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.