The Terrorist Has Landed

I just watched part of Arafat's 'funeral' live on tv. Easily one of the funniest, yet most frightening, spectacles I've ever seen. Those people are insane.

Kerry in '08

If you told me in 1988 that another Massachusetts liberal would be running for President in 16 years I would have bent over laughing. Well, now that Massachusetts liberal who lost last week may try again in four years.

Kerry fueled talk about a 2008 bid during remarks at a Washington restaurant Saturday night. He provoked a thunderous reaction by reminding about 400 campaign aides and volunteers that Ronald Reagan twice sought the Republican nomination for president before winning it in 1980.

With a nod to Lloyd Bentsen, "I knew Ronald Reagan, I voted for Ronald Reagan. John Kerry you're no Ronald Reagan."

Boo Hoo

Liberals are so whiny after President Bush's re-election. I love it. I couldn't be happier.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZERS.

...And Now For Something Completely Different

A German tabloid has demanded an apology from the Queen of England for raids during WWII. As usual, the Brits may need some American help with this, so here's my first try:

Dear Mr. Hitler:

Fuck you!

Sincerely,
The Queen

Cheerio!

I Just Voted

I had to wait about 10 minutes, the longest I've ever had to wait for any vote. Typically, there's no wait.

So from my official vote count: Bush 1, Kerry 0. I see a trend.

First Order of Business: Politicize

Yesterday, when John Kerry was confronted with the new bin Laden tape, he chose to be non-partisan, but when push came to shove, he couldn't help himself:

"I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush,"

Can this asswipe do anything other than blame Bush?

First Order of Business: Politicize

Yesterday, when John Kerry was confronted with the new bin Laden tape, he chose to be non-partisan, but when push came to shove, he couldn't help himself:

"I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush,"

Can this asswipe do anything other than blame Bush?

What's My Name?

Please sign in: I've said...

• George Bush stole the election in 2000;

• The Patriot Act oppresses freedom;

• George Bush and his administration are corrupt;

• Bush caused more people to die, because he read "My Pet Goat" to school children on 9/11;

• Bush is a liar;

• The Iraq War was for oil and his buddies in the oil industry.

Choices:

1) A typical leftist loon

2) Michael Moore

3) Osama bin Laden

4) John Kerry

5) All of the above


Hmmm, I wonder.

"We Won the Cold War"

This morning on the Today show, I watched in disbelief as John Kerry made the claim that "We won the Cold War." The truth is Kerry tried to lose the Cold War in one of his fliers:

NY Times Flops With the Military

The NY Times tried it's best to get American soldiers in Iraq to criticize the President, but they failed:

And not a single soldier interviewed - even those who were most gloomy about the war - would say that it was a mistake to come here or that the war was a result of dissembling or miscalculation by Mr. Bush, which has been a common Democratic refrain in the campaign.

I can't believe they still printed the article after they didn't get some Michael Moore induced hatefest from the soldiers.

NY Times Flops With the Military

The NY Times tried it's best to get American soldiers in Iraq to criticize the President, but they failed:

And not a single soldier interviewed - even those who were most gloomy about the war - would say that it was a mistake to come here or that the war was a result of dissembling or miscalculation by Mr. Bush, which has been a common Democratic refrain in the campaign.

I can't believe they still printed the article after they didn't get some Michael Moore induced hatefest from the soldiers.

"An Unnecessary War"

Our worst president in history is again giving his stupid opinions:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about—this is going to cause some trouble with people—but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

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

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

JUST SHUT UP!

Bush For President

Today I endorse George W. Bush for President of the United States for one reason and one reason only: national security. All other issues are meaningless without national security. Taxes, education, stem cells, dog poop, whatever, don't mean crap without our national security. Bush is the only one that's willing to make a stand and stick to it to protect us. You may not agree with what he's done, but he refuses to waver. He's my man.

Another Poll Has Bush Up

Rasmussen gives Bush a 49-46 lead over Kerry. Bush also has 54% job approval. Bring it on. Mark my words, Ohio will be the key just like Florida in 2000.

Ooops, Maybe He Didn't Win Debate 3

Zogby has Bush up 4 points now. This includes polling after Wednesday's debate.

Run Away, Run Away...

'Fraidy-cat senator closes his office in DC. Hmm, he must be French.

Rock the Left Vote

The LA Times reports that MTV's Rock the Vote was behind the "draft" email hoax that got so many kiddies frothing against George Bush. The guy behind it still believes they're non-partisan. Oh well, Ted Kaczynski thought he was sane.

Flu Vaccine Shortage Is Bush's Fault

John Kerry yesterday blamed President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage. Is he insane? (Answer not required.)

Tomorrow's headline: Mount St. Helens Eruption Is Bush's Fault.

Bush-Kerry Round II

I think Bush won. He did a good job. The best lines of the night for each, starting with John Kerry:

"I was in Kyoto."

He was also in Cambodia.

George Bush:

"That answer almost made me want to scowl." (In response to John Kerry's "We will get tough!" claim).

Good debate. I enjoyed it. Here's the transcript, if you care.

Kerry Lies

Hugh Hewitt has posted a John Kerry press conference transcript in which he continues to lie about General Shinseki:

Q. "If you are elected, given Paul Bremer's remarks, and deteriorating conditions as you have judged them, would you be prepared to commit more troops."
A. "I will do what the generals believe we need to do without having any chilling effect, as the president put in place by firing General Shinseki, and I'll have to wait until January 20th.

And how is that a lie? CNN has the goods:

MCINTYRE: Now, Secretary Rumsfeld is fond of saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts. And the fact that the Army chief of staff was not fired or forced to retire early is just that, Judy. It is a fact.

Can democrats ever tell the truth?

Iran Rebuff

Luck for him, John Kerry's stupid plan to give Iran nuke fuel was a flop with the mullahs. Many people heard about the plan for the first time during the debate and apparently the mullahs heard it as well. Of course, I was denouncing Kerry's plan since August 11, 2004, but the mullahs must not read my blog.

