WE ARE THE ONES YOUR NEWS ANCHOR WARNED YOU ABOUT
Welcome to the recruiting point of the conservative jihad movement. The mujahedeen responsible for this site is a 17-year-old from Iowa named Joel. The opinions promulgated at this site are as such: pro-life, pro-war, anti-affirmative action, pro-voucher system, pro-Patriot Act and pro-Bush. In other words, this is, ideologically, the Left's worst nightmare.
The Left has divided our country in a time a great trouble with lies about our president and our soldiers. Don't take it lying down. Join the political jihad.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].
October 28, 2005
Dark Times
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted today on charges of perjury, making a false statement to investigators and obstruction of justice in the course of an investigation of the leaking of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He did the honorable thing and resigned, and will soon be heading to trial.
Let me be very clear: if Libby is guilty, he should go to jail. No one is above the law. (The same goes for Tom DeLay.) But Democrats are trying to turn this case into something it is not.
- Democrat John Conyers of Michigan says, "Today�s indictments represent the beginning, but not the end, of the process of finally holding the Bush administration accountable for its conduct in foisting a pre-emptive war on this country."
- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: "At the heart of these indictments was the effort by the Bush administration to discredit critics of its Iraq policy with reckless disregard for national security and the public trust."
- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says that the case is "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! This case has very little to do with the justification for the war in Iraq, or even the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Libby wasn't even charged with leaking it, he was just charged with lying during the investigation of the leak.
Here's the real story. In 2002, Joseph Wilson IV was sent to Africa to investigate claims by the British government that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Wilson came back, said, nope, not true. The report did not change the CIA's views on the case at all, since they already had substantial evidence - from three separate European intelligence agencies, from French companies in Niger, from communications intercepts, and from the former prime minister of Niger. Also in the mix were some documents from an Italian journalist that purportedly lend credence to the claim, which later were found to be forgeries, although the rest of the evidence still stands today. So the claim went into the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, and eventually the President's 2003 State of the Union Address. Now, when Joseph Wilson sees the State of the Union Address, he gets all up in moral high dudgeon and says, "Well! I went to Niger, and I think I'm smarter than the combined analytical reserves of three European intelligence agencies and the CIA." So he starts shooting his mouth off, writing op-eds, getting a book deal, sending stories to the press. (Interestingly enough, he waited until six months after the State of the Union, and three months after the invasion of Iraq, to do this, which casts some doubt on his role as a protector of truth and justice.) Also, he develops a penchant for telling lies. He says his report was submitted right to the Vice President's office (lie), he says he found NO evidence of Iraq's attempts to buy uranium (lie - some parts of his reports actually bolstered the CIA's case), he says that his report changed the CIA's whole outlook (lie - it didn't change it a bit), and he says that HE PERSONALLY proved the Italian journalist's documents were forgeries (lie - he never even saw them.) He also says that his wife wasn't behind his trip to Niger. That was a lie too - she was the one who recommended him. So, naturally, someone in the Bush administration set out to set the record straight. Someone in the Bush administration - Rove, Libby, or someone else - told Matt Cooper of TIME Magazine, columnist Robert Novak and NY Times reporter Judith Miller that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked in the CIA and had recommended him for the trip.
Now Wilson is REALLY mad. He goes around saying "My wife is a covert CIA operative! Her identity was leaked! Her career was destroyed! Bush is trying to discredit me for telling the TRUTH!" Whatever, dude. It's not a crime to disclose a CIA agent's identity if he or she hasn't been undercover for five years. Valerie Plame was last undercover in 1997. Those with advanced math skills will realize that, by 2003, six years had past. Therefore, no crime was committed when Plame's name was leaked. And that WOULD explain why Libby wasn't charged with leaking her name, even though he probably did.
In sum, the Libby case has nothing to do with the justification for the Iraq war. That justification remains intact. Saddam Hussein was planning to build WMD, even if he didn't already have them. Saddam Hussein had plans to attack America with WMD. That's a fact. The Iraq Survey Group found those plans. Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. He was a brutal monster who killed in between 300,000 and 1,000,000 of his own people, not counting the Iranians and Kuwaitis and Iraqi soldiers who died in his pointless wars. It was right to remove him, and it's right that we are still there fighting the terrorists. It was the right war, and we will win it.
Now, the Harriet Miers nomination�
I was inclined at first to support Miers, but it became clear in the intervening weeks that she wasn't of Supreme Court caliber. It's not such a bad thing that she dropped out. Now Bush has a third chance to appoint a strong, qualified conservative. Let's hope he doesn't blow it. His approval rating stands at 40%. Anyone in the country who isn't rabidly conservative already hates him. What has he got to lose? I want him to pick the most obnoxiously conservative judge in the country. Pedal to the metal baby!
September 5, 2005
Apparently, our country has forgotten how to unite during a disaster.
After 9/11, criticism of President Bush was sparse. Liberals and conservatives alike united around the president and gave him the support he needed to begin the war on terrorism. Democrats and Republicans stood on the Capitol steps, holding hands and singing "God Bless America."
But not now. Our country is so divided that we can't even come together after the worst natural disaster in our history. Not even a week after this disaster, and the Left is already exploiting it for political gain.
The New York Times blasts Bush for giving "one of the worst speeches of his life." Dennis Kucinich uses the disaster to call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Maureen Dowd calls her country "The United States of Shame." Robert Kennedy blames the hurricane on global warming. Alternatively, Molly Ivins makes the unique argument that the hurricane could have been stopped if Bush had preserved the Louisiana wetlands. Not wanting to be left out, Rob Borsellino of The Des Moines Register chimes in as well. In a column Monday, he practically revels in the fact that the "all-powerful United States of America" has been humbled.
It's enough to make one physically ill.
One of the most inane arguments being used by the liberals is that the military was slow in getting to New Orleans because it's so busy in Iraq right now. In a column published in the Register on Sunday, Molly Ivins wrote, "About 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is now serving Iraq." So, what about the other 65 percent? The U.S. military has 1.4 million members overall. We have about 150,000 in Iraq. Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the military's response to Katrina. And even if it did, what would that prove? That we shouldn't fight the war on terrorism, because a hurricane might come?
Molly Ivins writes that "The levees of New Orleans, two of which are now broken and flooding the city, were also victims of Iraq war spending." She ignores the fact that, according to the Corps of Engineers, more funding for the levee system wouldn't have helped, since the infrastructure around the city was only designed to hold back a Category 3 hurricane. Katrina was a Category 4.
Lt. Gen. Carl Stock of the Corps of Engineers said that when the infrastructure was designed 30 years ago, the corps estimated that a Category 4 storm would hit New Orleans only once every 200 to 300 years. So it's not surprising that Bush thought international terrorism was a matter of more pressing urgency.
Katrina was no one's fault. Not Bush's, not Clinton's, not Reagan's, not Congress's. It was a horrible natural disaster. Could more have been done to prevent it? Perhaps. But hindsight is 20/20. We cannot be prepared for every disaster. Unfortunately, we got hit by one we weren't prepared for. It's time to move on and rebuild New Orleans. The blame game isn't going to save anyone's life.
August 18, 2005
You would think it's a very slow news month.
It's actually not. It has been a HUGE news month. In case you missed it, in the past couple of weeks:
- Russia and China started conducting a joint military exercise with 10,000 troops;
- Representative Curt Weldon has revealed that a top secret Pentagon task force called Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta's cell before 9/11, but was prevented from taking action by the FBI;
- The "Minutemen," a militia group targeting illegal immigrants, is starting operations in Texas;
- Over 100 bombs were detonated simultaneously by terrorists in Bangladesh.
Pretty important stories, I should say. But if you're a casual news viewer, you'd probably think that the most earth-shattering event this month has been Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford.
Everyone can and should sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's loss. I have no idea how hard it must be to lose a family member.
That said, the fact remains that she's a nutjob. She thinks that Bush is behind 9/11. She thinks that our troops' mission in Iraq is, quote, "bull----." She has referred to Bush as, variously, a "filth-spewer and warmonger," a "lying bastard" and an "evil maniac." She has said that "This country is not worth dying for." She is not simply a grief-stricken mother. She suffers from left-wing extremism bordering on insanity.
Her views may be crazy, but they are not new. Michael Moore subjected the entire nation to them last summer with his lying, traitorous documentary. Sheehan offers nothing new to the debate. The only thing that makes her special is that the antiwar movement has finally found a dead soldier's mother who's willing to dog-cuss the cause her son died for. For that, she gets 24/7 news coverage. "More developments in the Cindy Sheehan crisis! Some evil redneck rode over her crosses!" "More developments in the Cindy Sheehan vigil! Cindy Sheehan leaves the campsite to be with her sick mother!" Blah blah blah blah blah. "And, oh by the way, Russia and China are forming an alliance to challenge the West�up next, more breaking news from Crawford!"
Sheehan apparently hopes to make Bush look evil and insensitive by not meeting with her. Little-known fact: BUSH ALREADY MET WITH CINDY SHEEHAN! Soon after her son's death, Bush met privately with Sheehan and other relatives of fallen soldiers. Bush has already met with 900 relatives of the fallen. For a president with so much on his plate, that's above and beyond the call, in my humble opinion. But Cindy Sheehan refuses to leave until President Bush comes out and meets with - AGAIN - and answers two questions: "Why did my son have to die?" and "What noble cause did he die for?" (Astute observers will notice that that's the same question worded differently.) What is Bush supposed to do, meet with every nutcase who camps outside his ranch?
Finally, Sheehan refers to herself as a "peace mom." Really? She favors the withdrawal of all coalition troops from Iraq. Honey, that's not gonna bring peace. That's gonna create a massive civil war in the heart of one of the most unstable regions on earth, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, probably resulting in a terrorist haven. Listen up, world: THE ONLY CHANCE FOR PEACE IN IRAQ IS A COALITION VICTORY! Otherwise, it'll be Pol Pot all over again.
(Cal Thomas had an excellent column about this story; it's at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050815.shtml)
That's all for today. Hopefully I can get to illegal immigration and the Gaza pullout tomorrow.
July 25, 2005
Topic of the day
THE DOWNING STREET MEMO NON-SCANDAL
For some time now, the left-wing blogosphere has been hysterical over the so-called "Downing Street Memo," a British government document that supposedly "proves" Bush lied before the start of the Iraq War. The U.S. media hasn't given it that much coverage, but the lefties on the internet have barely been talking about anything else. (Except Karl Rove, of course - I'll get to that too.)
Let's look at what the Downing Street Memo actually says.
The Downing Street Memo is the minutes of a high-level British meeting on Iraq that took place on July 23, 2002. Tony Blair and most of his foreign policy team were in attendance.
The Left bases its accusations on several sentences that are ripped from the context of the memo in an altogether unholy manner. Here they are:
> "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable."
This is a quote from the director of Britain's intelligence agency MI6, who had just returned from talks in Washington. The lefties read this quote and yell, "Ha! Bush lied! He said military action was a last resort, but he had already made up his mind in 2002!"
That's just stupid. War WAS a last resort, all the way up to March 17, 2003. If, at any time, Saddam had decided to fully account for all his WMD and WMD programs, Bush would have called off the invasion. But, obviously, Saddam had no intention of doing that, and never did. And Bush was smart enough to realize that. That's why he SAW MILITARY ACTION AS INEVITABLE. Ok?
>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
This quote is also from the director of MI6. It's obviously very explosive if you take it out of context. It would seem to say that Bush was "fixing," or cooking, the intelligence. But this could hardly be what the MI6 director meant, since, at this point in time, the British fully believed that Saddam had WMD. (Along with the Americans, French, Russians, Germans, Israelis, the UN, and everyone other country with a half-decent intelligence service.) So, obviously, what he meant was that the U.S. was gathering intelligence and facts to support an invasion. Which would be normal procedure before starting an invasion. Right?
>"The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record."
Also from the MI6 director. "You see! You see!" cry the lefties. "Bush doesn't have patience for the UN!" Well, YEAH! The guy appointed John Bolton! I don't need a top-secret British government memo to tell me that! No good president WOULD have patience for the pontificating dictators at the UN. And since Bush DID try the UN route, and DID publish material on the Iraqi regime's record, it's obvious that sometime in between July 2002 and November 2002, the NSC [National Security Council] lost out!
>"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Also from the MI6 director. Given the last two years, I'd say that the U.S. was definitely not prepared enough for the aftermath of the war. Once again - didn't need a top-secret memo to tell me that.
Besides, just because wasn't a whole lot of discussion about the aftermath in 2002, that doesn't mean it wasn't discussed at SOME point. It had to have been. It's just that they were planning for all the wrong things - WMD use, floods caused by Saddam blowing up dams, "Fortress Baghdad" - none of which happened. We overprepared for things that didn't happen, and weren't prepared for the things that did happen. Mistakes were made. And I don't need the Downing Street Memo to tell me that.
> "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
This quote is from the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. When Straw says that "The case was thin," he isn't talking about the case for WMD being thin. Again, the Brits fully believed that Iraq had WMD. As the next sentence shows, Straw thought the case was thin because Saddam wasn't threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran. ONCE AGAIN, I didn't need the Downing Street Memo to tell me that! That was common knowledge in July 2002. Both of those arguments were used, and reused by the peace lobby before the war, and Congress voted for the war anyway, with the full support of the people. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was threatening his neighbors - we invaded because he was an evil, genocidal, terror-supporting, WMD-building, kid-torturing psycho! And we DIDN'T invade Iran and North Korea because North Korea would have nuked us (small problem, there), and Iran has twice the land area and three times the population of Iraq (and is covered in mountains). And, incidentally, right after the Iraq War, Moammar Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya, started negotiating with the U.S. and U.K., and eventually stopped building nukes and supporting terror.
> "There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."
This quote is from the U.K. attorney general, speaking about the legal basis for invasion. Some would question whether a "legal base" is needed to take down a psychopath who's killed millions of people. But I digress. This is the opinion of the British attorney general. And guess what? The British attorney general is NOT GOD! And as such, he happens to be wrong. All three of the legal bases he gives could be used. We could have used self-defense, because Saddam was sponsoring terrorists who were trying to attack us. We could have used humanitarian intervention, because Saddam Hussein had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and was killing more every year. And we ALREADY HAD UN authorization. The UN Security Council resolutions from the Gulf War gave "all UN member states" - that would include the United States and Britain - the authority to use "all necessary means" - that includes war - to solve the Iraq problem - that includes WMD and terrorism, both of which were unsolved in 2003.
