"Honest" John Kerry has a theme

Kerry wants to restore Trust and Credibility

Let's see him address these issues of trust and credibility. Otherwise, he'll prove himself unworthy of trust and devoid of credibility.

Campaign Advisor Richard Clark

Romesh Ratnesar writing in Time catalogs many of Clarke's claims, some contradicted by the accounts of others involved in the same events, and some contradicted by his own book. Pejmanesque posts about the conflicts between Clarke's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission and his book. Clarke remains in high favor in Democrat circles.

House Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that former White House anti-terror czar Richard Clarke, the author of a new book critical of President Bush’s handling of the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001, may have lied in testimony to his committee, and said he plans to explore whether Congressional action on the matter is warranted.
Clarke’s “testimony to our committee is 180 degrees out of line with what he is saying in his book,” Goss said. “He’s either lying in his book or he lied to our committee. It’s one or the other.”

“Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly.”

“I have known George Tenet for many years, and I wish him the very best. He has worked extremely hard on behalf of our nation, and we are grateful for his effort.

“There is no question, however, that there have been significant intelligence failures, and the administration has to accept responsibility for those failures...”

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Thu Jul 29, 2004

The Hell of Being Wrong

Denial, Deceptions, and Lame Games

Here's a good one from Lileks:

I don’t sense the same affection for Kerry. I also don’t think it matters. Right now I have a browser window open to Fark, and a T-shirt ad shows Bush’s face with the logo “American Psycho.” What else do you need to know? As Teddy Kennedy said in his convention speech: “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.” It’s really quite simple, isn’t it? We live in a manufactured climate of fear ginned up by war-crazed neocon overlords. There is no threat. The only thing we have to fear is Bush, who sits as we speak in the Oval Office sucking the marrow from Whoopi’s shin-bones.

If so, I wonder why anyone agreed to the stringent security policies that characterize this year’s conventions. Why the bomb-sniffing dogs? Why the snipers? Why the metal detectors, the invasive inspection of bags? Is it all an elaborate defense against Bush crashing the party and setting off a bomb belt, shouting God is Great, y’all!

No, they’re fearful of something else.

Damned if I know what, though. Damned if I know.

That's an easy one.
They are deathly afraid that all they believe in is wrong.
They are afraid that all their dreams are delusions.
They are afraid that their ideas are all bad.
Most of all, they are afraid that Republicans, and especially George Bush, are right.

For instance, take a look at this from a liberal who is anguishing over those very things:

Read more »

His obsession with Saddam Hussein led him to rush into a war that was unnecessary. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. Sure, the world is a better place without him. But . . .

And there it is: the inevitable but . Trailed by its uncomfortable ellipsis, it sits squirming at the end of the argument against George Bush for very good reason: It can't possibly sit at the beginning. Bush haters have to back into it because there's nothing beyond it. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but . . . but what ? But he wasn't so bad that we had to do anything about him? But he wasn't so bad that he was worth the shedding of American blood? But there are other dictators just as bad whom we leave in place? But he provided Bush the opportunity to establish the doctrine of preemptive war, in which case the cure is worse than the disease? But we should have secured Afghanistan before invading Iraq? But we should have secured the cooperation of allies who were no more inclined to depose Saddam than they—or we, as head of an international coalition of the unwilling—were to stop the genocide in Rwanda ten years before? Sure, genocide is bad, but . . .

We might as well credit the president for his one great accomplishment: replacing but with and as a basis for foreign policy. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of him. And unless we have become so wedded to the politics of regret that we are obligated to indulge in a perverse kind of nostalgia for the days of Uday and Qusay, we have to admit that it's hard to imagine a world with Saddam still in it.

Like I said, very simple.
It all boils down to a matter of admitting the error of one's ways. Without that, Bush will certainly be replaced with an equally repugnant reminder of failure. It is just a matter of time. Maybe not this one, or the next, but as surely as the sun rises there will come another day and another person who earns the animosity of the deluded ones by revealing the shortcomings of grand ideals that are flat wrong.
When all you have ever believed in is being disproved before your very eyes some serious denial is required to maintain your beliefs. With this denial comes the vile and excitable people we see every day, foaming at the mouth, screaming, spittle flying, denying, denying, denying. This denial requires attacks on anyone who represents a threat to the lies these people are fomenting. Put yourself in the place of such a person who sees Bush as the representative of their dying dreams. No wonder they hate George Bush so much. He represents their worst nightmare. He causes them to break out in a cold sweat and start screaming. These people are in hell on earth and it is a place they created for themselves. It is a place that they want to put us all in. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are enough people of a mind to decline this generous invite into the maelstrom that we will be saved. Maybe.
Head on over and read all of these two articles, especially the second one.
The next time you see a liberal screaming, foaming at the mouth, calling our president and other leaders vile names, and in general acting like the crazed loons that they have become, do not pity them, for a certainty they will not pity you. And be very careful, else they drag you into the pit with them. And then, worse, you may drag me in.
Powerline and Polipundit have more on this.

« Collapse

Posted by: Randall on Jul 29, 04 | 12:07 pm |
| [4] comments (1536 views) |  | Permalink | [410] TrackBack |

---

Kerry won Sullivan but I'm not so easy

What Kerry would have to do to earn my respect

It wouldn't be hard if he really was the reincarnation of JFK.

Andrew Sullivan has become oh so impressed by Kerry for the slimmest of reasons. The issues that drove Sullivan to the Kerry fold seem to be gay marriage, the over-hyped scandal at Abu Ghraib and the media-induced impression of a quagmire in Iraq. Sullivan seems to think a senator from the extreme left of a party that has drifted ever leftward since the 1960s can do better that a centrist Republican.