Who Won the Debate?

Check out these internal numbers from Gallup:


I see Bush in those numbers.

I Don't Test Well

One point from last night's debate regarding the "global test" we should take whenever we commit American troops: get lost Kerry. Here's the quote:

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. ...

BUSH: Let me—I‘m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test,” you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

This is an old argument, one that John Kerry and his "world government" friends can't seem to shake. He got caught up on this point in his
1971 run for Congress when he said:

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Screw him.

Blog Debate

Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy has a Pro War challenge to bloggers:

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

Here's a shot:

1. I was strongly in favor and remain that way. I'm a bit of a maniac (hence the name of my blog) and a technology nut at heart. Therefore, I always enjoy seeing our weapons (and tax dollars) at work whether it's against Saddam or some other thug. Nevertheless, that's not the only reason for this war; I also support it because Saddam had to be dealt with. It was either now or later. If it were later (more likely too late) then the actual ground war would have been more difficult rather than the 3 week rout. Or we might have been hit with a terrorist act (Saddam did have connections) on our soil. In that case, the blame directed at Bush would have been brutal. And I don't buy that b.s. from the left that Saddam was a distraction from the war against terrorism or al-Qaeda. Our military is perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
2. With respect to downer news, I am usually suspicious. Occasionally a story has some truth to it, but most of the stories (like disgruntled soldiers, poor Iraqis, etc.) are anecdotal, spotty, and merely reflect the reporter's bias. If people need real news then read Chrenkoff. He has good reports from both Iraq and Afghanistan on lots of stuff you won't see on Dan Blather.

3. First, I suspect this is going to take years. The problem is the MTV crowd and 24-hour news cycle has bred a quick-fix mentality in this country. The problem is you cannot inject democracy and respect for human life into a country that existed under the boot of despotism for the past 30 years. Second, as far as specific benchmarks, not only would I look at the January 2005 elections as an accomplish, but also subsequent elections or re-elections sometime in the future. That will be a sign of stability. A further sign would be actual travel to Iraq. Maybe a daily non-stop flight from London or Tokyo (I don't know if NY is close enough) would be a boost and a sign of actual safety on the ground. Also, more whining from the left will be a sign of success.

Apparently CNN Offers News

CNN questions the results of it's own poll with this headline:

Bush apparently leads Kerry in pre-debate poll

Gotta love that confidence bias.

Bring on the French

Kerry's Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill laid out the plan:

"Well actually, I think that some of the people who have done the most with this around the world are the Irish and the French, and that if we could draw them into this, helping us train Iraqi nationals, that would be a huge step in the right direction. But they won't do it so long as we have the leadership that we have right now."

Hmm, the French, the Germans and the Irish. The Irish?

I wonder (scratches chin):

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Oh well, there's still the Irish.

Just Shut-up!

Senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain were in their typical maverick mode over the weekend. Here's the quotes:

"The fact is, we’re in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we’re going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on CBS’s "Face the Nation."

"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who has campaigned at Bush’s side this year after patching up a bitter rivalry.

Do these guys realize that each is the chairman of the Re-elect Bush committee for his respective state? They're morons.

Take One for the Kerry Team

The NY Times is reporting that CBS News will admit it was duped and take one for the Kerry team. Unfortunately for CBS, their fall guy, Bill Burkett, will not take one for the Kerry team, so says his lawyer David Van Os.

It's going to be interesting if any muck hits the Kerry campaign when this thing lands.

Dan: "The White House Made Me Do It"

Oh geeez. The LA Times has the story about how CBS pulled the story together and how quickly it fell apart. Here's the money quote:

Josh Howard, the program's executive producer, told the Los Angeles Times in an interview Friday: "The White House said they were authentic, and that carried a lot of weight with us."

But the White House actually said:

Bartlett's answer was: "I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the fact that documents like this are being raised when, in fact, all they do is reaffirm what we've said all along, is questionable."

I think some heads should roll, especially Dan's.

On the Road Again?

Teddy Kennedy is hitting the road for the Kerry campaign. A warning to everyone out there: don't hitch a ride from him. Also, I wonder why Kerry is hitching a ride?

Colonel Vapor (Rathergate)

Via Kansas.com, the Dallas Morning News is reporting that the colonel who pressured Bush's superior to "sugar-coat" the record wasn't even in the Guard when the memo was made by Killian:

The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

CBS and Dan Rather stand by their story. This is really starting to unravel.

Smeared by Fakes

CBS News performed a drive-by hit on President Bush's National Guard service by releasing several memos from a dead Texan that was Bush's superior officer in the TANG. Here are the memos: August 18 memo, May 19 memo, May 4 memo, and August 1 memo. Interestingly, the memos are typed in a proportional font, similar to something you'd find on a word processor or a webpage like this, but not in the National Guard of 1972. Plus, the signatures don't match up. CBS said it consulted with a handwriting expert, but that expert is a friend of Barnes, the very guy that is now making scurrilous allegations about Bush.

There's more to this story that needs to come out. In the end, I don't believe it will matter. If they're fake then it will matter because the folks at Moveon.org and Barnes' group in Texas will have this filth thrown back in their faces and splashed onto Kerry.


UPDATE: Powerline has more on this issue. It looks like a former Navy clerk has weighed in the issue of the fake memos, and provides some compelling, though anecdotal, reasons. Hopefully, this has legs.

UPDATE II: Rather than link to everything out there, here's a short list of the fallout:
Captain's Quarters
Powerline
QandO
QandO again

This is rather (pun intended) amusing.

Bush is a Moron, Ooops

The AP and the bloviating media is back on the Bush was AWOL story with this report. It's good to see they're getting deep into this one, just like they dug deep into the Kerry medals flap and his post-Vietnam antics. Nevertheless, the AP story did have an interesting tidbit that I'm sure many lefties will choose to overlook:

The records also show Bush made a grade of 88 on total airmanship and a perfect 100 for flying without navigational instruments, operating a T-38 System and studying applied aerodynamics. Other scores ranged from 89 in flight planning to 98 in aviation physiology.

