Judicious Asininity

This is the Archive Page. Click Here for Main Page

Sun Oct 31, 2004

Lifestyles of the (formerly) Rich and Infamous

Snaps from one of Saddam's palaces

Check this link out. Note this picture, in particular, which is shown in better detail at Mudville Gazette. The link came from the comments.

Amazing what you can buy with a little help from the UN.

Osama is a Democrat

From the mainstream Moore/Carter/Kerry wing

According to MEMRI, Osama said:

"This resemblance began with the visit of Bush Sr. to the region. While some of our people were dazzled by the U.S. and hoped that these visits would influence our countries, it was he who was influenced by these monarchic and military regimes. He envied them for remaining in their positions for decades, while embezzling the nation's public funds with no supervision whatsoever. He bequeathed tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his son and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of the war on terrorism.

"Bush Sr. liked the idea of appointing [his] sons as state governors. Similarly, he did not neglect to import into Florida the expertise in falsifying [elections] from the leaders of this region in order to benefit from it in difficult moments.

My bold.

Do good Democrats like the Patriot Act? No. Nor does Osama.

Do good Democrats think Bush stole the election in Florida? Yes. So does Osama.

There you have it. Osama is just another victim from the 70's wanting a better world. Doesn't that describe the leading Democrat, Senator John F. Kerry?

Of course, one reason Osama doesn't like Bush is because Bush is beating him. Come Tuesday evening, John Kerry will feel the same way for the same reason.

And all Kerry will be able to say is, "Thanks, Osama. That video was a great help."

Osama's October Surprise

Surprise, surprise, the media is not giving us the full story

Hindrocket at Powerline has more. Key point from MEMRI:

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

Hey, Ohio, Florida, and all you swing states: Osama wants you to vote Kerry.

Ohio Voters - Look for Tort Reforming Judges

Medical Malpractice Premiums are out of control in Ohio

I've covered this topic in a previous post critical of John Edwards.

Here's part of the ruling that blocked tort reform in Ohio:

The Ohio Supreme Court issued its ruling on August 16, 1999 holding Am. Sub. House Bill 350 unconstitutional in its entirety in State ex. rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, Case No. 97-2419. The vote was 4-3, with Justices Douglas, Pfeifer, Resnick and Sweeney in the majority.

Justice Resnick wrote the majority opinion and Justice Pfeifer wrote a separate concurring opinion. Chief Justice Moyer and Justice Lundberg Stratton each wrote separate dissenting opinions and each concurred with the other's dissenting opinion. Justice Cook concurred with both dissenting opinions.

None of those justices finding for the trial lawyers is standing for election in 2004.

Chief Justice Moyer (R) is standing and should be the first choice of anyone interested in tort reform since he dissented in that crucial ruling.

His Democrat oponent, C. Ellen Connally (D) is an activist judge ("I bring a Democratic perspective").

Judith Lanzinger (R) holds that judges should interpret, not rewrite the law. Say yes to her.

Nancy Fuerst (D) claims she "is no rubber stamp for the legislature". Another activist judge.

Terence O'Donnell (R) is the incumbent.

William O'Neill (D) seems to think it is the court's job to figure out school funding. Another activist judge.

Voting a straight Republican ticket will be the first step towards tort reform in Ohio.

It's all about leadership

Osama knows it

The WPO has a reasonably balanced piece contrasting the leadership styles of the two men.

Back last summer, John F. Kerry made an observation that struck him and his partisans as so self-evidently true it could hardly be disputed. The Democratic nominee said the U.S. intervention in Iraq so far has done more to recruit terrorists than to defeat them.

President Bush reacted with a disdain and disbelief that no one who heard it could doubt was genuine. "I don't think they need an excuse for their hatred and their evil hearts. You do not create terrorists by fighting back; you defeat the terrorists by fighting back."

Very perceptive quotation. Now look at Osama's latest tape. Is he appealing to Kerry or Bush? It shouldn't take more than a nanosecond to figure out that Osama isn't happy with Bush and would like a little respite. He says:

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

Kerry might interpret that as a sign that dealing with Al Qaeda would reduce terrorism to a nuisance value. Bush would interpret that as indicating that Osama is on the run and now is the time to press the battle.

Sat Oct 30, 2004

A dangerous assumption by pro-war Kerry proponents

That we would unite the pro-war Democrats and Republicans in the War on Terror

Some of Slate's slate of experts make this assumption.

That assumption ignores Kerry's two constituencies within the Democratic party. On the one hand, you have centrist Democrats who will do what needs to be done to stay in power. If that means whacking bad guys, such as Osama, then they'll whack bad guys. On the other hand, you have the Jimmy Carter/Howard Dean/Michael Moore wing of the party that wants to stop the War on Terror yesterday. Kerry's instincts, which have barely changed since he met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris, places him fair and square on the other hand. Satisfying both factions inside his own party means that he will waffle the talk, and miff the walk. Instead of policy, we'll get polity. Instead of doctrine, we'll get doubt.

If Kerry wins then he will become Jimmy Carter's dim-witted heir, and the Republicans will loathe him even more. Unity? Not a chance. And he'll suffer the same fate as Carter -- a one term disaster.

If Bush wins, he'll have a united party behind him and the grudging respect of the Democrat centrists who will blame the anti-war left for Kerry's loss.

