- If you do not feel that the war on terror is no less than a clash of civilizations and that Islamic terror threatens not only our safety, but our very way of life and, as such, is the single most important issue in this election: You're a moron.
- If you are undecided and are delaying your decision until you can read all of the great information on the Michael Moore website: You're a pathetic moron.
- If you are on Social Security, and you honestly think that George Bush is going to take away your check and throw you in the street: You're a moron.
- If you honestly think that there will be a reinstatement of the draft, after having been reassured otherwise, on numerous occasions, by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the joint Cheifs of Staff: You're a paranoid delusional moron.
- If you think that by electing John Kerry, we will win the approval of Euroweenies such as France and Germany, or if you even give a damn what they think: Je Le Moron.
- If you honestly feel that John Kerry will wage a more effective war on our enemies: You're a moron.
- If, after seeing 3,000 people murdered on 9/11, you are now making your decision as to how to vote by weighing each candidate's Healthcare proposal: You're a moron.
- If you think that the Iraq war is about oil, Haliburton or some sort of family grudge between the Bushes and Saddam: You're pathetic moron #2's best friend and, coincidentally, a pathetic moron .
- If you think that when John Kerry is elected president, the blind will see and the lame will walk: You're John Edwards, but you're still a moron.
- If you think Mossad gave George Bush advance warning of, or George Bush planned 9/11 along with the the Israelis in order to boost his poularity: You're a stark raving mad Jew-hating moron who, even after years of therepy, would still be an Jew-hating moron.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Iraqis, Looking to Build "a New Iraq" Hope for Bush Victory
I often see the the oh-so-sensitive-and-compassionate liberals sporting their fashionable "Kerry-Edwards" bottons, often smartly accessorized with a "No War on Iraq" button. Note the words; No War ON Iraq. The point, of course, is that once again the U.S. is in the business of waging a war of oppression upon a defenseless people for oil or Haliburton or whatever nefarious reason-du-jour is popular in their peculiar little circle of friends at the time.
I've often wondered if they even cared what the purported "oppressees" thought of our actions since in truth, the purpose of the wars that we have fought has been liberation rather than oppression. None of the foreign wars that we have fought has been in the cause of imperialism and every country in which we have fought was left in far better shape than we found it. The exceptions to this were Vietnam and Cambodia which spiraled into a genocidal nightmare after we were forced to cease our "oppression" due to popular opinion and North Korea with whom we are technically still at war.
Which brings us to Iraq. An article by Lawrence F. Kaplan, a senior editor at the New Republic highlights that the intellegent, sophisticated Iraqis that see a bright future ahead for their country not only approve of "Bush's War on Iraq" but hope that he is elected to a second term:
We know what John Kerry thinks of Iraq. But what does Iraq think of him?
Since he may soon be presiding over a war there, the question merits an
answer. Yet, while the press has devoted page after page to the electoral
preferences of the French, the opinions of those who count most overseas
have received nary a mention.
Partly this derives from the simple fact that, as polls show, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't care who wins our election. Their concerns run closer to home--especially how to stay alive. There's an exception, however: the thousands of academics, lawyers, rights advocates and other educated elites leading the effort to create a new Iraq--nearly all of whom have hitched their fortunes to our own and nearly all of whom hope that President Bush wins.
Liberal Iraqis repeat the same question: Will the U.S. leave? These, after all, are the Iraqis building institutions, occupying key positions in ministries, and cooperating openly with the U.S. And they're the Iraqis with the most to lose in the event John Kerry makes good on his pledge to "bring the troops home where they belong."
This prospect, once unimaginable, has become very real in Iraq. The fear
of abandonment has transformed meetings between Iraqi and U.S. officials, until
recently arenas for grievance, into forums for the expression of solidarity.
Leading Iraqis stayed up late into the night to watch the presidential debates.