I think it was at about this time that Al Gore was flunking out of both law school and divinity school and when John Kerry couldn't get into Harvard. By the way, George W. Bush did get into Harvard.

Update: Lies, Lies, Lies

Yesterday, I posted about the lies the Kerry Campaign pointed out from the RepubliCon, including John McCain's lies. Well, it's now disappeared at this link. Here's the new screenshot:

LA Times on the Payroll

The Kerry Campaign shakeup involved shaking the reporters at the liberal media to write more puff pieces like this one in the LA Times that touts Kerry's ability to come back in a campaign. Hey, he's done it twice in the past, unfortunately both times were in Massachusetts. Now, if he can only get every person from Cambridge to go out and breed with middle America and dilute the vote, then he might win. Good luck.

Lies, Lies, Lies

The Kerry for President website has a list of Four Days Filled With Lies from the Republican Convention in NYC. Interestingly, the Kerryites don't refute them and they step on the guy that they oh so covet, John McCain:

Bush Has Done A Good Job With Our Allies.

10. Senator John McCain: “My friends in the Democratic Party and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation. I don't doubt their sincerity. They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy. They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies. We agree. And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the President believes. And, thanks to his efforts we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some.”

11. Senator John McCain: “Our President will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.”

Bush Did It Right Going to War Against Iraq.

12. Senator John McCain: “However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly. And while this war has many components, we can't make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.”

13. Senator John McCain: “After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone."

Not too smart, when you want to get independent voters on your side.

This Would Be Great

A report out there claims we're close to getting bin Laden. The Kerry campaign might as well just shut down if that happens.

Geez, Just Go Away

Even on his hospital bed, Bill Clinton help but stick his big, fat nose into the current election. Maybe that conspiracy that he's trying to sabotage Kerry for Hillary's 2008 run is true.

Man the Lifeboats

Time Magazine is reporting doom for Kerry:

For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

Kerry's campaign must be going nuts. Haha.

For or Against Bush

Time Magazine has competing commentary from liberal Michael Kinsley against Bush and conservative Charles Krauthammer for Bush. Both are a good read, except in Kinsley's case, he seems unable to make out a case for Kerry. It's the same old anybody but Bush argument. Terry McAuliffe's strategy didn't work in Florida in 2002 and won't work in 2004. Won't they ever learn?

Lawyer Sharing Update

The New York Times weighed in today on Ginsburg's role as a lawyer for both President Bush and the Swift Boat Vets. I guess they didn't see this nugget either:

The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities.

Based on the filings with OpenSecrets.org, the Swift Boat Vets have raised only $158,750, while the anti-Bush group, America Coming Together, has raised $26,905,450. Those evil Swift Boat Vets. This is clearly hurting Kerry.

Slant Left

The AP is reporting that a lawyer for the Bush campaign has also given legal advice (unpaid) to the Swift Boat Veterans. Buried (2nd to last sentence) within the story is this:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

Hmmm, the headline goes after Bush but leaves aside the dems? How interesting.

Kerry Calls Swifties

According to Drudge John Kerry called out to his new enemy, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Apparently, this is what happened:

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.

Doesn't this violate Campaign Finance Reform? If Bush called the Swifties and asked them to stop, it would be a 5 inch headline above the fold in the New York Times.

Attack! Attack!

The Kerry campaign, err, The New York Times gets mad and goes after the Swifties today. Just like 30 years agao, John Kerry and liberal bastions like the New York Times are again smearing Vietnam veterans. Hey, at least they're consistent.

Ooops, It Wasn't the Bushies that Leaked

The New York Times revealed that Pakistani sources gave them the name of the al-Qaeda computer geek, and not the Bush Administration. It's near the bottom of the article, so you might miss it:

The release of Mr. Khan's name - it was made public in The New York Times on Aug. 2, citing Pakistani intelligence sources - drew criticism by some politicians, like Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who charged that this leak might have compromised the search in Britain and Pakistan for Mr. Khan's Qaeda partners.

The strange part is that the August 2nd didn't mention Pakistani sources, but rather a "senior United States official." In addition, Schumer was whining about the Bush administration rather than making remarks just critical of the compromising the investigation.

The Dam Breaks?

Well a little dribble maybe. The Boston Globe is finally reporting on the Kerry in Cambodia story. It's pretty lame and doesn't really get in to deep. What should I expect, when the writer, Michael Kranish, is the same person writing the forward to a glowing book about Kerry. Hopefully, someone other than Kerry's inside guy at the Globe will get on this soon.

Iraq Update

You won't read about the good news from Iraq in any of the mainstream press like the Washington Post or the New York Times or see it on CBSNBCABCPBSCNN.

Piling On Kerry

Earlier in the week, Kerry flip flopped yet again on an issue. This time relating to wmds in Iraq. The Times has the story and background:

But the decision, in the end, was Mr. Kerry's. He chose to take the bait on Monday at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Asked by a reporter, he said he would have voted for the resolution - even in the absence of evidence of weapons of mass destruction - before adding his usual explanation that he would have subsequently handled everything leading up to the war differently.

Kerry and his supporters are trying to nuance it with the runup to the war, the rush to war, blah, blah, blah. The problem is on October 9, 2002, Kerry said this on the Senate floor:

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections."

Definitely a flip flop.

Iranian Nuclear Power... For Peaceful Purposes?

Think again. Apparently, the Iranians have sent the dunces at the EU a letter demanding certain things be done in the current standoff including:

Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications.

If that's not enough to set off the alarm bells, I wonder what would -- a mushroom cloud. The left has been saying that Iran only wants to build nuke plants to generate power. Now, leaving aside that Iran is sitting on a sea of oil and the largest natural gas deposits in the world, will people finally see that Iran wants nuclear weapons? Even Hans Blix could see this one.

And John Kerry still wants to call their bluff and give them nuclear fuel. I think he took too many wounds in Vietnam.

