Sunday, October 31, 2004

Brokaw Stumping for Kerry

What media bias? Are ya craaaaazy! Captain's Quarters has all the details on this one. Looks like Brokaw just joined Dan's and the NYT's club for the washed-up and, IMHO, washed-OUT.

These guys need to go. Sooner the better.

RI Paper Endorses Bush

So, I'm a little blown away. The Providence Journal has endorsed George W. Bush for re-election.
President George W. Bush is not to everyone's taste. He is a proud Texan with an equally proud New England-Ivy League pedigree, a conservative who has dramatically increased federal spending, a plain-spoken man whose candor is a stronger suit than his diplomacy. But from the moment that the first airplane smashed into the World Trade Center, President Bush fully understood the stakes for civilization in the war on terrorism, and has kept his eye resolutely on his mission: the security of the American people, and of those who stand with us in the war against terrorism.

He has made it plain that terrorism will not be defeated quickly or easily, and he has been willing to take huge political risks to try to ensure our safety. For that reason, above all others, we endorse President Bush for re-election.

This is not to say that Sen. John Kerry is an unworthy challenger. He is an intelligent, articulate man who has had many cogent and critical things to say about the Bush administration, some of which we agree with. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and an experienced member of the U.S. Senate. Some of his positions on domestic issues are considerably closer to ours than are President Bush's.

But on the one issue of our time that transcends all others -- the war against terrorism -- Senator Kerry does not offer a reassuring alternative.

When he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, John Kerry declared that "any attack will be met with a swift and certain response," and that is the essential difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush. Mr. Kerry is prepared to react to terrorism; Mr. Bush is determined to take the war to the terrorists before they strike at us again.(/snip)

We do not understate the difficulty of the struggle against the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. But after the mass graves, the torture, the corruption, the forced impoverishment of the Iraqi people by murderous and luxury-loving Saddam and his associates, the use of chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds, the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations and the threat of a reconstituted Iraqi nuclear-arms program, we find it difficult to understand why anyone would have opposed Saddam Hussein's ouster.

With his record of courage and resolution, we believe that President George W. Bush, in a second term, would not only build on the coalition he has already assembled against terrorism but also help establish Mideast peace and broaden democracy in that tortured region. In so doing, he would help ensure the long-term security of the United States.

Well how about that? Here in a deep Blue state some get it on the major point. Good enough for me.

Babbling BBC

Link here to read the sickest, most pathetic babbling journalist I have ever read. (HT: Normblog via Instapundit)
Foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr Arafat's fate than anyone in Ramallah.

We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows.

But where were the people, I wondered, the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?

Was this another story we Western journalists were getting wrong, bombarding the world with news of what we think is an historic event, while the locals get on with their lives?

Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning.(/snip)

I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: "Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege."

And so was I.(/snip)

Despite his obvious failings - his use of corruption, his ambivalence towards violence, his autocratic way of ruling - no one could accuse him of cowardice.(/snip)

Well then, let me be the first to accuse Arafat of cowardice. I think murdering innocent children, mothers, fathers, etc........ qualifies the sick bastard as a coward.

Read the whole thing to appreciate the depth of Moonbatness this journalist has fallen to. Can anyone say 'objectivity'? Do you think her editor will assist in psychiatric care? And folks, this is from the BBC.

Kerry Cuts to the Quick

A mother who lost her son in Iraq tells her story of how the Kerry campaign treated her when they found out she was a democrat. She also recounts her meeting with President Bush. Read it all.
Six weeks later, Peggy Buryj claims that she received a phone call from a representative of John Kerry's presidential campaign. The caller identified herself as "Linda" and asked Mrs. Buryj, a registered Democrat, if she would appear at a Canton rally for John Kerry. Buryj agreed, but with a condition. She wanted to ask Kerry one question: "Why did you vote against the $87 billion for support troops in Iraq?"

"And I wanted to ask him--because I never hear journalists ask him, or anybody ask him--what was his reasoning for voting down the money?"

Buryj understood that her request was politically sensitive. So she told the Kerry campaign that she was willing to ask Kerry in private, before the event, or in a phone call. She promised that she would not go public with his answer. She even offered to sign a confidentiality agreement pledging that she would not talk to reporters about Kerry's answer.

"They were inviting me because of my son," she says. "You know, they were using me for their benefit, you know? Local hero's mother, you know?" Buryj notes that the Kerry campaign did not invite the Rameys, parents of Staff Sft. Richard Ramey, who died in Iraq February 8, 2004. "They were Republicans," she says. "I'm a Democrat."

Nevertheless, she wanted to attend the rally. "I wanted to go. I just wanted an answer to my question."

She never heard back from the campaign.(/snip)

A month later, Buryj received a call from the Bush campaign. President Bush wanted to meet her, in private, along with the families of two other fallen soldiers from Stark County. There would be no reporters in the room. She was not asked if she supported the president.