"Sophisticated Iraqis are listening closely," Iraqi national security adviser
Mowaffak Al-Rubaie says in a telephone interview. "Any discussion of withdrawal
worries them." Echoing this, Manhel al-Safi, who recently left his post as an
aide in the prime minister's office for a job in the Foreign Ministry, says,
"There's a level of fear--people in the government are afraid the Americans will
leave Iraq." He adds a personal plea to Sen. Kerry: "Mr. Senator, destruction is
easy; building takes a long time."
Do read the whole thing as it is fascinating and instructive.
Without a plan to win the peace...without a plan to win the peace. I keep hearing that voice repeating the same phrase over and over and over again. It's........horrible. Please God, make it stop!
First of all, "win the peace" sounds like terminology that gold braid laden admirals and generals use in planning sessions in the Pentagon and it comes off as goofy when it comes out of Kerry's mouth. It's like a white guy over 40 using hip-hop slang like, er..........well, I don't really know any hip-hop slang, but it would be like a white guy over 40 using any hip-hop slang in an effort to appear cool.
Secondly, it's a stupid phrase to begin with. "Deal with the aftermath" or some use of the word "endgame" in one form or the other would be fine. I know what "win the peace" means, but it's inherently nonsensical. "Win the peace" may be way hip when sitting around secret planning sessions at Langley, but as a phrase, it makes about as much sense as "Charmingly insufferable" (Well, I guess that one would make sense, but only if you are describing Bill Clinton.)
Lastly, it's just annoying in the extreme. It's like the phrase "thinking outside the box", the first time you hear it used, it sounds sort of clever. The second time it's hackneyed and each time thereafter it is maddening.
Perhaps that title is a bit strong, but perhaps not.
For more than three decades, it has been argued that the elements of the Vietnam anti-war movement were assisted, and sometimes controlled by the government of North Vietnam. To those who call those claims preposterous, I can only say that one has to appreciate the context of the time as well as the mindset of many who populated the anti-war movement. This was a time during which patriotism was not only considered passe, it was viewed with utter contempt.
The North Vietnamese well understood and appreciated the value and the nature of the anti-war movement in the United States. Their plan was simple and effective; they would use the anti-war groups to manipulate American opinion against the war and the Americans would have no choice but to withdraw.
When I ask myself whether American citizens, including American soldiers, would actually cooperate with those responsible for killing our troops, the answer would be yes. These people, you have to understand, felt no loyalty for this country whatsoever. The only thing that they truly believed in was "the cause" which, of course, was to end the war in Vietnam or, more specifically, the removal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. Any course of action toward the ultimate goal was to be employed. They would not have seen it as treason and certainly not as collaboration with the enemy because in their minds, the U.S was the enemy. North Vietnam was seen as the innocent object of U.S. oppression.
As an aside, if that last sentence sounds familiar, it is. It's the very same argument we hear against the Iraq war and just about any war that comes along. Forgive my digression, I continue.
Simply look at the history of violence surrounding the ancillary groups that were loosely associated with "the movement" which included but was not limited to the Black Panthers, SDS and the Weather Underground (certainly a disparate collection of groups, but Vietnam was the common thread that connected them). It is a history of armed violence and bombings. Certainly, the vast majority of the college students that attended the many demonstrations of the time were happy, stoned kids having their first experience with political expression. The "true believers" on the other hand, the core of "the movement," were revolutionaries in every sense of the word and employed the violent tactics of revolutionaries, including violence. Do you actually think that people of this ilk would have any qualms whatsoever with collaborating with North Vietnam to further their cause?
The meme that fueled the anti-war movement was the perception of American soldiers as raping, pillaging baby killers. The perpetuation of this perception enabled "the movement" to assume the moral high ground and thus, in their mind, justify any actions they chose to take.
Enter John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. After serving four months on a swift boat in Vietnam and earning the Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, Kerry became heavily involved in the anti-war movement and became active in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. On April 22, 1971, Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on foreign Relations as to the atrocities that he had "personally witnessed." His testimony validated the position of the anti-war movement in ways they could not have dreamed.