Bush Lied, People Died? Oh wait...

John Kerry stated yesterday that he would have voted to
authorize force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. I bet there are a lot of pissed off liberals right now. And Howard Dean is probably screaming the states into his cereal.

Even USAToday is flumoxed by Kerry's Iraq Strategy. The Washington Post had an article over the weekend that further muddies Kerry's position:

Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

Well, that clears things up.

Iran Nuke Update

The New York Times is reporting that diplomacy has failed to sway Iran and North Korea from their nuclear ambitions and appears to be laying the blame, like usual, on the Bush administration.

"The conventional wisdom now is that [North Korea has] completely reprocessed all of it,” said Gary Samore, who headed nonproliferation efforts at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton and has conducted a detailed assessment of North Korea for the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “They had a huge window of opportunity when we were invading Iraq, and they appear to have made maximum use of it.”

Of course, we can ignore the debacle known as the Agreed Framework negotiated by Jimmy Carter under Bill Clinton's watch. But as usual, we have another president to the rescue:

Several of Mr. Bush’s aides have said they expect little concrete progress before the presidential election. The Iranians appear to be betting that Mr. Kerry, if elected, would talk directly to their leaders. Mr. Kerry has also said he would engage in bilateral discussions with North Korea; Mr. Bush has insisted on multilateral talks.

Of course, he'll probably just redo the Agreed Framework in light of what he wants to do in Iran:

John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

Democrats cannot be trusted to fix this situation.

International Observers for the Election?

This is insane. I didn't realize they monitored the mid-terms in 2002, but I don't want them here for 2004. It only adds credence to the thoroughly debunked claim that the 2000 election was unfair. Democrats are scum and the State Department is up to its typical crap.

Homeless Sweep in NYC?

Maybe they should have a convention every day.

It's President Kerry to the Rescue? Not

Kerry, the Hero:

Kerry said he would have reacted much more quickly than President Bush did on Sept. 11, 2001, when he learned of terrorist attacks. ...“Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to,” Kerry said.

The Real Kerry (from Larry King):

"...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and 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..."

It should be noted that the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing 'nobody could think.'

Scumbag.

Kerry's Vietnam

John Kerry, who is a member of the party that vilified the Vietnam War and the soldiers that fought it, is going to have to respond to the allegations in a new book questioning his medals and service in that far-away land. Drudge has the goods:

A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND:

Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.

All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.

A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.

Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.

Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.

Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.

It's strange how liberals are now going to have to defend these actions, whether true or not, that are the same claims they would consistently level against Vietnam veterans. It's odd how the biggest quality (Vietnam vet) that the democrats are now touting is the one that they railed against 30 years ago.

Terrorism Politics

The recent capture of a an al Qaeda computer geek aparently yielded pre-9/11 data and a raised alert level by Homeland Security, but much bellyaching from the left like here and here has gotten this deeper into the news cycle. Unfortunately for the lefties, the news also contained information that the data had been updated as recently as January. In addition, the lefties tend to forget that they were the ones whining about why Bush didn't run for the nearest microphone after receiving the "old data" and non-specific information in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing . Of course, we have the kooks that question whether Howard Dean was right? Liberals cannot be trusted with our security. Period.

It's Official: KERRY IS A MORON!!!!!!!!

I can't believe they want to do this:

James P. Rubin, senior foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, sat down in Detroit with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different under a Kerry administration. Excerpts:

John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. "The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

And, on the off-chance this is wrong, the Kerry website has this:

John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

Kerry needs to give them nuclear fuel to figure out what their intentions are? And if they accept it, does that mean that it's for peaceful purposes? Duh. Not only is he a moron, he's insane!!!! Has he ever heard of the Agreed Framework? Does he realize what a disaster that was? Arrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

No More IRS?

This would give Bush the landslide I'm hoping to see. Of course, it's Drudge, so I don't put much stock in it.

Anti-matter Bounce

A Gallup Poll published by USAToday and announced on CNN, shows that Kerry got a reverse bounce from the convention.

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%. Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless a stunning result, the first time in the Gallup Poll since the 1972 Democratic convention that a candidate seemed to lose ground at his convention.

Geee, what happened in 1972? There was a war going on, and Nixon crushed McGovern. In addition, Kerry was anti-war then but is... hmmm, I don't know what he is now. Nuanced, I guess. I don't think there will be a Bush landslide a la Nixon, but I have a feeling people will be surprised. You can't win on the hate-the-other-guy campaign. Just ask Bob Dole and Bill McBride (Jeb Bush's opponent in 2002).

See No Bias, Hear No Bias

A new survey (albeit unscientific) again shows that the press is blatently out of touch with mainstream America. Conservatives have tried to point this out but the press doesn't seem to listen. I wonder why? COULD IT BE THEY'RE LIBERAL. Someday we'll win.

Nixon Redux

And speaking of Nixon, Kerry apparently has a plan to cut and run, but won't tell anyone about it:

"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."

Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."

"You're not good enough to know what I want to do until I'm president." --I'm John Kerry and I approved this message.

Moore of the Propagandist

There's been a lot of screaming on the internet about a newspaper article Michael Moore inserted into F9/11 showing a headline from The (Bloomington) Pantagraph newspaper. Well, now the newspaper is pissed and wants an apology from Moore for faking the headline and manufacturing the date of publication to make it look like Gore won the recount.

This guy is a complete fraud and why people believe anything he does is beyond me. Then again, it's the loony leftists that believe him, so I shouldn't be surprised.

What? No Recession?

The loony left will probably crying foul now that the Commerce Department is saying that the 2001 Slump May Not Have Been Recession at All.

So much for the Bush Recession that the left has been whining about.