Iraq is a done deal. If Kerry says that he'll finish the job there, then that is because he is stuck with it. If he pulls the US out too soon and Iraq explodes into a civil war, or worse, then Kerry and the Democrats would be toast for a generation. The more pressing issues are now Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Islamic terrorism and North Korea.

Iran is on the threshold of building nuclear weapons. It has thumbed its nose at the UN, at the IAEA, and the multilateral Europeans delegated to handle the problem Kerry-style. Worse, it has threatened Israel with a nuclear holocaust.

Here's what John Kerry has said on the threat posed by Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs:

And that is why I am here today to ask that America launch a new mission, that America restore and renew the leadership we once demonstrated for all the world, to prevent the world’s deadliest weapons from falling into the world’s most dangerous hands. If we secure all bomb making materials, ensure that no new materials are produced for nuclear weapons, and end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran, we can and will dramatically reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism.

We can’t eliminate this threat on our own. We must fight this enemy in the same way we fought in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, by building and leading strong alliances. Our enemy has changed and is not based within one country or one totalitarian empire. But our path to victory is still the same. We must use the might of our alliances.

When I am president, America will lead the world in a mission to lock up and safeguard nuclear weapons material so terrorists can never acquire it. To achieve this goal, we need the active support of our friends and allies around the world. We might all share the same goal: to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but we can’t achieve it when our alliances have been shredded.

As near as I can tell, the current US policy is to use the "shredded" alliance of Britain, France and Germany to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. So far the policy has been abject failure, yet Kerry prescribes more of the same. He also enunciates a laudable goal, "to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism", but he seems to be utterly clueless on how to get there other than using the "active support of our friends and allies around the world".

This same policy prescription applies to North Korea. The Bush Administration has rejected the unilateral approach of the Clinton administration -- an unmitigated disaster -- and taken a multilateral approach. The key step was to dump the problem into China's lap. Does China want a nuclear armed North Korea to start a nuclear arms race involving Japan, South Korea and Taiwan? One hopes not, and China holds the key to solving that problem. The Kerry approach is so vague as to be useless as a guide to what he would do in office. Droning on about alliances does no good when some of our shredded allies have actively worked against our interests in pursuit of their own narrow interests. Kerry risks being accused of giving France, Germany and the UN veto power over US foreign policy. And here's a tip for Mr. Kerry - China, India and Japan are far more important in the new world order than Old Europe.

Instead of speechifying about the alliances that Bush shredded, Kerry needs to tell us HOW he is going to disarm Iran and North Korea. Will he seek a UNSC resolution threatening force if Iran does not immediately comply? Will he do that before the election? Does he have a better way than relying on the failed alliances and institutions of the past? So far, no.

Kerry has been highly critical of the war on terror. While he promises more action, he also emphasizes law enforcement, energy independence and increased homeland security. But we know he is waffling when he inserts something like this into his speech:

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

As Steven den Beste pointed out, there is no way to get from the present pattern of energy production and consumption to Kerry's brave new world of "alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future". The US is already largely independent of Mideast oil; most US consumption comes from this hemisphere. But that point is irrelevant. Oil is a fungible quantity and its production, transportation and consumption is governed by the laws of supply and demand. European and Asian economies are highly dependent on Mideast oil and they are intertwined with the US economy. If they can't get Mideast oil, their economies, and ours, would collapse. And if the Mideast can't sell its oil, the current unrest in the Arab world would look like a picnic compared to what would follow. Making the US "independent of Mideast oil" so that "our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it" is an utterly moronic policy prescription worthy only of loons like Chomsky and Moore. This is not a war about oil, as Kerry implies. It is war between radical Islam and the modern world. The 9/11 hijackers did not ram our planes into the WTC and the Pentagon because we buy Mideast oil. They did it to weaken the United States and force our withdrawal from the Muslim world, from formerly Muslim lands (Spain and Israel), from the rest of Europe and from the rest of the world.

If Mr. Kerry wants US energy independence, he needs to open up ANWAR, and remove the NIMBY roadblocks that prevent the exploitation of domestic energy resources. That won't reduce our dependence on the supply of Mideast oil -- we are still dependent on it even if not a drop makes it to the US -- but it will reduce energy costs. And if he is serious about the war on terror he needs to tell us how he is going to achieve his goals. Listing goals doesn't cut it, but that is all he ever seems to do.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 29, 04 | 8:34 am |
| [2] comments (1524 views) |  | Permalink | [129] TrackBack |

---

Wed Jul 28, 2004

Kerry's Worst Enemies

On Center Stage for All to See

Remember the post about Kerry supporters being the Senator's worst enemy?
Well, add the Liberal Lad's wife to the list. Apparently, not satisfied with showing her dark side in the 'shove it' incident, Democrats elected to showcase this 'sophisticated' woman at their convention by putting her on center stage. Then to top it all, she opened her mouth. From that cakehole emitted a strange exhibition of speaking in tongues intended to impress the masses with her command of the French language, among others. As a finale she committed multiple cardinal sins by telling the truth about her and her hubby's real views. Take this for instance :

With John Kerry as president, global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed. With John Kerry as president, the alliances that bind the community of nations and that truly make our country and the world a safer place, will be strengthened once more.

Ah yes. There it is: Sign away our prosperity by joining the Greens and committing to Kyoto or some other suicidal pact. Then...yes...that 'community of nations' spiel. You already know how that idea goes over around these parts and it is a safe bet that it doesn't fare much better in your neighborhood unless you have a summer home on the Massachusetts Cape. Andrew Sullivan was hard hit by this exhibition of feminism, elitism, environmentalism, and internationalism. Yes, even Andy, the recently converted Democratic supporter did not appreciate Teh-ra-za one little bit:

But she is now officially a liability for Kerry's campaign. And the campaign let it happen. If Kerry's advisers want to win, they'd better tell her to quiet down and take a backseat to the man who is actually running for office. And if she won't, someone, somewhere, is going to have to tell her to shove it.

