Raging Right Wing Republican

For those of us who are politically informed, and therefore Republican.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Presidential Debate In Real Time

The Big Story ... the Kerry Plan? "Pass the global test" and "another round of resolutions" for Saddam.

The first question was ridiculous. Does anyone think John Kerry might answer "no" to the question "Do you think you could do a better job keeping America safer?" Stupid question.

Kerry answered the question reasonably well, though. Not too arrogant... yet. And Bush just pulled off "vociferously." Not bad.

Kerry's not too orange. Weird. Kerry is prattling off military folks. Sounds silly.

"Where do you want me to begin" and then Kerry laughed at his own 'joke.' Looked stupid and petty.

Kerry bringing up his service again is an absurd mistake.

Kerry's nodding his head and pulling out his pen. Looks a little silly and contrived. Almost like he knew it was coming.

Bush seems a little off. He's meandering a little bit on the Osama vs. Saddam question. Both of these guys, by the way, have already confused Saddam and Osama. Bush turns it on and does really well when talking about freedom for iraqis.

Kerry" 'the President invaded Iraq." No ... we didn't Mr. Senator.

Don't have the armor? Didn't Kerry vote against the $87 billion?

Kerry needs to forget about the allies. He sounds stupid when he talks about it.

Kerry is resolved to use the word "Iraq" as many times as possible, it seems. Kerry was asked what he would do differently and all he's doing is attacking President Bush. Bad strategy.

WAIT! We can't have a tax cut AND be safe?

Kerry just did a really gay-looking loop with his fingers when he said "loose nuclear materials.'

Kerry, by the way is VERY prepared tonight.

I loved Bush's tax gap joke. Got across the point without wasting any time.

It's so annoying when Kerry uses that "do anything possible!" BS. What does that mean?

Kerry's story about the two "returnees" sounds fake ... like the "I spoke to foreigner leaders who want me.'

Kerry's like about "making a mistake about talking about the war' was a silly cheap shot and he ought not have spoken about Vietnam.

WAIT! John Kerry just said the war wasn't a mistake AND Saddam Hussein was a threat. So the only distinction Kerry is trying to portray is that they would have PLANNED differently. Aha.

Um ... did he just quote Richard Clarke?

Um ... and he just said the only thing he would do differently was "hold a summit." I'm glad Bush called Kerry assertion "absurd."

Kerry's trying to build an alliance by bashing the Brits and the Poles? Nice guy. Join us for a war that was the 'wrong war.' Good lines.

Kerry forgot Poland. Bush caught him. Damn fine job! Kerry cannot lead the world.

IMPRESSION: Kerry is doing pretty well. And he's very well prepared, as I said before. Bush seems a little off. Not his best effort. So far, anyway.

Okay ... Kerry's arrogance is starting to show.

... Kerry just wrote off all of our allies.

Kerry's example of bush's "lies": Nuke materials DID exist and Joe Wilson has been discredited. Bush WASTED time at the UN. And there Kerry goes on talking about this YEAR LONG 'rush' to war ... Kerry's 'last resort' and 'we will plan' "lies" are really petty differences of opinion.

KERRY VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ!

Bush is pulling out the Kerry quotes.

If these two guys say "lead" or "mislead" one more time, I'm going to jab a pen in my eye. Repeatedly.

I'm thinking this "right way/wrong way" silliness from Kerry gets him no where. i'm not sure anyone really buys this alliances rhetoric.

Lehrer mispoke when he said 10,000 ... but I'd be willing to be he WISHES it was 10,000 dead in Iraq so he could zing President Bush.

The person who confused the war from the warriors was John Kerry at the Winter Soldier Investigation. the "cut of heads" blah blah blah ...

"My Plan" is a summit. And that's about it.

John Kerry's "pottery barn" rule ... We broke Iraq. Not very presidential.

Kerry's timeline ... He didn't answer it. More Summit BS.

America SHOULD have a permanent interest in the region! The Middle East is where Islamic terrorism sleeps.

The Allawi=puppet argument broached by the President, good move. How's he going to be 'more diplomatic' when he's sliming the person who'd be his principal ally in the War on Terror should he be elected?

IMPRESSION: Kerry has an answer to everything. again, very well prepared. EXCEPT ... he's like the Grim Reaper ... I'm here to bring the truth ... he's delivering bad news, awful news, news which, BTW, isn't entirely true.

Kerry voted for the war. Do I have to say that again?

"Another Round of Resolutions" ... the line of the night.

Kerry has called "preemption" "arrogant."