The only problem was that many of the stories that he claimed to have "personally witnessed" were stories related to him by others, at least one of which had never even served in Vietnam. He also claimed to have "participated in" some of these atrocities, a claim which, if true would appear to make him liable for war crimes charges. He has yet to give a full explanation of the apparently bogus charges that he made in 1971, or an apology for having soiled the reputations of a generation of American soldiers.
Nonetheless, Kerry became the poster-boy for the anti-war movement and a folk hero to the American Left. He parlayed his celebrity into a political career which has now landed him on the threshold of the White House itself. To this day, the major media has had no taste for a close examination of his charges or his claims.
Now come this piece from the Mississippi Press (via LGF) which details, through captured North Vietnamese documents, the close relationship between the anti-war groups and the North Vietnamese government. It also poses questions as to meetings that Kerry had attended, apparently as a representative of the Vietnamese Veterans Against the War with Vietnamese government officials in Paris while he was still an officer of the U.S. Navy.
There are a number of questions concerning Sen. Kerry's past that pique my curiosity. Questions that are certainly more pressing than George Bush's 1976 DUI charge that the media found so enthralling in 2000. Alas, time is now short and it is clear that these questions will not be asked, or answered, before the election. The media has picked their man and it's time for America to pick ours.
All The News That's Fit to Elect Kerry?
It has been evident for some time that the mainstream media has been behaving as though it is the communication division of the Kerry campaign. From CBS's "National Guard Letter" story (proven to be a pathetic forgery) to the current "Where Are The Missing Explosives" story (based largely on innuendo and unsupported by any facts whatsoever), the media seems to be pulling out all of the stops to support their man and remove George Bush from office.
As Hindrocket at Powerline so elegantly and succinctly illustrates, media manipulation can and does involve glaring omissions which serve to have the same effect:
During the last two weeks of the Presidential campaign, we expected a virtual blackout on good news of all kinds, as the mainstream media try to drag John Kerry across the finish line. And we haven't been surprised, as the press has been hysterical over one bogus story after another.
So let's take a moment to shine a little light into the darkness. Haider Ajina sends us the results of a poll taken in Baghdad, Mosul and Dehok and published in Iraq on October 25. The poll probably over-sampled Sunnis, which makes its results even more striking. Haider writes:
63% of Iraqis say that the withdrawal of American and allied forces will not be in the best interest of Iraq, it will undermine the work towards security and control of the country.
27% say that it would be in the best interest of Iraq.
9% had no opinion.
58% say that terrorists do the kidnappings and assassination
of police and soldiers.
9% say that patriots fighting for Iraq carry them out.
32% say ignorant Iraqis who have been brain washed & misled carry them out.
89% said that the terrorism, kidnapping, beheadings and assassination of police and security forces do not help the freeing of Iraq and the building of a stable country.
6% said that it would help free Iraq and build stability.
4% had no opinion.
Michael Moore, the intellectual leader of the Democratic Party, may believe that the terrorists are patriots and freedom fighters, but the Iraqi people clearly do not agree.
Haider also tells us that positive developments in Egypt, the most populous Arab country, are not being reported in America. The liberation of Iraq has had a profound effect on Egyptians, who are starting to campaign for freedom and democracy. By way of example, Haider sends us this translation of pat of a front-page article in the Egyptian newspaper, “Al Wafed," on October 27, titled: "The people of Egypt are screaming at the top of their lungs for a free government":
Soon after, the Egyptian government announced a realignment of the cabinet. The dream of a democratic Egypt returned to the masses. The cabinet of Dr. Adif Aubeid has introduced nothing new. The people lost hope in any progressive improvements in government. Nothing was left except to pray to god to rid them of this government. The people have suffered higher taxes, unemployment, and inflation. People are feeling like sheep, not citizens. Egyptians have rights, which need to be respected, have needs that need to be considered and have expectation of a more representative government.