Top Ten Ways John Kerry Celebrated Winning The Democratic Nomination


10. Got big "nominee" tatoo on his ass

9. Everywhere he went he'd shout, "democratic nominizzle in the hizzouse"

8. A little flippin', a little floppin'

7. Wore something special under his suit to make him feel "pretty"

6. Hung out with Bill Clinton and 30 coeds from the University of Massachusetts

5. Joined former democratic rivals to feast on the spit-roasted carcass of Dennis Kucinich

4. Received engraved watch from Edwards; out of habit, threw it away

3. While taking congratulatory phone call from Bush, got to hear president crash his bike again

2. Botox til he couldn't see straight

1. "Caucused" with Teresa, twice

Conspiracy du Jour -- July Surprise?

The New Republic rehashes its claims about a July Surprise concocted by the Bush administration to grab high value targets in the tribal region of Pakistan. About a month ago, TNR printed the same article, and now they're updating it with this capture. Of course, the article stated that:

a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The arrest was announced on the 29th. I guess they blew it. So much for conspiracies. And furthermore, the TNR claims that the US's pressure on Musharraf just began (to fit into the election conspiracy), and asked this question:

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now?

Well, there was no shift. In fact, the US has been pushing into the tribal region for over 2 years, as reported in the June 28, 2002 edition of the Christian Science Monitor. The article stated:

This marks the first major combat operation inside Pakistan's autonomous tribal areas, and underscores the shift in the war on Al Qaeda from Afghanistan to Pakistan. In May, US special forces and Pakistani troops searched a madrassah in Northern Waziristan.

Well, so much for that conspiracy.

...but You Got Ken Lay

ABC News runs with a story today about Steven Bing, a Hollywood hotshot donor to the Kerry campaign, who apparently has some shady connections. The dem reply is predictable: you got Ken Lay. Of course, Kenny Boy spread his money around to 71 sitting Senators and nearly half of the House of Representatives. As for Bush, he (and Enron employees) gave $700,000 to Bush's various campaigns over 10 years. That pales in comparison to Bing's individual donations of $16,000,000.

Can the Media Ignore Nuclear Warheads?

Let's see if this story about nuclear warheads in Iraq has (nuclear) legs.

In His Socks?

The only time I ever put anything other than my feet in my socks is when I try to hide something like money. It seems that FoxNews is the only one with this angle:

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

It's been since October 2003. How long does it take to figure out if he did something wrong?

Nope, No WMDs Here, Move Along

Let's see if this article, U.S. Removes Iraqi Nuclear and Radiological Materials, makes it onto the news. I doubt it.

We Told You So

The US is pulling out peacekeepers in war zones where our service personnel won't be protected according to Rooters. I've complained about this issue relating to the International Criminal Court and jurisdiction over non-signatories like the US. This is the first time in history that a country would be subject to a treaty it didn't sign. So, the only option is to not put us in a situation where the treaty would come into play. I look at this as a God-send -- the ICC and UN will now keep the US out of forays where we shouldn't be in the first place. Thank you UN and your "one worlders".

Nader to Debate

Debate Dean that is. USAToday is reporting that Nader and Dean will be debating on July 9th before a studio audience. Among the topics for debate: why should anyone care about this debate? and if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Big and Tall


It's interesting to note that on the Amazon page for Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, they have a section for "Customers interested in this title may also be interested in". Here's what people might be interested in:

Fat huge man
Date Hundreds of Thousands of Fat Singles, Admirers. Register Free!
www.LargeFriends.com

Shirts-My-Size.com
Join the Crowd Free Shipping - Hurry - Order Now
Shirts-my-size.com

Big Man - Photos Galore
For Plus Singles Seeking Relations. Pictures, Personals, and More.
bbwdatefinder.com

Funny stuff.

Democrats and Mullahs

It appears that the Mullahs of Iran are pissed at the President. At the NATO summit in Turkey, President Bush described Iran as a "threat to world peace." Well, such a statement cannot go unchallenged by Iran. Right in lockstep with their democrat counterparts in the US, the Mullahs pulled out this statement:

“Mr. Bush should not forget that he became president because of a court decision and since then, especially in recent months, he is always being rebuked for his unilateral and autocratic policies,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said.

So even those chumps are still pissed about Florida 2000. But that's not enough, the Mullahs are aware that academnics are speaking out:

The U.S. President’s immoral policies have reached such heights that even U.S. university scholars and some academic circles have begun speaking out about the consequences of his undemocratic behavior, the statement released by the foreign ministry quoted the spokesman as saying.

Oh boy, Bush is in trouble now. Academics and scholars "have begun speaking out". Since when did academics and scholars stop speaking out. All I ever hear is their incessant whining and caterwauling. And now the Mullahs are among them. Sheesh.

Senator Hillary Marx

During their whirlwind lovefest (booktour) of liberal bastions, this time SanFran, Hillary gave us some insight into how she plans to redistribute wealth:

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

For the common good. Yup, watch your wallet. These lefties are nuts. They will not stop at anything short of socialism.

Ed Koch Gets It

If all democrats thought like Ed Koch, the Republicans would be doomed as a party. Instead, however, the democrats think like Michael Moore, and hope for the failure of the US internationally and domestically. Koch gets it because he's a New Yorker and was disgusted by what happened on 9/11 and is ashamed of his fellow democrats. Here are some of his views.

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

“One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary “Roger & Me.” During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.” I was aghast and responded, “I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.” I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later called President Bush a “dummy,” denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldn’t contain myself and said, “That’s what you radicals on the left always do. You don’t debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.”

In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

Koch has said in the past that he will vote for Bush because of his stance on dealing with terrorism. Like Koch, I just don't understand how the left can find appeasement as a viable solution.

Did We Get Him?

I hope this news of Zarqawi's capture is true. I'll have to wait for confirmation. The military is denying the claim, but who knows, maybe they want to be sure. How long could it take to check out a one-legged terrorist?

Morning News

I typically start the day reading the following sites, and you should too:

Free Republic News (Freepers)

Right-Thinking from the Left Coast (quirky views from the left coast)

QandO (excellent blog)

The Volokh Conspiracy (legal and other stuff)

Instapundit (top notch)

Powerline (great insight)

The Corner at National Review (watch a bunch of columnists yammering)

Memeorandum (fast becoming my favorite)

I watch others, but these are the most inciteful out in cyberspace.