"Pass the global test" Not sure what that means ... damn right, Mr. Prez.

Bush's line about Kerry trying to be popular with other countries owned.


Kerry on Iran/Iraq/North Korea ... everyone is smarter than we are. Now, Kerry is simply lying about North Korea. The inspectors and television cameras were kicked out by the damn North Koreans.

Bush just zinged Kerry again on his Plutonium/Uranium mistake.

BIG KERRY THEME OF THE NIGHT: Let's talk about world problems and let other countries deal with the problem.

Where's Kerry going to get all these new troops he's promising?

Bush comes across as a nice enough guy saying kinds things about Kerry. Let's see how John kerry does ... Kerry starts off nice.

So here's the bottom line: Bush says Kerry's a flip-flopper, kerry says Bush is always wrong. Basically the same crap they've been saying all campaign.

Kerry is just coming across as a jackass blaming President Bush for loose nukes.

Enough with the Kennedy crap!

Kerry: "I've been to Russia so I'm great!"

'I'm a pretty calm guy ... I don't take it personally.' Great line.

CHEAP SHOT ... Bush NEVER claimed we could win the war on the cheap.

Kerry's closing remarks ... all tripe and talking point BS.

I love it when Bush talks about freedom. He really believes in it. He's a good man. Of that there is no doubt. Hard to believe he's "Hitler" when he seems so decent.

Bush to go soft?

Those self-important talking heads on TV keep talking about how Bush needs to 'reach out to swing voters' by de-emphasizing the war. What the hell? Why doesn't he just give Kerry the presidency on a silver platter? The entire reason Kerry is so low right now is because of his lack of backbone and Bush is supposed to emulate that?

Live Debate Update News Feed

Debate News

Dems say they are organized to rebut Bush at a moment's notice. Are Republicans ready?

Kerry: "Don't Twist here"

I feel sorry for Kerry's interviewer. She tries to figure out what he's saying, and it just gets worse. PoliPundit has a transcript of John Kerry’s bloviating, defensive response to a softball question from one of his most sympathetic interviewers, on Good Morning America:
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ ... ? ... ]—

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.
Oh man. It’s almost embarrassing to watch Kerry tie himself in knots, trying to avoid taking a stand while simultaneously taking every stand possible. Tonight’s debate is turning out to be interesting, after all.

Back to the Future

This is hilarious! The Boston Globe already wrote their praise before the debate even began. Bush and Kerry meet in first of three debates with Kerry needing to make up ground:
CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) After a deluge of campaign speeches and hostile television ads, President Bush and challenger John Kerry got their chance to face each other directly Thursday night before an audience of tens of millions of voters in a high-stakes debate about terrorism, the Iraq war and the bloody aftermath.

The 90-minute encounter was particularly crucial for Kerry, trailing slightly in the polls and struggling for momentum less than five weeks before the election. The Democratic candidate faced the challenge of presenting himself as a credible commander in chief after a torrent of Republican criticism that he was prone to changing his positions.
Ah, they're already prepared to deluge Kerry with praise, even writing the articles before the actual event! Rush called it. (What they'll say after the debate: "Comeback Kerry!")

It's also amusing to note that Algore is giving Kerry debate advice. Advice on what? How to lose?

About Debate Aftermath

One thing to keep in mind: Remember how after the Kerry convention the mainstream media hailed it as a stunning success, a gut punch to Bush, and so on, right after all of the polls revealed a "negative bounce"? Expect something similar after tonight. As the race narrows, as it always inevitably does as bounces wear off, we'll be hearing how Kerry was the COMEBACK KID, he could do it WHEN EVERYBODY thought he was DOWN AND OUT! Bush is on the defensive, Kerry on the rise! I can just see another celebration, sounding of the trumpets, just as the polls come out again.

Kerry Blasts Bush Ad ... Wait, Never Mind

Wednesday's Philadelphia Inquirer has a headline based on an AP article: "Edwards calls 9/11 Bush ads immoral."

There's just one small problem -- it isn't Bush's ad. You actually find this out in the middle of the article:
The ad is paid for by Progress for America Voter Fund, an affiliate of a group created by Tony Feather, a longtime Republican consultant and former Bush aide. The group, like similar organizations on the Democratic side working to elect Kerry, operates independently from the Bush campaign and is barred from having contact with his advisers.
The AP (and Inquirer) could easily prevent this small bit of bias by merely changing the headline to "Edwards calls 9/11 pro-Bush ads immoral." But, of course, for those that merely skim the paper looking at headlines, well, you know what impression they'll get!

(Via Oh, THAT Liberal Media!)