(By the way, you can read the whole memo for yourself at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
So there you have it. The Downing Street Memo is a non-scandal. Please stop whining about it. It's getting old.
In other news�
John Roberts is the man! A down-the-line conservative, just like Bush promised. I'm very confident he'll be confirmed.
Jane Fonda is starting a bus tour to drum up support for ending the war in Iraq. Good luck with that, honey. Bush is in office 'till 2009. The only reason you succeeded in handing South Vietnam over to bloodthirsty genocidal savages in the '70s is that Watergate came up.
More bombings in London, and in Egypt. New York City is starting random searches at the subways and bus stops. Not a bad idea, but�
I was thinking about this at the gas station. Al-Qaeda bombed our planes, so we vamped up plane security. Then they bombed trains in Madrid. So we increased train security. Now they bomb subways and buses. So now we're going to increase subway and bus security. We're jumping through their hoops. Memo to the world: you can't put everything behind a metal detector. There's NO WAY you can protect everything. No way. Impossible. Are you going to put guards and metal detectors around every gas station? Every hotel? Every marina? Every port? We are a BIG country. I have no problem with amping up security, but the best thing we can do is a) kill the terrorists in the Middle East before they get here, b), scour the Muslim community and find the terrorists that are already here, and c) try to secure our borders, so less of them can sneak in. Yeah, we've got big borders, but is it easier to stop a terrorist from crossing the border, or to find them in sprawling metropolis?
That's all folks.
July 10, 2005
Last Thursday, we were reminded of the fight we are in.
A fight against an invisible, inhuman enemy that delights in the slaughter of innocents. An enemy who targets not just the United States, but all free, civilized nations: England, Spain, Russia, Israel, etc.
Unfortunately, some commentators in England and in our own country are seizing upon these attacks as evidence that fighting the terrorists is a bad idea.
Try to wrap your mind around this one.
I opened my Saturday newspaper's opinion section to find a picture of King's Cross Station and the headline "Feeling safer now? Didn't think so."
The author of this article, Leonard Pitts, a columnist for the Miami Herald, writes, "Tell me again how the Iraq war has made us safer from terrorism."
OK.
A. Saddam Hussein is no longer funding terrorism.
B. Saddam Hussein is no longer harboring terrorists.
C. Saddam Hussein is no longer training terrorists to hijack airplanes.
D. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and his cohorts are fighting in Iraq, rather than, say, France - where they were planning attacks before the war.
E. Terrorists are getting killed every day in Iraq.
F. Terrorist attacks in Israel have been WAY down since the war started.
G. Libya has given up its WMDs and stopped supporting terrorism.
Should I continue, or have you gotten the idea?
Pitts sneers at the notion that killing terrorists and dethroning terrorist-sponsoring dictators helps prevent terrorism, because, apparently, terrorism still occurs.
And police officers don't make us safer from crime, because crime still occurs.
You see how that kind of reasoning doesn't work?
Yeah, we're not 100% safe from terrorism, as Thursday's attacks certainly demonstrated. We will probably never be. But that's not an excuse to not do everything we possibly can to prevent terrorism - including taking out Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, and their ilk.
I've always liked the way the 9/11 Commission put it: "We are safer, but we are not safe." There are fewer terrorists, and more terrorist corpses, than there were on 9/11. There are fewer state sponsors of terrorism, and more free nations, than there were on 9/11. We've made progress, but the job isn't done. And it's more important than ever that we finish the job.
Even more asinine is the analysis of pro-Saddam British parliament member George Galloway:
"We urge the government to remove people in this country from harm's way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East. Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence."
Oh, yes. In the happy days before the Iraq War, we "enjoyed lives free of needless violence" - if you don't count 9/11, the anthrax attacks, that messiness with Daniel Pearl, the sniper shootings, the bombing of the USS Cole, the constant wave of terrorism in Israel, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of a nightclub in Indonesia, the bombings of US military bases in Saudi Arabia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Black Hawk Down, Pan Am 103, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Need I say more?
The terrorists don't hate us because we invaded Iraq. Or even because we support Israel. They hate us because we're the world's only superpower and we're not Muslim. They hate us for who we are, not what we do. Appeasement does not work with these people. Think if we withdrew from Iraq and left Israel to the dogs, they'd stop blowing up buses and killing schoolchildren?Think again.
Retreat is not an option. The only option is to fight back with everything we've got.
Our prayers are with the people of London.
July 1, 2005
So Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring. Rehnquist won't be far behind. Now we're going to have, not one, but TWO Supreme Court vacancies. Get ready for an Armageddon-style Senate battle.
I bet - and hope - the seven Republicans who cut that awful "compromise" a couple of months ago are feeling stupid. We could have destroyed the filibuster then and there. Now the Democrats are going to filibuster whoever Bush nominates till hell freezes over.
Of course, in that "compromise," the Democrats promised not to filibuster judicial nominees unless it was an "extraordinary circumstance." How much you wanna bet that a Supreme Court nomination will qualify under that rather vague standard?
The Democrats will filibuster, and the Republicans will finally be forced to do something about it. Let's face it - the judiciary holds godlike power in this country. No branch of government can overrule a court - except for a higher court. And the federal courts are unelected. Fancy how that works in a democracy.
Now listen up: the ONLY influence the American people have over the unelected court system is choosing the people who will choose the judges. And if the Democrats get away with filibustering, then even THAT tiny amount of control will be ripped away from us. The president is Republican. The majority of Congress is Republican. Judging by the looks of things, I'd say that, on the whole, the country wants Republicans choosing their judges. But they won't get to, thanks to the filibuster.
This is not about liberal vs. conservative. This is about democracy.
Death to the fililbuster.
June 3, 2005
More news on the earth-shattering, rapidly-developing Quran-gate scandal!
According to findings released by the Pentagon today, there were five confirmed cases of prison guards at Guantanamo Bay "mishandling" the holy book of our mortal enemies. Take a few minutes to catch your breath while the sheer horror washes over you.
Apparently, a guard stepped on the Quran (and was later fired for it), a guard kicked the Quran, a guard threw a water balloon at the Quran, a guard wrote a bad word on the Quran, and in the most shocking of cases, a soldier went outside to pee, and the urine flowed into an air vent, which made its way into a cell and landed on the Quran.
I list these facts only so that you may grasp the full scale of this travesty.
Interestingly enough�
While there were only five confirmed cases of guards at Guantanamo abusing the Quran, there were FIFTEEN cases of the PRISONERS - i.e., Muslim terrorists - at the camp abusing the Quran. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran. �In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim." Awww, how sad.
But this is distracting from the main point, which is that America is the root of all evil.
People! IT'S A FREAKING B-O-O-K! Who cares? Why is this even newsworthy? All over the Muslim world, Bibles, Torahs and Christian literature are routinely burned and destroyed. It happens all the time. Before the Iraq War, Christian soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend it against Iraq couldn't read their Bibles in their own barracks. You don't see Christians rioting.
"In other news today, a Muslim cleric in Nigeria burned a Bible that a missionary had brought with him. The UN Security Council immediately issued thirty-seven resolutions against Nigeria for this travesty, the State Department began a full investigation, and massive riots broke out throughout the Bible Belt and the Red States, leaving scores of people dead." Maybe when hell freezes over. Oops - is that remark offensive to Muslims too? You disrespect Allah's power, you must die!
Seriously, people. Muslims fly planes into buildings, massacre Jewish and Russian schoolchildren, blow up trains at rush hour in Madrid, etc., etc., etc. - but don't you dare step on the Quran!!! And, please, don't even start with the whole "They're not real Muslims" shtick. Really? Not real Muslims? Then how come U.S. taxpayer money is being used to ship Qurans to Guantanamo Bay so that Al-Qaeda prisoners can practice their religion in peace? Yeah - that's how this whole problem started. Ironic, no?
Someone in the Muslim world better get a clue soon. Muslims are NOT the victims in this war. I don't know why U.S. government leaders keep tripping over themselves to apologize for upsetting Muslim sensitivities. THEY are the ones who need to be apologizing for the whole terrorism thing. I know, I know, most Muslims aren't terrorists. But terrorists don't just pop out of the ground. What do else can you expect when the entire Muslim world is infused with hatred for Israel and America by their leaders?
Anyway, that's my rant of the day.
Once again, the two issues of the hour are Quran-gate and the filibuster.
The Democrats haven't been elected to a house of Congress since 1992. They haven't won a MAJORITY in a presidential election since 1976. (Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% of the vote - remember Ross Perot?) So I'm thinking that the majority of Americans want the Republicans in power. Just a wild guess.
So WHY are we allowing the Democrats to continue to stall the process? This new "compromise" is a sham. Yeah, we got a whole three federal judgeships through - but, in case Mr. Frist has forgotten, there are a couple of Supreme Court vacancies coming up. How much you wanna bet the Democrats are going to filibuster again? The phrase "extraordinary circumstances" in the compromise was extraordinarily vague. We could have been done with this whole mess, and instead, we've just put it off for another day. To paraphrase Jay Garner, we need to suck in our gut, look in the mirror and say, "Dang it, we're Republicans!"
In other news, Al-Zarqawi has fled to Iran. Who coulda guessed?
Stay tuned. More developments to come, I�m sure.
May 16, 2005
Wow, I feel like puking.
As EVERYONE - not least senior Newsweek writers - should know by now, Muslims have a tendency for violence. Not to be racist or anything; it's just a fact. Even aside from the whole terrorism thing, Muslims in the Middle East and thereabouts tend to react to negative events with violence - namely, rioting. Remember the Miss World Contest in Nigeria in 2002? Where hundreds of people died in riots after a journalist wrote that Muhammed would have chosen a bride from among the contestants? Yeah. Maybe it's the poverty, maybe it's the illiteracy, maybe it's the oppression, maybe it's the climate - who knows. The fact remains that Muslims have a tendency to riot.
So, the point of this discourse�
The May 9th issue of Newsweek contained a story that claimed that U.S. interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a Qu'ran, the Muslim holy book, down the toilet. Horrors, you say! Well, it's a pretty big deal in the Muslim world, judging by the - SURPRISE! - massive rioting that broke out in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Palestine and Indonesia after the story was published. Government buildings were burned, relief agencies were looted, the whole works. Upshot: the new Afghan government was destabilized, Pervez Musharraf, the ruler of Pakistan and our indispensable ally, has been weakened, U.S. efforts in the region have been undermined, and 15 people are dead.
And if you have any experience with the liberal media, you have probably already guessed the ending of this tragic tale: the story wasn't true.
According to a blurb posted on Newsweek's website this week, the Qu'ran-down-the-toilet story was based on information from a SINGLE SOURCE. One. That's it. Now, wouldn't you think that, before publishing a story certain to have such negative and possibly violent repercussions, the writers and editors of Newsweek might want to have a little more substantiation? But you know, and I know, that these guardians of democracy had only one thought in their mind when they ran this story: GET BUSH!!!!
Only AFTER the riots broke out, the American soldiers were put in danger, and innocent people were killed, did Newsweek decide to double-check its story. And guess what they found out?
"Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them 'NOT CREDIBLE.' Our original source later said he COULDN'T BE CERTAIN about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst."
WHOOPSIE-daisy. Our mistake. So sorry.
This is far, far worse than memo-gate, folks. When memo-gate first broke out, I didn't cover it at all on this site. Some of you asked me why. The answer is A), I was lazy, and B), I honestly didn't think it was that big of a deal - even if the story was true. I already knew that Bush was a bit of a delinquent in his early years. I don't care that he got arrested for DUI, or that he smoked pot, or even that he went AWOL. (By the way, HE DIDN'T.) All I care about is the job he's doing as president. And Newsweek has SERIOUSLY - hopefully not permanently - undermined his ability to do that job. This is very bad stuff, folks. Heads need to roll at Newsweek. This is an outrage. People are dead. As the old adage goes, "If you shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater�"
Let's see, what else is new�
Ah, yes, the filibuster fight.
I say - death to the filibuster. Seriously, what good does it do? What is all this talk about "minority rights?" There shouldn't BE minority rights in the Senate. The people have elected them. The Republican/Democrat breakdown in the Senate reflects the will of the American people. Majority rules. It's called DEMOCRACY. As my math teacher would say, it's a novel idea. If the American people were terrified out of their pants at the prospect of pro-life judges, the Republicans wouldn't be in power, now would they? Up-or-down vote all the way, baby.
So, yeah, that's the mudline. Only three weeks of school left. Counting the days. Happy Monday, everyone.
April 24, 2005
Isn't it sad?
The Democrats haven't scored a significant election victory in four years. They haven't been elected to a house of Congress in ten years. And Bush, the Demon King, Enemy-Of-All-That-Is-Good, got re-elected - and by a sizable margin, too. All their hate and rage and bluster got them absolutely nowhere. There's only one thing left to them: haranguing Bush nominees. And they do it with a passion.
Just ask John Bolton. Bush has nominated the former arms control secretary to the slot of UN ambassadorship. For the past few weeks, he's been dragged in front of Senate committee meeting after Senate committee meeting to be chewed out by Democrats. I haven't seen a confirmation hearing this vicious since...well, since Condi's.
Now with Condi, they were pretty much just transparently launching attacks on the president that they couldn't defeat at the ballot box, for no purpose other than to vent their frustration. But John Bolton has them especially peeved. Not only does he yell at dishonest subordinates (a scandal sure to go down in history alongside Watergate and Halliburton), but - hold on to your seats - he doesn't like the UN.
This particularly outraged one Senator Barbara Boxer of California. "You have nothing but disdain for the United Nations," she screamed. (As opposed to liberals, who have nothing but love and worship for it.) "You can dance around it, you can run away from it, you can put perfume on it, but the bottom line is the bottom line."
OK...review time. In the past decade alone, the United Nations has...
- Kicked the United States off its Human Rights Commission.
- Appointed LIBYA to CHAIR the Human Rights Commission.