So, where's Hillary? Stumping hard for Kerry? No. Waiting to pick up the pieces? Yes.

Your Choice, America

European Style Self-Deception versus Hard Realities

Wretchard sums up the choice offered to Americans come Tuesday:

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

It is difficult to imagine a scenario whereby Americans put their faith in Osama instead of dealing with the very real threat he and his ideology represents. Then again, one look at much of Europe's head in the sand attitude regarding global terrorism gives good reason to be concerned that we may indeed succumb to the illusion of security that depends on the promises of a madman. Well, such a desperate acquiescence to lunatics has a poor track record and has generally resulted in the United States having to save the ostriches of Euroland from their own mistaken concepts of reality. No, I don't believe America will decide to trust Osama with their future. I could be wrong, but such a suicidal attitude goes against the grain of everything that has made this country great. We may has mutated over time and many of our citizens may have converted to Kofism, but the majority still understand that there are simply some people, some governments, and some ideologies that cannot be tolerated if we intend to remain free. They understand that the only course of action when confronted with a rabid dog is to destroy it, rather than leave it to find another victim. Your choice America: Kill the rabid dogs of the world or join Europe and hope that the dog leaves you alone and bites someone else. Choose wisely.

Fri Oct 29, 2004

Election Predictions

Bush easily

First the caveat. The Democrats and Soros financed allies have invested heavily in registering doubtful voters. Clinton appointed judges have blocked challenges to these activities. Democrat lawyers are prepared to fight a hunded Floridas if the election is anywhere near close. So, the Democrats are already prepared to steal the election.

Despite that, I believe Bush will win easily. Here's why:

The polls have started swinging in Bush's direction.

The Republican effort in 2002, when everyone predicted they would lose seats in both houses, shows they can get out the vote when it matters. Bush's campaigning helped swing it back then. And he's stumped well. I think 2002 is a better indicator than 2000.

Kerry has a poor record. His senate record is mediocre. The Swiftvets hurt him right where he was most vulnerable - Vietnam. The flip-flop label has stuck.

Kerry is a poor candidate. He doesn't appeal to security moms or manly men. His super-rich (by widowhood) wife is no First Lady. He simply doesn't connect with ordinary Americans and looks goofy when he tries.

The Kerry/CBS/NYT October surprise blew up, literally.

And then Osama popped up just five days before the election to remind everyone what the election is about. Talking points from Fahrenheit 9/11 won't turn any sane person off Bush.

Bush will win most states in play, with the possible exception of my home state, Ohio.

Oh, and I think Thune will beat Daschle. I sure hope so.

Osama lives

Maybe Kerry can go negotiate with him

The latest tape could well be genuine. The fact that Osama names Kerry indicates that it it is a 2004 production. Not even Osama could have predicted Kerry would be the Democrat candidate back in 2001.

Add Al-Qaqaa to the list of Ten Worst media distortions of 2004

It fits a consistent pattern

The Media Research Center lists the The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004. They can add another one to the list; the Al-Qaqaa missing explosives October surprise.

Fox has covered the revelation that the US Military destroyed 200+ tons. The other networks are slower following up the story. What a surprise.

Jane Galt's endorsement

Well worth reading for her reasoning

I disagree with her on a few points. Iraq is not the disaster that the MSM depicts. It is in better shape one year out than Japan and Germany were one year after WW2 ended. And the War on Radical Islam is still ongoing. Iraq is going to get a lot better in the next three months as the Sunni triangle is brought under control and the Iraqi elections take place. I don't think Rumsfeld should have resigned over Abu Ghraib. The SOD is not personally responsible for relatively minor abuses inflicted by a few bad soldiers. But she does a nice job of weighing the issues. Go check it out.

Kerry's October surprise blows up in his face

The military removed 200 tons of explosives from Al-Qaqaa

Fox News reports:

A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday and said a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munititions and military material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) munitions base soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell last year.

Explosives were included in the load taken by the team but Major Austin Pearson said he was unable to say what percentage it accounted for. The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps to explain what happened to 377 tons of explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after Saddam Hussein's regime fell.

A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged they don't have all the answers and can't yet account for all of the missing material but he said it was a signficant development in unraveling the mystery.

Does this mean Kerry was wrong about Bush's competence? Yep. And the NYT? Yep. And CBS? Yep. Will they apologize? Not a hope in hades.

Thu Oct 28, 2004

The New Soldier by John Kerry

Junkyard blog relates this Vietnam era Kerry book to the man running for President

Read Preston's great post in full. He closes with a list of questions that Kerry can never publicly answer:

Why did John Kerry collaborate with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong during and after he met with them in Paris in 1971? Why did he smear all American soldiers who fought in Vietnam as "war criminals?" Why did he favor nuclear freeze and oppose peace through strength? Why did he oppose the first Gulf War, which of all wars should surely have passed his "global test?" Why does he believe in a global test in the first place? Why is he out there drumming up fears of a draft to undermine support for the war? And why is he now smearing our troops in Iraq based on a bogus story from a highly biased source?

Preston has the answer, though:

Because that's who he is. That is John Kerry's character, and those are his beliefs. The New Soldier shows us that his character and beliefs have changed little since his radical days of helping our enemies defeat us. It warns us that he is not to be trusted with the power of the presidency.

