves."
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, would you like to add something?
BUSH: "I would. Thank you. I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for. He just said he wants everybody to be able to buy in to the same plan that senators and congressmen get. That costs the government $7,700 per family. If every family in America signed up, like the senator suggested, if would cost us $5 trillion over 10 years."
BUSH EXPOSES THE KERRY HEALTHCARE SHAM.
3 - KERRY: "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."
Tasteless, crass demagoguery.
4 - KERRY: "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.'"
4 - KERRY: "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.'"
Kerry actually is GUILTY of that which he charges Bush; Kerry asserts he has faith, and then claims that DEEDS are worth more than faith - YET THEN, KERRY REFUSES to ACT on his own faith, on his own belief that life begins at conception - as when he refused to do the tough DEED of voting for a "Partial Birth Abortion Ban." Kerry's religiousness is PHONY; Kerry's Catholicism is a sham; Kerry's faith is "dead."
5 - KERRY: "Result [of Bush's Pharmaceutical Plan]: $139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies coming out of your pockets. That's a large part of your 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums. "
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!
6 - KERRY: "Eleven other presidents -- six Democrats and five Republicans -- had wars, had recessions, had great difficulties; none of them lost jobs the way this president has."
FALSE: Unemployment was higher in '84 than in '80 - yet Reagan won reelection because the electorate saw that it WAS morning in America. AND THEN, THERE'S BEEN A "JOB LOSS" ONLY OF W2-FILING PAYROLL JOBS, AND THIS HAS BEEN ONLY 600,000. WHEN ALL JOBS ARE COUNTED, THEN MORE AMERICANS ARE WORING TODAY THAN IN 2000; THAT'S RIGHT: THERE HAVE BEEN NET JOB GAINS WHEN YOU INCLUDE SELF-EMPLOYED PEOPLE.
7 - SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration. I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
[... later, Kerry responded...]
7 - SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration. I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
[... later, Kerry responded...]
KERRY: "Four thousand people a day are coming across the border."
Kerry doesn't get good grades for listening.
8 - KERRY: "Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States -- one combat, one support. In addition, I'm going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror, with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently here in our own country. There's much we can do with them with respect to homeland security. We ought to be doing that. And that would relieve an enormous amount of pressure. But the most important thing to relieve the pressure on all of the armed forces is frankly to run a foreign policy that recognizes that America is strongest when we are working with real alliances, when we are sharing the burdens of the world by working through our statesmanship at the highest levels and our diplomacy to bring other nations to our side."
THERE HE GOES, AGAIN! When it comes to defending the USA, Kerry can't keep his "BUT..." out of it! Proving he is at heart an appeasing internationalist - like Chamberlain.
KERRY: "I have never suggested a test where we turn over our security to any nation. In fact, I've said the opposite: I will never turn the security of the United States over to any nation. No nation will ever have a veto over us. But…"
THERE HE GOES AGAIN... AGAIN!
9 - KERRY: "I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment. But I'll tell you this...."
ANOTHER "BUT!" It seems that when it comes to self-defense - as well as national defense - Kerry CANNOT seem to commit himself to any UNEQUIVOCAL USE OF FORCE.
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."
A LIE. Period.
11 - When Scheiffer asked what influence the women in their lives had had on them, Bush was sincere, and sweet - he was visibly moved when talking about Laura. Kerry unintentionally revealed himself to be a crass, ambitious, and untrustworthy man when - IN EFFECT - ALL he said about his second wife, the billionaire Teresa Heinz-Kerry - was that she's rich:
BUSH: … "I guess you would say [about his meeting Laura] it was love at first sight."
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: "Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up. And some would say maybe me moreso than others. But I can take it."
12- SUMMARY:
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.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Statues are for Heroes
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.
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.
TONIGHT: LET THERE BE LIGHT- the same light!
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.
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.
Kerry, the DNC, and their 527's OUTSPEND Bush & Co.!
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!
"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!
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Carter Doctrine and Mrs. Teresa Heinz-Kerry
"John will never send a boy or girl in a uniform anywhere in the world because of our need and greed for oil," -
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:
"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
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.
START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT THEM
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.
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.
1942: CHURCHILL OUSTED; CHAMBERLAIN ELECTED
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.
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.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Kerry's Anti-terror Policy isn't MYOPIC - IT'S KOOLAIDOSCOPIC!
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.
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.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
"MY DEEP FEAR OF ABANDONMENT" - or: "WHY THE ANTI-VIETNAM WAR DOVE KERRY IS UNFIT FOR OFFICE"
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.
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.