- Ordered its peacekeepers in Rwanda to stand by while +800,000 people were slaughtered by the Rwandan military.
- Ordered Israel to stop building a security wall that had prevented dozens of suicide bombings.
- Allowed its peacekeepers to sexually abuse hundreds of impoverished women in Congo.
- Allowed Saddam to kick its inspectors out of Iraq.
- Refused to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq.
- In 2002, appointed Iraq to chair the 2003 conference on disarmament. (Iran was to co-chair). Not kidding.
- Refused to help in the invasion of Iraq.
- Refused to help in the reconstruction of Iraq.
- Three words: Oil-For-Food. Iraqis starve, Saddam spends ill-gotten billions on weapons and palaces, and Kofi Annan's son doesn't do too badly either.
Failure after failure after failure after joke after failure after blatant anti-American hypocrisy after failure. This is the UN's record. How many wars has the UN prevented? How many genocides? What is the UN doing about Darfur right now? Blathering on about the International Criminal Court. As if Sudan cares. After all, it's well on its way to a nice spot on the UN Human Rights Commission.
The United Nations building in New York has become a gigantic podium where dictators from all over the world can come to attack Bush, attack Israel, and spew their fascistic propoganda. Meanwhile, in the Security Council room, China (well-known for its hard work for international peace over the years) is trying to block a spot for Japan on the Council. China has as much power at the UN as the United States. For that matter, so does France. That's why it's in such a state.
Whoever becomes our new ambassador to the UN must go to New York without illusions. That, Senator Boxer, means that anyone who has anything but disdain for the current state of affairs at the UN is unfit for the job. John Bolton is bad for the UN? On the contrary, John Bolton is the UN's last hope. If he can't fix it, we'll have to go with Michael Savage's advice and kill two birds with one stone by emptying the UN building and turning it into a homeless shelter.
In other news, the very last Syrian soldier withdrew from Lebanon today. The twenty-year occupation has ended. That didn't happen because of dictators squabbling at the United Nations building in New York. That happened because we invaded Iraq. When it comes to dictators, no negotiating tool is quite as effective as overwhelming military force.
April 3, 2005
Is the Tide Turning?
In my judgment, the low point of the Iraq War was probably around this time a year ago, give or take a month. An uncontrollable insurgency. The slaughter of our contract workers. Nicholas Berg. Abu Ghraib. The retreat from Fallujah. The rise of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite militia. Things were going very, very poorly.
A year later, is the tide turning? I think we have reason to hope. Despite the continued bloodshed, the trend since the late summer of 2004 has been positive. Muqtada Al-Sadr's militia was utterly smashed. Fallujah and Samarra were retaken from the insurgents. Iraq held peaceful, successful elections. And now, it appears that we are regaining ground. According to Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, insurgent attacks have dropped by 25 percent since last November. (From 80-90 a day to 45-50 a day.) There are also twice as many insurgents being held prisoner today than in October. (10,500, up from 4,300.) Last Friday, leading Sunni clerics issued an edict encouraging Iraqis to join the new Iraqi army (after months of condemning those who did so as traitors). Today, the new Iraqi parliament chose its speaker, breaking weeks of deadlock. Is more good news on the way? I hope so.
It won't be easy, but we will win this battle. We have to. Failure is not an option. Failure would mean the creation of a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a renewed spirit of anti-American Arab nationalism, and a heck of a lot of terrorists fresh from victory and ready to take their crusade to our shores. Success means the breaking of the back of the terrorist network, a death blow against Bin Laden's bloody Islamism, an anti-terror state in the heart of the Middle East, and freedom for the Iraqi people.
March 31, 2005
I guess I'm in a poetical mood this week. As I was driving home tonight listening to the radio reports about Terri Schiavo's death, this one poem popped into my mind - especiall the recurring refrain: "Who killed the Jews?" Just cross out "Jews" and insert "Terri Schiavo." The answer is - all of us. We stood on the sidelines. We let this happen.
"Riddle"
William Heyen
From Belsen a crate of gold teeth
from Dachau a mountain of shoes
from Auschwitz a skin lampshade
Who killed the Jews?
Not I, cries the typist,
not I, cries the engineer
not I, cries Adolf Eichmann
not I, cries Albert Speer
My friend Fritz Nova lost his father -
a petty official had to choose.
My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother.
Who killed the Jews?
David Nova swallowed gas,
Hyman Abrahms was beaten and starved.
Some men signed their papers,
and some stood guard,
and some herded them in,
and some dropped the pellets,
and some spread the ashes,
and some hosed the walls,
and some planted the wheat,
and some poured the steel,
and some cleared the rails,
and some raised the cattle.
Some smelled the smoke,
some just heard the news.
Were they Germans? Were they Nazis?
Were they human? Who killed the Jews?
The stars will remember the gold,
the sun will remember the shoes,
the moon will remember the skin.
But who killed the Jews?
March 30, 2005
"To the Mercy Killers"
By Dudley Randall
If ever mercy move you murder me,
I pray you, kindly killers, let me live.
Never conspire with death to set me free,
but let me know such life as pain can give.
Even though I be a clot, an aching clench,
a stub, a stump, a butt, a scab, a knob,
a screaming pain, a putrefying stench,
still let me live, so long as life shall throb.
Even though I turn traitor to myself
as beg to die, do not accomplice me.
Even though I seem not human, a mute shelf
of glucose, bottled blood, machinery
to swell the lug and pump the heart - even so,
do not put out my life. Let me still glow.
In Memory of The Rule of Law
1776-2005
March 28, 2005
Murder By Any Other Name
The first conclusion an objective observer will draw from the sad outcome of the Terri Schiavo case is this: Our nation has completely dropped the idea that life has inherent value that must be protected above all else.
Not that it wasn't already evident before. The Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade verdict offered no opinion on whether or not a fetus is worthy of life, but nevertheless legalized abortion nationwide because of a mother's "right to privacy." Doesn't the right to life trump any right to "privacy"? Isn't it relevant to know whether or not a fetus is a living human being? Apparently not.
The same utter disregard for life at the highest levels of our nation's judiciary was obvious in the Terri Schiavo case. Is Terri in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), totally unconscious? I don't know. Some doctors say yes, others say no. According to Dr. William Hammesfahr, a neurologist, Terri is "completely aware and conscious and responsive�like a child with cerebral palsy." Terri's condition is debatable, at the very least. But shouldn't we find out whether or not she is in PVS for sure before STARVING HER TO DEATH, for crying out loud? Think about it. If Terri is in PVS, and the courts let her live, then - she lives. If she's NOT in PVS, and we starve her, then we've killed a living, breathing, conscious, aware person. Which is worse? Why can't we err on the side of life, as President Bush keeps saying?
Similarly, EVERYONE in Terri's family says she would have wanted to live, due to her Catholic beliefs. But her husband, Michael Schiavo - who may have abused Terri, who Terri was considering divorcing, who physically attacked Terri's sister on one occasion, who is now engaged to another woman with whom he has two children, and who stands to gain several hundred grand if Terri dies - says she would have wanted to die. Reportedly, this charming fellow once remarked to a hospice nurse, "When is that bitch going to die?" So, naturally, the courts agreed with Mr. Schiavo.
But wait! What if Michael is LYING and Terri's family is telling the truth? Then not only are killing someone who may be conscious and awake, but we're also killing her against her will. Why do the courts blindly accept what Michael says, and ignore everyone else? Shouldn't an effort be made to find our whether or not he's lying, and whether or not Terri really is in PVS, when so much is at stake? And if no definite conclusion can be reached, what harm could come from allowing her to live?
Make no mistake - Terri's case was not played out in a vacuum. You might think that it has no effect on your family, but you're wrong. The utter contempt for life demonstrated in this case sets a precedent that has ramifications for all of us. Namely, you better fill out a living will ASAP and be careful about who you marry, or your life might have no meaning in this country, the land of the supposed free.
I'm sorry, Terri. Your country has failed you. We all failed you.
March 19, 2005
Reflections on the 2nd Anniversary of the Iraq War
If we hadn't gone to war two years ago today�
- Syria would still be occupying Lebanon.
- The conflict in Israel would still be in raging on as fiercely as ever.
- Moammar Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya, would still be building nukes, stockpiling chemical weapons, and sponsoring terror.
- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi would still be trying to attack the United States and Great Britian with ricin out of his base in Baghdad.
- Ansar Al-Islam would still be terrorizing Kurds and harboring their Al-Qaeda friends in northern Iraq.
- Saddam's scientists would still be developing chemical and biological weapons, along with long-range missiles and UAVs.
- Saddam's intelligence agents would still be attempting terrorist attacks inside the United States.
- The components of Iraq's old nuclear centrifuge would still be buried in an Iraqi scientist's garden, awaiting the day that Saddam decided to restart his nuclear program.
- Saddam would still be funding Palestinian suicide bombings.
- Innocent Iraqis would still be enduring torture (as in acid and electric drills, not panties and bags on their heads) in Saddam's jails.
- Terrorist groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Islamic Jihad, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, Black September, the Al-Asqa Martyrs' Brigade, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the May 15 Organization, would still be operating out of Iraq at Saddam's pleasure.
- Saddam's mass graves would be getting bigger.
- Iraq would still be firing at our pilots over the no-fly zones.
- The world would see the United States as a paper tiger.
- Saddam Hussein would be lounging in one of his eighty palaces, instead of a U.S. prison cell.
'Nuff said.
It was the right decision to go to war, and we have to stay until the job is finished - until the terrorists are dead, until Iraq is stable, until they can hold their own and work with us as partners in the war on terror, until the Iraqi people can take charge of their own destiny, until the whole world sees that the United States of America will not be intimidated by guerrillas and thugs.
We have to stay the course. This fight is far too important to lose.
March 1, 2005
Ugh, this is stupid.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5-4 that it is "unconstitutional" to execute murderers under the age of 18.
For starters: unconstitutional? That's beyond absurd. NOWHERE does the Constitution ever say, "You can't execute minors." This decision is an act of raw judicial power.
Beyond that, it's ridiculous that if someone hacks a person to death with an ice pick the day before their 18th birthday, they get life in prison, while if the do it the day after their birthday, they can be executed. Contrary to popular belief, 17-year-olds can think and reason just as well as 18-year-olds. I'll bet that very few 17-year-olds aren't aware that murder is wrong.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor understood this, thankfully. "The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she wrote. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult'".
The case brought before the Supreme Court on this issue is "Exhibit A" on why we, the people, should be able to sentence minors to death. The case involved Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped Shirley Cook, his neighbor, tied her in a bag and threw her off a bridge. He had bragged to his friends that he could get away with it because he was�17.
Shirley Crook is dead. Thanks to the Supreme Court, Christopher Simmons will live to a ripe old age. They OK murdering babies ("fetuses"), but 17-year-old killers - these hapless innocents we must protect!
February 19, 2005
Liberals from Berlin to Des Moines are in a frenzy over conspiracy theories that Bush is about to attack - gasp! - Iran.
The German weekly newspaper Der Spiegel printed a cover with Bush on the front and the headline HIS NEXT WAR. According to the Associated Press, 70% of Germans believe that the United States is preparing to attack Iran. Charley Reese of www.antiwar.com recently wrote a column entitled "Could Bush Possibly Make the Same Mistake Twice? Yeah." In it, he pondered, "Why keep threatening the Iranians? It doesn't make any sense. If I were an Iranian, I would assume that President Bush intends eventually to attack the country. That would be stupid, but if you look at the stupidity of the Iraqi mess, you can't rule it out. Never believe that Bush won't do something just because it's dumb." Deborah Mathis wrote with palpable panic, "Reportedly, the administration has begun nosing around Iran and who knows what else might be in its sights."
And in the opinion page of my paper this morning, there is a letter from a chap named Stephen Brubaker, who writes, "Will we bomb Iran? Yes we will, unless they let the United States come in and destroy all their nuclear facilities. It's part of the new U.S. foreign policy: 'Do as we say, or we will bomb you into submission.'"
It's nothing new for anti-war loons to check their brains at the door, but this is an entirely new level of hysteria. Today's brand of peacenik is more worried about Bush than a country ruled by Islamic fanatics who passionately yearn for the complete annihilation of the United States and Israel, want to create a new Islamic empire, have allied themselves with Al-Qaeda and are working on nuclear weapons.
In 2002, TIME Magazine reported that right before the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, an Iranian envoy traveled to Kabul and offered Al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in Iran. About 250 of Al-Qaeda's top brass accepted the offer, including Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second-in-command, and Saad bin Laden, one of bin Laden's oldest sons. According to the 9/11 Commission, in 2000, Al-Qaeda asked Iran to order its border patrol not to place telltale stamps on the passports of Al-Qaeda members passing through their country - to which Iran very kindly obliged. Up to 10 of the 19 9/11 hijackers took advantage of this favor and passed through Iran easily in between October 2000 and February 2001. "In sum," the commission concluded, "there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."
According to Israeli intelligence, Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to four years. Charley Reese sneers at this, saying, "But let's assume Iran does develop a nuclear weapon. I don't care. I've lived most of my life 30 minutes from total destruction by tens of thousands of the Soviet Union's nuclear warheads. The Bush administration's claim that nuclear deterrence, which worked against a superpower, will not work against a smaller and poorer country is bunk. Israel alone has enough nuclear warheads to pulverize Iran."
Well, let's see what Iran has to say about that. In December 2001, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's second most powerful person, said in a sermon that Israel is "the most hideous historic occurrence in history" which the Islamic world will "vomit out from its midst." Rafsanjani declared that the Islamic world would soon have nuclear weapons. "On that day," he said, "the strategy of the West will hit a dead end, since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counterstrike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."
There you have it, Charley. Deterrence won't work with Islamic crazies because the only thing they care about it annihilating Israel.
Doesn't this explicit threat from Iran's top leadership make the peaceniks just a little bit worried? Isn't this a cause for concern? How is ignoring this problem in the interests of "peace?" They think Bush is a threat to peace? When did Bush ever threaten to use nuclear weapons on another country?
It is quite revealing that when liberals think about a country that aided the 9/11 attacks, is currently harboring what remains of Al-Qaeda's leadership, and is working furiously to acquire nuclear weapons with the stated goal of using them to wipe out the Jews, their first thought is, "Oh dear. Is Bush going to attack them?"