Wed Oct 27, 2004

Kerry will need to reintroduce the draft

The reason is very simple

Very few military people would voluntarily serve under Kerry if he was Commander-in-Chief.

Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry is based on a lie

The lie is that war in Iraq is going badly and it's all Bush's fault

If Sullivan believes that "I still believe that [Bush's] decision [to go to war against Saddam]was the right one" then how could he vote for a man who would never have made that decision? Sullivan makes much of Bush's incompetence in prosecuting the war.

The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam. And the refusal to send more troops both at the beginning and throughout the occupation remains one of the most pig-headed acts of hubris since the McNamara era.

As the Dalfour report made clear, Saddam had preserved the capability of making WMD once sanctions and inspections were lifted. Under Kerry's multilateral approach, sanctions would have collapsed and the inspectors would not have gone back in. Bingo, the gathering threat would have become an imminent threat.

The lack of stockpiles should be no great surprise. Saddam had 18 months to hide, move or destroy any stockpiles. As the current missing explosives flap makes clear, a lot of stuff is still unaccounted for and we still don't know what got shipped to Syria.

The insurgency would not have occurred had the original battle plan been followed. Thanks to our good friends, the French, the Turks were pressured into preventing an invasion from the North. Had that happened, the centers of the insurgency would have been crushed with the full weight of American military power. As it happened, the regular Iraqi army was quickly defeated before American forces advanced into the Sunni triangle. While the insurgency has dominated the headlines, it has only had an impact in the Sunni triangle, Sadr City and Najaf. The rest of Iraq has been relatively stable. Bush has always said that he would take the advice of his commanders. They said they had enough troops. They have. The only questionable decision Bush made was not to crush Fallujah and Sadr when he could. He certainly had the forces to do it.

No war goes according to plan. The US has lost 1000 brave men and women liberating a country of 20 million people. During WW2, the Allies lost nearly that many men in a training accident before D-Day. They lost more in an hour on D-day than in a year in Iraq. The complete lack of perspective about the uncertainty of war is staggering.

But look what didn't happen. The oil fields were not set ablaze. The Gulf was not flooded with oil. Refugees did not stream out of Iraq in the millions. The coalition did not lose 50,000 troops. Relatively few Iraqis died; less than in an average year under Saddam. Iraq has not erupted into a full scale civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.

Sullivan also cites his favorite criticism of the war:

Abu Ghraib. In one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow.

That merits a one word response: CRAP. Nobody got massacred. No pregnant women got raped before their husbands and slashed to death afterwards. Nobody got gassed. Nobody got fed to wild animals. Nobody got killed and returned to their families in pieces. Nobody had limbs removed. A few out-of-control soldiers abused a few prisoners and the US military dealt with them. What a shallow, silly man is our man Sullivan.

Sullivan asks

Could they have run a worse war?

Well, yes. They could have followed JFK and LBJ and micro-managed Vietnam into an American defeat.

But more importantly, the Bush team did not run from war. Carter ran from Iran. Reagan ran from Lebanon. Bush Senior snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Clinton ran from Somalia and ignored the gathering threat of Al Qaeda.

Bush doesn't run. Kerry will first chance he gets.

Hindrocket at Powerline gets to the heart of the case against Kerry:

It's deja vu all over again. American troops are winning on the ground, but we are losing on the critical home front. And the man leading the effort to demoralize Americans and blind them to the success the military is enjoying is, once again, John Kerry.

Tue Oct 26, 2004

Senator Kerry would never have made the mistakes that Bush made in Iraq

He has the perfect strategy honed in 20 years of Senate service

The WSJ Opinion Journal notes that Kerry is claiming that he would have fought the war in Iraq more competently than Bush:

A week before Election Day, John Kerry and his allies have once again changed their line of attack on Iraq. The issue isn't any longer whether we should have fought the war at all ("wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"), it is that the Senator would fight it with more "competence."

The peg for this line is yesterday's story that a stockpile of explosives was stolen from under the Coalition's nose in Iraq. This is certainly bad news and looks like a blunder. But what is it precisely that the Kerry campaign is asserting? That if it were running the war, mistakes would never be made? That amid the fog of war, and facing a determined enemy, nothing bad ever happens?

Implicit in this accusation is the assumption that the Bush Administration has faced a series of easy decisions in Iraq, and somehow blown them all.

Senator Heinz-Sight Kerry has shown over his Senate career that the safest strategy is to never take a leadership position on any issue and never promote a cause that might be unpopular. That way, you can never make a mistake.

From that vast experience, where he has followed a plan based on doing virtually nothing, and made virtually no mistakes, he has concluded he is virtually infallible. Thus, when he actually does something, like leading the nation, he will make no mistakes. Uh huh.

Addendum: The missing explosives story has been blown out of the water by NBC as reported by CNN. Oops. Maybe the Senator needs to reassess his infallibility and apologize. Yeah, right.

Mon Oct 25, 2004

Kerry is the Walter Mitty candidate

His lies inflate his self-importance

It seems to be a recurring pattern.

As Powerline Blog explains, Kerry claimed on multiple occasions that he was in Cambodia on Xmas eve in 1968. When that lie was exposed, Kerry's campaign tried to claim that he was there on a later date.