Yeah, it does make you wonder who exactly let the fine lady speak her mind like that. But we can be thankful that it is coming out now.
One can almost feel sorry for poor Andy, just moved over to the other side, and now this. Regardless of the merits of Sullivan's case that lead him over to the other side at this moment in time, he is right on this matter. And....poor John Kerry. Along with the other fine examples of American ideals who seem incapable of muzzling themselves for the common good, unlike I might add, what they recommend to others, it would seem that his wife is now among the few, the loud, and the loony leftists who will be a huge albatross around the neck of the man who aspires to be our leader. Like I said before, it is almost like they are secretly in league with the opposition. At least they are helping Americans everywhere to understand the nature of the country that Teh-ra-za and the JohnJohns want to create with Kofi's ideals, Kyoto's shackles, and Old European failed experiments. For that we should be grateful.

Posted by: Randall on Jul 28, 04 | 9:52 pm |
| [25] comments (1825 views) |  | Permalink | [312] TrackBack |

---

More reasons to pray that Kerry loses

John Edwards, the Trial Lawyers' Candidate

Lowell Ponte, writing in Frontpage Magazine exposes Edwards deep and enduring connections to the Trial Lawyer industry. Read it and weep for an America losing out to John Edward and his cronies. They include:

• Fred Baron, the leader in asbestos lawsuits


• Bill Lerach, the self-described "Willy Horton of securities law"


• John O’Quinn, the top lawyer in silicon breast implant litigation


• Tab Turner, specialist in automotive defects such as "unintended acceleration"


• Paul Minor, who earned $71.5 million from tobacco settlements

Don't expect the Washington Post or New York Times to tell you anything about these lawyers, their shady practices, their reliance on junk science, or the damage they are doing to the American economy. They'd far rather tell you about alleged accounting irregulaties and over-charging by Halliburton, Cheney's old firm. But Trial Lawyers have gotten fabulously wealthy at our expense. According to Ponte:

the huge cost that lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits adds to everything...[costs] the average American family of four at least $2,884 every year in the higher price tags of everything from hamburger to health care.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 28, 04 | 4:04 pm |
| [2] comments (1637 views) |  | Permalink | [150] TrackBack |

---

Adopting an Attitude of Failure

Five reasons to fear the Democratic party

Michelle Malkin lays out 5 good reasons to fear the Democratic party. Among them are Ted Kennedy and his liberal ideas, the ACLU and its attacks on any attempt we make to protect ourselves from terrorism, the 'Grievance-Mongers' of the NAACP and Council on American-Islamic Relations who are "ethnic shakedown artists who have sued over every slight and hyped every faked claim of a hate crime are America-bashing enablers of the worst sort", and the Open Borders Lobby. But number five is the one that truly represents the Democratic point of view most likely to cause the greatest damage:

First Responder Fetishists. In her convention remarks on Monday night, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said the first homeland security priority in response to the 9/11 report was the "need to fully equip and train . . . our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack." Eager to suck up to men and women in uniform, John Kerry has proposed adding 100,000 first responders to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel nationwide. As I have said before, there is no question that our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need increased training and support -- but dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11.

And neither is voting the party of the Chicken Little Clean-Up Crew into office.

That one represents an attitude of failure, of throwing in the towel, and of admitting defeat before the War is over. While it may indeed be a decent idea to bolster the ranks of police, fire, and rescue personnel the fact remains that our primary objective should be to prevent attacks in the first place. That means taking the fight to the enemy while trying our best to defend the most critical areas of our homeland. Any thinking person should readily admit that defending everything 100% of the time is an impossible dream. While it would be convenient to have trained personnel available to clean up the mess, remove the bodies, and decontaminate the area attacked it would be infinitely more satisfying to know we have killed terrorists, disrupted their plans, and reduced the likelihood of an attack by taking the fight to them. The Democratic attitude exhibited by number 5 is one that promotes the idea of defense. While this idea has roots in the wisdom of the ages the current version twists the logic of sound defensive policy by ignoring a prime factor: We Can Not Defend Everything. Thus, the policy advocated by Hillary, while sound on the surface, requires one to stick their head in the sand and ignore the facts on the ground. We will not win this war by defensive measures. We cannot defeat terrorism by crawling into a make-believe fortress. Indeed, were we to adopt the 'Chicken Little Clean-up Crew' ideas of many Democrats we may as well go ahead and reinstate the draft and induct every American into the clean-up brigade. With ideas like these we will find ourselves in great need of such services. On the bright side: by adopting an attitude of failure one is not likely to be distraught when losing becomes a way of life. Unfortunately, in this particular case, dying ain't much of a living, now is it?

Posted by: Randall on Jul 28, 04 | 10:08 am |
| [2] comments (1384 views) |  | Permalink | [661] TrackBack |

---

Tue Jul 27, 2004

When you need something done wrong, who do you call?

Jimmy Carter, a man for our times

Robert Musil at Man Without Qualities picks up on a certain inconsistency in Jimmy Carter's speech to the DNC.

So who but Jimmy Carter would open a Convention set to nominate as its candidate a man married to a woman worth One Billion Dollars with the line:

"[W]e need new leaders in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super- rich and their armies of lobbyists in Washington!"