I don't know how things with Iran are going to turn out. Maybe their leaders can be convinced to abandon terrorism and nuclear weapons through diplomacy or economic sanctions. (Probably not.) Maybe we can achieve regime change by sponsoring democratic groups within the country. Maybe we can stem off the threat with surgical missile strikes. Maybe a full-scale invasion will be, in the end, the only answer. I hope not, and so does everybody else - including Bush. But, in case any of you need reminding, we are at war. And one does not win wars by playing nice.
January 30, 2005
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!
This is the day liberals assured us would never come, or, if it did, would lead to civil war in Iraq.
They whined about the Sunnis, they whined about the Shiites, they said that we needed to restore security "first," they said we needed to delay Iraq's national elections. But Bush didn't break faith with the Iraqi people. They turned out in droves today to defy the terrorists and cast their votes. Today, Iraq became a democracy.
Consider a front-page "news analysis" in my city's newspaper this morning about the today's elections. "But even marginal success could be hard to come by in Iraq where violence from a growing insurgency is a part of daily life," it says. "An election that is seen as illegitimate by a large chunk of the population could lead to civil war."
Guess what: the elections were an unqualified success. In fact, they were better than expected. And no civil war yet! Amazing.
There should no longer be any doubt over where the Iraqi people stand in the fight between freedom and terror. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden's commander in Iraq, declared last week, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology." He threatened the Iraqi people with a bloodbath. They obviously didn't care. According to the AP, over 60% of Iraqis voted in today's elections. Here are some excerpts from Reuters and the AP articles covering the elections:
"Many cheered with joy at their first chance to cast a free vote, while others shared chocolates with fellow voters.
Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq�s people, were expected to win the vote, overturning years of oppression.
Even in Fallujah, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people voted, confounding predictions. Lines of veiled women clutching their papers waited in line.
'We want to be like other Iraqis; we don�t want to always be in opposition,' said Ahmed Jassim, smiling after he voted.
In Baqouba, a rebellious city northeast of Baghdad, spirited crowds clapped and danced at one voting station. In Mosul, the scene of some of the worst insurgent attacks in recent months, U.S. and local officials said turnout was surprisingly high.
Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. 'I would have crawled here if I had to. I don�t want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace,' he said, leaning on his metal crutches.
'This is democracy,' said Karfia Abbasi, holding up a thumb stained with purple ink to prove she had voted."
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6874656/GT1=6065
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886441/)
Memo to Zarqawi & Crew: Car bombs and beheadings don't win hearts and minds.
The battle for Iraq will continue for a long time, of course. But today the terrorists were dealt a horrible blow. The terrorists declared war on freedom. Today, the Iraqi people came down on the side of freedom. And we will win the battle for Iraq. It will take time, and many more lives will be lost, but we will win. So long as we don't take Ted Kennedy's advice and cut and run on the Iraqi people. �The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution,� he said three days ago. He could not be more wrong. If the U.S. leaves now, the Iraqi government will quickly collapse and the terrorists will have a nation to call their own. We have to stay until the all the terrorists are in jail or dead. If we win in Iraq, we will have proven that the U.S. is stronger than the terrorists, that bin Laden can't beat us through cowardly guerrilla tactics. If we get up and leave, we will have proven the opposite.
God Bless America AND Iraq!
January 20, 2005
AXIS OF EVIL: PART II
Happy Inauguration Day everyone! Today "four more years" officially began. I only watched part of Bush's speech (I was in school), but you can read the text like me at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html.
One of the things I love about our President is that he says what he means, and means what he says. And today, he declared that under his leadership, America is going to use its status as world superpower to spread freedom. And that means we are, sooner or later, going to confront nations that are opposed to freedom. While today's speech was not as specific as Bush's 2002 "Axis of Evil" speech in naming the enemies of liberty, it was just as meaningful. President Bush said, "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." He continued, "Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: 'Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.'" And if that didn't make his intentions clear enough, he also said, "America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause."
In other words: the days of the dictators in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, the Middle East, Belarus, Cuba and China are numbered.
President Bush made only reference to the use of military force: "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." Fortunately, military force is not the only means of spreading freedom. Take note of what Bush said: "Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country." We can aid these reformers with weapons, money, and supplies, like Reagan did with the Contras - resulting in the fall of the communist regime in Nicaragua.
But there was one thing notable about the Contras - the Democrats in Congress HATED THEM. President Reagan desperately tried to get them to approve aid for the Contras. But they stonewalled, refusing even to give the Contras humanitarian aid, much less military. In fact, John Kerry and Tom Harkin went to visit the communist leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. So Reagan's advisers did the only human thing - without his knowledge, they independently raised funds for the Contras - which was not illegal, since the money they gave the Contras was never in the U.S. treasury.
And, of course, you know the rest of the story. The Democrats went ballistic, hauling Oliver North and the other freedom-loving patriots in the Reagan administration before committees and juries.
I'm not sure much has changed in the last twenty years. Attribute it to partisanship or nightmares of Vietnam, but I don't think that the president's vision of freedom is going to be welcomed in the liberal circles in our country. On the way home from school today, I was listening to a local talk radio show. The show's liberal co-host was going on and on about how we shouldn't force other nations to do things "our way." One of the callers had this to offer: "What if Iraq came over here and made our women wear headscarves and stay out of school?" Is that how far we've come - we don't even believe that spreading freedom is morally better than spreading slavery? That liberty is good, and fascism is evil?
Whatever else we may disagree on, as a nation, we have to stand together and say, "ALL of America stands for FREEDOM!" We have to support our president when he takes action - directly or indirectly - against the slimeballs of this world. Our liberty depends on it too. This struggle will not be separate from the war on terrorism. Rather it will be an integral part of it. Bin Laden's world is a world where every nation is under the subjugation of an Islamic empire, where free speech and free worship are dead, where women are treated like cattle. That's what he is fighting for. To defeat him, we have to defeat tyranny.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Subject: What's New at the War Room
Merry Christmas, Mujahideen! I just added a new file to the War Room. (Link at the right.) 15 Liberal Lies/Asinine Ideas About Iraq lists all of the Left's myths about this war and shows the truth behind them. Easy access for when you're confronted by a mindless liberal relative this holiday season.
That's pretty much it. Pray for our troops overseas this Christmas, if you think of it. Don't let the ACLU bite. Have a good winter solstice.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Subject: Someone Splash Kristol With Cold Water!
One question: What crawled up William Kristol's posterior and died? William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, one of the best conservative online magazines in existence, came out with a vicious screed today against, of all people, Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah, the guy who has won two wars in the last three years, has taken out 3,000 terrorists and revolutionized the Pentagon into a terrorist-killing machine? THAT Rumsfeld.
Most of Kristol's article is devoted to Rumsfeld's alleged "buck-passing." When a reporter prompted a soldier to ask Rumsfeld why armor wasn't magically appearing on their tanks and humvees, it seems that Rumsfeld answered by saying that the Army was working on it. Ah hah! says Kristol. He's not taking personal responsibility! What a buck-passer! If someone had pointed out to Kristol that delegating authority is not the same thing as evading responsibility, his article would have been about half as long.
The other half? Well, it's mainly devoted to Kristol's screeching that we need more troops in Iraq. It seems that Rumsfeld has callously been ignoring Kristol's sage advice over the past few months to send another hundred thousand or so troops to Iraq. We don't have an unlimited amount of troops, OK?
For the record, Rumsfeld and Kristol have clashed on this issue before. Guess who was right the last time? Surprise - Rumsfeld. During the first stages of the war in Afghanistan, Kristol wrote in the Washington Post, "So let's stop denying some painful truths. We probably cannot win the war in Afghanistan without ground troops." Precisely thirty-seven days after Kristol wrote this, we won the war. And we never sent in ground troops. Go figure.
Is Rumsfeld a perfect wartime leader? Of course not. But he is doing a fair job, considering that he is contending with an unforeseen, invisible enemy in a country the size of California. More ground troops is not a magic elixir. William Kristol needs to get splashed with ice water and take a few deep breaths.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Subject: "100,000 dead Iraqis" - Yeah, right!
A study from Lancet, a British medical journal, is the new cause celebre for the loony left. Lancet claims that the war in Iraq has killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians. �Aha!� the liberal psychotics cry. �Bush is Hitler!� You can no longer go into any discussion about the war in Iraq without some idiot claiming that it is a fact that 100,000 Iraqis have died in the war. Big surprise � just like several hundred other myths the Left created about the war on terror, the 100,000 figure is almost certainly wrong.
For starters, it�s not as if Lancet went all the way around Iraq and counted every dead person. The 100,000 figure is a projection. Lancet surveyed 988 Iraqi households as a representative sampling, asking about deaths during the war, then extrapolating the numbers they got to the whole of Iraq. It�s anything but an exact count.
Secondly, as Gerald Alexander of The Weekly Standard reports, �the study�s method only supports a 95 percent confidence in the conclusion that the war caused somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths, an extremely wide range.� In between 8,000 and 194,000? That�s a pretty big margin of error. You can�t say that 100,000 Iraqis have died, if it could have been 200,000, or maybe only 8,000, but you�re just not sure.
Even antiwar groups are criticizing the Lancet report. Marc E. Garlasco, an analyst at Human Rights Watch, says, �The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting. These numbers seem to be inflated.� And the ferociously antiwar Iraq Body Count has reported, the Lancet researchers did not bother to ask the Iraqis they interviewed whether their dead relatives were civilians, or soldiers in Saddam�s army of terror. �The authors [of the Lancet report] clearly state that �many� of the dead in their sample may have been combatants.� In other words, a good deal of the �100,000� (8,000-194,000) dead Iraqis may have been fighting for Saddam. I don�t recall Donald Rumsfeld promising not to kill the enemy.
So, in conclusion, the Lancet �study� is not an exact count, but a projection; it does not say that 100,000 Iraqi civilians died, it says in between 8,000 and 194,000 Iraqis � soldiers and non-combatants � may have died; and everyone, even antiwar groups, agree that the count is inflated. In short: it�s a joke. (More sober estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties usually agree on about 16,000 civilian casualties, for example, Iraq Body Count.)
It still kills me (pun not intended) that antiwar activists are up in a huff that a war to displace a dictator who killed up to one million Iraqis (not to mention Kuwaitis and Iranians) may have killed a few thousand Iraqis in the crossfire. They don�t seem to understand the concept of necessary evil. Saddam�s mass graves aren�t even close to being completely uncovered yet, but the bodies already uncovered number about 400,000. (For a look at the full horror of Saddam�s regime, I recommend A Lifesaving War by Gerald Alexander.) In addition, according to UNICEF, the sanctions Clinton used to restrain Saddam without war killed about 60,000 Iraqis per year. In other words, a heck of a lot more Iraqis would have died if we had not invaded.
People die in wars. It�s inevitable. That�s why it�s wrong to go to war unless it will prevent something much worse. Something like Al-Qaeda terrorists operating out of Baghdad striking the U.S. with sarin and toxins, or terrorists trained by Saddam hijacking American airplanes, or Saddam Hussein engaging in another ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds and Shiites. Saddam Hussein posed a real threat to the lives of millions of people around the world, as well as his own people. This war was just. Get over it.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Subject: Fallujah's "Freedom Fighters"
The following is an excerpt from a letter from a Marine stationed near Fallujah to his father on November 3, 2004 (a few days before the Fallujah offensive began.) The next time you hear a psychotic liberal call the insurgents "freedom fighters," show them this:
A family that had fled Fallujah in order to get away from the fighting recently tried to return. When they got to their home, they found it taken over by terrorists (very common). When the patriarch showed the muj his deed in order to prove that the house was his, they took the old man out into the street and beat him senseless in front of his family.
Summary executions are common. Think about that. Summary executions inside Fallujah happen with sobering frequency. We have been witness to the scene on a number of occasions. Three men are taken from the trunk of a car and are made to walk to a ditch where they are shot. Bodies are found in the Euphrates without heads washed downstream from Fallujah. To date we have been allowed to do nothing.
I have no idea the numbers of beheadings that have occurred in Fallujah since I have been here. I have no idea the number of hostages that have ended up in Fallujah since we have been here. I just don't know that Americans would be able to comprehend the number anyway. Unfortunately, the situation has only gotten worse. There is no hope for any type of reasoned solution with an enemy like this.
Once again, we are being asked by citizens who have fled the city to go in and take the city back. They are willing for us to literally rubble the place in order to kill the terrorists within. Don't get me wrong, there are still many inside the town that support the terrorists and we cannot expect to be thanked publicly if we do take the city. There is a sense of de ja vu with the refugees telling us where their houses are and asking us to bomb them because the muj have taken them over. We heard the same thing in April only to end up letting the people down. Some no doubt have paid with their lives. The "good" people who may ultimately buy into a peaceful and prosperous Iraq are again asking us to do what we know must be done.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Subject: Ding, Dong, The Monster's Dead!
Well, the good news just keeps pouring in. Bush got re-elected, the U.S. military is all but victorious in Iraq, and now, Yasser Arafat, the mind that brought the world Islamic terrorism, croaks in a French military hospital. Does it get any better?
Of course, not everyone in rejoicing. Today, the French gave Arafat a ceremony worthy of a head of state. France's president, Jacques Chirac, said, "With him disappears the man of courage and conviction, who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians' combat for recognition of their national rights." Calvin Clark of TheGlobalist.com says, "Arafat was a founding father and a peacemaker." Palestinian terrorist groups are already renaming themselves after this peacemaker. David Grossman of the Los Angeles Times wrote that Arafat "battled for decades for this land. He turned its story into a political reality that has preoccupied the world, and he became a powerful and universal symbol of a nation's return to its homeland." And Bill Clinton, America's favorite ex-president, has this to offer: "However others viewed him, the Palestinians saw him as the father of their nation."
In order to remember this great statesman properly, let's take a moment to remember some of the strives for Middle Eastern peace he and his henchmen made during their 40-year reign of terror:
- Hijacking airplanes.
- Attacking airports in Israel and Rome.
- Murdering eleven Israeli Olympic athletes in Germany in 1972.
- Murdering American ambassador Cleo Noel in 1973.