"CASUS BELLI" - or: How And Why We Removed Saddam According To UNSCR#1441, And Did It BEFORE It Was Too Late
Why do so many people completely trust Duelfer's report, and look at disdain at ALL PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE?
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The Cave Men and the Mujahowarddean
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.
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.
Monday, October 04, 2004
A PERSONAL PLEA TO KERRY VOTERS: "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "
OR: "Look who you're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with?"
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.
The Arabs - who have not a single democracy among them, (unless and until the USA transforms Iraq into one) - want a president who will be more "EVEN-HANDED" with regard to Israel and the ARABS.
As if it is MORAL & JUST for ther USA to treat ARAFAT and HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH (terrorists whio have murdered American citizens) the same as we treat the elected leader of the only democracy in the middle east - and one of the USA's BEST ALLIES. And, C.A.I.R overwhelmingly supports Kerry.
MICHAEL MOORE OVERWHELMINGLY supports Kerry.
Moore who has made pseudo-documentaries which are nothing more than lies and distortions and propaganda against GM and the domestic car industry (which are both bigger than ever!); and against the 2nd Amendment - (the simplest of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights); and against the USA. Here are a few FACTS:
(1) There are MORE people working here in the USA in the car industry than when Moore's movie "Roger and Me" decried the end of that industry here, and the LOSS of all those jobs. (2) Moore's anti-gun movie showed hium walikng out of a bank with a gun - as if he got it in return for a deposit - WHICH WAS A LIE; it was a lioe like so many other in this move - "Bowling for Columbine" - like the fact that the factory in Columbine makes guidance systems NOT MISSILES; so that therefore some mysterious latent violent psychosis IS NOT responsible for the shootings that tragic day; two insane and evil kids were. (3) And F911...well the lies are too many and too outrageous to list here; SEE: (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ).
(1) There are MORE people working here in the USA in the car industry than when Moore's movie "Roger and Me" decried the end of that industry here, and the LOSS of all those jobs. (2) Moore's anti-gun movie showed hium walikng out of a bank with a gun - as if he got it in return for a deposit - WHICH WAS A LIE; it was a lioe like so many other in this move - "Bowling for Columbine" - like the fact that the factory in Columbine makes guidance systems NOT MISSILES; so that therefore some mysterious latent violent psychosis IS NOT responsible for the shootings that tragic day; two insane and evil kids were. (3) And F911...well the lies are too many and too outrageous to list here; SEE: (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ).
(4) MOORE EVEN OPPOSSED THE AFGHAN WAR! I wonder how he feels about their upcoming elections? Especially the one in which a woman is running for president?
AND MOORE SAT AS A GUEST OF HONOR IN THE PRESIDENTIAL BOX AT THE DNC CONVENTION IN BOSTON!
(Read what the official Central News Agency of the DPRK had to say about Kerry on February 23rd.)
Naturally - they're Michael Moore's film distributors in the Middle East!
The racist former president of Malaysia.
ZAPOTERO SUPPORTS KERRY.
He won election as Spain's PM after the ATOCHA attack
frightened many Spainiards into retreat and appeasement.
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.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
"Health of the Chief!"
LATEST UPDATE:
Kerry's doctors say he's healthy - and cancer free.
BUT: if this is true, then WHY WON'T KERRY RELEASE HIS FULL MEDICAL RECORDS!?
UPDATE: SUNDAY -
Tonight, CNN-TV is running a broadcast version
of the article mentioned below...
CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS FOR TIME,
AND THEN WRITE CNN DEMANDING THAT KERRY RELASE
HIS COMPLETE MEDICAL RECORDS!
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.
AS LAWYER: Greedy Edwards Did More Harm Than Good
John Edwards likes to present himself as a "tribune of the people,"
a working-class hero who has spent his life "championing the cause of the little guy."
The reality is VERY different.
a working-class hero who has spent his life "championing the cause of the little guy."
The reality is VERY different.
In his career as a trial lawyer, John Edwards specialized in cerebral palsy malpractice cases. He never tried the case of an infant who died during a delivery, but only the cases of children who were born with horribly damaged brains that made them especially moving spectacles in the courtroom.
Scientists now accept that cerebral palsy is probably never caused by birth trauma or obstetrical misadventure. Rather, the problems that these unfortunate children have during labor and delivery result from pre-existing brain damage that arises in the womb from unknown causes.
John Edwards used the popular myth that cerebral palsy was caused by the malpractice or negligence of the delivering obstetrician. Exploiting junk science John Edwards charmed juries into awarding verdicts that earned him between 50 and 100 million dollars, while forcing many good and decent obstetricians out of North Carolina and even out of practice.