Washington Post Repeats Kerry Draft Lie

The Washington Post is repeating John Kerry's scare tactics about the draft as fact. From the Post article:
[Kerry supporter Denise] Mulle said she thought the event was successful. "This is an important election for me. I have too much at risk with my kids," she said, referring to continuing deficits and a possible reinstatement of the draft if Bush is reelected.
The Post offered nothing (what else is new?) to back up the assertion the woman in question was worried about the draft, the reporter just put that in because everyone knows if Bush is elected the draft might come back.

Nowhere is it mentioned by the Post that this has been a hotly contested charge made by Democrats with shrinking poll numbers. It's just reported as a matter of fact.

Shout the Error, Whisper the Correction

As has been discussed before, the mainstream media's modus operandi is: shout the erroneous information from the rooftops, repeatedly if possible, and then correct the error in a whisper oh-so-soft.

Power Line has the latest example from the New York Times.

A recent Swift Vet ad claimed (correctly) that John Kerry had gone to Paris in the 1970s and secretly met with the enemy. The Times published, not one, not two, but (count 'em) three stories pretending to debunk the Swift Vets' claim, saying in each story that Kerry had "met with both sides."

Problem was, he hadn't met with both sides. He'd met with two groups from the same side: the Communist side.

Sharp-eyed folks like Beldar caught the mistake and wrote the Times, which has now issued a teensy-tiny little correction that (surprise!) fails to name the Swift Vets to explain that they were right all along:
An article on Thursday about political advertising in the presidential campaign, including a commercial that accused John Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy'' in Paris in the 1970's, misidentified the parties with whom Mr. Kerry said he had met at the Vietnam peace talks. (The error was repeated in articles on Friday and Saturday.) The parties were the two Communist delegations - North Vietnam and the Vietcong's Provisional Revolutionary Government - with whom he discussed the status of war prisoners. He did not say he had met with "both sides."
It's nice that the correction is appended to the web version of the story, but most people read the dead trees version, where the item is a single paragraph on the corrections page, which nobody reads because its buried somewhere on page A17. And as Power Line notes, the original stories repeatedly call the Swift Vets' accusations "unsubstantiated." So: shouldn't there be a sentence naming the group and noting that, contrary to numerous stories in the Times, this accusation is substantiated by Kerry himself?

(The correct answer is: "why, yes, there should be.")

(Via Oh, THAT Liberal Media!)

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Economy Grows for 11th Straight Quarter

The Bureau of Economic Analysis today announced that GDP grew at a faster rate during the 2nd quarter than previously thought due to strong business investment, consumer spending, and private inventory investment. The U.S. economy continued to grow for the eleventh straight quarter and recent data underscores the fact that President Bush’s pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda is working.
The U.S. economy grew faster in the second quarter than previously thought as business inventories rose at the strongest rate in four years, the government said on Wednesday, a sign the soft patch was not as soft as feared…

The GDP figure was the second and final revision to second-quarter performance and handily outpaced Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 3 percent rate of growth...

"It looks like the economy wasn't all that soft in the second quarter," said economist Gary Thayer of A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri. "Generally, it shows the economy healthy and seeing growth in most categories."
Media spin: Not good enough.

Bush Eats Children

Who ya gonna thank?

Why, France and Germany, of course!
Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC Ret.), who until last September was the No. 2 in command of the Iraq war under Gen. Tommy Franks, revealed Sunday that U.S. military intelligence had determined that weapons of mass destruction were being smuggled out of the country as the U.S. prepared to invade. “I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon and Iran,” Gen. DeLong told WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg, while discussing his new book, “Inside CENTCOM: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

“Two days before the war, on March 17 [2003], we saw through multiple intelligence channels - both human intelligence and technical intelligence - large caravans of people and things, including some of the top 55 [most wanted] Iraqis, going to Syria,” Gen. DeLong explained.

Scare Tactics


From The Michigan Daily: Talk of draft factors into race
Some of Kerry’s surrogates have been more explicit [than Kerry] in using the [draft] issue against Bush. Earlier this month, according to the Associated Press, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told students at Brown University in Providence, R.I. that they would be in danger of being drafted in the event of Bush’s re-election. [...]

Much of the past buzz about a military draft has been based on a pair of bills introduced simultaneously in the U.S. House and Senate in early 2003 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D—N.Y.) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D—S.C.). Both bills call for a draft of both men and women, and they are typically cited as evidence that Bush is planning to revive the draft shortly after his re-election.