Then there is the story of the magic hat, given to Kerry by a CIA operative who Kerry was ferrying to Cambodia on his Swift boat. The Weekly Standard has this quote:

"KERRY WENT into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions," historian Douglas Brinkley told the London Telegraph last week. "He had a run dropping off U.S. Navy Seals, Green Berets, and CIA guys. . . . He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

Not only is the claim a lie, but it is an inflated lie, a genuine Walter Mitty lie.

Then we have the Boston Marathon claim. It's hard to run a marathon. It's dishonest to do it without registering for the event. It's dishonorable to claim to have run a marathon when one didn't. But our Walter Mitty claimed he'd run Boston. You would think a man who reenacted battle scenes in Vietnam for his own movies would have some memento of doing so; a solid recollection of the date and his time. But not Kerry. It's that fantasy thing again.

Now we find his claims to have spoken to the entire Security Council in the lead up to the Iraq war was yet another fantasy. Yep, the entire Security Council sat down and discussed the issue with the do-nothing junior Senator from Massuchusets. Polipundit has this Kerry quote from the Boston Globe:

“Secondly, I spent a lot of time before the vote looking at this issue. I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions. The French ambassador, “Is there a time when President Chirac would be ready to come on board? What do we need to do to move the French people to a place where they understand the stakes? Are you prepared to spend money? Do you believe we might have to use force in order to disarm Saddam Hussein? At what point would you be ready to do that?” I went through that with all of them. And I left there convinced that the U.N. was prepared to be deadly serious about this.”

That's a lie with the familiar Walter Mitty inflation factor. I wonder if those "friends" will come forward and vouch for Kerry.

Sun Oct 24, 2004

The NYT admits Bush probably brighter than Kerry

That will be a shock to its readership

Read the NYT story here here

The real choice is between determination and ambition. Bush has displayed sufficient resolution to win this difficult war on radical Islam. Kerry has shown that he is so ambitious that he will undermine his country ("wrong war, wrong time, wrong place") while the war is in progress to win the presidency. So, what's new?

Sat Oct 23, 2004

Seeing the MSM's true colors

Reality TV when Swiftie John O'Neill meets MSNBC Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell

I don't think I've ever seen a more out-of-control guest on a news show. Michelle Malkin has the goods. In my TV viewing history the only competition was an interview with Muhammad Ali on the Don Lane show in Australia. This was a live show back in the late 70's and Lane's co-host Bert Newton made a major faux pas. After Muhammad made a nice come-back, Newton said "I like the boy". Big mistake. Muhammad , not quite understanding that "boy" did not have the same connotations as it had in the US, especially when used by white guys talking to black dudes, took offense. He started circling the set chasing down the hapless Newton, all 5' 2" of him, his fist raised to take Newton's head off. Newton, trying to recover, started saying, "I didn't say boy, I said Roy, I like you Roy". Muhummad wasn't quite buying that and continued lumbering after Newton until Lane managed to settle things down. Newton did not work on TV for a long time after that little incident.

A quick Google turned up this abbreviated account, but you'll have to read through a bunch of anecdotes to find it.

The Hell of Fringe Beliefs

Reality Demands Camouflage Among the Over-Civilized

John Hawkins of Right Wing News covers a variety of different topics in three sentences or less. Here's one snippet:

You need proof that liberalism has lost the war on ideas with conservatism? Consider that John Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate, is doing hunting photo-ops and speeches on his "faith". You don't see George Bush visiting abortion clinics, visiting the NAACP, or hanging out with anti-war protestors do you?

No sir, I don't believe Bush has resorted to the chameleonism that appears to have become so popular among certain political persuasions. It must be hell to have to hide your real beliefs because they are so far from the mainstream. Of course, liberals like Kerry can take some consolation by holding on to the belief that most Americans are dumb and liberals are simply on a higher intellectual plane. But hey, with Hollywood's finest available for coaching chores Kerry and friends are in good hands when it comes to projecting illusions of common sense in their quest to befuddle the ignorant masses.

Russia Running a Kyoto Scam??

Playing the Gullible for Fools

While the election is getting all the press Kyoto proponents have cleared a big hurdle by gaining Russia's preliminary agreement to the protocol. But.....there are strong reasons to believe that Putin and Russia may be setting up to pull the wool over the gullible who actually believe, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that Russia or any of the other countries who have agreed to this economically damaging pact would willingly commit fiscal suicide by actually abiding by the terms of the questionable accord. That leaves one to wonder: why would Russia come on board? The answer is probably obvious, but in their zeal to garner sufficient companions in misery the accord's pushers are missing it.:

While Putin's decision has received enthusiastic applause from the global environmental community, it also has touched off widespread speculation about his motives.

Did he react to a combination of relentless pressure and outright bribes from the United Kingdom, France and Germany - Kyoto's most ardent supporters in the European Union?

Was he seeking to avert Western eyes from Russia's ruthless war against Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya and other nations along its far-flung southern borders?

Was he promised favored visa status for Russian citizens traveling to Western Europe or expedited action on Russia's pending membership in the World Trade Organization?

Those are just a few of the questions pundits here and abroad are posing in the wake of recent reports that Russia is ready to sign on Kyoto's dotted line.

But anyone who has followed Putin's rapid ascent through the ranks of KGB to the throne room of the Kremlin will search for another explanation.