- Taking over an Israel school and throwing twenty-one kids and five adults out of an upper-story window to their deaths in 1974.
- Hijacking the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdering a 69-year-old wheelchair-bound American in 1985.
- Breaking 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel.
- After repeatedly saying that he only wanted a Palestinian state, walking away from the table in July 2000 when Israel offered him his own stinking state, and starting a new war that has thus far cost 1,000 Israeli lives and 3,600 Palestinian lives.
- Training 11-year-olds to be suicide bombers in his new war.
And let's not leave without remembering some words of inspiration this great statesman offered us in 1996, three years after he signed a peace accord with Israel:
- "We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state."
- "We have one word: jihad, jihad, jihad. Whoever does not like it can drink Dead Sea water."
Or, as the Associated Press put it, "much of his life was filled with controversy."
It's been fun, Yasser. Rot in peace.
Sunday, November 7, 2004
Subject: Breaking News
According the New York Times, 10,000 U.S. troops started moving into Fallujah at 12 PM today. A few hours earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi declared emergency law for 60 days in most of Iraq. This will give him the power to order house-to-house searches, impose curfews, and to monitor and detain suspected insurgents. He will be using American troops to carry out these new powers.
This might very well be the turning point in the battle for Iraq, people. Things are going to come to a head in the next three months. Please pray for the troops in combat over there. A brother of my friend is one of them. Keep watching the news. The enemy has centralized itself in Fallujah and Ramadi, and we're going in. The gloves are finally coming off.
November 5, 2004
Subject: Guantanamo Bay Horrors
After the Abu Ghraib prison scandal erupted last May, reports started to come out that not only was the U.S. abusing the Baathists in Iraq, they were abusing the Taliban at their concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba! Well, thanks to an Associated Press report released today, we now know the true horrors that occurred inside these walls, out of sight from human rights groups:
- "Incidents this year include a military policeman who squirted a detainee with water in February, and camp barber who gave two 'unusual haircuts.' The haircuts were reverse mohawks."
- "A guard was charged with assault after he sprayed a detainee with a hose when the prisoner allegedly tried to throw water from his toilet at him in September 2002."
- "An interrogator told military police to repeatedly bring a detainee from a standing to kneeling position, so much that his knees were bruised, the government said."
- "In one case, a female interrogator took off her uniform top to expose her T-shirt to a detainee, ran her fingers through his hair and climbed on his lap in April 2003."
- "Another female interrogator wiped dye from a red magic marker on a detainee's shirt, telling him it was blood, after he allegedly spat on her."
The horror! WHEN WILL THESE ATROCITIES END?
(And, oh yeah, all of the guards involved in these incidents were either reprimanded, demoted or reassigned.)
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Subject: Let the jihad begin
"On the internet, speech is free - and liberalism can't survive the competition."
- Ann Coulter
On October 2, 2004, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings - anchors of longtime news rivals NBC, CBS and ABC - gathered at a press conference. You would think that, inasmuch as CBS had just been caught red-handed trumpeting forged documents about Bush's National Guard service, Brokaw and Jennings would be taking advantage of the situation, or, in the name of their mushy, lofty ideals about news broadcasting, at the very least would be denouncing C-BS. But no. They came to defend 'ol Dan. According to Brokaw, a problem far bigger than a national news network blatantly lying about the president in the heat of a campaign was the growing, ominous threat on the horizon - from conservatives on the internet.
"What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that is quite outrageous," said Brokaw. The real problem, he said, was that conservatives on the internet were damaging "the credibility of the news divisions."
A few weeks following this, The New York Times came out with a shocking new story: the Bush administration had failed to secure 377 tons of explosive at the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in Iraq, despite warning from the UN. The explosives were now gone, and were probably in the hands of the terrorists in Iraq. Another interesting tidbit: CBS had had the same story, but was going to wait to run it until the October 31 60 Minutes piece - two days before the election.
As it turned out, this was a lie too. The explosives had been intact in their bunkers as of March of 2003, when the inspectors left. When the 3rd infantry division arrived at the bunkers on April 3, 2003, they were gone. Only one person could have moved the explosives in that period - good 'ol SH. And, as we all know, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. The media had told us so, right?
- The New York Times front-page headline on June 17: "Panel finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie." The story read, The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted on of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war.
- The Washington Post front-page headline: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed." The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that is has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
- CBS Evening News: The night before the Times and Post stories, reporter John Roberts claimed, "One of President Bush's last surviving justifications for the war in Iraq took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no 'collaborative relationship' between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The report is yet another blow to the President's credibility."
- ABC World News Tonight: ABC displayed a graphic that read "No connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein." Peter Jennings said, "One of the Bush administration's most controversial assertions in its argument for war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda. Today the 9/11 Commission said, unequivocally, not so."
- NBC Nightly News: David Gregory claimed, "It's clear this report is a blow to the President's rationale for war."
Nothing could be further from the truth. As 9/11 Commission spokesman Jonathan Stull said, �The report doesn�t close the book on connections between Iraq and al
Qaeda.� Both co-chairs of the panel � A Democrat and a Republican � �stressed that the interim report did not dispute the White House�s argument about ties between Iraq and al
Qaeda.� (It took four days for the Post to admit this: under the title, �9/11 Panel Members Debate Qaeda-Iraq �Tie.��) The Commission�s Democratic chairman Lee Hamilton said, �There were connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein�s government. We don�t disagree on that. What we have said is�we don�t have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein�s
government and Al-Qaeda with regard to attacks on the United States. So the sharp differences that the press has drawn are not that apparent to me.� And Thomas Kean, the
Republican co-chairman, said, �I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's people.�
Conservatives were damaging "the credibility of the news divisions." Assuming there was a credibility to be damaged...
As I write this, I am sitting at school in my physics class. I've just found out that Kerry is about to concede the election to Bush. This is obviously great news to me and other conservatives, especially since the media, the Democratic party, and Michael Moore have been doing their best to undermine our president. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful. But they WERE successful in dividing our nation in a time of war and great public danger. And that division will continue as long as their lies persist. It's time to fight back - with the truth. Let the political jihad begin!
October 24, 2004
Closing Arguments
Well, it�s been one very LONG campaign season, and I for one am glad to see it�s almost over, as is almost everyone else, I�m sure. Less than two weeks left! If there are any undecided voters reading this, here are my closing arguments on why Bush is right on everything and Kerry is wrong on everything.
THE WAR
It�s been three years since 9/11, and Bush is winning the war on terror- smashingly. His administration has prevented 150 terrorist attacks. He came together with the Democrats to create the Department of Homeland Security. He signed the USAPATRIOT Act, which has led to 310 terrorist arrests. Multiple terror cells in the U.S. have been broken up, and terror assets around the world have been frozen. He led a stunningly successful campaign in Afghanistan. The Taliban is gone, 3,400 terrorists have been killed or captured, along with 75% of Al-Qaeda�s leadership. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is in a U.S. cell, and Afghanistan just held the first free elections in its history. It is going to become an indispensable U.S. ally in the heart of radical Islam�s stomping grounds. We invaded Iraq and shut down Saddam�s WMD programs and terror camps. The Iraqi dictator is no longer planning attacks on U.S. soil, funding suicide bombers, or teaching terrorists to hijack airplanes. Al-Qaeda no longer has a base of operations in Baghdad and northern Iraq. Uday and Qusay are dead, and their daddy is being tried by the people he formerly savaged on a daily basis. The number of Iraqi police and army recruits is nearly 100,000, with new recruits pouring in daily. The terrorists have invested all their resources in a hopeless guerrilla war in Iraq, where we currently have 140,000 troops. Come on in, die like the rest! The insurgency is losing in Samarra and Fallujah. Iraq will have elections in January, come hell or high water. 15 of its 18 provinces are secure enough for elections. Libya�s WMD and nuclear program have been shut down, and the A. Q. Khan nuclear ring is defunct. In short, FOUR MORE YEARS!
And Kerry? Well, he thinks taking out a genocidal, anti-American sadist who was training and funding terrorists, planning terror attacks against the U.S., and working towards WMD was a �colossal Error.� Either he�s mighty stupid, or lying and undermining American credibility. Take your pick. His plan for Iraq is different from Bush�s in only one way: He says he would bring the French and Germans in. Well, the French and Germans have repeatedly said that they�re not helping out no matter who�s elected, but guess who Kerry DOES have on his side: the pro-terror socialists in Spain, North Korea, and Iran! Whoee, talk about a coalition!
Iraq aside, there is clearly a difference in how the candidates think about this war. As Norman Lockman wrote last week, �Kerry says he wants to whack active terrorists too, then use alliances to stabilize hot spots, and worldwide anti-criminal strategies to suppress terrorism to the point it no longer can threaten everyday life.� C�mon now. In this day and age, �terrorism� is basically shorthand for the worldwide network of crazy Muslims who want to kill Americans and Jews, and prefer doing it by bombing random targets and sowing chaos. If it doesn�t threaten everyday life, it�s not really terrorism, is it? Kerry has repeatedly described the war on terror as a �manhunt,� or, �a law enforcement and intelligence operation.� No, John, it�s a war. We have tanks and troops and choppers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we�re fighting the terrorists in the streets every day, and we will continue to until they�re dead. This is nowhere near a police operation. In the debates, Kerry said that the battle in Iraq against Al-Zarqawi�s Al-Qaeda-linked insurgent network is �not the real war on terror.� Al-Zarqawi�s network has ricin, toxins, might have chemical weapons, and has planned terrorist attacks in France, Germany, England, Russia, and Jordan. If this isn�t the war on terror, what is?
Kerry opposes having a missile defense shield, even though it appears that Iran is about to become a nuclear power, China already is, and North Korea has several nuclear weapons and a missile within range of U.S. soil. Kerry also opposes having �bunker buster� nuclear weapons - warheads designed to destroy underground bunkers filled with chemical and biological weapons. The anti-military senator of the 80�s hasn�t changed much.
Even when it comes to the �manhunt,� John Kerry has his ideas screwed up. Last December, he said, �We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.� Do some research, and you�ll learn that not only does the Patriot Act respect our liberties, but it has led to the arrest of 310 terrorist operatives. John Kerry thinks that�s a bad thing.
Kerry is fond of saying that Bush should have waited to invade Iraq until the French and Germans joined the coalition. Newsflash: The French and Germans were never going to join the coalition. In fact, both of them fought their very hardest to keep a war resolution from passing the UN. Iraq was bottling sarin and building mustard gas grenades. We didn�t have time to wait for the French and Germans to lend their moral authority to deposing Saddam Hussein.
In the words of Ann Coulter, �As if it means something, Kerry keeps vowing: �I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.� But he will stop at the Iraqi border. Or if the French and Germans aren't on board. Or we don't have United Nations approval. Or if it would require investigating a Muslim under the Patriot Act.�
Bush is doing an awesome job. Let�s let him finish it.
ABORTION
I realize that this is the probably the most emotional political issue in existence right now, but hear me out. There is no physical or mental difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn child. However, under current law in most of the United States, killing a fetus one second before birth is exercising a constitutional right, and killing a newborn child one second after birth is murder. How much sense does that make? It makes sense to John Kerry, apparently. He voted against a bill that would have outlawed pulling a fully-formed human fetus halfway out of the womb and stabbing it in the head. Bush signed that bill into law. Then, of course, some judges decided they didn't like the law, and overturned it. Kerry's campaign spokepersons were jubilant.
Kerry has said he will only appoint justices with a clear �record of respect for constitutional rights,� including �the right to privacy and the right to choose� - rights that aren�t in the Constitution, whether liberal justices see them there or not. Bush will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it to suit their ideology.
John Kerry constantly says that he personally believes that abortion is wrong, but wouldn�t want to impose that belief on others. That doesn�t make sense either. If he truly believes that abortion is wrong, that every time an abortion is performed a unique human life is destroyed, why on earth does he want to allow it? The most important duty of the government is to protect the innocent. That�s not imposing personal convictions on people; that�s enforcing justice. It seems to me that when it comes to abortion rights, Kerry either has a serious moral schizophrenia problem, or is dying to get a chunk of the Catholic vote.
ECONOMY
Bush is seldom recognized for the economic genius he is. He inherited a recession, and had to deal with the largest terrorist attack in world history. But Bush�s tax cuts began to take full effect last year. Employment has been growing since August 2003, with almost 2 million jobs created since 9/11. And production and wages are on the rise.
John Kerry�s website says, �When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.� Now that�s interesting, because according to a study from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, if the agenda Kerry has proposed were enacted in full, �annual federal spending would rise by at least $226.125 billion during the first year of a Kerry Presidency alone.� I certainly hope that he has a box filled with trillions of dollars stashed away in one of his mansions, because I�d hate the see the taxes that he would put on the remaining two percent of Americans with that kind of budget. According to the same NTUF study, �U.S. taxpayers would each face an average additional $2,206 in higher taxes during Kerry�s first year in office, and a cumulative increased tax burden of $6,066 over his first term.� I seriously doubt that Kerry will be able to keep both his tax cut promise and his new policy agenda. Based on Kerry�s voting record, I also seriously doubt that the tax cut will take precedence if the two conflict. If taxes are raised on businesses and the middle class, all of the Bush administration�s economic gains will be reversed. Businesses will not be able to hire as many people if their taxes are raised, and consumer spending will go down if their taxes are raised, so the businesses will have even less money, etc., etc., etc. I�m not an economist, but I don�t think Kerry will create more jobs that way.
HEALTHCARE
Here's where the liberal and conservative in Kerry and Bush really come out. Kerry wants to create a generation of impoverished Americans dependent on the government for healthcare. Bush's philosophy is to help Americans pay for it themselves - with tax credits, tax-free savings accounts, expanding Medicaid and Medicare, expanding association health plans, and capping malpractice suits. He also wants to establish free clinincs in poor communities, so people who desperately need healthcare will be able to get it. Which is the better plan - to try and get people on their feet, or to make them comfortable on the ground?
EDUCATION
Both Kerry and Bush support the No Child Left Behind Act, and you can�t blame them, since it�s already producing results in our schools. But when it comes to education, there�s one big difference between the candidates: Bush supports school vouchers, Kerry opposes them. Kerry makes a big show about fighting for the middle class and minorities; what about middle class and minority families who want to move their kids out of the failing inner-city schools that the government has forced upon them? Why isn't he fighting for them?