But what the chain e-mails neglect to mention, besides the party affiliation of the bills' sponsors, is that both bills have languished in committee since shortly after their introduction in early 2003. The bills were put forth by Democrats as political statements, in protest of the overrepresentation of low-income and minority soldiers on the military’s front lines. A draft, they argued, would spread the burden of war equally among all races and social classes.

Draft legislation is considered politically unpopular, and as such has little support in either house of Congress.

From Cox and Forkum Editorial Cartoons.

Expect this hysteria to continue as we get closer and closer to election day. Heaping onto to the Democrats and 'Shock' the Vote out there, we've got CBS engaging in the draftmongering as well. Can CBS sink any lower?

Idiot Alert!

After Child's Hot-Car Death, Father Backs Alarm Systems for Parents
An Anaheim man whose infant daughter died earlier this month after he left her in a hot minivan said Friday that vehicles should have warning systems to remind parents that a child is inside.
I've got a system.

Somebody sees you leave your kid in your car and you get your ass kicked!

It's not his fault! The automobile manufacturer didn't put a buzzer in the car to remind him HE HAD LEFT HIS CHILD INSIDE.

Jackass.

Ever Feel Like You're Being Watched?

Tarred and Feathered

So lets see here - John F. Kerry gives a speech in which he claims that the draft will be brought back if Bush gets re-elected.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.

Powerline recieves an email from "Rock the Vote" which raises the possiblility of a draft.
YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476

This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.
However, President Bush has stated several times that he does not want to re-instate the draft. Our military's streamlined style no longer demands hordes of ground troops to march across the battlefield, instead focusing on agility and flexibility to fight across multiple points efficiently and quickly. In fact, the military is horrified at the prospect of a draft - an army of specialists doesn't necessitate massive numbers. So where could these Democrats possibly be getting this "the draft is coming back" idea from?

Surely it couldn't be our fellow Democrats Charles Rangel and Jim "Baghdad" McDermott, could it? Nah, can't be.

So let's get this straight - while accusing Republicans of attempting to reinstate the draft, the Democrats are pushing legislation that attempts to do just that.

If you see this...

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid (red states in bold):

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
It's funny watching liberals gleefully dance around with these and go, "OMG look all of those are republicans and stupid spending" as they assume the position and bury their heads in the sand to ignore reality. (An all too often occurence.)

Anybody who seriously believes this should get smacked upside the head. This is what progressive taxation does! It transfers monetary power from wealthier states (Northeastern US, West coast and Northern midwest) to poorer states (South, Dust belt and of course DC).

In other words, what do you expect? It's like making a rule that the library has to be quiet and then complaining that you can't talk loudly.

Rather VS The Truth, Round 2

Incredible. Apparently the memo scandal taught CBS absolutely nothing. Hot off the heels of Rathergate, CBS News screws up yet again by brandishing a series of fake e-mails to support the irrational fear of an imminent military draft. I swear, Dan Rather is the new spokesperson for the Kerry campaign.
Three weeks after he denounced the internet as being "filled with rumors," the embattled CBS anchor ran a story on his Tuesday "Evening News" program hoping to stir up fear of an impending military draft.

In a story that was a textbook example of slipshod reporting, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails and an unlabeled interest group member to scare elderly "Evening" viewers into believing that the U.S. government is poised to resume the draft.

At the center of Schlesinger's piece was a woman named Beverly Cocco, a Philadelphia woman who is "sick to my stomach" that her two sons might be drafted. In his report, Schlesinger claimed that Cocco was a Republican and portrayed her as an apolitical (even Republican) mom worried about the future.

Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal conscriptions, seeks to establish a "peaceful, rational foreign policy" by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Like Schlesinger's Cocco, the group portrays itself as "nonpartisan"although its leadership seems to be entirely bereft of any Republicans.

The group's domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell's 1984.

PAD also lists Anita Dutt, a Green Party activist who is also a member of an anti-war group called Bronx Action for Justice and Peace. In a March 3, 2003 New York Times profile of the group reprinted on the organization's web site, Heidi Hynes, one of its leaders, said of her fellow members that "none of us are Republicans."

Also left out of the CBS story was the fact that while there are two bills in Congress that are seeking to reestablish the draft, both of them (S-89 and HR-163) are sponsored exclusively by Democrats and have been pronounced DOA by the Republican leadership.
There's a certain masochism pervading the CBS research team lately, it seems.