The wily former spymaster may well be setting Kyoto's proponents up for one of history's grandest double-crosses by signing the treaty and grabbing the billions of dollars in promised payoffs with no intention of ever living up to its terms.

Indeed, does anyone actually believe that Russia would commit to the terms of Kyoto and suffer the economic consequences that accompany it? Well, if so, you may be interested in the U.N. plan to elect Kofi as king of the world. Then again, the economic consequences may not be detrimental but instead benefit Putin should he play the con right:

No one is his right mind thinks that Putin is stupid enough to actually believe that Russia will gain real benefits by scrupulously observing Kyoto's guidelines.

Indeed, his own economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov frequently has noted that Kyoto would "result in an economic holocaust for Russia." Illarionov calls the treaty a "broad-based assault" on economic growth, the environment and on "human civilization itself."

If Russia cynically proceeds to ratify Kyoto, however, the treaty would go into effect in signatory nations - an action that undoubtedly would have severe economic ramifications for the United States.

Yeah, there is that too. Perhaps this Kyoto thing is nothing more than another attack on the world's remaining superpower? Conspiracy theorists please respond with your best material.

Fri Oct 22, 2004

It's dirty pool time

Latest Moveon Advertisement using national press club footage is below the belt

The ad shows Bush making fun of the missing WMD issue. Those of us who saw the original broadcast in context saw it for what it was; a self-mocking joke at what was effectively a roast. It was borderline then, but to take it out of context and make it an election campaign advertisement is going too far. One thing is likely; Presidents will steer clear of such events in the future. Everything is fair game for the Democrats and their well funded 527s.

Saddam and Terror

A link to send to all your Democratic friends

Check it out:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I don't think the administration has been strong enough on the links between Saddam and the first Word Trade Center bombing. Had that succeeded as planned the death toll would have exceeded 9/11 by a factor of ten at least. But who responds to unsuccessful attacks, and how? Clinton used law enforcement, which let him avoid the question of state sponsorship. Doubtless, Kerry would do the same, despite 9/11.

Wed Oct 20, 2004

Kerry and Carter represent the "more sensitive" wing of the Democrats

What a pair

Presidential candidate and JFK wannabe, John F. Kerry claimed:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters picks up this gem from Jimmy Carter. He quotes the MSNBC program Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.

So there we have the philosophy of the very model of a modern Democrat President:

Prevent war, be more sensitive.

Of course, in Jimmy's ideal world, that'd be the Greater Canadian Prime Minister.

Steven den Beste thinks there is something fishy going on in the polls

It sure looks odd

Take a look at his analysis. Den Beste writes:

In my opinion, the polls were being deliberately gimmicked, in hopes of helping Kerry. In early August it looks as if there was an attempt to engineer a "post-convention bounce", but it failed and was abandoned after about two weeks. But I'm not absolutely certain about that.

The data for September, however, is clearly an anomaly. The data is much too consistent. Compare the amount of jitter present before September to the data during that month. There's no period before that of comparable length where the data was so stable.

The September data is also drastically outside of previous trends, with distinct stairsteps both at the beginning and at the end. And the data before the anomaly and after it for both Kerry and Bush matches the long term trendlines.

If I saw something like that in scientific or engineering data, I'd be asking a lot of very tough questions. My first suspicion would be that the test equipment was broken, but in the case of opinion polls there is no such thing. My second suspicion would be fraud.

In September, I think there was a deliberate attempt to depress Kerry's numbers, so as to set up an "October comeback". Of course, the goal was to engineer a bandwagon.

I'd like to see the individual polls that make up the series, to see which ones contribute most to the September "bulge". Rick, one of den Beste's contributors writes:

Take a look of the sampling on the Newsweek polls starting in the middle of August and running through today. I think you'll find it interesting.

Of course, if you don't have time to dig into it, let me sum up: They oversampled Republicans through most of September, then switched back to slightly oversampling Dems, as they feel there are more Democrats than Republicans nationwide.

I'm reminded of a little mental test our chemistry professor gave us many years ago. He showed us a graph showing the actual capacity of a large sample of 100ml pipettes (a glass tube used for the delivery of a measured quantity of liquids). The graph looked like a normal distribution cure, or bell curve, covering the range 95ml to 105ml. However, there was a huge hole in the center of the graph. What caused the hole? Click more to find out. Read more »

Blog comments are full of insight

Kerry simply does not understand this war

I liked this comment by Ron Cram in response to a post by Daniel Drezner explaining why he was tending to favor Kerry.

Kerry's criticism of Bush shows he does not understand the war on terror. Bush declared war on terror, not just Osama.

What Bush has done is made the terrorists unwelcome in the countries they usually use for refuge. Al Qaeda and other terrorists can no longer rest in Pakistan, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are Muslim countries the terrorists got support from in the past. Bush won these victories without firing a shot.

This is why the terrorists are fighting so hard for Iraq and Afghanistan. They are losing places where they can train and hide. They are losing financial support and they are losing face among Muslims. Everyday more Muslims in the Middle East speak out against terrorism. That was not happening at the start of the war.

If Kerry gets into office, and we cut and run, the terrorists will have won. Bush has made too much progress in the war to throw it all away now. Kerry does not understand the fight.