Robert might also have added that the billionaire's husband chose a running mate worth a few tens of millions of dollars, and said running mate is supported to the hilt by others of his ilk, the ultra-powerful trial lawyers lobby.

Now Bush and Cheney are not poor either. Bush made his money by getting out of oil and into baseball. Cheney moved from government service to Halliburton, performed well, and was rewarded accordingly. But neither are super-rich, like Mrs. Kerry. Nor did they make their money in the sleazy style that characterizes John Edward's ascent to wealth, nicely documented in this NYT hit-piece.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 27, 04 | 10:46 pm |
| [4] comments (1407 views) |  | Permalink | [166] TrackBack |

---

Kerry's Plan

Duck into a Hole and Hope the Big Bad Boogie Men Go Away

Kerry's Comprehensive Homeland Defense and War on Terror Plan:

Commonly referred to as 'Duck into a Hole and Hope' or DUHH!
Well anyway, something like that.
Some people say that this is Kerry's 'Dukakis Moment' so while we are at it you might as well go ahead and take a look at this:
Read more »

Awe inspiring??
No wonder Hillary and Co. are actually trying to help out a little bit.
They most likely see no danger from Kerry and figure it's a safe bet to appear loyal to the party during this election while believing that Kerry will self distruct. That would be mighty convenient for Hillary's Dreams of '08. My own suspicion is that Kerry will see his zenith shortly after the Bash in Beantown and it will be all downhill from there. Enjoy the ride.

« Collapse

Posted by: Randall on Jul 27, 04 | 3:55 pm |
| [2] comments (1370 views) |  | Permalink | [2] TrackBack |

---

The US is at war

And Hollywood goes AWOL

Before 9/11, a few movies dealt with Islamic terrorism. Examples include The Siege and Arnie's over-the-top True Lies. Since 9/11, mainstream Hollywood has avoided dealing with Islamic terrorism. Instead, we got Michael Moore's contemptible and destructive propaganda piece and a remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" that makes the bad guys corporate America instead of actual bad guys, like, say, North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia. In WW2, Hollywood was churning out patriotic war movies almost as fast as Detroit was turning out tanks and planes. Not now, even though the threat to Western civilization is just as grave. Of course, the Hollywood big shots seem to think President Bush is a bigger threat to our security than Osama, Omar, Kim, Saddam, Khamenei, Assad and the rest of the Axis of Evil combined.

It looks like the Hollywood Party has moved with the rest of the Left to oppose the US war of self-defense against radical Islam. Back in the good old days of 1939/40, when Hitler and Stalin were united by their mutual non-aggression pact, the Hollywood Party opposed US entry into WW2. That changed overnight when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. What will it take this time around for Hollywood to regain its patriotism? Something like this scenario, maybe?

Posted by: Pat on Jul 27, 04 | 12:13 pm |
| [0] comments (1140 views) |  | Permalink | [36] TrackBack |

---

Mon Jul 26, 2004

Stifling Dissent in Boston

Dems Trying to Muzzle the Rabid Pack

While the Democrats squeal 'stifling dissent!!' like sodomized piglets any time one of their sycophants receives the treatment they deserve by the American people, it seems that the current Democratic leadership, in its infinite wisdom, is doing the same thing to the lefty loons at the Bash in Beantown:

Why won't you let the left-wing true believers speak their minds? journalists essentially asked organizers of the Democratic Party's convention on Monday. NBC's Andrea Mitchell, interviewing Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, mumbled something about the "thought police." Journalists aren't upset that the party disallows pro-life Democrats from speaking. That kind of thought control is okay. What disturbs reporters is that the party isn't letting the Michael Moore's speak.

The answer to that question should be apparent. Still, the loons made the stage and their hallucinations shown through. For example, Mad AlGore laid it out for all to see, again:
Read more »

But no sooner had Dee Dee Myers said that the party couldn't afford to let their crazy relatives out of the basement than one popped up -- Al Gore, as painfully unfunny and lunging as ever. The convention's location in Boston led to much blather about the glorious founding of the country from Democrats who normally regard the Founding Fathers as reactionaries. Al Gore might grow misty about the battles of Lexington and Concord but he is still upset with the founders for their electoral college system. In a culture of self-pity, Gore feels entitled to whine at every chance about the unfairness of winning the popular vote but losing the election. But if anything at the Boston convention gives tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers it is that a dangerous fool like Gore was prevented from assuming the presidency by their electoral college system. Gore's attempt at Reaganesque rhetoric (he asked several are-you-better-off-today style questions) invited one question he didn't ask and Bush couldn't fail: Would Americans feel better with Gore in office?

And yes, there is more 'wisdom' on stage in the form of such Dem stalwarts as Jimmuh the Appeaser Failure Carter. And....take heart, there is still time to spring a surprise or two. Maybe Linda Ronstadt, Whoopie, and Michael Moore will escape the ties that bind and liven up the place a bit. Then, the true nature of the leftist mantra can shine through of all to see.

« Collapse

Posted by: Randall on Jul 26, 04 | 6:22 pm |
| [1] comments (1545 views) |  | Permalink | [1931] TrackBack |

---

40,000 Russian Troops for Iraq?

Just the Thought Causes Nightmares in Some Quarters

How's this for an interesting possibility? :

Do not be surprised to see three or four divisions of the Russian army in the Sunni triangle before year-end, with an announcement just prior to the US presidential election in November. Long rumored (or under negotiation), a Russian deployment of 40,000 soldiers was predicted on July 16 by the US intelligence site www.stratfor.com, and denied by the Russian Foreign Ministry on July 20. Nonetheless, the logic is compelling. Russian support for US occupation forces would make scorched earth of Senator John Kerry's attack on the Bush administration's foreign policy, namely its failure to form effective alliances. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the chance to make scorched earth of Fallujah is even more tempting.