On Bush's Home Turf

Pollster Dick Morris provides another insightful analysis today into the workings of the Kerry campaign and it's current troubles. By ignoring his own advantages and focusing on Bush's strong issue, the war, Kerry is going into the water to fight the shark:
Winston Churchill once compared engaging Japan in a land war in Asia to “going into the water to fight the shark,” yet that is precisely what Kerry is doing by engaging Bush on his strongest suit.

Since most of Kerry’s support comes from his supposed superiority on domestic issues, his base is sharply divided on the war in Iraq, with slightly more than half taking an antiwar position while about one-third back the engagement and think it is integral to the war on terror (Scott Rasmussen’s data). By coming down on the left side of the issue, Kerry will drive his voters into Bush’s arms.
....
By criticizing the president on his conduct of a war, one has almost implicitly to be criticizing the troops who are waging it. It was only after years and years of obvious chaos in Vietnam that opposition to that conflict became politically acceptable.
...
Bush can frame his differences with Kerry as optimism versus pessimism, a can-do attitude versus a can’t-do approach. Kerry will come off on the wrong side of the issue and won’t look good in the process.

Finally, Kerry is making a fundamental error in basing his campaign on an attack on Bush. You can’t attack a sitting president and gain any more votes than you had when you started. If the day-to-day experience of living under the Bush administration has not led someone to a negative view of his incumbency, an ad or a speech is not about to do it.

The relationship of voters to their president is so intimate and his exposure so thorough that it is almost impossible to persuade people who like him to turn on him.
...Since Kerry is doing everything wrong right now, one is tempted to believe that he will eventually run out of mistakes to make and will stumble, by default if nothing else, onto the right strategy.

It is possible that after losing the debates, having already lost the conventions, he will finally figure out how to win and the race will tighten. But, then again, never overestimate the capacity of these folks to learn from experience.
So while Kerry is stumbling into every pitfall and sinkhole along the way, there's still a chance that he'll come back, especially since historically he has been a strong closer - almost every political victory he's had came from a comeback from a position where he was so far behind nobody thought he could do it. It is likely that before Nov. 2 Kerry will eventually find the right message and some of the Democrats will come back home to close the current gap.

Sex For Votes

They try and dress it up with fancy terms to hide it, but it's just prostitution.

Votergasm Entices New Voters with Sex:
"If you're sick of the same old same old in bed, a group of Harvard and Columbia University alumni are hoping college students will try a new type of orgasm that can only be obtained through voting - a votergasm. Votergasm.org President Michelle Collins defined the dually functioning verb and noun. 'When you go out vote and have hot sex with a young voter, culminating and completing that cycle, you have completed a votergasm,' Collins said.
I knew I'd get screwed if I voted for Kerry.

(Also from Rush Limbaugh: The Cutting Edge)

Half Baked

More and more people are realizing that Kerry is nothing more than the anti-Bush; a hollow scarecrow propped up to diffuse any of Bush's achievements, which leaves voters high and dry:
Using a list of undecided voters supplied by the Kerry campaign, Mulle sent out 100 invitations and called 80 other wavering voters to attend a reception at her home in this tony suburb of St. Louis on Sunday. About a half-dozen showed up.

As the guests sipped wine, the discussion was more a Bush-bashing session than a Kerry pep rally. "You've told us why we should not vote for President Bush," one woman said, "now tell us why we should vote for Kerry." Campaign workers rushed to answer the question, but it symbolized one of the biggest hurdles John F. Kerry faces.

Preemptive Diplomacy


From Cox and Forkum Editorial Cartoons.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

French Victories?

France wants to appease the terrorists in Iraq. Again.

Check out this BBC Story where the French Foreign Minister insists that "those who have chosen the path of resistance by arms" in Iraq be included in any international summit in the future. Kerry must be furious with ol' Jacques Iraq and Schroeder that they won't send any soldiers even if he's elected. So much for all of those foreign leaders.

The debate is in two days. Now what's he going to do? (Dance, dance, dance!)

Kerry Meltdown Watch

One of the main planks in John Kerry’s foreign policy platform is that he will reach out to our European allies and enlist their military help in Iraq. Yet French and German officials have repeatedly said that not one European soldier would step into Iraq because of a Kerry presidency. It seems Kerry thinks that the mere magnificence of his presence would somehow endear the wily French to change their national interests. Well, despite Kerry's wishful thinking...

Time for plan B: No French or German turn on Iraq.
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.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

“I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president,” Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

“That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government’s backing in other matters.”

Even though Nato last week overcame members’ long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops “either now or later”.

Stop the presses!

No newspaper is too small to escape the notice of the anti-Bush Associated Press.