The rise in cesarean deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.
And as a direct result of Edwards greed, the caesarean section rate in North Carolina soared. According to the American Medical Association, North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over.
So John Edwards, for no other real reason than his pursuit of personal wealth, defamed good doctors, changed the practice of medicine for the worse, and ended up costing all medical consumers more money.
This is not the record of a " tribune of the people," but rather the socially destructive record of a greedy demagogue who selfishly and cynically exploited manipulated the passions of the crowd in order to get rich quick.
Edwards has no shame.
His career as a trial lawyer is not a record to run on; it is one that should forever disqualify him from any elected office.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Another Troubling Kerry Pattern ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? OR - "KERRY & TYRANNY: natural together"
1 - In 1970 (and through 1975), Kerry returned from Vietnam and publicly, repeatedly - even famously under oath - opposed the war-time foreign policy of his own nation's duly elected president of the USA, and instead took the same exact position on the war as the communist North Vietnamese Government. Kerry parroted the NVG claims that the USA military were war criminals, and testified that he felt that it made no difference whether Vietnam went communist, or not.
Since 1975 - (when the Democrat majorities in the Congress pulled the plug on supporting the South Vietnamese government), 65 MILLION Vietnamese have lived in poverty under the tyranny of communism -- much more like the North Koreans, than the South Koreans.
(One can only wonder that if the Democrats has NOT pulled the plug on the SVG whether or not we'd be driving cars made in a democratic and prosperous South Vietnam, as we are from a democratic and prosperous South Korea - a nation we did NOT ABANDON.)
2 - In 1985 Senator Kerry opposed the foreign policy of the duly elected president of the USA - who supported the Contras, and instead publicly supported the communists led by Ortega - even visiting with Ortega before a crucial vote in the Congress (with Tom Harkin - see photo with this link).
3 - While first running for the Senate in 1984, and while in the Senate - from 1985-the collapse of the USSR in 1989 - Kerry supported the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and opposed every major weapons system and deployment during the Cold War - ONCE AGAIN agreeing with the USSR - our communist enemy - that the USA's weapons buildup was destabilizing. (Boston Globe Online John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making "... Kerry tried to stand out ... as a crime-fighting former prosecutor with progressive credentials, but also as a champion of a nuclear weapons freeze."
4 - Kerry sided with SADDAM in the 1991 war and voted AGAINST authorizing the president to use force to expel SADDAM from Kuwait. If Kerry's position had prevailed, then Saddam WOULD STILL BE IN KUWAIT! (SEE: MSNBC - What Kerry's 20 years of Senate votes reveal .Kerry voted against use of US military forces in 1991 after Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4741992)
5 - NOW, in 2004 - THREE YEARS AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED BY JIHADOTERRORISTS - Kerry calls the Iraq War a sham built on lies, a QUAGMIRE and a diversion; and one of his spokesmen calls the official UN-designated interim Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" of the USA, http://instapundit.com/archives/018015.php).
And now - in 2004 - Kerry is taking the SAME POSITION AS KIM JONG IL: KERRY AND KIM both want bi-lateral talks.
Since 1975 - (when the Democrat majorities in the Congress pulled the plug on supporting the South Vietnamese government), 65 MILLION Vietnamese have lived in poverty under the tyranny of communism -- much more like the North Koreans, than the South Koreans.
(One can only wonder that if the Democrats has NOT pulled the plug on the SVG whether or not we'd be driving cars made in a democratic and prosperous South Vietnam, as we are from a democratic and prosperous South Korea - a nation we did NOT ABANDON.)
2 - In 1985 Senator Kerry opposed the foreign policy of the duly elected president of the USA - who supported the Contras, and instead publicly supported the communists led by Ortega - even visiting with Ortega before a crucial vote in the Congress (with Tom Harkin - see photo with this link).
3 - While first running for the Senate in 1984, and while in the Senate - from 1985-the collapse of the USSR in 1989 - Kerry supported the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and opposed every major weapons system and deployment during the Cold War - ONCE AGAIN agreeing with the USSR - our communist enemy - that the USA's weapons buildup was destabilizing. (Boston Globe Online John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making "... Kerry tried to stand out ... as a crime-fighting former prosecutor with progressive credentials, but also as a champion of a nuclear weapons freeze."