"We have had enough of the old faces; we want a government: young, strong, and free, which represents the hopes of the people of Egypt, before the people explode in a volcano of anger."
There are many positive developments in Iraq, the Middle East and throughout the Arab world. Maybe we'll start hearing about them after the election.
Indeed. Many have asseted that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the "war on terror." Sadly, those people cannot or rather, refuse to see that George Bush's goal is no less than a complete transformation of the Middle East and that transformation will create an environment in which terrorism can no longer live. Instead of swatting mosquitos, he is draining the swamp.
The goal is absolutely breathtaking in it's scope and it is already starting to bear fruit. It would be tragic beyond belief, not only for the Middle East, but for the world itself, if George Bush were not allowed to realize this goal. George Bush is not offering empty platitudes about "changing the world", he's actually doing it! Those who are unable, or unwilling to recognize the nobility and the absolute necessity of this cause are not simply of a different opinion; they're just plain wrong.
Keeping It In Perspective
Mark Levin over at The Corner makes a good point that we should all keep in mind:
It took seven years to find Eric Rudolph, despite a massive and rentless
man hunt. He was found almost by accident--when a sharp patrolman spotted him digging through trash in North Carolina. We'll get Bin Laden, and everyone knows
it. It's just a matter of time.
Was it Bill Clinton's fault that the FBI could not find Eric Rudolf? Of course not, and I can't remember any of Clinton's critics leveling that charge.
Osama, by design, has chosen some of the most remote and rugged territory in the world in which to hide. He is surrounded by a small group of people whose loyalty to him is so profound that the $50 million on his head means nothing. The people in the area do not get CNN, MSNBC or Fox News, in fact, they probably cannot even read. I would venture to guess that many of them do not even know what Osama looks like. Eventually, guys like Osama always make a mistake and I have no doubt that when that time comes, we will be there.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Fox News is reporting that Al Jazeera has broadcast a tape from Osama, reportedly a video. I must admit that I'm surprised, It had long been my opinion that he was probably dead. I assumed that a man with an ego the size of his would find it impossible to stay out of the spotlight for this long.
The news on this event is still developing, but clearly this is an attempt to have an effect on our election in the hope that we can be be intimidated like the Euroweenies in Spain. Hmmm, I wonder who he would prefer to win on Tuesday?
I picked up this tidbit from a comment board at the LGF website. You know how these things go, and rumors are worth everything you pay for them, but it is intriguing given Kerry's reluctance to release all of his military records:
We got it finally. We have the Former Secretary of the Navy who stated, "Yes, Kerry did receive an Other Than Honorable Discharge".
Stay tuned for more...
Now to MAKE THE MEDIA AND CONGRESS LISTEN! Go my brothers and sisters --
spread the news to everyone!!!! - Chief
The above is pasted from a message board from swiftvets.com so, take it for what it's worth, though Hindrocket at Powerline has also referenced this rumor and stated that "the Vets' track record is very good." I must admit, I do hope that it's true.
Yes, at least according to the increasingly wacked out Iowa Senator Tom Harkin:
Harkin campaigns for Kerry, Pettengill, says Kerry's rise in polls
is what God wants
By Dean Close - Times Correspondent
VINTON - Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day."That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.
Harkin was touring the state to stump for Kerry and Democratic legislative candidates. He appeared in Benton County on behalf of Mt. Auburn Mayor Dawn
Pettengill, who is running against incumbent Republican Dell Hanson for the Iowa
House District 39 seat.
As Senator Harkin offers no direct quotes from God backing up his assertion, I might have to wait for some independant confirmation on this one. I'll Google for God's website and once I find His endorsement, I'll be sure to provide the link.
Man, is it me or is this thing getting weirder by the day?