If that isn't enough for you, put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Allegations already are circulating in the media that the Clinton administration arranged for Afghanistan-based jihadis to travel to Kosovo in the service of the Albanian cause. One should not take such rumors at face value, but they do suggest that the Clinton administration's accommodative stance toward the Muslim world may be subject to a nasty sort of dissection during the US presidential election.

Yeah, and we know how that 'accommodating stance' worked out.
Regardless, the possibility of bringing in 40,000 Russian troops to handle some of the difficult tasks in Iraq must give Democrats nightmares. Given the apparent lack of squeamishness about civilian casualties exhibited by the Russians in their handling of terrorist matters this possibility should also be causing some serious soul searching among those who may find themselves up against the Russian troops. So, for you fans of a tougher stance against Iraqi terrorists, this could be your ticket to reaching that goal. And.....if true......just imagine the position the announcement that Russia will be sending 40,000 troops to Iraq would have on the presidential race. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Randall on Jul 26, 04 | 10:58 am |
| [1] comments (1417 views) |  | Permalink | [203] TrackBack |

---

Sun Jul 25, 2004

Holiday from Reality

Democrats Proposing the Same Old Mistakes

As usual, Mark Steyn nails it:

What matters is where we're headed, not where we were. And, in that respect, John Kerry is still looking through the rear window. Not so much because of his remarkably poor choice of advisers -- Joe Wilson (the Politics Of Truth fraud), Max Cleland (with his schoolyard cries of "Liar, liar!") and Sandy Berger (with his pants on fire) -- but because Kerry's prescriptions (the U.N., the French) are so Sept. 10. A holiday from history is one thing. The Democrats are now embarked on a holiday from reality.

That pretty much says it all about the current Democratic nominee. We have already tried the methods he advocates and they failed dismally. Were we to listen to those like Max Cleland and his Democrat cohorts who wanted to create another government monstrosity staffed by "the same old featherbedded jobs-for-life unionized federal workers you can never fire no matter what they do" we would end up with more and more failures. Despite the awakening most Americans received on 9/11 a majority of Democrats seem bound to repeat the same old mistakes. John Kerry represents the heart of that crowd that continues to fight reality. This crowd likes agencies like the INS that "approved Mohammed Atta's and Marwan al-Shehhi's student visas six months after they'd died on Sept. 11, piloting their respective planes into Tower One and Tower Two". We do not need more tenure for life, act of Congress to fire, union grievance committee represented, bureaucratic nightmare agencies that fail to produce with efficiency. No thanks, we tried that way already.

Dale at QandO puts it this way:

Because their answers are the same old September 10th answers that led us straight to 911 in the first place. Make the French happy. Make the UN happy. Try to ensure we never use the military in any way that might conceivably cause us to suffer any casualties. Defer and delay action. Treat terrorism as criminal problem, and be sure you can get an indictment before apprehending anyone, because having to let them go later would be embarrassing.

You can stick that in a nice dress and teach it to dance, but it's still the same old whore of a policy the Democrats have been bringing to the national security party ever since George McGovern. They know it, we know it, and the American people know it, as Bob Dole would say.

No wonder they seem more concerned about picking apart the Bush Administration's distant past, rather than telling us where they expect to take us into the future.

Yep, it's the same old whore and it still can't dance.

Posted by: Randall on Jul 25, 04 | 8:55 pm |
| [2] comments (1360 views) |  | Permalink | [1089] TrackBack |

---

Man may not be why the Earth is heating up, but...

The Global Warming debate is heating up

Michael E. Mann is [in]famous for the so-called Hockey-stick chart of temperatures over the last century. That chart was published in the 2001 report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As its name suggests, it shows stable temperatures through most of the millennium and then a sharp rise in the 20th century as fossil fuel energy use increased. This overturned, at least in the view of global warming activists, the scientific and historical consensus that there had been a medieval warm period warmer than today followed by a little ice age that lasted up until the end of the 19th century.

Two Canadians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, checked Mann's work and were not impressed by his team's statistical prowess. McIntyre and McKitrick filed a Materials Complaint with the Editorial Board of Nature and the Mann team has been forced to acknowledge, via a Corrigendum in Nature (July 1, 2004) that there were flaws in their study. The real story is how scientific consensus was overturned by one flawed study that conformed to the apocalyptic view of environmental activists (many of whom claim to be scientists).

On an unrelated front, scientists have confirmed that global temperatures respond to the output of the sun. It seems the sun has gotten warmer recently. According to this BBC report:

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

Note the environmentally correct disclaimer. Even though they know it has been warmer in the recent past, when fossil fuel consumption was minimal, and they know the sun has gotten warmer, they stick to environmental orthodoxy.

But one does sense that the wheels are starting to fall off the global warming is caused by CO₂, and nothing but CO₂, bandwagon.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 25, 04 | 7:45 pm |
| [2] comments (1393 views) |  | Permalink | [1554] TrackBack |

---

Fri Jul 23, 2004

An antidote to Moore, Clarke and Wilson

Dick Morris demolishes Clinton's response to the Axis of Evil and terrorism

Dick Morris, President Clinton's former political advisor has his own version of the 9/11 Commission report. What comes through loud and clear is that the Clintonian foreign policy was weak and inept and it sowed the seeds for 9/11. A few highlights:

It was at this stage that the proposals to battle terrorism usually ran into trouble. Without a clear mandate to put terrorism at the top of the national agenda, every idea ran into opposition at some point in the bureaucratic food chain. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms killed the FBI's proposals to expand its powers of surveillance over possible terrorists. Clinton wouldn't move against fund-raising fronts for terrorist groups, because Attorney General Janet Reno refused to agree. The administration decided not to stop illegal aliens from getting drivers' licenses, because the Immigration and Naturalization Service had too big a backlog of deportation cases already. Something was always more important than fighting terrorism.