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The University of Michigan used to hand out 20 points on college admissions for being born African-American, Hispanic or Native American, and only 12 points for a perfect SAT score. Bush challenged that in the Supreme Court. Kerry opposed him. Who here is judging by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character?
GUN CONTROL
Kerry likes to portray himself as a hunter, but as a politician, he wants to make it harder for you to get a gun. He wants to require a safety training course for all gun purchasers. (Lesson 1: Don�t point at your head and shoot. Lesson 2: Don�t point at other people and shoot�) He wants to allow lawsuits against gun companies, and mandate safety devices on all guns. Remember this the next time you find yourself scrambling to unlock your handgun while being mugged.
Well, those are my thoughts on the major issues in this election. I think that Bush is the best choice for the country. He has a terrific record, and a sound plan for the next four years.
October 9, 2004
Some key findings of the Iraq Survey Group�s final report that you might not have heard about on CNN:
� Saddam intended to get the UN sanctions on his country lifted so he could freely pursue chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.
� Saddam intended to restart a nuclear weapons program once the UN sanctions were lifted.
� Saddam retained biological weapon samples and a team of BW scientists.
� Oday Hussein attempted to acquire chemical weapons in 2003.
� Iraq conducted design work on long-range ballistic missiles in violation of UN resolutions.
(Source: �Key findings from the final report of the Iraq Survey Group,� Associated Press, October 7, 2004)
This report reconfirms what Bush has known all along: Saddam was the real weapon of mass destruction. Even if we had managed to destroy every weapon, piece of equipment and BW sample in his country, there was nothing to stop him from restarting his production programs once the sanctions were lifted. What were we going to do, sanction him and starve the Iraqi people forever?
On a side note, today Afghanistan is holding the first true elections in its history. Iraq will soon follow. If we are successfully, we will have driven a stake through the heart of Al-Qaeda�s fanaticism. That�s not bad for the first term.
October 4, 2004
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!
HUGELY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!
The liberals have been whining about a "smoking gun" constantly for the past two years. Well, folks, here it is.
According to 42 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents leaked to CNSNews.com, not only did Saddam's government have extensive links to Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations, but possessed anthrax and mustard gas in the summer of 2000.
According to the article, CNS News asked a former CIA officer, a former UNSCOM officer and a former Clinton advisor to look at the documents. "All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine."
This is huge, people. Not even the liberals can twist this around. If the documents turn out to be genuine, this is concrete, irrefutable evidence that Iraq was aiding Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and possessed weapons of mass destruction. Wasn't it just a few nights ago on the debate that John Kerry was telling us there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda? This is the knockout blow that will tip the election in Bush's favor.
One of the documents, straight from Saddam's office to the Iraqi intelligence service, says, "It�s decided that the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends." Only nine months after this letter was written, guess what happened? Al-Qaeda orchestrated Black Hawk Down.
If these documents are genuine - and remember, this is still a big if - then this will completely turn around American opinion about the war. Spread the word! The URL for the article is below:
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Mark my words: if this is the real deal, by the time this gets out, the Iraq War will be vindicated and the Left humiliated. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and this only further proves it.
So...get the word out!
September 30, 2004
Notes on the first debate
I don�t know what all of you thought about the debate, but I thought it went pretty well. Kerry was much more articulate, but (if you ask me, of course) Bush had better points. Half of the time Kerry said we stuff like �we need negotiations with North Korea and Iran,� or �we need to train the Iraqis,� or �we need to clamp down on nuclear proliferation,� or �we need to spend on homeland security,� and Bush always had the perfect answer: We already are!
Here are some of Kerry�s whoppers I caught:
� When asked if he believes in preemptive war, his answer was, �Yes � if it passes the global test.� I don�t want it to have to pass the global test. If the president of the United States knows a preemptive action is necessary, I want him to do it whether or not Jacques Chirac wants him to!
� After calling the war in Iraq �a colossal error in judgment� and saying Bush made a mistake in going to Iraq � several times � when asked if Americans were dying for a mistake, Kerry said, �No.� What the heck? Either taking out a genocidal, terrorist-supporting, WMD-building dictator with known designs on America was a mistake or it wasn�t!
� Kerry said that once he got into office, he would shut down the �bunker buster� nuclear weapons program Bush installed. Once again, what world is this guy living in? After blathering on endlessly about how horrible Iran and North Korea are, he said would stop building a weapon that could be critical if we ever found ourselves in a nuclear war?
� Kerry also complained that Bush hadn�t secured �the nuclear facilities� in Iraq. He also said that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Which is it, Johnny?
� Kerry says that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror. Thousands upon thousands of terrorists have poured into Iraq trying to fight against �the Crusaders� � as Kerry himself mentioned several times. Kerry could have saved us a lot of grief by running over to Iraq and shouting, �Hey, dudes! This isn�t the war on terror! Go back to Afghanistan so I can complain some more!�
� Kerry said that we had Saddam Hussein trapped. How do you trap a man who provides training, weapons and funding to terrorists and has a systematic system to deceive the UN inspectors? How do you trap a man with long-range UAVs and anthrax lines? How do you trap a man with an entire country at his disposal? You cannot contain terror groups and anthrax vials. This guy has no idea how to confront nutty dictators.
� As NBC documented tonight, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom is $119 billion � not $200 billion, as Kerry repeated endlessly. Not even Moveon.org got a number that high.
� Kerry says, �I have had one consistent position [on Iraq].� Really? Let�s go to the record.
�I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.�
- May 4, 2003
�I voted to threaten the use of force.�
- September 2, 2003
�I am [antiwar].�
- January 6, 2004
�Yes.� � when asked if he would have voted the same way on Iraq.
- A few weeks ago
�George Bush sent troops to the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.�
- September 6, 2004
�A colossal error of judgment.�
- John Kerry on Iraq tonight
�No!�
- When asked tonight if Americans were dying for a mistake
� Kerry said tonight he would have our troops home in six months. What if Iraq isn�t all splendid in six months? Will you leave Iraq in a mess or break your promise to the troops? This isn�t a good thing to be saying.
� Kerry said that Iraq had no connection to Al-Qaeda. That just makes him stupid, quite frankly.
� Kerry said tonight, as he says constantly, to my extreme annoyment, �Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.� Once again, what the heck does that mean? Win the peace? What would John Kerry have done differently? Oh yeah, I forgot � run out and tell the terrorists that they were fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. �Go back to Afghanistan, boys!�
� Kerry�s �plan� for Iraq: Get France and Germany in Iraq � even though he won�t tell us how. Stop terrorists from crossing into Iraq � he�s gonna set them straight, remember? This isn�t really the war on terror. And finally, train Iraqis to defend themselves � like Bush is doing right now. Brilliant plan, John.
� After Bush pointed out that Saddam Hussein was planning to build WMDs, Kerry made the stunningly stupid point that �35 to 40 countries have the same WMD capability as Iraq did.� Well those 35 countries didn�t have a genocidal, pro-bin Laden, anti-American sadist running them, did they?
� Judging by tonight, Kerry apparently believes that capturing Osama bin Laden is all-important � even though all the analysts agree that getting bin Laden won�t stop Al-Qaeda from attacking, since it�s composed of hundreds of splinter cells that act independently.
� Kerry complained that Bush sent our troops to Iraq without body armor, when Kerry voted against the $87 billion that paid for body armor.
In conclusion, if John Kerry thinks France and Germany are paramount, that taking out Saddam Hussein was a mistake, that Osama bin Laden is the entire Al-Qaeda network, that Iraq had no connections Al-Qaeda, that bunker buster nuclear weapons have no value, that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don�t need funding � then he�s not the man to lead this country, folks.
September 28, 2004
Kerry-watch
�The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, Al-Qaeda. There�s just no question about it.�
- Senator John Kerry, September 24, 2004
(Mary Dalrymple, �Bin Laden, not Saddam, was priority, Kerry says,� Associated Press, September 25, 2004)
Will the senator yield for a question? How on earth could a war against a regime that harbored Al-Qaeda, funded Al-Qaeda, trained Al-Qaeda, armed Al-Qaeda, and trained terrorists to hijack airplanes, be a diversion from the battle on Al-Qaeda? And how can a man who fails to grasp that fact lead the Western world in a deathmatch with radical Islam?
September 17, 2004
Kofi Annan, the delightfully useless head honcho of the United Nations (or, "United Anti-American Dictators/Bigots," as I like to call them) is making a nuisance out of himself. In an interview with BBC News, he said, "Yes, I have indicated it [the Iraq war] is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
Well, good for the UN Charter. If the UN Charter prevents taking out terrorist-supporting, WMD-building monsters, then I think the UN Charter has outlived its usefullness.
(Source: BBC News September 16, 2004 Excerpts: Annan Interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm)
September 11, 2004
Remembering Why We Fight
A few days ago, the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq passed one thousand. We are facing a huge Iraqi insurgency, civilian casualties in Iraq continue to rise, and there is no end in near sight. America is at war. But with doubts about WMD fed by the American Left, and no significant progress in the war on terror made recently, many Americans are beginning to wonder, why? Why do we fight?
Well I�m here to tell you. We fight because three years ago today, Islamic terrorists declared war on America and flew airplanes into buildings. We fight because the streets of New York were littered with the bodies of World Trade Center workers who preferred jumping thousands of feet to being burned alive. We fight because of the thousands of New Yorkers who died sitting in their offices at work. We fight because of the hundreds of plane passengers who died in the blast of their plane hitting a skyscraper. We fight in the spirit of the passengers of Flight 93, who died protecting their country.
We fight because six months ago today, Islamic savages bombed ten trains in Madrid, killing two hundred innocent commuters, including many children. We fight because of the mothers sobbing over the coffins of their children.
We fight because just last week, Islamic monsters killed three hundred and fifty Russian children and their parents at a school orientation with bombs and machine guns. We fight because they shot children in the back as they ran in terror from the hellhole that had once been an elementary gymnasium.
We fight because a power-hungry insurgency in Iraq has killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and Americans in their fight against freedom. We fight because Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi cut off the head of Nicholas Berg, who had come to help the Iraqi people rebuild, while his followers chanted �Allah Akbar.�
We fight not for power or oil or land, but for the freedom and security of all people. We fight because barbarians have declared war on civilization. Anyone who thinks that these murderers can be reasoned with or appeased is sadly mistaken. As Al-Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah has said, �The Americans love Pepsi-Cola. We love death.�
We are at war not by choice, but by necessity. No one ever said this fight would be short or easy. Saddam Hussein once said, �The America people cannot accept 10,000 casualties.� Was he right? Can we even accept 1,000?
Today, please honor and remember those who lost their lives to Islamic hatred and barbarism. Remember the World Trade Center workers, and Russian children, and the Spanish victims, and the Iraqi dead. Remember those who have died fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But above all, remember what they died fighting for � and why the fight must continue.
Thanks for reading my little sermonette, and God bless America.
September 6, 2004
Happy Labor Day, everyone! When I went to see President Bush at a rally on Tuesday, he said in his speech, "Be warned: there's still 60 days left for my opponent to change his mind again."
This has proved to be one of the more prophetic statements made this election year. Today, just weeks after saying that, knowing what he knows now, he would still vote for the war, John Kerry has flopped again. He accused Bush of sending our troops to the "wrong war in the wrong place in the wrong time." By my count, this is eight position he has taken on Iraq since 1991, and the sixth since 2002.
Why the sudden change? According to the Associated Press, President Clinton told him in a lengthy phone call over the weekend to go hard after Bush's record. The "yes-no-maybe" approach to Iraq wasn't working at the polls, so he has come down hard on the anti-war side. Anyone who doesn't see this for what it is - sheer political expediency - is willfully ignorant. Whatever gain Kerry thinks he will get out of this is sure to be minimal; he's already got the anti-war left on his side, and this blatant flop will not impress voters.
But more importantly, this shows that Kerry just does not have what it takes to lead our nation in the war on terror. We know for a fact that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks in the United States, was funding and harboring Al-Qaeda, and was capable of and was planning to use weapons of mass destruction. If Kerry doesn't see a threat there, he is not the man for the job.
(Source: Associated Press, "Kerry Slams 'Wrong War in the Wrong Place,'" Calvin Woodward, September 6, 2004)
September 4, 2004
Kerry's Midnight Harangue
Obviously hysterical over the huge success of the GOP convention, Kerry held a midnight rally after Bush's speech Thursday. "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled America into Iraq," he ranted.
Fine. Have it your way. Zell Miller is a Marine. He served his country. And he certainly wasn't in a position to "mislead" the nation on Iraq. So it should be fine if he points out the gaping national security holes in Kerry's record, right?
A four-month stint commanding a swift boat does not make one fit to command a country. All right? We know Kerry's record - he slandered American troops on the Senate floor, he met with communist leaders, he fought his hardest to keep a Soviet stooge in charge of Nicaragua, he favored a nuclear freeze at the height of the Cold War, he opposed nearly every advanced weapon system we are now using in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted against the Gulf War, he voted against a bill that would have provided funding, fuel and body armor to our troops in Iraq (or, more correctly, he voted FOR it before he voted against it), he lies about Bush lying constantly, he admits he sat dumb-stricken for over half an hour on 9/11, he opposes the Patriot Act (or has he changed his mind on that again?), he wants to give the United Nations authority over U.S. troops, etc., etc., etc., etc.!!! Four months of combat does not make up for this.
To any Kerry campaign workers that might happen to be listening out there: tell your boy to get off his Vietnam tangent. The American people are getting a little tired of it.
September 2, 2004
All right. Final night of the convention. Bush did a spectacular job giving his speech (which you can read or watch at ww.gopconvention.com, in case you missed it.) Even John Kerry knows it, as evidenced by the fact that he's completely lost it, what with the midnight harangue and all. Here are, in my judgment, the two best lines of his speech:
"America has done this kind of work before and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, 'Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European]capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.' End quote.
Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials."
I'm SURE he is. The Times probably fought tooth and nail to keep him.
And excellent line number two:
"The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear. And they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march."