Bush spoke to a rally of 5,000 at the Canton Memorial Civic Center on July 31. Afterwards, he met for 20 minutes with Buryj, the Rameys and the family of Sgt. Michael Barkey, who had been killed in Iraq on July 7. Buryj says she cried when she saw Bush. "He cried on my shoulder as much as I cried on his."(emphasis mine)(/snip)

Buryj spoke in halting phrases as she tried to articulate why, exactly, she wanted to speak with Kerry. "Basically, because I'm struggling with . . . why would he? . . . To me it was . . . As a military mother . . . Why? Why? What good reason could he have for voting against that money? There is no reason in my mind for him to vote down that money. And I will never understand that."

I asked if Kerry could have said anything that would have helped her understand his vote.

"I don't know. Maybe, if he would have answered the question. He voted for the okay to go to war. And then he voted down the money. As a military mother, you don't know how that offends me. That just offends me to the quick. And he's running for president. He wants to be our leader. He wants to be commander-in-chief. I think that's a fair question. I don't expect to get special treatment. But they called me. They called me wanting me to attend."

She continued: "When John Kerry says wrong war, wrong time wrong place--you don't know how that cuts me to the quick. That's like saying my son died for nothing. That to me is just a slap in the face. I talk to several military mothers, you don't know how many, and that hurts us. That hurts us."(/snip)

The DNC went on to deny her story all together. Why do I believe her?

Pray that George Bush wins a decisive victory on Tuesday.

"Dumb and Dumber"

Red State has a great post on M.Moore's appearance last night on Paula Zahn's show. Yes, the writer has admitted to self-torture for even viewing the program.

MM consistently shows his babbling idiocy for anyone who is willing to wire him with a mike. Paula is the useful idiot this time.

Case Study: Political Character

The Boston Globe has a great article covering Kerry's political history and his numerous positions on the issues. Along with letters, etc... Go read it. I'm running out of time to post, so I'll be back later to comment.

Wrap-Up of the Media Ambush Story

Jack Kelly has written a great summation article concerning the bogus NYTs explosive story. You know, the story that was planned to run tonight on 60 minutes. They never learn. Folks, just observe the actions of CBS, 60 Minutes, and the NYTs during this election year for a tremendous case report for Bush Derangement Syndrome. I posted on this political disorder here.
"Confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility," ABC reported Oct. 27. "The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' "

The 380 tons are relatively small potatoes, considering the size of Saddam's arsenal. There were an estimated million tons of weapons and explosives in 8,700 weapons depots, several as large as 10 miles by 10 miles square, according to the Iraq Survey Group.

Of this, the United States has destroyed some 280,000 tons, and has prepared 160,000 tons more for demolition. The 380 tons missing from Al-Qaqaa amount to less four-hundredths of 1 percent (.004) of the total estimated weapons and munitions in Iraq, less than two-tenths of a percent of what already has been destroyed.

A good news organization would have put the 380 tons in perspective, but we're talking about The New York Times.

My only quibble with the story, 0.004% is not four-hundredths of 1 is four-thousandths of one percent. I can't help myself, it's the pharmacist in me.

Read the WHOLE thing to get the full TRUTH.

"..there's no There There"

Mark Steyn is on fire! This is a must read that deals with the intellectual dishonesty in the media and the DNC camp. Here's a taste:
Sullivan's big idea is that the best way to force the Democrats to get serious about the war is to put them in charge of it. That's a helluva leap of faith -- and, in John Kerry's case, it's at odds with a 30-year track record of not being serious on the Cold War, Grenada, Central America, the first Gulf War, etc. As Dr. Laura would advise, you should never marry a man in hopes of reforming him.

In that respect, the Qaqaagate story is fascinating. What happened and when in Saddam's al-Qaqaa facility is somewhat murky. Had the shameless gang at "60 Minutes" had their way, the missing explosives story would have aired 36 hours before the polls opened, with no time for anybody to put the alternative to the Bush incompetence scenario -- i.e., that the stuff was moved to Syria before the war began. But never mind that. And never mind that the source for this story is a discredited U.N. official, Mohammed el-Baradei, on whose watch the IAEA not only missed entirely Libya's WMD program but has proved remarkably accommodating of Iran's.

Forget all that. The main problem with this story is that it makes no sense in terms of the Democrats' own narrative. For a year and a half, they've told us there were no WMD, Saddam wasn't a threat, and "BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!" about it all. I happen to disagree with that, but there's no doubt that simply by hammering it home all day and night the Dems had some effect. Now they're saying whoa, let's back up, yes, as it happens, these non-existent weapons that Bush lied about the non-threatening Saddam having he did, in fact, have -- and that fool Bush let the non-existent weapons get away.