We knew a great deal about Osama in the 90s. But Clinton evidently thought an all out war at that stage was unwarranted, so he just fired cruise missiles at Osama. That was not effective. Bush rejected that strategy and famously said "I'm not going to shoot a $2 million cruise missile at a $10 pup tent just to hit a camel in the butt." Bush was determined to be win the war regardless of cost.

Bush's strategy is the only way to establish national security.

There are lots of armchair quarterbacks around. The Democratic Party is full of people who want to grouse and complain about Bush and the invasion of Iraq. After all, this is an election year. But the truth is, Bush has been far more successful than most people give him credit for. When you understand the war from a global perspective, you stop complaining about the invasion of Iraq because you can see how central is it to the total war on terror.

Tue Oct 19, 2004

The New York Times endorses John Kerry

No surprise there, but their case against Bush is fundamentally dishonest

Here's how they start making their case against Bush:

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

The Supreme Court voted to stop the Florida Supreme Court from changing Florida law to assist Gore. A number of news organizations, including the NYT, organized a comprehensive examination of uncounted ballots. Under most reasonable scenarios, including those that Gore and the Florida Supreme court wanted, Bush still won. Saying "the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency" repeats Democrat propaganda. Bush won a majority of votes in the electoral college. That is how the system works. As Bush himself said, if the election had been based on the popular vote, he would have campaigned differently. Voters would have responded differently, too. Non-voting Californian Republicans and Texas Democrats might well have voted if they thought that their vote would count. Look what happened in the Florida pan-handle when the networks prematurely called the election for Gore. Thousands of voters left the lines at the polling booths without voting. The NYT smear is without factual foundation.

Why should Bush have acknowledged any lack of mandate? Did JFK modify his policies even though he'd actually lost (sic) the popular vote? Of course not. Bush implemented his platform, not some mish-mash of both platforms. That was what he was elected to do. A close election is usually reflected in the house and senate. That is where the parties are forced to compromise.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

OK, so Bush is anti-abortion and against racial quotas. These positions are held by a significant proportion of the electorate. Ashcroft shares these positions, but he is neither a judge nor a legislator. He can't overturn Roe v. Wade or stop affirmative action.

It is odd that the NYT would label Bush's judicial nominees as "activist". Bush selected candidates who would interpret the constitution instead of legislating from the bench. The real issue for the NYT is that Bush won't use Roe v. Wade as a "litmus-test" for judicial nominees. Jews, Catholics and even Muslims would be ruled out of consideration if the NYT had its way.

Bush was the first President to authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He placed restrictions on the creation of new cell lines according to his conscience. To call that a clampdown is dishonest, as is the Kerry campaign's claims that allowing unfettered embryonic stem cell research would lead to cures for Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.

The next paragraph attacks Bush in Krugman-like terms.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

It's a funny thing but poor people have a lousy record as job creators and rich people have a good record. The more money you leave in a rich person's hands, the more likely they are to create jobs. Once the economy recovered from the bursting of the Clinton bubble and the 9/11 attacks, the economy starting growing and the jobs followed. Throwing rich people's money at Social Security would have minimal impact on that looming disaster. It is an inter-generational Ponzi scheme that can only be saved by moving from pay-as-you-go funding to a savings based system. Bush is prepared to do that. Kerry isn't. The Public educational system is a mess. The major reason for that is that it is a government monopoly run by the teacher's unions. That means zero productivity growth. The private sector has learned to do more with less in response to market forces. The school system hasn't. Bush's approach has exposed the system to a little competition and the system responds as it usually does, by screaming for more tax-money.

I searched the rest of their endorsement for these key words:

France
1441
Food
Blair
Elections
Sudan
Wilson
Sanctions

No hits. How can one discuss the war on Saddam without mentioning UNSC 1441?

The NYT claims that:

His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery.

That was Joe Wilson's claim. He has been proven a liar and the fact remains that Saddam had and was still trying to purchase yellowcake from Africa. As I've noted before, Saddam had 500 tons of the stuff ready to process once sanctions were lifted. You won't read about that in the NYT.

I've only touched a few of their points, so far. The rest are just as dishonest. Reading it makes the comments section at The Washington Monthly seem unbiased.

Mon Oct 18, 2004

What Bush could say

But has too much class to do so

From Chuck Muth:

In response to both Sen. Edwards and Sen. Kerry going out of their way
to bring up on national television the fact that Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay - and Mrs. Edwards saying that Mrs. Cheney must be “ashamed” of her daughter - News & Views reader Petty Thomas of Fort Worth raises an excellent point: “What would the Democrats have said if President Bush had noted that obesity is the new serious health danger, and had asked Sen. Edwards what his wife's reaction was to this problem?”

Sun Oct 17, 2004

Columbus Marathon update

I beat Bush

I beat Bush's marathon time at Columbus today. I qualified for the 2005 Boston marathon, which is a big deal amongst marathoners. Kerry won't beat Bush at marathoning or in this election no matter how much he cheats, lies and spins. Clueless and classless vs the real deal.