And of course, New York governor George Pataki had a couple of good ones two, such as,
"In the hands of a monster, a boxcutter is a weapon of mass destruction."
Kudos to the GOP for an awesome convention! According to Time magazine, we now have an 11-point edge over Kerry.
September 1, 2004
Tonight was the best night of the GOP convention by a long shot - and given McCain and Arnold's speeches, that's saying something! So I had to pick three lines from tonight. Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat from Georgia, raised the roof with his speech about John Kerry and defense. Listing two quotes from it just doesn't do it justice; I would implore you to go to http://www.gopconvention.com/ to watch the replay. Trust me, the Left is gonna be in hysterics about this one for days, if not weeks.
BEST LINES OF THE THIRD NIGHT OF THE GOP CONVENTION:
"Listing all the weapons systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security...[Goes on to list the myriad weapon systems Kerry voted against and the role they played in the Gulf War and the war on terror - the B-1, the B-2, the Apache, the Trident, the Patriot, etc., etc., etc., etc.] This is the man who wants to be commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces? Armed with what? Spitballs?"
- Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia)
"Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our country is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief."
- Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia)
RUNNER-UP:
"He [Kerry] declared at the Democratic National Convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked."
- Vice President Dick Cheney
I'm sick to death of NBC, so if you want the dish on the media's completely partisan coverage on this, go to http://www.mediaresearch.org/. Let's just say I'm thrilled that Brokaw is retiring.
ADDENDUM TO 8/31 EDITORIAL:
The full quote from Brokaw that night was, "The fact is we're required to point out here that things are not going well in many parts of the world for the United States. Despite the speeches tonight of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush, this is a very difficult time in Iraq, the war on terrorism is an uncertain trumpet."
(http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040901am.asp#1)
As mediaresearch.org has documented, the media has come out guns blazing against Bush in their "objective" coverage of the GOP convention.
August 31, 2004
BEST LINE OF THE SECOND NIGHT OF THE GOP CONVENTION:
"I wouldn't like to use the words 'commander-in-chief' to describe John Kerry."
- Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, Maryland
RUNNER UP
"Don't be economic girly-men!"
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
P.S.: Did anyone else watch NBC's coverage of the convention tonight! After Laura's speech, Tom Brokaw said, "We feel compelled to point out that America is not standing well in most of the world, despite what Governor Schwarzenegger and First Lady Laura Bush said tonight, and that the war on terror is an uncertain trumpet." (Paraphrase; I wrote this from memory.)
NO MEDIA BIAS! What a joke. Ahh-nold's rabble-rousing was so good that they had felt like they had to rush in and save Kerry from his imminent doom in the polls that will follow this convention. Check www.mediaresearch.org tomorrow, I'm sure they're going to raise heck over this - as they should.
Bush was in Iowa with McCain today, so me and my friend and my dad went up there to see him talk. I'm pretty sure it was a stump speech he gave, but it was good anyway. First time I've seen him in person. Exciting. Although Iowa traditionally swings Democrat, I really think we're going to win it this year. I see five times more Bush/Cheney bumper stickers than Kerry stickers.
August 30, 2004
ABSOLUTE BEST LINE OF THE FIRST NIGHT OF THE GOP CONVENTION!!!
�Our choice was between war and a graver threat, and don�t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our political opponents, and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker" � (Raucous applause, chants of �Four More Years,� scattered booing, multiple attempts by McCain to restart his speech, lasting about half a minute) � "That line was so good, I�ll say it again. Certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Iraq was an oasis of peace.�
- Senator John McCain
(Did anyone else see Moore in the balcony laughing? I didn�t even know he was there.)
RUNNER-UP!!!
"When I hear people talking about the war in Iraq, I want to remind them that a war has been raging throughout Iraq for the last three decades - a war of Saddam against his own people."
- Zainab Al-Suwaji, Executive Director of the American Islamic Congress
August 29, 2004
Good grief. I�m so sick of Vietnam! First all the liberals made Kerry�s Vietnam service the central plank in his campaign. (Yeah, the same people who got a draft-dodger elected twice.) �How can you say Kerry can�t fight a war? He served in Vietnam.� �George Bush went AWOL. [He didn�t.] But Kerry courageously volunteered for Vietnam.� I DON�T CARE!!! I don�t care about what the candidates did with their lives thirty years ago. I care about how they�re going to run the war on terror, and John Kerry is not the right man, no matter how many medals he got/stole in Vietnam!
And then, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth come out with news ads and a book claiming that John Kerry was a coward who lied about Vietnam and didn�t deserve his medals. And then all the crewmembers from Kerry line up with him and contradict the Swiftboat Vets. Then Kerry tries to sue TV stations that play the ad. The entire campaign is revolving around Vietnam, and the real issues are being ignored.
Are the Swiftboat Vets telling the truth? I don�t know. To me, it seems like its Kerry and his crew�s word against everyone else�s. But when it comes down to it, the veracity of the Swiftboat Vets� claims is a side issue. Everything I need to know about Kerry�s Vietnam service is already proven as fact.
� During a four-month tour of duty in Vietnam, he himself admits that he burnt down villages and shot in free-fire zones. In the words of Ollie North, that makes Kerry either a perjurer or a war criminal, the �60s equivalent of Lyndie England of Abu Ghraib fame.
� After he returned from his war crimes tour in Vietnam, he organized an antiwar movement and falsely accused American troops of committing atrocities on the Senate floor.
� His false testimony was used by the North Vietnamese to break down American POWs, and by the KGB to spread anti-American disinformation.
� The North Vietnamese would later credit their victory to the American anti-war movement, which Kerry contributed to.
A war hero? Try war-criminal-turned-traitor. I�ll take Bush�s National Guard service over that any day. John Kerry has nothing on Bush in terms military service. OK? Good. Let�s talk about the real issues for a change.
August 17, 2004
F 9/11: Aid and Comfort to the Enemy
Last July 26, a letter from Army. Spc. Joe Roche in the 16th Engineering Battalion in Iraq was posted at the National Center for Public Policy Research. (www.nationalcenter.org/2004/07/fahrenheit-911-and-its-impact-on.html)
Spc. Roche writes, �Michael Moore�s Film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing it around. The impact is devastating. Here we are, soldiers of the of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore�s film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed�Specialist Janecek, who is feeling depressed because a close family member is nearing the end of her life, just saw the film today. I saw him in the DFAC. He is devastated. �I feel sh-tty, ashamed, like this was all a lie.� Not only is he looking at going straight to a funeral when he returns home, but now whatever pride he felt for serving here has been crushed by Moore�s film. Specialist Everett earlier after seeing this film: �You�ll be mad as sh-t for ever having come here.� �Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been a part of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has present in this film. �We know this is all based on Moore�s lies and deceptions. But we, I�m afraid, are a minority. Right now, just days away from what should be a proud and happy return from 15 months of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, your U.S. soldiers are coming back ashamed and hurt because of Moore�s work. � Lt. Bischoff is so angry he could explode. He knows Moore�s work is based on lies and distortions, but as he says, �the damage is done.� � Moore is hurting us, hurting America, and today I can tell you he is hurting your soldiers. I don�t know what to ask, except that good people out there find ways to organize information so that we can better counter Moore�s impact.�
This is beyond ridiculous. This is beyond enraging. This is criminal. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a solid lie that is hurting our war efforts. In any reasonable nation, Moore would be jailed for treason. No wonder the terror group Hezbollah is helping distribute this movie. (Samantha Ellis, �Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah,� The Guardian, June 17, 2004)
If YOU want to answer Spc. Roche�s call, here are some great links that expose the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11. Spread the word. It�s the least we can do for our fighting boys.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4386
August 12, 2004
Before one more person complains about Bush not immediately springing into action after the second plane hit the WTC when he was in a classroom surrounded by little kids, I want to hear the liberals explain John Kerry�s derring-do on 9/11. As he put it July 8 on CNN�s Larry King Live, he was in a meeting with Senators Tom Daschle, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid on 9/11.
�We watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon.�
The second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 A.M. Flight 77 rammed into the Pentagon at 9:39 A.M. That means that John Kerry on 9/11 sat dumbstruck for a full thirty-six minutes. �Nobody could think.� Those were his words. If Kerry was too shocked to think on 9/11 as a SENATOR, how could anyone trust him to handle something like that as commander-in-chief?
While Kerry was sitting dumbly at a table with other leading Democrats, President Bush, ever the calm leader, was trying not to scare a classroom of second graders and was reading to them while his aides collected information about the attacks. Afterwards, at 9:30, he made an impromptu speech without rehearsal, saying, �Terrorism against our nation will not stand.� He then raced to Air Force One, where Cheney called him and asked for permission to shoot down hijacker-controlled airplanes. Without hesitation, he said, �You bet.� There was no question who was in control on September 11.
August 4, 2004
The Democrats are in hysterics again. Howard Dean now says that Bush raised the terror threat level at the end of the Democratic convention to hurt Kerry's political fortunes.
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence to support this wacked-out conspircy theory - as the Kerry campaign openly admits. (See, www.nytimes.com, "Issue of Politics and Terror Complicates Strategy for Kerry and His Party," August 4.) The threat is real. The evidence comes from Al-Qaeda laptop computers and captured operatives. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said on the Monday TODAY Show that the quality of the intelligence about this threat, on a scale of one to ten, is a "ten." Howard Dean is endangering national security by claiming that this threat is not real. People - especially people in the targeted areas - need to be vigilant. Thanks to good 'ol Howard, probably some will not be.
Second of all, Dean's diatribe is a tacit admission of what we've known all along - Kerry is not fit to defend this country. Why else would raising the terror level help Bush politically? The left seriously needs to get a grip. The day will come when all this hysteria is going to seriously endanger America.
July 30, 2004
After waffling on Iraq for almost two years, John Kerry appears to finally have made up his mind. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention Thursday, Kerry weighed in with a firmly anti-war message:
�As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system � so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.�
Let�s review the facts, shall we?
John Kerry was, and is, on the Senate Intelligence Committee. That means he had access to all the intelligence reports Bush had access to. He said the same thing as Bush: �The threat of Saddam Hussein with his weapons of mass destruction is real.� Why wasn�t he �asking the hard questions� then?
Kerry also voted to go to war with Iraq. Yes, he later tried to weasel out of his vote by claiming that he only voted �to threaten the use of force.� Don�t be fooled. In May of 2003, he was saying, �I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.� Was Kerry voting to war because he wanted to, not because he had to?
This is just garbage, people. Kerry is lying about America�s war efforts to score cheap political points. This guy is a total slimebag.
July 19, 2004
Some conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee that you might not have heard of through the news:
Conclusion 92: The CIA's examinations of CONTACTS, TRAINING, SAFEHAVEN AND OPERATIONAL COOPERATION as indicators of a possible IRAQ-AL-QAIDA TIE was a REASONABLE AND OBJECTIVE approach to the question.
Conclusion 93: The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of CONTACTS BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAIDA throughout the 1990's...
Conclusion 94: The CIA reasonably and objectively assessed...that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.
Conclusion 95: The CIA's assessment on safehaven - THAT AL-QAIDA OR ASSOCIATED OPERATIVES WERE PRESENT IN BAGHDAD AND IN NORTHEASTERN IRAQ... - was reasonable.
Conclusion 97: The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, MIGHT EMPLOY TERRORISTS WITH A GLOBAL REACH - AL-QAIDA - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, WAS REASONABLE.
In short, while the report blasted the CIA when it came to WMDs, it confirmed 100% of the CIA judgments regarding Al-Qaeda's ties to Iraq. The results are now in, people: Iraq funded, trained and harbored Al-Qaeda forces, retained the capability to mass produce WMDs, was planning to attack the United States, and left hundreds of chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for. Why exactly is everyone so sure the war was a bad idea again?
July 4, 2004
Happy Independence Day! What a momentous week! I count four noteworthy events:
- On Monday, June 28, Iraq became a free nation again.
- Also on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants detained in the war on terror have the right to contest their detentions in court.
- On Thursday, July 1, Saddam Hussein appeared at his arraignment hearing for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- And last, but certainly not least, Michael Moore added his slanderous documentary
"Fahrenheit 9/11" to a long line of liberal hate productions.
I'll go through these one at a time.
First, Iraqi sovereignty. Things are looking good for Iraq. It is now a sovereign nation, responsible for its own destiny. By January, the people will elect their rulers. Moqata Al-Sadr's insurrection is over; he claims that it will morph into a political party in the new Iraq, and that the new government has his support.
(Source: Jeff Jacoby, "What's Going on in Iraq," June 21, 2004) The only resistance left in Iraq are Saddam's old generals and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group - and seeing as they're both constantly killing innocent Iraqis, I don't think they'll get much support from the populace. Their hopeless battle can't go on forever. Let us all pray that Iraq becomes a peaceful nation sooner rather than later.
Second, the Supreme Court ruling. The Court agreed that the commander-in-chief has the right to detain enemy combatants, but it also ruled that the detained US citizens and the terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to appeal their cases.
I am undecided on this issue. I agree with the court that the executive branch has to be checked; they can't just go around detaining whoever they want with unlimited power. (I don't think Bush would do that, but I don't want another, less trustworthy president to be able to.) On the other hand, if the terrorists have the right to remain silent in court, we won't be able to get any information out of them about other Al-Qaeda operations around the world. (No, they don't have the constitutional right to remain silent unless they are prosecuted as criminals, and they're not - they're enemy combatants, prisoners of war.) Can we find a middle ground?
Third, Saddam's appearance in court. When asked about his massacre of 5,000 innocent civilians in his own country with chemical weapons at the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, he said "he had heard of the incident through the media." That must have been of great comfort to the Kurdish teenagers who crawled out from under their dead mothers as infants.
Saddam also said of his trial, "You know that this is all a theater by Bush, the criminal, to help him with his campaign." It's scary how well our enemies know the liberal mind. Those words could just as easily have come out the mouth of an antiwar protestor.
Fourth: Michael Moore's movie. I have not seen it, but I hope to soon. HOWEVER, I did do a little digging about the movie.
For more information about this, go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/278rxzvb.asp?pg=1 and http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/.