The Mercurial John Kerry Further Explains His Position on Iraq
Via Drudge comes this interesting exchange:
NBC News' Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.
Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."
Kerry: "Not necessarily."
Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."
Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."
Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."
Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."
But, but Senator......I thought Iraq is "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." Your whole bloody campaign has been based upon the fact that you opposed the war! Now, since the polls indicate that the American people might actually support the war, you shamelessly pander to them by, once again, shifting your position.
Senator Kerry, you are a real piece of work.
Earth to John Kerry: France, Germany, Russia and the rest of the Euroweenies would not support the U.S. in this war if the Almighty Himself commanded so. In fact, they, along with the UN, were profiting handsomely from the Oil-for-Food program while standing in our way at every turn. The Euroweenies were up to their eyeballs in Saddam's corruption and clearly did not support our actions out of fear that their unholy business arrangements with Saddam would come to light, as it is now. The truth is, our "allies" have been laughing, all the way to the bank, as we put our faith in the UN, sanctions and the dubious (to put it mildly) "inspections."
Your pathological fascination with Euroweenie allies and the UN would be laughable were you not aspiring to be president. Get a clue Senator, your gullibility is dangerous and the very last place you need to be is the White House.
Throughout this campaign and, dare I say, throughout his career, John Kerry has reminded us of his service in Vietnam..ad nauseum. Some would say that his very presence in that southeast Asian country was a calculated move to add substance to his resume in an effort to enhance his political viability and I have seen nothing in Mr. Kerry's actions to dispute that. Immediately upon his his return, he then set about trashing the reputation of his comrades and his country to anyone who would listen, including the U.S. Congress. He did so by peddling stories of wholesale atrocities that have since been proven to be damnable lies. Today, these actions would exclude him from a career in politics. In the 1970s, however, spitting on soldiers and deriding your country was fashionable so he proceeded to build his political career upon falsified accounts of U.S. soldiers committing unspeakable crimes during a war in which the U.S. chose to cut and run. Make no mistake, Vietnam was not a military failure, it was a political one and, by all accounts it was the seminal point in John Kerry's life.
There is an unmistakable and very disturbing pattern in Sen. Kerry's thinking.
For the next 30 years, Kerry showed himself to be a staunchly anti-war and anti-military politician, regularly voting against military budgets and military actions as well as weapons systems even while preening as a military hero and flaunting his decorations at every turn. His career in the Senate suggests, no, clearly illustrates that this is a man whose "Global Test" can never be met for in his mind there is never a clear cause for military action, no matter how noble the cause may be. In his mind, every war is Vietnam and he sees every war's eventual conclusion through the veil of helicopters on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, evacuating the last vestiges of U.S. presence.
He constantly lauds "our brave men and women" in the armed forces, while denegrating vitually every mission they have undertaken and every victory they have acheived. In John Kerry's mind, every war is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
Now, in the heat of his campaign to be Commander-in-Chief, the Defeatist-in-Chief instantly seizes, not upon the many, many victories that the U.S. has achieved, but another defeat; the failed "Bay of Pigs" invasion:
Kerry recalled how President John Kennedy took the blame for the bungled Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba in 1961.
"Can you imagine President Kennedy ... standing up and telling the American People he couldn't think of a single mistake that he had made? When the Bay of Pigs went sour, John Kennedy had the courage to look America in the eye and say to America 'I take responsibility, it is my fault."'
Challenging Bush, Kerry said: "Mr. President, it is long since time for you to start taking responsibility for the mistakes that you've made."
The Captain at Captain's Quarters provides a detailed analysis, not only of Mr. Kerry's failed analogy and misrepresentation of Kennedy's "acceptance of blame", but also of his pathetic abandonment of the Cuban expatriates who trusted him. Just as in Vietnam, the "cut and run" option was chosen with disastrous results.
Sen. Kerry does not seem to see that Kennedy's failure was not the invasion itself, but his desertion of those who had faith in him when they needed him the most. Is this the ideal to which he will aspire as president? His career gives every indication that this is indeed the case.