Best moment of the marathon - running past a group of Kerry supporters and giving them a well deserved one-fingered salute. I didn't have time to discuss Kerry's marathon record with them. If they knew what it was they should have been ashamed to festoon their section of the course with Kerry signs. (Edwards gets a pass on his marathon record -- but that's all he gets in my book)

Sat Oct 16, 2004

Dems Give Their All

Americans Still Not Buying

Victor Davis Hanson summarizes my own feelings about the nearing election:

John Kerry is probably going to lose this election, despite the "Vote for Change" rock tour, despite Air America, despite Kitty Kelley's fraud hyped on national media, despite Soros's MoveOn.org hit pieces, despite Fahrenheit 9/11, despite the Nobel Prizes and Cannes Film Awards, despite Rathergate and ABC Memogate, despite the European press, despite Kofi Annan's remonstrations, despite a barking Senator Harkin or Kennedy, despite the leaks of rogue CIA Beltway insiders, despite Jimmy Carter's sanctimonious lectures, despite Joe Wilson, Anonymous, and Richard Clarke — and more. You all have given your best shot, but I think you are going to lose.

Why? Because the majority of Americans does not believe you. The majority is more likely to accept George Bush's tragic view that we really are in a war for our very survival to stop those who would kill us and to alter the landscape that produced them — a terrible war that we are winning.

When all is said and done, it still is as simple as that.

That is exactly the way it should be and is in fact the way I believe this election will shake out. Bush will win re-election by a good margin, Republicans will gain seats in Congress, and Tom Daschle will contribute to that Senate gain. Then, after expending all their best shots the Dems will turn on their own and eat many of them. Then, Dems will be forced to look deeply at the problems that have driven their party far left of mainstream Americans and into the arms of the overcivilized who fail to see the dire nature of reality even when it slaps them in the face. Then, after a disastrous defeat, the surviving Democrats will be forced to make a choice: Wait for Americans to swing left to join the party or Swing right to join the heartland of this great country. A win-win situation for America. In a perfect world this would be what happens. In the current asylum where Democratic inmates vie with Kofi's kooks for control we will just have to wait and see. Pray that Americans issue the much needed wakeup call to the not so loyal opposition. I think they will, loudly.

Fri Oct 15, 2004

No blogging for a while

Got 26.2 miles to run in Columbus, Ohio

I really want to beat President Bush's time of 3:44 but probably not this time. That would qualify me for Boston, the marathon that Kerry claimed to have run sometime in the late 70's. His marathon tales have the same mythic quality as his Cambodia tales.

Andrew Sullivan is bonkers

How else to describe his twisted logic on Mary Cheney?

Here's what Sullivan said today:

And the Mary Cheney thing is a brilliant maneuver by the Republicans. Rove knows that most people do find mentioning someone's daughter's lesbianism to be distasteful and gratuitous. So he can work it to great effect, exploiting homophobia while claiming to be defending gays. Again: masterful jujitsu. I tip my hat to the guy. Poisonous, but effective.

So, did Cheney twist Edwards arm to get him to throw in the gratuitous reference to his daughter in the VP debate? And did Cheney follow that up by twisting Kerry's arm to make an even more gratuitous and sleazy reference? Because that's the implication of what Sullivan is saying. Without Edwards and Kerry's cooperation, there is no way to say that the flap over the Kerry team's sleazy exploitation of Mary Cheney is "a brilliant maneuver by the Republicans".

All this has proven is that Kerry and Edwards are utterly without class, taste, manners or a shred of common decency. For more proof, check out Krauthammer on Edwards.

The Kook test

This one is easy to score

Visit this post at Free Public. If you "feel" any of those statements is true, score one point.

Click more to see how you rank on the Kookie meter... Read more »

Thu Oct 14, 2004

Political Quiz

Kinda fun

Go here to take it. I scored a fruitcake and two Bushes.

Link found at Red Letter Day

Kerry has a "Litmus Test" for judges

That's not going to go down well with a lot of Catholics, Jews and Baptists

The Democrats have already demonstrated (Rick Santorum in Crisis magazine) that they will use any means possible, including unprecedented filibusters, to block the appointment of devout Catholic judges, like William Pryor, or Baptists, like Charles Pickering. Kerry confirmed that in the third debate and Bush nailed him on it:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, I want to go back to something Senator Kerry said earlier tonight and ask a follow-up of my own. He said — and this will be a new question to you — he said that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?

BUSH: What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test.
...
KERRY: Thank you very much.

Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.

I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today — under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

So I don't intend to see it undone.
...

BUSH: Two things. One, he clearly has a litmus test for his judges, which I disagree with.

In the Democrat mindset, a Judge should interpret the law according to their personal convictions. They cannot understand that a Judge is sworn to uphold the law no matter what his personal convictions. Quoting Santorum again,

But it doesn’t matter to Democrats that Judge Pickering affirmed in his hearings that he would follow the law and not his private beliefs on the sanctity of life. It doesn’t matter to Democrats that Pryor also has a solid record of enforcing the law and made a similar pledge to continue to apply the law as written, even when it differs from his personal views. Pryor’s record hasn’t stopped Democratic senators from leading a filibuster against him for his deeply held beliefs, as if Americans are better off if the Senate confirms judicial nominees with shallowly held beliefs.

For the record, I'm not religious and I am pro-choice, but only because outlawing abortion leads to worse outcomes than allowing it under strictly specified conditions. As this recent ABC poll shows, Americans are not split on the issue. Most take a middle position between the extremists who say abortions should never be performed through to those who say a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy the day before she is due. The Democrats are making a mistake by polarizing the electorate over abortion. The electorate is not split down the middle on this issue and neither is the Republican party. Two of its most popular figures, Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are pro-choice. Pro-choice voters know that their views are represented within the Republican party. Right-to-life voters now know that their deeply held convictions are anathema to the Democrat party.