Just a few quick points here:
- Moore claims that Bush flew 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, out of the US while flights were still grounded. What he fails to mention? The flights took place on 9/14, after airspace was reopened, the bin Laden family members that were flown out of the country had renounced their notorious brother, and the man who gave the order for the flights was NOT W., but - guess who? - Richard Clarke, champion of Bush-haters everywhere.
- According to Christoper Hitchens, "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American." This is just plain false. Saddam tried to assissinate former President Bush in Kuwait, plotted terrorist attacks in the US in 2002 (see below), and regularly called for jihad against the United States. As Hitchens says, "I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."
- Lastly, the movie is so filled with contradictions, it's totally worthless. (See the last URL.)
As Ann Coulter says, "At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point." Don't agree? Go see Fahrehnheit for yourself.
Oh, one more thing. Go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm to see "4-D" ultrasounds of unborn children yawning and smiling. It's amazing. I'm savagely pro-life, and even I couldn't believe it.
June 22, 2004
Well, what do you know? According to Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, "After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests." Putin warned Washington about Saddam's impending attacks after September 11. (Putin: Russia told U.S. about Iraq attack plan, June 19, 2004, Register News Services.)
Saddam was trying to attack America! Go figure. How long are our peaceniks going to caterwaul about America going to war with those trying to destroy it? After this revelation, the war in Iraq cannot be called anything but self-defense. Bush was undoubtedly aware of this report, and in going to war was acting against an active enemy of America. If he had done anything less, it would have been a dereliction of duty.
June 2, 2004 -
What's wrong with this picture?
In 1973, the Supreme Court -an unelected, unaccountable body without a constituency -overturned the abortion regulation laws of ALL FIFTY STATES - which had been passed by elected, accountable state representatives. Does that sound like democracy in action?
Now, granted, the Court does have jurisdiction to declare certain laws unconstitutional. But let's think about this. The Constitution never mentions abortion, or bodily privacy -anywhere! And yet, the Court declared that the Constitution said that states could not regulate abortions in the first trimester, could regulate abortions in the second trimester only to protect a women's health, and forbid abortions in the third trimester except when the life of the mother was at stake. None of this can be obtained from the Constitution. Let's call Roe v. Wade what it is: legislation. Which, when done by the judicial branch, is in of itself unconstitutional.
And now here we are in 2004. In October, President Bush -an elected, accountable official - signed into law the first federal ban on abortion measures - the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, a bipartisan bill that was passed by elected, accountable legislators. And now, guess what? A federal district judge - an unelected, unaccountable official - has declared the Ban unconstitutional. (Which is odd, since the Constitution says nothing about partial-birth abortion.) The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. And the hopes there aren';t very good, since this is the Court that declared a similar abortion ban in Nebraska unconstitutional. Once again, a government branch with unchecked power is legislating, and no one can do anything about it. Once again, democracy is trampled. Loose constructionism will be the downfall of this country.
How long are Americans going to stand for this? Typically, liberals have been on the side of the Court, since it's been on their side in most cases, but even they're getting steamed about the Court. We're STILL hearing about the Bush v. Gore case. Liberals and conservatives have to come together on this and say, "Hey! This is a democracy. If you don't mind, we want our LEGISLATORS to do the legislating."
June 2, 2004 -
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, part 2
As Sean Hannity has said, "The advocates of both slavery and abortion have been characterized by a stunning zealotry." If this isn't obvious to everyone by now, just take a look at what America's current pro-choice ranks are saying about the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban:
�"Their job [Congress] is not to be objective. Their job is to represent majority views." - Priscilla Smith, attorney for the Center for Reproductive rights.
� "Irrelevant." - District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, on whether or not a fetus suffers pain in the partial-birth abortion procedure.
� "When John Kerry is president, he will appoint judges that are committed to upholding the Constitution, not pursuing an ideological agenda." - Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter
� "The government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions." - Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker
There you have it. Congress shouldn't be objective. The horrendous pain of unborn children who are brutalized daily in abortion clinics is irrelevant. Upholding the Constitution means insisting on the right to murder unborn children. Stabbing a partially born unborn child in the neck, vacuuming out its brain and crushing its skull is a sensitive and private medical decision. I rest my case.
(Source: "Judge Rules Abortion Ban Unconstitutional," David Kravets, Associated Press, 6/2/04)
May 26, 2004 - Worth Repeating
"I say, bomb the h--- out of them. If there's collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable."
- Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia), September 12, 2001
May 17, 2004 - WMD watch
Breaking news from MSNBC:
"Bomb containing deadly sarin explodes in Iraq: Blast relases 'small quantity' of gas, but no injuries reported."
May 17, 2004
"Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said at a briefing in Baghdad that the bomb exploded 'a couple of days ago' in the Iraqi captial and resulted in 'very small dispersal' of the nerve agent. 'The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found,' said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. 'The round had been rigged as an improvised explosive device which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable,' he said."
"U.S. officials said Monday they are concerned that other sarin-filled munitions may still exist in Iraq - and may not be well marked."
Well, well. What do you know? What are the liberals going to do now? I'll tell you - they're already proclaiming that it was stray leftover from before the 1991 Gulf War. There is a slight problem with this. The flaming anti-war documentary, "Uncovered: The whole truth about the Iraq war," featured a speaker named Peter Zimmerman, who said, and I quote:
"Any sarin that they were making in 1990, 1991 had a known shelf life of about 2 months. I have confirmed this with inspectors and analysts who were deeply involved in the 1990's analyses. Well if you made it 12 years ago and it had a shelf life of two months, it may not be safe to drink, but it isn't sarin nerve gas any longer." So, according to the peaceniks' own admission (before they found this artillery round), this chemical weapons was manufactured after the 1991 ceasefire.
We shouldn't need a sarin artillery round to tell us that the WMD's are out there somewhere. We know for a fact that Saddam had WMD's before the Gulf War - in the 80's, he used them on his own people. Saddam never accounted for them. So, to say that Saddam had no WMD at the time of Operation: Iraq Freedom is to say that
� Saddam secretly destroyed all his weapons in the 1990's without telling the UN weapons inspectors;
� That the multiple intercepted conversations between Republican Guard officers talking about hidden WMD were staged to fool us into invading;
� That dozens of independent defectors all made up the same thing;
� That every major intelligence agency in the world - including Clinton's CIA and the French - were consistently fooled over a twelve-year period by these stunts;
� That the Ansar Al-Islam terrorists arrested in Jordan in April - who used to work in Baghdad at the pleasure of Saddam - just came up with a large-scale chemical bomb out of thin air.
� That the Iraqi insurgency just came up with a 115-millimeter sarin artillery round out of thin air.
Or...we could just accept the fact that Saddam had WMDs, and they are probably in a bunker somewhere in the middle of the Iraqi desert, or were transported across the border into Syria.
It's the simple truth: we know he had them. When you raid a crackhouse and you don't find any crack, the question isn't whether or not the police chief lied; it's where the crack went!
May 10, 2004
In the May 9th edition of the Des Moines Register, the opinion page featured a letter by George Thrailkill, who says, "It is obvious that our occupation of Iraq is no more moral than Saddam Hussein's rule." Ooo-kay, let's review: Saddam Hussein
- Tortured kids with acid, electric drills, electric shocks, hot irons and rape.
- Had his intelligence officers pluck out the eyes of newborns.
- Gassed over 5,000 innocent Kurds.
- Killed over a million of his own people, including thousands of children.
- Tested chemical and biological weapons on prisoners. (See "A Just War" at the articles page.)
OUR soldiers make a few Iraqis do embarrassing things naked, and two killers die in our prison camps, and all of a sudden we're as bad as Saddam? How can Thrailkill even suggest such a thing? It is slander of the highest degree towards our troops in the field. There is no reason behind such an assertion, only sheer, bald-faced anti-Americanism. The Register should be ashamed for printing such filth.
May 7, 2004: GAAA! This makes me mad.
About seven to fifteen soldiers abused prisoners at the Abu Ghraib camp. The abuse, deplorable as it was, was nothing compared to the horrors of Saddam Hussein (the man the prisoners thought should be in power.) At least one Iraqi was forced to stand on boxes for long periods of time, and others were forced to do other unpleasant things that I shouldn't mention.
As if Bush wasn't the devil incarnate already! ONE WEEK since all this came out, and the Democrats are already taking advantage of the situation. It used to be, when things like this occurred, all of America, especially the government stood united to bring justice to the victims of these crimes and elevate America's respect among the nations. Instead, Democrats and liberal columnists are rushing to provide quotable quotes for Al-Jazeera. It used to be we were all on the same side. No more; not when there's a Republican president to demonize!
- "This scandal can't be dismissed as the work of a few rotten apples. [Why not? It was a few rotten apples that did it!] The administration's bungling of post-war planning has made the struggle far more difficult." - (Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer)
- "Those rushing to defend the administration [As opposed to those rushing to attack it] argue this was an aberration and was appropriately dealt with. But that's not at all certain. Why did the government keep the torture reports a secret, even from the Senate Armed Services Committee after they were uncovered in January? [So liberals wouldn't do what they're doing now!]" -(Rekha Basu, Des Moines' local feminazi.)
- "The repercussions inside and outside Iraq can hardly be overstated." - The Chicago Tribune
If you haven't figured it out yet, Bush is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere. As all good liberals know, the Iraqi insurgency isn't the enemy - it's Bush! John Kerry and Tom Harkin are already calling for Rumsfeld to resign, and Hillary has said alleged that this scandal stretches all the way up the chain of command. If these Democrats were really on America's side, they wouldn't be advocating the resignation of a wartime defense secretary who had nothing to do with this. And they wouldn't be slanderously claiming that the White House had something to do with the abuse without hard proof. It's all politics.
So, to the liberals making Mt. Everest out of this molehill, I, the Iraqi people America is trying to liberate, and the nation trying to defend its security have a message:
It's not about your party, it's about America. Democrats and Republicans alike need to remember that.
May 6, 2004 - Quote worth repeating: "So what were all these [anti-war protestors] against, exactly? A free press in Iraq. Freedom to own a satellite dish. Freedom to vote. A new Constitution that might actually be worth the paper on which it's printed. Oil revenues going to the people instead of Saddam, or French oligopolies. Freedom to leave the country. Freedom to demonstrate against the people who made it possible for you to demonstrate. FREEDOM." - James Lileks, (lileks.com)
May 3, 2004 - Kerry Watch
"No matter who wins this election, the terrorists will lose." - John Kerry
Whoa! Where'd that come from? John Kerry said something...positive. If he had been discussing any other issue - the economy, healthcare, education - it would have been, "If Bush wins this election, the American people will lose," or, "I'll say something nice - out of all the presidents named Bush, this presiden'ts economy is in the top two." (Actual Kerry quote - ho HO.)
But mention the war on terror, and it's "No matter who wins this election, the terrorists will lose." Why the sudden change in tone? Simple. Kerry knows it's his weak spot. When it comes to terror, Bush's record is solid. It's John Kerry with the record to defend - and the image to build. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 78% of Americans thought that Bush was likely to prevent a terrorist attack, while only 61% thought the same of Kerry.
Contrary to Kerry's newfound positivsm, terrorists DO have a vested interest in the outcome of elections in western nations. So much so, in fact, that Al-Qaeda carried out a full-scale attack on Spain just to get an anti-war prime minister elected there.
The Clinton years were undeniably good for Al-Qaeda. Bill didn't retaliate when bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and the USS Cole in 2000. When he attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, Bill responded by bombing a baby formula factory in Sudan. Bill's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick (now a member of the 9/11 commission), established guidelines preventing law enforcement and the CIA from sharing information. Not only that, but Clinton turned down, not one, not two, but FOUR offers from Sudan to extradite bin Laden.
Al-Qaeda is very interested in American politics - if they can get another Bill in office, they know they're home free. Whenever a new tape from bin Laden comes out, he attacks Bush directly, calling him a "criminal," and sounding very much like an anti-war protestor. When the tape came out claiming responsibility for the Madrid attacks, the speaker claimed that the attacks were in response to Spain's collaboration - not with America - but with "the criminal, Bush." Bush is the first president who has taken serious action against these monsters. Bush has prevented 150 terrorist attacks so far, and has taken out two terrorist-supporting regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why Al-Qaeda is so infuriated with him - they know that a complete reversal in US actions towards them is just one presidential election away.
And then we have John Kerry. John Kerry, who voted against the 1991 Gulf War, against funding Operation: Iraqi Freedom and against providing body armor for our troops. John Kerry, who wants to give the UN Security Council (France, China, Russia) veto power over American military operations. John Kerry, who wants to replace the Patriot Act. John Kerry, who opposed the death penalty for terrorists. John Kerry, who opposes the missile defense system. John Kerry, who wants the war on terror to be "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." John Kerry, who voted for a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. John Kerry, who has foreign leaders, such as Kim Jong Il, on his side. John Kerry, who ridicules America's allies in Iraq, and wants to go crawling on his hands and knees to plead with the French and Germans to help out.
Pretend you're a terrorist for one second: Which of the two candidates above would YOU prefer to be in charge of the most powerful country in the world, your sworn enemy? Duh.
"No matter who wins this election, the terrorists will lose." What a fantasy. The election of John Kerry would be a victory for terrorists; the election of George Bush, a defeat. That's what John Kerry is trying to hide.
May 2, 2004
Despite the overwhelming evidence, before and after the war, that Saddam had WMD's, the United States has not yet found any weapons stockpiles in Iraq. Never mind the fact that we found factories capable of producing chemical weapons and production lines that could be used to make huge quantities of anthrax in a week. Since the liberals desperately needed an excuse to demonize Bush, they pounced on the missing weapons and disregarded every other reason for the war.
Well, their last stronghold is coming under attack.
According to www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9321678%5E401,00.html, ("Terrorists Planned Jordan Attack," April 19, 2004), several terror suspects thought to be working for Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, one of Saddam's former terrorist buddies and an insurgency leader in Iraq, entered Jordan from Syria with a large-scale chemical bomb. What makes this significant is that in February and March of 2003, right before the war started, the CIA had satellite photos of large caravans of trucks headed from Iraq to Syria. Now one of Saddam's former terrorist buddies gets a chemical weapon from...Syria. Coincidence? Judging by the pre-war intelligence on Saddam's WMDs, I'd say not.