And when one of these proposals ran into bureaucratic opposition, Clinton just let it die. The slightest hint of disagreement from a law enforcement, civil rights, or military perspective was enough to send him scurrying for cover.
...
Hoagland's Post article explained that the net effect of Clinton's backpedaling was that "under pressure from U.S. allies, Clinton no longer seeks an alternative to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He is willing to live with a dictator two American presidents have portrayed as a mass murderer days away from creating an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. On Iraq today, America does not rally the allies, but rallies behind them."
...
In his private dealings, Clinton rarely enforced promises and never saw the transgressions of his staff as grounds for dismissal. Everything was relative. He tolerated an amazing degree of disobedience, disloyalty, conflicts of interest, and untruthfulness in both friend and foe, per-haps accounting for his own tendency to lie and obfuscate. At times it seemed as if the truth had no inherent advantage to recommend itself, but only its relative merit as a practical way to achieve a desired out-come.
...
Bill Clinton looked a lot better in the White House than he does in the years since. We assumed that he had North Korea under control. He didn't. We let Clinton distract us from Saddam's warlike preparations. We shouldn't have. And we didn't give Osama bin Laden much thought. Big mistake.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 23, 04 | 10:04 pm |
| [3] comments (1454 views) |  | Permalink | [2615] TrackBack |

---

Thu Jul 22, 2004

Before every one dumps on Annie Jacobsen for being hysterical

Consider the known dry-run that actor James Wood observed

You can read his account to Bill O'Reilly here. What he observed was less striking that what Annie Jacobsen observed and that was enough to worry him even before 9/11 happened.

I suspect the real terrorists would actually be more circumspect and harder to detect than the band that worried Jacobsen and her husband. If airline security was modelled on El Al security and profiled passengers were subject to intense scrutiny, most airline passengers would feel safer and a lot less hassled by flying.

Here's what Former El Al security chief Isaac Yeffet had to say in an interview last year:

Computerworld: Put yourself in the position of a border crossing agent. Does the proposed system of biometric identifiers and biometrics-enabled passports still have loopholes?

Yeffet: Yes. There is technology that can determine in three to five seconds if a passport is fake or real. But a recent terrorist recruit who has a legitimate passport and identity but who is not on a watch list has a loophole. When a person comes to the border and presents their documents, believe me, through a few questions you can determine who is suspicious. This is how we at El Al were able to arrest a passenger on the ground at London's Heathrow Airport and Zurich airport, both of whom had explosives. You can do it at the borders, too. But we don't want to spend the money in this country.


Computerworld: Can the U.S. achieve the same level of efficiency and success in weeding out terrorists from legitimate travelers as El Al airlines has had?

Yeffet: We can do it. We don't have magicians in Israel. We have people like you and me. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on technology and finding Osama bin Laden, give me a small percentage of that and I will show you what kind of security we can have in this country. At Continental Airlines at Newark Airport, to see their adoption of El Al's security program for all flights to Tel Aviv and Amsterdam, it cost them money. But they recognized that money is important but life is more important.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 22, 04 | 10:14 am |
| [2] comments (1399 views) |  | Permalink | [1052] TrackBack |

---

If you're a leftish Democrat, be afraid, very afraid

Steven Den Beste lays out the Republican election strategy

This post provides relief to those jittery conservatives watching the daily polls. But the other large issue facing the Republicans is wresting control of the Senate away from the Democrats, and that means winning a filibuster-proof majority. Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to use the filibuster and every other weapon at their disposal to thwart the expressed will of the people.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 22, 04 | 9:31 am |
| [1] comments (1430 views) |  | Permalink | [169] TrackBack |

---

More thoughts on Berger-gate

What was Berger after?

Berger was apparently tasked with selecting Clinton era documents for presentation to the 9/11 Commission. He seems to have been particularly interested in the after action reports written by Richard Clarke after the Millennium bomber was caught, including the drafts. Was there something different between two drafts that Berger didn't want anyone to see? Perhaps there was a recommendation to tighten airport security that got deleted by the final draft. After all, Berger and Clarke should have known that the FBI had been warned back in 1995 of terrorist plans to bomb US buildings using hijacked aircraft. If Berger had asked Clarke to delete that recommendation, then Berger would look very bad in front of the 9/11 Commission; so bad, in fact, that Berger would risk everything to prevent that information, or similarly damning information, from getting out.

Generally, investigators are usually more interested in the final form of a report rather than the drafts that led up to it. In this case, a comparison of the changes made from draft to draft might be very revealing about Berger's motives.

Update:

Mystery writer Roger Simon has more insights, especially on the fact that the drafts contained hand-written notes from Clinton era officials:

Versions of the millenium review supposedly had handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials... hmm... Now that just about puts the kibosh on the idea that these documents were merely copies, doesn't it? (Unless those unnamed officials wrote the same note on all the copies, about as likely as your reading this post standing on one foot with a bust of DeGaulle on your head). And some of the copies are still missing.

Was Berger spending all that time rummaging through those documents, taking them out of the building twice, etc., to find and get rid of one or two or three notations scrawled in the margins?