All they need to do is come out in favor of John Kerry: Tiny Crawford Newspaper Endorses Kerry. (Hat tip to Fallen.)
CRAWFORD, Texas - A tiny weekly newspaper that bills itself as President Bush’s hometown paper has endorsed John Kerry for president, saying the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity.

The Lone Star Iconoclast, which has a weekly circulation of 425, said in an editorial dated Sept. 29 that Texans should rate the candidates not by hometown or political party, but by where they intend to take the country.

Quagmire!

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Abortion & Planned Parenthood - A Lot More Than Meets the Eye...

Although Planned Parenthood appears to be simply a pro-choice advocate and educator of children, when the curtain is pulled back to reveal it's founder - Sanger - the truth takes a dark turn, indeed, revealing a past staunched in beliefs that inspired Hitler to crusade against the Jews and movements to wipe out 'unfit' races.

(a) Sanger was a militant radical who believed parents had the right to kill their children;

(b) In her book, Women and the New Race, Sanger said that it is "merciful" to kill infants; she said that, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it";

(c) Sanger was a socialist, feminist, occultist, and a believer in promiscuous sex;

(d) Sanger believed in controlled reproduction to purify the races (i.e., sterilization);

(e) Sanger founded and edited The Woman Rebel, the masthead read "No Gods, No Masters";

(f) Sanger coined the term "birth control" in 1912, founded the Voluntary Parenthood League in 1914, and founded the first birth control clinic in 1916 in Brooklyn, NY;

(g) That Planned Parenthood was anti-Christianity from the beginning is without dispute. In her first newspaper, The Woman Rebel, Margaret Sanger admitted that, "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical, because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian Churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism";

(h) Sanger was the president of the American Birth Control League in 1939 from which Planned Parenthood was formed, she remained honorary chairman of Planned Parenthood until her death in 1966;

(i) Sanger called the marriage bed "the most degenerating influence in the social order" (i.e., she was a "free love" advocate); she believed all sexual conduct was normal as long as harm was not brought to others;

(j) Sanger was violently anti-family: "only individuals count, not families";

(k) Sanger believed the poor should be sexually sterilized, and she endorsed euthanasia; she believed in selective breeding of the human race to produce "perfect" individuals (it was later that the Nazis adopted this philosophy). Her slogan was "more children from the fit, less from the unfit";

(l) Sanger hoped for a motherhood that would refuse "to bring forth weaklings ..." She wrote of "woman's upward struggle" and described the "lack of balance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit" as "the greatest present menace to civilization";

(m) Sanger hoped to use birth control to exterminate the genetically inferior races, which to her meant most of the non-white world; she wrote an article in 1921 called "Birth Control to Create a Race of Thoroughbreds";

(n) In 1922, Sanger declared that Jews, Hispanics, and blacks were "human weeds" that would by reproduction, "bring a dead weight of human waste into the world"; in April of 1932, Sanger outlined a "plan for peace" to eliminate these groups (in an article titled "Birth Control Review"). The article also advocated: (1) close doors to emigration to certain aliens; and (c) establishment of sterilization and/or segregation of issengenic groups, namely people considered to have bad genes;

(o) Sanger approved of Hitler's extermination of Jews in Europe, and had as a goal the extermination of the black race in the U.S. through sterilization and encouraging birth control via prominent black clergy (who would be "paid-off" if necessary);

(p) Sanger frequently attended séances to communicate with her dead daughter, and later drifted into eastern mysticism, Unitarianism, Rosicrucinism, astrology, and numerology; and

(q) Humanists declared Sanger "humanist of the year" in 1957.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/planp.htm
http://blackgenocide.org/abortion.html
http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm
http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/peterson.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/sanger.htm

Saturday, September 25, 2004

20 Reasons to Vote FOR John Kerry

No matter how many times Kerry supporters are asked why anyone should vote for him, there never seems to be an answer except "he's not Bush." I'm not speaking of the far-far-looney Left, for whom that answer is enough; I'm referring to moderate Democrats who want to support Kerry out of party loyalty, but can't quite convince themselves of his suitability for office. (Maybe would've preferred Edwards, or ol' Wes Clark.) Whatever a Kerry supporter's pet issue is, he or she never seems able to give a solid reason why Kerry would deal with it better than Bush would, and give details about precisely how. All they can do it complain about President Bush. Even those who support Kerry's plan for socialised medicine (the same system which is falling apart in Canada) can't explain how it would be paid for. Raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year would generate less than $250 billion over ten years, which would only cover a portion of the estimated $1 trillion cost. (They also can't explain why Kerry the health-care crusader doesn't seem to have introduced any legislation concerning his best issue at any point during his 20-year Senate career.) In any case, Kerry supporters seem to need help. Well, help is on the way! If you're looking for a reason to actually support Kerry, instead of joining up with the anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-Israel, anti-America crowd typified by Michael Moore, the Hollywood Left, and sign-waving protesters in the streets, then here are twenty reasons for you to consider as your reason to vote for John Kerry.