Good Show!!

In a surprise move, the US transferred power early from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Interim Iraqi government. The democrats are on a suicide watch.

A Bullet is a Bullet, Right? Maybe Not.

Apparently, our military has been told by Congress not to use Israeli-made bullets in Iraq:

Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.

When I first saw this, I thought it was a joke, but apparently not. So for any of our boys reading this out in the field: when you shoot someone about to fire a RPG at you, make sure the bullet says "Made in USA", any other bullet may not kill so sensitively.

As of this moment, I'm beginning to doubt our resolve to win this war. This is really sad.

Bush is Hitler... Again

It seems that the Kerry-clowns are foaming at the mouth over an internet ad called Pessimism posted on the official George Bush website. Of course, the foaming is disingenuous because the purpose of the ad is to show the faces of the democrats: Al "He Played on Our Fears" Gore, Dick "Less" Gephart, Howard "Scream" Dean, and a little bit of Hitler sprinkled in. Oh no, Hitler didn't join the democrats, it's merely a couple of anti-Bush ads posted by the pro-Kerry moveon.org that compared Bush's policies to Hitlers and morphed Hitler into Bush. The funny thing is the democrats are complaining... because of the Hitler placement.

Where were they when the ads first appeared? Geeez.

Saddam and al Qaeda Two-step

Apparently, the press is just figuring out what we've all known for some time, that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda. Of course, they do it an article basking Vice President Cheney. In addition, they put in this nugget:

In making the case for war in Iraq (news - web sites), Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

That statement isn't supported by the facts. The Washington Post has been polling on this issue since 2 days after 9/11, and found that the numbers were higher after 9/11 than they were now. In addition, the Administration gave no such statements in the 2 days after the attacks to give the impression that the AP claims but rather has gone out of its way to distance itself from the Saddam-9/11 connection (rightly or wrongly). The only ones that gave the impression that Saddam was involved in 9/11 was the press. Morons.

Requiescat In Pace

My wife's mother died last Wednesday, June 9, 2004. Typically most people fret about their mothers-in-law, but I didn't. She was incredibly nice to me and always treated me like a son (although I'm already the youngest of six). She lived a short 57 years, but died in what was a torturous four months. I've never seen a more horrible death (and I've seen quite a few) than this one. I'm surprised that medical science hasn't figured out a way to deal with this type of cancer, but I'm told that this particular type will never be cured. All I can say is that we had the best in the world working on her, including the guy who wrote the book Principles and Practice of Oncology. If they couldn't figure it out, no one could.

Goodbye Amma, I will miss you dearly.

Sorry

I've been dealing with a sick relative. Sorry for the sparse posting.

Enough Already

Okay, okay, we've seen the Abu Ghraib photos, but the Washington Post is printing more just in case you missed the previous ones. The left is trying to Vietnam the war on terror. They're a bunch of pussies, especially Chris Matthews. Can he talk about anything other than Abu Ghraib? Geez. Shutup!

Finally, A Good Story About Iraq

An interesting story you won't see on the regular news. Today's Wall Street Journal has a story called Saddam had their hands cut off. America gave them new ones. A snippet of what happened:

As perfect justice, the story in fact begins in Abu Ghraib prison, in 1995. With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They got a 30-minute "trial," and were sentenced, after a year's imprisonment, to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison.

The amputations were performed, over two days, by a Baghdad anesthesiologist, a surgeon and medical staff. We know this because Saddam had a videotape made of each procedure. He had the hands brought to him in formalin and then returned to Abu Ghraib. Oh, one more thing: The surgeon carved an X of shame into the forehead of each man. And the authorities charged the men $50.

Read the whole thing.

Berg Beheading

The video of the barbarians can be viewed here.

There are still photos here. Be forewarned, it's vile and disgusting.

Berg Execution

I'm sickened by the whole thing. When will the Religion of Peace bring these barbarians to justice? When will the Religion of Peace speak out against this? When will they do anything? The US takes care of the problems at Abu Graib and the Arab Street is still whining. In the end, they supported Berg's death.

Two words: nuke 'em.

Bush is Not Hitler

Here's a moment you won't see on the national news. I may differ with him on some domestic issues, but I believe he's right for this country. Everyone else can go screw.

Press Looking for Jimmy Swaggert Moment

This prison stuff is getting out of control. The president was on the air with Arab networks explaining what occurred in the Abu Graib prison. The press wants an apology. I want to hear: "FUCK OFF!"

Where's the Outrage? Naked or DEAD?

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the prisoner abuses, now morphing into attrocities, in Iraq. Oh, the humanity, we stripped some guys and humiliated them. Big deal. I'm all broken up about their rights. Where was the media when the Iraqis, yes IRAQIS, shelled that same prison 3 weeks ago? Oh what? Silent. Right.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Insurgents fired 12 mortars into Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison Tuesday, killing 22 detainees and injuring 92, U.S. military officials said.
...

All of those killed or injured in the mortar attack on the U.S.-run prison were security detainees, said Col. Jill Morgenthaler, meaning they were held for suspected involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency or remnants of Saddam Hussein's ousted Baathist regime.

Twenty-five of the prisoners were flown by helicopter for emergency medical treatment, Morgenthaler said. There were no reports that any of the casualties were prominent members of Saddam's regime.

"This isn't the first time that we have seen this kind of attack. We don't know if they are trying to inspire an uprising or a prison break," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told Associated Press Radio.

I'll ask again, would they rather be naked for a few minutes or DEAD?

So Much For The Republican Attack Machine

If the dems want to make a charge that they're being attacked, at least be able to give us the goods. Fred Barnes has the goods (or lack) in this week's Weekly Standard.

The Democratic committee couldn't cite anyone from the RNC or the Bush campaign -- or the White House for that matter -- who had criticized Kerry for his service in Vietnam or raised doubts about his patriotism. For the most part, what the DNC called smears were attacks on Kerry's antiwar activity after he left the Navy.

Gotcha...