Posted by: Pat on Jul 22, 04 | 8:47 am |
| [0] comments (1341 views) |  | Permalink | [2765] TrackBack |

---

Wed Jul 21, 2004

Head in the Sand Multiculturalists

Forgetting History and Unlearning the Hard Lessons of Time

Take a look at this article that discusses a phenomenon that disregards history:

Multiculturalism rests on the supposition—or better, the dishonest pretense—that all cultures are equal and that no fundamental conflict can arise between the customs, mores, and philosophical outlooks of two different cultures. The multiculturalist preaches that, in an age of mass migration, society can (and should) be a kind of salad bowl, a receptacle for wonderful exotic ingredients from around the world, the more the better, each bringing its special flavor to the cultural mix. For the salad to be delicious, no ingredient should predominate and impose its flavor on the others.

Now, in order to believe that all people are basically the same and can all 'just get along', one must completely disregard history's lessons. One must even fail to recall such recent events as the massacre in the Balkans, which by the way, has a long and well documented history of not getting along. One must ignore the Sudan and Middle East, forget terrorism and religious fanatics, and completely misinterpret the various ethnic, religious, and race wars throughout time. Come on, How can these multiculturalists actually believe that mixing various peoples of various races who have various religions while speaking different languages is a recipe for peace on earth? Maybe it's true, it takes a truly intelligent person to be truly dumb. Such grand ideas are delusions in this, the current, real world. So how, I ask you, how can any rational person suggest that mixing completely different peoples together in a society such as ours be a good thing? In the best case, like our own country's past, these various peoples managed to learn the common language and assimilate themselves into the host society. However, this is not generally the case and it is even less likely to result in a successful society when the 'great thinkers' suggest such things as teaching immigrant children in their native language instead of teaching them the English they would need to communicate effectively in society. Some times I must admit, I just don't get it. Do you? What possible good can come of a society that has various peoples who cannot effectively communicate with other groups? I'll tell you what good, none. Well head on over and read all of this article. Then the next time you run across a 'multiculturalist' tell them to get their head out of their..... sand and get R.E.A.L.

Posted by: Randall on Jul 21, 04 | 10:31 pm |
| [0] comments (1349 views) |  | Permalink | [329] TrackBack |

---

Mr. Berger should remember, it's the cover-up that gets you

Berger's answers are not exactly enlightening and many questions remain

Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic Online asks a very interesting question:

But Berger did run the Kerry foreign policy team at the writing of the Democratic Party platform a few weeks ago (when the only opposition, easily pacified, came from a handful of Dennis Kucinich loyalists) and has been deeply involved in crafting how the candidate presents himself on these issues. So my question is: Did Berger, who knew that he was under scrutiny since last fall, alert Kerry to the combustible fact that he was the subject of a criminal probe by the Justice Department and the FBI? My guess is not. Kerry is far too smart, too responsible to have kept him around had he known. But if Kerry didn't know, it tells you a lot about Berger, too much, really.

According to Michael Kirkland at UPI:

Berger said as soon as he was told by the archives that there were documents missing, "I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."

What sort of a former National Security Advisor accidentally discards highly classified documents that shouldn't have been in his possession in the first place? Since the FBI's search of his premises did not turn up the documents, one is left to conclude they went out in the trash or ended up in someone else's hands.

Apparently, the documents in question were the after action reports written by Richard Clarke for Berger after the Millenium bomber was caught. Why was Berger so fixated on these documents? Did they cast him and/or his boss in a bad light?

Who leaked the fact that Berger was under investigation and why? If it was a Republican, then outing Berger now might have been premature; better to do it when Kerry is being pressed on foreign policy issues at the height of the campaign. And that might explain why a Democrat would do it now; take the early hit and let the story peter out as media coverage shifts to the release of the 20/20 Hindsight commission report and the Democrat convention.

And the most important question still remains. Why didn't the FBI debrief Berger?

Posted by: Pat on Jul 21, 04 | 9:26 pm |
| [1] comments (1507 views) |  | Permalink | [160] TrackBack |

---

Ironic Twist on Environmental Matters

Head Scratcher of the Day

Talk about your ironies, how's this:

TULSA - Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at his home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him.

Hmmmm.

Posted by: Randall on Jul 21, 04 | 9:30 am |
| [2] comments (1683 views) |  | Permalink | [1938] TrackBack |

---

Tue Jul 20, 2004

Terror in the skies

Updates on Annie Jacobsen's flight of the Syrians

Donald Sensing and other bloggers surmise that the Syrian band was Kulna Sawa, which will apparently be touring the US in November. Their site is swamped so I can't confirm.

The lead singer is a woman and Jacobsen doesn't mention a woman amongst the 14 men.

According to a transcript of an interview with the band:

Last December we did a tour in Syria, four concerts, the audience were about 6-8 thousand people and it was for raising money for the wounded people of the Intifada, and we gave the money to the Red Cross so they can deliver the money in their own way to the people in Palestine.

That might be the right thing to do in Syria but it puts them on the wrong side in the war on Radical Islam. Palestinian terrorists have been known to ride around in Red Cross ambulances, for example.

Whether or not this is the band on the flight remains an open question. Be that as it may, if the passengers had observed the Syrians getting a thorough vetting instead of a free pass, then they would not have been scared stiff by the bizarre behaviour of the group. And if the Syrians really were bad guys, a thorough vetting would have caught them, just as it would have on 9/11.

(Links to interview and woman found in comments at LGF)

Update: I got to their site. They look like a commercial group and the band includes Christians. I don't think they'd go through the bathroom prayer ritual that some bloggers thought explained the strange behaviour that Annie Jacobsen observed.

Update: Turns out to have been Syria's answer to Wayne Newton, according to NRO.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 20, 04 | 2:38 pm |
| [1] comments (1442 views) |  | Permalink | [177] TrackBack |

---

What's wrong with the UN?