20. Israel's security fence really is both a "legitimate act of self defense" and a "barrier to peace," and at the same time.
19. In fact, no matter what you believe about any issue, Kerry's on your side 50% of the time. Unfortunately, if there are three sides to an issue, he's only with you 33%.
18. Anyone who had the foresight to bring his own Super 8 movie camera to Vietnam to shoot campaign commercials for when he got back home is okay by you.
17. Kerry should be President because, as he said, he was born in the "west wing" of a hospital. This has nothing to do with all the other people ever born in the west wings of all the hospitals in the world, however.
16. You believe that Saddam was a threat with nuclear weapons. After all, John Kerry himself said, "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." Of course, that would make the liberation of Iraq the right thing to do then, wouldn't it? Maybe you'd better skip this one.
15. He and John Edwards have "better hair." Aren't you glad Don King isn't running?
14. The company you work for doesn't pay enough taxes. If they did, they wouldn't have money in the budget to waste on you.
13. Europe wants him to be our President, which automatically means that you should, too... if you want to be popular when you visit your family in France, that is.
12. Kerry was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago, and he still remembers how to curse like a sailor!
11. Kim Jong Il prefers him, Iranian mullahs and other unnamed foreign leaders would certainly prefer him, and the CPUSA (US Communist Party) prefers him. You don't want them mad at you, do you?
10. He owns American-made SUVs... no, no, wait, his FAMILY does. Sorry.
9. He was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago -- did you know that? He was in Cambodia, too. The memory of his secret mission on Christmas Day 1968 was seared -- seared -- in him. Or maybe it was some other time, or some other place, or some other guy. But he has a hat to prove it... whatever it is.
8. John Kerry said that he believes we "need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take." America should never act on its own, like other countries do.
7. He was the only Vietnam veteran to be honored by both America and the North Vietnamese for his activities during the Vietnam War.
6. The best way to deal with terrorism is to wait until they hit us again. "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response," Kerry said when he accepted the Democrat nomination.
5. After years of marrying rich women, shouldn't he finally have his own house?
4. Although he would raise your taxes, his speech explaining why would cure your insomnia.
3. You've probably already forgotten that he was in Vietnam for a few months 35 years ago.
2. As well as revealing at various times that he's Irish (but really Czech), Catholic (but really Jewish), and Liberal (but really Conservative), he will also be the second "black" President.
1. Ketchup packets with the presidential seal! How cool is that?

For Those Who Came In Late

Lie #1: The Rush To War. There was no rush to war. There were twelve years and seventeen resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein comply with the 1991 cease-fire agreement that he signed, which specified that he must completely disclose all his weapons programs and materials to the UN. He never did so. The UN Security Council unanimously issued resolution #1441 in November 2002, which gave Iraq one month as a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", or face "serious consequences." Saddam still did not do so. Rather than "rush to war," President Bush waited three more months for him to acquiesce, giving him further "last chances." At that point, walking away and not forcing Saddam to disarm by force would have destroyed the credibility of both the US and the UN, and Saddam would have won a major victory over both without a shot being fired. No statement or warning by the UN or the US would have ever had weight again.

Lie #2: Going It Alone. The only major countries that did not send troops or support the liberation of Iraq in other ways were France, Germany, Russia and China. It's no coincidence that three of those are the same countries that were trading illegal arms and other banned materials (like Roland missiles and Mirage helicopter parts from France) to Saddam Hussein in return for lucrative exploitation rights in the West Qurna (Russia), al-Ahdab (China), and Majnoon (France) oil fields, as well as other deals all four had made. Iraq was one of German industry's biggest customers, and Iraq owed Germany billions of dollars, which would probably never be collected if Saddam was forced from power. Their opposition to Saddam's removal was far less based on principal than capital. If we had to "go it alone" in Iraq with our paltry coalition of 46 nations, it was because our "traditional allies" failed us, not the other way around. I'm curious about whether Kerry has any plans to apologise to all the nations he's insulted by calling them "a trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted," just because France didn't join.