Terrorism Down, ABCNBCCBSCNN Ignore

The State Deparment has released its new report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, and wouldn't you know, terrorism is down. But you won't hear it on the news. Nope, they have to continue the charade that Bush is bad, Bush lied, Bush hasn't made us safer... . Here's the choice part:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

I won't wait for Dan Rather to cover this.

"Operation Measured Patience"

Who the hell comes up with these names. When I saw this on Free Republic, I felt I had to weigh in with my own name: Operation Flatlujah. It works for me.

Man the Lifeboats, We're Taking on Water

After months of handwringing over John Kerry, it appears that the fog may be lifting over the democrat party, and it doesn't look pretty. Here's a peak:

John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

Speaking of lifeboats, this reminds me of the Three Stooges short where they're in a small boat that's taking on water. Moe tells Larry and Curly to help get the water out, so Larry starts bailing the water, while Curly drills holes in the bottom of the boat with an auger. I'm just wondering which Democrat is Curly?

Moonbat Alert

The moonbats are out over at Common Dreams -- "news organization" (use that term loosely) that has "breaking news and views for the progressive community. I guess you need to be pretty progressive, or just hopped up on goofballs, to believe the New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq.

Flippity Flop

Damn, it's hard keeping up with Kerry's flip flops.

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam. . . .

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his 11 medals during an anti-war protest in April, 1971.

His campaign Web site calls it a "right wing fiction" and a smear. And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

He's pathetic.

Happy Earth Day!

Thirteen years ago, I planted 40 black walnut trees on Earth Day at our house in Vermont. I can't wait for Earth Day 2031, when those black walnuts will have matured and I can cut them down and sell them.

As for this year's Earth Day, I think I'll go burn a tire.

Religion of Peace?

The Evening Standard in London has published an interesting article detailing the kooks that follow al-Qaeda.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

But America didn't cause this as we so often hear from the caterwauling on the left. It actually was a call to arms on 9/11:

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

They need to be stopped, especially if there are similiar sentiments here in the US.

Oh, Wait, You Meant "All" of My Records?

John Kerry says he will release all of his medical records from Vietnam. Or will he?

Secret War Plans

Bob Woodward's new book about the war in Iraq is coming out soon, and the lefties are fulminating about it already, ready to pounce on Bush just like they did with Clarke's piece of fiction. Once article is touting the secret war plan Bush had for Iraq. Wow, imagine a president formulating a war plan in secret. The bastard. I think he should have vetted it through the NY Times and WaPo editorial boards before going through with the attack.

Gee, anyone ever heard of the Rainbow Plan?

Gee, So it Wasn't that "Axis of Evil" Remark

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article stating that the North Koreans had nukes in their arsenal at least five years ago. Maybe now we can put to rest the constant harping from the left trying to protect Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright from the debacle known as the "Agreed Framework" by claiming Bush precipitated the nuke production with his "Axis of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of the Union address. Just more facts that they will ignore.

Freeh to Criticize

Louis Freeh writes in today's Wall Street Journal, Before 9/11--and After, that the US wasn't ready to fight before 9/11, but once the attacks happened, we were. Here's part of it:

Al Qaeda was at war with the U.S. even before Sept. 11, 2001. In August 1998, it attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In December 1999, one of al Qaeda's soldiers, Ahmed Ressam, entered the U.S. to bomb Los Angeles airport. In October 2000, al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in the port of Aden.

The question before the 9/11 Commission is why our political leadership declared war back on al Qaeda only after Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the U.S. So what would have happened had the U.S. declared war on al Qaeda before Sept. 11? Endless and ultimately useless speculation about "various threads and pieces of information," which are certainly "relevant and significant," at least in retrospect, will not take us very far in answering this central question.

On Jan. 26, 2001, at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed terrorism, and in particular al Qaeda, the African embassy bombings, the Cole attack and the June 1996 Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the president that Hezbollah and Iran were responsible for Khobar, he directed me to follow-up with Condoleezza Rice. I did so at 2:30 p.m. that day and she told me to pursue our investigation with the attorney general and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and on June 21 an indictment was returned against 13 Hezbollah men who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Ms. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.

It's clear to me that the 9/11 Commission has devolved into partisanship. Unfortunately, the partisanship is limited to the democrats, while the Republicans sit back like a bunch of doofuses and act non-partisan. Could we have picked more limp-dicked losers for the Republican side? Geez, when are these idiots going to wake up and see what's going on? Do they expect to "get them" on the final report? By that time, no one will care, and the damage will have been done to Bush. These idiots need to realize that the dems on that commission have one purpose and one purpose only -- beat George Bush. They don't care about figuring out what happened on 9/11. If last week's performance by the dems' (ben Veniste and Kerrey) questioning Condi Rice wasn't enough to convince people that they're not interested in facts, then what is it going to take -- a bat in the face?

Bush Should Have Done More to Stop 9/11, Damnit!!

Just imagine if he had...

Partisan Witch Hunt?

From James Taranto's Best of the Web:

'Not a Contemporary Piece of Information'
During yesterday's 9/11 commission hearing, Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste tried to set a trap for Condoleezza Rice over an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:

Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the . . .

Ben-Veniste: Thank you.

Rice: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste . . .

Ben-Veniste: I will get into the . . .

Rice: I would like to finish my point here.

Ben-Veniste: I didn't know there was a point.

Rice: Given that--you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

Ben-Veniste: I asked you what the title was.

Rice: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Ben-Veniste's rudeness was clear for all to see, but to understand just how dishonest was his line of questioning, look at this article from the May 27, 2002, issue of Human Events, a conservative Washington weekly:

Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."

Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

Graham is far from a supporter of the Bush administration, as he made clear last year in his brief but loopy presidential campaign. The 9/11 commission is supposed to be an impartial search for the truth. Is there any doubt that Ben-Veniste is guilty of trying to turn it into a partisan witch hunt?

In other words Bush=Hitler.

Unrest in Baghdad?

Maybe it should be rest in Baghdad.