First it was the "Global Test"

Now it's the "Truth Standard"

I think Bush won this exchange in the third debate:

My opponent, the senator, talks about foreign policy.

In our first debate he proposed America pass a global test. In order to defend ourselves, we'd have to get international approval. That's one of the major differences we have about defending our country.

I'll work with allies. I'll work with friends. We'll continue to build strong coalitions. But I will never turn over our national- security decisions to leaders of other countries.

We'll be resolute, we'll be strong, and we'll wage a comprehensive war against the terrorists.

SCHIEFFER: Senator?

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 I think it makes sense, I think most Americans in their guts know, that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard. That's how you gain legitimacy with your own countrypeople, and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world.

But I'll never fail to protect the United States of America.

BUSH: In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force.

Apparently you can't pass any test under his vision of the world.

There is no need to add to that. Bush hoisted Kerry on his own petard.

Wed Oct 13, 2004

Kerry could have stopped 9/11

If he'd taken any notice of extremely prescient warnings about security lapses at Logan airport

Junkyard Blog links to a story detailing how Senator John F. Kerry passed the buck when he was warned about severe security lapses at Logan Airport 4 months before 9/11. Quoting from the original NY Post article (with my bold):

Rewind to May 6, 2001. That night, a Boston TV station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints - including the very ones the 9/11 hijackers would later exploit.

The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures.

"With the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers?" he warned. "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely." The toll from such an attack would be economic, as well as human, he predicted with chilling accuracy.

Sullivan followed up by having the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.

More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.

Yet Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere. "The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," he told Kerry. Sullivan suggested he show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

But he never heard from Kerry again."

I guess Kerry didn't really have any plans for dealing with Jihadists despite his claims that he was the first to recognize the threat posed by terrorism. Of course, Heinz-sight is a selective skill. Imagine what Kerry would be saying had it been a Republican that ignored Sullivan's warning.

Tue Oct 12, 2004

Frontline has become a propaganda arm of the DNC

And the taxpayer is paying for it.

My wife stuck with Frontline's The Choice 2004 through to the end. I couldn't. I was in danger of throwing my dumbbells through the screen. The show purported to compare and contrast the two candidates from the Vietnam era through to the present. Oddly, about the only person they could find to say something good about Bush was his wife; the rest were all negative. They dragged out Bob Mintz of the "Texans for Truth" group to repeat his discredited claim that Bush shirked his TANG service when he transferred to Alabama. The fact that Mintz had contradicted himself on the issue in the past did not get past the cutting room floor. The fact that the White House released records showing Bush did his time at Alabama suffered the same fate. And so it went. Just as oddly, almost everyone speaking for Kerry was positive. Even the long discredited Winter Soldiers testimony was presented as the factual basis for Kerry's 1971 Congressional testimony. O'Neill was shown opposing Kerry back in 1971 and then smeared by associating him with Richard Nixon. It was about there that I gave up in disgust.

For balance PBS should be required to show "Stolen Honor". Won't happen, of course.

I figured out why I dislike John Kerry

He is not an honorable man

That's it.

No honorable man would accuse his comrades-in-arms of being war criminals when they were not.

No honorable man would meet with the enemy while still an officer in his country's military.

No honorable man would dishonor his Commander-in-Chief while Americans are dying in combat.

No honorable man would accept medals for minor injuries that were accidentally self-inflicted.

No honorable man would change his positions on issues of vital national security purely for political gain.

No honorable man would claim to have accomplished a difficult feat that he had not in fact accomplished.

I see no sense of honor in John Kerry. It is all the most crass opportunism designed to advance his political career and fulfill his narcissistic dream of becoming the second JFK. John F. Kennedy was an honorable man who truly defended his country. John F. Kerry is not.

Marathon Veterans for Truth

More information on Kerry's marathon "career"

From the Spectator:

When queried by e-mail about Senator Kerry's marathoning, Jack Fleming, the director of communications of the Boston Athletic Association gave the following response.

"It was reported (Summer 2004) to the B.A.A. by aides of the John F. Kerry campaign for President of the United States that the Democratic nominee ran the Boston Marathon in the late 1970s [1977, 1978 or 1979 most likely]. He reportedly ran as an unofficial entrant and finished the entire 26.2-mile race (i.e., without an official bib number); as an unofficial participant, his performance (name, place, time) would not appear among the official record or in any results book publication."

Don't you love that phrase "he reportedly ran"?

So, in other words, in the Summer of 2004, as questions about Senator Kerry's veracity grew, John Kerry's campaign aides contacted the Boston Athletic Association and told them that the Senator ran the race sometime in the "late 70s," but not officially, although he did finish, just that you didn't see him do it….honest.

By the way, for the record, in January of 1993, President Bush completed the Houston Marathon in exactly 3:44:52, a respectable 8:30 pace. You can look it up.

These days unofficial entrants are called bandits and are generally loathed because they steal resources paid for by official entrants.

The same article points to more tall stories by Kerry about his hunting experiences. And check out this NRA poster spotted by the Smallest Minority.

Judicious Search

Asinine Stats

Most Popular Entries

Archives

Syndicate RSS

News Links

Contact Form

Your Email

Subject

Message