Lie #3: No Ties to al-Qaeda. There are two parts to this one. Iraq did have ties to al-Qaeda, but specific links to al-Qaeda alone was never one of the reasons Congress voted to remove Saddam from power, as laid out in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. One of those reasons was his long-time sponsorship of international terrorism, not just the one group. The fact that he openly awarded $25,000 (later reduced to $10,000) to the families of Hamas suicide bombers was proof of this. In fact, Russian President Vladmir Putin warned President Bush that Saddam was planning new terrorist attacks against the US after 9/11. As for al-Qaeda, the Washington Times noted, "The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts." Kerry supporters often state that the 9/11 Commission said that Iraq had no links to al-Qaeda, but that's a misquote, if not a lie. NBC's Tom Brokaw had the audacity to "correct" Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi when he mentioned Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission stated that Saddam might not have had direct, specific cooperation on 9/11, but that he did have ties to al-Qaeda. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean stated: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." More links to terror, including al-Qaeda, can be found in a publication by the Hudson Institute called Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror

Lie #4: No WMDs in Iraq. Every intelligence service on the planet agreed that Saddam had not fully disclosed his illegal weapons programs, or else UN resolution #1441 would not have been adopted unanimously. All Saddam had to do at any time, even after the UN's deadline had passed, was turn over all the requested materials and documents. David Kay's interim report to the CIA showed that Saddam had clandestine laboratories (including prison testing facilities), long-range unmanned aerial vehicles, hidden and dual-use manufacturing capabilities, and advanced work on anthrax, ricin, aflatoxin, and other biological weapons. None of this had been disclosed to the UN weapons inspectors. Saddam was poised to replenish his WMD stockpiles the minute UN sanctions were dropped, according to Charles Duelfer's final report. To put it more simply: Saddam had lemons, sugar, and a pitcher of cold water at a lemonade stand. Can anyone seriously doubt his intent to make lemonade? So where are they now? Israel told us, CIA satellite photos confirmed, and David Kay's research revealed that much of Saddam's WMD materials were moved across the Syrian border right before the war in Iraq began. Perhaps being so patient was an error; perhaps we should have used force the day after the UN's final deadline lapsed.

Lie #5: Diversion from the War on Terror. Iraq is, in fact, an essential part of the War on Terror. At one point, even John Kerry agreed; on 7 September 2004 he stated that American soldiers who died in Iraq gave their lives "on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror." Afghanistan and Iraq were essential components of a larger strategy than shooting a few killers and calling the war a success. Democrats base this attack on a false assertion that troops were pulled out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq but not replaced. In reality, troop levels in Afghanistan were never affected by the fighting in Iraq; only the composition of the troops has changed. If anything, overall troop levels have increased. The only groups that switched focus from one country to the other were the Democrats and their enthusiasts in the "mainstream" media.

The War on Terror is not about one country, one group, or one person. Democrats don't want to admit that Pakistan has given up its terrorist support, becoming an ally in the war. They don't want to acknowledge that Libya has also given up terror support as well as its WMD programs, as a direct result of Saddam's removal. (Ghaddafi phoned Italian Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi to say, "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.") Syria has begun to buckle under pressure to withdraw troops from occupied Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia is moving towards democratic reforms.  If the mullahs that rule Iran stop working on a nuclear weapon, the Iranian people may get their chance to institute a democracy on their own. That's how the war will be won, not by pulling out of Iraq and leaving a lone fledgling democracy to be swallowed by its surrounding enemies.

If John Kerry and his cronies can again force the US to abandon its responsibilities by turning public opinion against the war, if we're forced to watch helplessly as innocents who trusted our promises are butchered again, then the Democrats will at last be justified in calling Iraq a second Vietnam.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Democrat or Republican?

Found this joke lying around. It's been around for a while, but it's good.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heart-felt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary?"

She replied, "Mary is barely getting by," she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only has a 2.0?" He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, ...

"Welcome to the Republican Party."

Thursday, September 09, 2004

France Armed Saddam w/Weapons Before War

It looks like aside from having their blood stained hands plunged deep in Saddam's oil cartel, France and Germany were secretly arming and assisting Saddam as late as 2002, in the months preparing for the war. Pretty damning evidence.

Monday, September 06, 2004

Iraq/al-Qaeda Connections

Some more info from the 9/11 Commission on al-Qaeda and Iraq connections:

Here's Commissioner Lehman on "Meet the Press":
The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.


Lee Hamilton, the Democrat Vice Chairman of the commission:
I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is [that] we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.


Lee Hamilton, on Chris Matthews Hardball:
There are all kinds of ties. There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein lieutenants.

They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with respect to attacks on the United States.