Daily Moron

I've been away and a little busy, so I've been bereft in posting lately. Apparently, I missed the bile Markos Moulitsas posting concerning the American deaths in Fallujah:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

What an asshole!

Someone Likes Air America

Not me, but this guy does. Out of curiosity I listened to the first segment of Al Franken's show off the internet. Ironically, I listened to that in my left ear and Rush in my right ear. If Franken wants to be successful, he needs to be entertaining, which he was not in segment I heard. In fact, it was difficult to listen to, almost to the point where I was embarrassed for him. But that's not the story. The story is that the liberal news is making it a big story. I would normally ignore it, but in this case the bias is so transparent, it makes me want to scream. Franken is on 4 stations while Rush is on 650, and the news is making it out to be like Rush's days are numbered. Moreover, Franken's network's business plan has a major flaw -- you can't buy segments. To get the show, a station must buy all 24 hours of programming. Very few stations are going to buy into that because they have local programming that they want to air, not this crap 24/7. It just aggravates me that NBCABCCBSPBSCNN give this story such prominence.

By the way, I'm inventing a new car in my basement. I've got your number General Motors. Yeah right.

Was Bush Fiddling While Terrorism Burned?

With the way the media has spun in the last week, you'd think that the Bush administration totally ignored terrorism while the Clinton administration, led by cyber-hero Dick Clarke, were knocking threats out of the sky left and right on a daily basis. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, an article from Insight Magazine in June 2001 (yes, June 2001!) proves that the Bush administration wasn't sitting on it's hands. The article is called Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor, and provides some interesting context to the recent partisan hearings investigating 9/11:

Pearl Harbor probably will happen again. Only this time the attacks won't be in far-off Hawaii but against the American mainland. That's what some of the nation's top experts are saying as the national-security community scrambles to ward off attempts to attack the U.S. homeland with terrorist weapons of mass destruction and crippling raids on public- and private-sector information systems on which the entire economy -- and the American way of life -- depend.
...
For the first time since the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbor nearly 60 years ago, the United States is fully vulnerable to attacks it cannot deter or easily prevent, Pentagon experts tell Insight.
...
President George W. Bush underscored his concern in a May 8[, 2001] statement: "The threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States -- while not immediate -- is very real."
...
With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ripping apart obsolete defense doctrines to keep the United States on the cutting edge of world leadership, others, with a much lower profile, are working on a more fundamental issue: homeland security.

After years of dithering under Clinton, say defense specialists, the Bush White House taking the matter seriously. "Virtually every vital service: water supplies, transportation, energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, public health -- all of these rely on computer and fiber-optic lines, the switches and routers that come from them," notes National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are vulnerable. In the short time since his inauguration in January, Bush has instructed government offices to coordinate for homeland security and defense, and assigned Vice President Richard Cheney to head a group to draft a national terrorism-response plan by October 1.
...
Despite Clarke's efforts, the Clinton/Gore White House made little follow-through until the last months of the administration, according to a recent review by federal inspectors general.
...
The Bush administration has seized the problem aggressively with a range of initiatives to have a working system in place to defend the country against attacks on its critical infrastructure. Pentagon insiders tell Insight that Rumsfeld's reviews pay close attention to homeland defense and that the administration is weighing creation of a special office for that purpose.
...
Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor Clarke, Clinton's former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies "written by bureaucrats" and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that "could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand."

Don't believe the crap you read in the media. Liars.

Blair Circles the Wagons

Although he's a liberal, Tony Blair has been a great friend to the United States and George Bush since 9/11. Admittedly, I couldn't stand him when Clinton and his cronies cozied up to him, but I have to give it to the guy, he's been a stand up leader in support of freedom and democracy, especially in England which is full of loons and nutjobs. Even now, Blair is getting tough on his own party by not allowing a Labour Party delegation to fly to the convention for Kerry's nomination.

Here, here. Harrump.

Terrorists for Bush?

Earlier today, I read an article on Reuters that discussed a letter from al Qaeda telling the Spanish authorities that they would halt attacks if they actually pulled out of Iraq. Then about two hours later, the article had an additional section in it. Here it is verbatim:

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Huh? This has got to be a joke.

Negative Ads Work

I guess the attacks in Spain are an extreme form of negative advertising. Another editorial on the attacks.

France, You're Next

It looks like the Islamofascists have been emboldened by their electoral sucees in Spain and are now aiming for France.

"With this head scarf law, you have participated in an unjust aggression,'' said the letter, which was written in French under an Arabic-language letterhead. "You have decided on your own to put yourself on the list of Islam's worst enemies.''

If France caves, I can only imagine that the terrorists will next be telling the French when and where to wave the white flags.

The Left is Winning?

I don't think so. Imagine a protest and no one comes. Apparently, CNN believes 100 people makes a legitimate story. Anything to bash Bush.

Spin, Spin, Spin...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the dems are spinning the story of a democrat staffer spying on the US into one against Bush.

The odd thing is Andrew Card turned her in, while the dems were the ones that welcomed her into the fold. Jerks.

French a la Suck

Charles Krauthammer has a great opinion piece in the Washington Post concerning an article that the editor of La Monde wrote for the Wall Street Journal. Money quote:

We loved you on Sept. 11. We were all with you in Afghanistan. But, oh, what have you done in Iraq?

This requires some parsing. We loved you on Sept. 11 means: We like Americans when they are victims, on their knees and bleeding. We just don't like it when they get off the floor -- without checking with us first.

Colombani glories in Europe's post-Sept. 11 "solidarity" with America: "Let us remember here the involvement of French and German soldiers, among other European nationalities, in the operations launched in Afghanistan to . . . free the Afghans."

Come again? The French arrived in Mazar-e Sharif after it fell, or as military analyst Jay Leno put it, "to serve as advisers to the Taliban on how to surrender properly." Afghanistan was liberated by America acting practically unilaterally, with an even smaller coalition than it had in Iraq -- Britain and Australia, with the rest of the world holding America's coat.

Read the whole thing.