4 - Kerry sided with SADDAM in the 1991 war and voted AGAINST authorizing the president to use force to expel SADDAM from Kuwait. If Kerry's position had prevailed, then Saddam WOULD STILL BE IN KUWAIT! (SEE: MSNBC - What Kerry's 20 years of Senate votes reveal .Kerry voted against use of US military forces in 1991 after Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4741992)
5 - NOW, in 2004 - THREE YEARS AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED BY JIHADOTERRORISTS - Kerry calls the Iraq War a sham built on lies, a QUAGMIRE and a diversion; and one of his spokesmen calls the official UN-designated interim Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" of the USA, http://instapundit.com/archives/018015.php).
And now - in 2004 - Kerry is taking the SAME POSITION AS KIM JONG IL: KERRY AND KIM both want bi-lateral talks.
IS THERE A PATTERN HERE?
I suggest there is. I suggest it is OBVIOUS and INESCAPABLE:
Kerry consistently takes the position that American military power is bad, and that it should not be used to support DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK BY TYRANNICAL FORCES, and that that USA military should NOT even be strengthened, and that our enemies - (first the North Vietnamese, then the CONTRAS, and then the USSR, and now the Jihadoterrorists who we're fighting in Iraq and Kim Jong Il of North Korea) - were (or are) in the right, and that we - the USA - are in the wrong.
(It is interesting to point out that the chattering classes, HIP LEFTIST LITERATI, and other assorted lefty luminaries from Europe and the UN also opposed the USA on each of these points; Kerry has CONSISTENTLY taken the EU's position against the USA's for his entire political career. It is also important to note that the USA was right in every case.)
YES: History has already proven that Kerry's track record on foreign policy reflects BAD judgment. But as 1-Senator-out-of-100, Kerry did NOT do too much harm, thank God.
As president, and COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he would be a DISASTER. WHY?
(A) One would reasonably expect Kerry to ABANDON IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN
as they begin their journey toward democracy and prosperity.
(B) One would expect him to weaken our military.
(AT BEST, one might hope that Kerry would keep our military at its present strength. REMEMBER: in the debates, he said he would UNILATERALLY give up our quest for bunker-busting nukes that might be able to destroy the secret undergorund WMD programs of tryannical rogue states, like Iran and North Korea! Does this sound like someone who - as president - would ensure that the USA military would be as strong as possible?!)
Kerry has been a leftist Dove his entire life - one who has DEMONSTRATED a penchant for attacking the USA and the US military while we are at war.
Kerry has been a leftist Dove his entire life - one who has DEMONSTRATED a penchant for attacking the USA and the US military while we are at war.
And he has shown an indisputable penchant for supporting tyrants.
Or at the very very very least: shying away from confronting tyrants
and from using the military to defend democracy.
There is NO LOGICAL reason to think Kerry has suddenly become a Hawk,
or to trust that if he is now a Hawk that this "election-year-conversion" is genuine.
There is NO LOGICAL reason to think Kerry has suddenly become a Hawk,
or to trust that if he is now a Hawk that this "election-year-conversion" is genuine.
KERRY AND TYRANNY - SINCE 1970, NATURAL TOGETHER:
Kerry & Ho Chi Minh 1970...
Kerry supported the Vietcong demand for our immediate withdrawal!
Kerry & Ortega 1985...
Kerry supported the communists in Nicaragua!
Kerry & Breshnev (ET AL) 1984-9...
Kerry aped Soviet position on arms control - supporting a freeze!
Kerry & Saddam in 1991...
Kerry voted AGAINST the first Iraq War!
Kerry & Saddam 2003...
Kerry voted against funding the second Iraq War!
Kerry and Zarkawi 2004...
Kerry and al Qaeda BOTH call Iraqi P.M. Allawi a USA puppet!
Kerry and the mullahs in 2004...
Kerry would GIVE IRAN nuclear fuel!
Kerry & Kim Jong Il 2004...
Kerry and Kim BOTH want bilateral talks!
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:
THERE IS A PATTERN HERE.
TOP TEN KERRY DEBATE HORRORS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
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.
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: a stronger USA threatens world peace. OR: "it's okay to be unilateral when it means disarming!"
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!
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!
LEHRER: DOES THE IRAQ WAR MAKE OTHER, FUTURE WARS MORE LIKELY?
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."
The central part of Kerry's rejoinder was ENTIRELY non-germane - in fact it was a clumsy SLIGHT OF HAND; Kerry said, (in part):
"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Kerry went on to argue that the Iraq War was a diversion.
IN FACT:
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.
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."
The central part of Kerry's rejoinder was ENTIRELY non-germane - in fact it was a clumsy SLIGHT OF HAND; Kerry said, (in part):
"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Kerry went on to argue that the Iraq War was a diversion.
IN FACT:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)