Look at the post that Sudan recently won in the UN

Mark Steyn includes this little tidbit:

The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.

The Sudanese representative, by the way, immediately professed himself concerned by human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Talk about oxymorons! Sudan and Human Rights? Zimbabwe and Human Rights? Dictatorships and Human Rights? Maybe the UN should dig up Hitler, Stalin and Mao and give them honorary seats on the UN Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 20, 04 | 1:38 pm |
| [2] comments (1532 views) |  | Permalink | [157] TrackBack |

---

What goes around, comes around

Lefty Liars Litter Electoral Landscape

First up, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. For a complete demolition, see Just One Minute for starters. How longer will the Kerry campaign keep Mr. Wilson as an advisor?

Then we have Tom Daschle's alleged hugger, the repellant Michael Moore, whose "documentary" has been carefully dissected by Dave Kopel. That hasn't stopped Kerry's Hollywood supporters from lionizing him.

Richard Clarke, author and former top counter terrorism honcho had has 15 minutes of fame before the 20/20 Hindsight Commission and on the talk shows. Powerline does a nice job of eviscerating him.

Now we have Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor in hot water for taking classified documents home in his pants and other hiding places. Could it be that one of those documents shows Berger advising against taking Osama when Clinton had the chance? Just a guess. Will this Kerry advisor say on the Democrat's dream team?

Kerry himself is a notorious flip-flopper on the issues, especially the war on Saddam. It won't help his campaign to have so many liars, leakers and document mishandlers closely linked to his campaign.

Posted by: Pat on Jul 20, 04 | 9:41 am |
| [0] comments (1553 views) |  | Permalink | [155] TrackBack |

---

Mon Jul 19, 2004

KuKuByrd Defends Kerry's War Vote

Someone Pulled the Sheet er, Wool Over His Eyes

Sheets Byrd, aka KuKuByrd, was on with Russert over the weekend. Not having the necessary requisites to sit through the entire ordeal I only managed to catch one important question for the former Grand Wizard Senate leader. That question involved something from KuKu's book that attributed horrible attributes to anyone who voted to authorize the Iraq war. When questioned as to how he felt about the current Democratic president and VP candidates having been among the devils who had the audacity to vote for this 'atrocious' war, Byrd excused them by invoking ignorance and suggesting that they were fooled. Well, maybe so, but this duped vote doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the desperate duo's abilities. Though hard left peaceniks and other liberal wonders may indeed excuse this 'mistaken' vote by laying all the blame on the morons diabolical minds of the Bush administration, such a sell will be much harder with most Americans with a functioning brain. I mean, come on, 'They were dumb and got suckered' won't go over well in any quarter. If one disregards the 'dumb' theory then there is the other problem with Kerry's position of seeking France's and Kofi's permission to go to war and getting international backing instead of 'going it alone'. That idea is another loser, especially given the current clear pictures floating around of the real U.N. and real France. Perhaps Kerry can really doom Bush by coming out hard against Iran and promising to take out the Mad Mullahs if he is elected president. But I don't know, Lurch just doesn't fit the image of a tough American leader who will do what needs doing.

Also reported in this earth shattering interview was this bit of info and a suggestion by KuKuByrd that Kerry really doesn't truly madly really really dislike all coal, just the dirty kind. He further predicted that Kerry might just maybe be able to carry West Virginia, despite his stated dislike for coal, by getting down and dirty with some local miners and sharing their values. To accomplish such a feat the Wizard disclosed Kerry's intention of really truly completely sharing the values of coal miners by doing a day's work in the mines with the people in doubt. Here's a picture taken during top secret training session in preparation for the value sharing mission:
Read more »

Well, this picture could be a fake and/or some kind of deception by the old massah himself but who am I to question such a fine upstanding Kleagle man of KuKu's caliber, uh, stature. Then again, it might be from Kerry's spring trip where he actually did go down in the mines while catering to the union vote. But surely, truly, that can't be real coal dust on the senator's face? Must be some kind of Hollywood magic trick intended to fool the gullible masses into believing that Kerry actually understands what its like to have to do a day's work in the mines.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the most well named famous radio talk show host in American history, reports this from the grand meeting:

"Yes, he can carry West Virginia. He'll carry West Virginia if he continues to stand up for the liberties of the people," Byrd said.

So there you have it, straight from the mouth of Sheets Byrd his own self. Kerry can win West Virginia despite the fact that he opposes an industry that West Virginians depend on for their livelihoods. Throw in Byrd's revelation regarding the reason Kerry and Edwards voted for the war and West Virginians should be chomping at the bit to vote in a Massachusetts liberal eco warrior and his sidekick, the Tarheel Ambulance Chaser who were too dumb to see through the diabolical deception of the Bushies. Yessir, KuKu is living up to his reputation with this one and proving once again that he is among the best and brightest that the Democrats have to offer. But hey, what else did you expect from the Grand One? Now why do you suppose nobody nominated KuKu for the Democratic candidate? Given his apparent intelligence it would seem to be a natural choice and much better that the deludedduo currently on the ticket. Think about it, KuKu and Teddy as the Dem nominees. It just has that ring to it. Maybe, just maybe we have a big surprise awaiting at the Boston LoveFest.
Head on over to Rush's place if you dare and read the rest of the sordid tale. IF anyone can find the actual transcript for this interview please reply in the comments to this post. I'm sure JohnJohn would love to spread the word that KuKuByrd is among the fine, outstanding individuals and groups who have cast their lot with the DesperateDuo and fully, completely, really, really endorses them.


« Collapse

Posted by: Randall on Jul 19, 04 | 8:36 pm |
| [3] comments (1598 views) |  | Permalink | [156]