Kerry seems so fixated upon U.S. military defeats that he is unable to even contemplate victory. Even when attempting to criticize President Bush, the contrast he chooses is not between our supposed "failure" in Iraq and one of our many successes, but rather he opts for how President Kennedy dealt with what really was an abject failure and incompetence on behalf of a previous Commander-in-Chief.
My fear is that if, God forbid, John Kerry is elected president he will not vigorously pursue victory in Iraq or the wider war on terror because he has no concept of what victory is. Given that we are in a war, forced upon us by those who will settle for no less than our very destruction John Kerry is, in President Bush's words "the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Is There Nothing That Can Be Done to Expedite The Process?
What can one say about Yasser Arafat's time on this earth other than it has been far, far too long. This is a man that one can rightfully call the father of modern terrorism. This is a man so filled with hatred of the Jews that no concession from them could ever bring peace. That this man won a Nobel Peace Prize is not only a travesty but, in my mind, permanently denigrated the value of that honor to the point of farce. That this man is now considered a "statesman" in some circles clearly shows the moral turpitude of those circles.
Jacques Chirac is sending a plane to transport the ailing murderer to Paris for medical treatment, honoring the centuries-old tradition of French prostration before monsters and tyrants. We can only hope that the state of French medicine mirrors that of French character; weak and ineffective.
For What It's Worth
Where have I been? Thanks for asking. Well, that's a long story that I will attempt to shorten as best I can. After spending 30 years in an industry to which I gave every thread of my loyalty and my effort...I was downsized. No recrimination, no bitter words about the circumstances will I offer. Been there, done that. Make no mistake, it sucks, but sometimes that's just the way life goes.
After crying in my beer (more of which than I care to remember) for months, my wife showed me an ad in the paper for flight attendants. Flight Attendant? Yes, that was precisely my reaction as well. But the more that I considered it, the more I became enchanted by the idea, so I went to the interview. Actually, it wasn't that easy. Up to the morning of the interview, I was unsure as to whether I wanted to go. After all, I'm male, I'm straight and as such, I do not exactly fit the profile of the garden variety Flight Attendant. In addition, I'm nearly (though not quite, thank you) twice the age of most of those who enter such a profession. After doing some research, I found that the "profile" for Flight Attendants has expanded considerably over the years. I decided that I would give it a try, even though this was something I never envisioned myself doing. I've always loved the exhilaration of flying and I've always loved travel in all forms so I gave it my best shot and well, my best shot seemed to be adequate. I was selected for 8 weeks of training, which took place clear across the country. The great adventure had begun, and what an adventure it has been.
Before I go any further, I must make an important point. My wife is truly a saint. I know that this transition has been incredibly difficult for her, but her perseverance has enabled me to do something that I have found to be terribly fulfilling and, might I add, a great deal of fun. The job has required me to live, at least part of the time, in another city. Fortunately, I am only 175 miles from home, but it complicates life in any number of ways. It requires her to spend most of the time alone, and take care of the house and the yard by herself. We keep in constant touch by cell phone, but to say that it is not difficult in the extreme would mischaracterize the situation. Her understanding, her confidence, her trust and, of course, her love are my most cherished possessions.
I would also like to offer my undying gratitude to my family and friends for the physical help and the moral support that they have given me during these months. They all pitched in and moved me into an apartment and donated objects and food that has made my "home away from home" much more tolerable.
As a result of this life alteration, I have taken an enormous pay cut but I have found untold wealth in the love and friendship of those closest to me. I'm a pretty lucky guy and I know it.
In short. After spending nearly 30 years in an office, I now fly around the country for a living. After nearly three decades of excruciating predictability, I honestly do not know where I will be this time next week and you know, that's fine with me.
That's enough of the personal stuff. There is ranting do be done, and I must be getting on with that without any further dawdling.