My version of this story -- they were smuggled out to Syria pre-invasion -- fits the Bush view of the war. But Kerry's version of this story undermines the Kerry view of the war -- or, at any rate, the most recent Kerry view of the war. That's the best clue as to the resolve he'd show as President: He has no internal conviction of his own, and so his campaign has run on incoherent reflex oppositionism, as, indeed, his Senate career has -- if America had followed the positions advocated by John Kerry, there would have been no Reagan arms build-up, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would have lingered on, and their clients in Grenada would have destabilized the rest of the Caribbean, and Latin America would not have been democratized, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still controlling Kuwait. Kerry's lovebirds at the Washington Post et al. are dreaming of a transformation in their unlovely swain that would be at odds not just with his last three decades but with his last three weeks.(/snip)

You must read the whoe thing, it is delicious!

Why Bush? Go Look

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, go look at 50 compelling photos to remember what and why we fight. Get a tissue and go see. After seeing these pictures, Kerry's words of a 'Global Test' are exposed for just how ridiculous they are. (HT: Instapundit)

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Common Sense from Iraq

The Mesopotamian has some powerful words that I would like to share. (HT: Right-Thoughts)
And folks, just consider all those outside the U.S. What do they want?

I mean the absolute unanimity of choice of every enemy and hater of the U.S.; the Terrorists, the Salafis, the International rivals, the Envious etc. etc.

Then consider your real friends and allies, those who have stood with you and shed blood with you, and are willing to die for the common cause, whom do they want? Do you have any doubt about their preference?

My apology to the half of America who may disagree; and I address them with respect and fondness, but with pain in the heart. Do you really want to give satisfaction to the be-headers, kidnappers and child murderers; and the perpetrators of 9/11? Do you want to hear their savage shouts of victory? This is no reflection on the merit of your man. He may indeed be a paragon of virtue, but that does not change one little bit anything about the situation.

The most important factor in this struggle at the present time after the Will of God is your choice, your steadfastness and your resolve. Give the enemy the slap in the face and the great disappointment he deserves. You are the leaders; and all the lovers of freedom and enlightenment everywhere will take heart and charge with you with redoubled zeal, as they see your courage and defiance at the helm.

Go for it America, your friends are holding their breath and waiting, in anticipation, and yes, with anxiousness, and so are your enemies.

Alaa, I could not agree more.

Spotlight: Military Families

The Mudville Gazette has a post on this story from the Washington Post highlighting military families.
LONDONDERRY, N.H. -- Shona Emery, short and blond, a mother of four whose youngest most often sleeps curled beside her in bed, wakes up at 1:40 a.m. and pads to the computer. She taps out an e-mail to her husband, Jesse.(/snip)

Shona's life plays like that now. She drops the kids off at school, hauls groceries at Shaw's Supermarket, and handles the play date and soccer game and breakfast-lunch-dinner regimen. Then she catches a snatch of AM radio or cable news and hears about another soldier killed and she sucks in her breath and waits to hear whether the attack occurred near her husband's base.(/snip)

New Hampshire ranks second per capita in the percentage of National Guard members serving in Iraq. These soldiers -- diesel mechanics, auto parts managers and school counselors -- have left behind families in states -- such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- that are divided with almost mathematical precision between Republican and Democrat, hawk and dove, President Bush and John F. Kerry. The families may or may not swing an election. But there is little doubt where most stand. Polls show that two-thirds of them favor Bush.

Shona is no different. She may absorb a grim vision of war in her early-morning e-mail exchanges with her husband, but she remains a ready vote for Bush, even if Jesse does another tour.

"My husband's a hunter and a warrior," she says. "He's totally pro-Bush."(/snip)

Shona gave a speech when Bush came to New Hampshire and Pease Air National Guard Base this month. Her view of the war's progress is not as sunny as Bush's -- her man takes too much incoming fire to see victory in the offing. But that's okay.

"People laughed at Ronald Reagan for fighting the Cold War," Shona says. "We won't beat the terrorists in one year."

Jennifer listens and nods. "If it takes three, four, five years over there, get the job done," she says. "I'd rather have my husband fight than my children."

It is refreshing to see these families get balanced, well deserved attention. God Bless all of the mothers and fathers who work hard every day supporting our troops by keeping the light burning bright in the window.

"Blood Red Fury"

Varifrank has an excellent post up on the outright dishonest, manipulative media, among other things. This is one of the finest rants I've read and it is complete with pictures. If you are a liberal who did not back the Iraqi war due to the absence of WMD, but yet you've been basking in the NYTs drivel this past week, you are being intellectually dishonest. Go and read Varifrank and take a long hard look at the pictures. I want to know, what will liberals fight for?

Varifrank speaks of 300,000 dead in mass graves. Go here to get a visual of how many lives that represents.

Moore's Biggest Fan

Now we all know, unfortunately, UBL is still consuming oxygen. But not only is he still breathing, he is obviously a movie fan, and more specifically a Fahrenheit 9/11 fan. I hope MM is proud of himself. John Podhoretz of the New York Post addresses this issue:
October 30, 2004 -- CONGRATULATIONS, Michael Moore — America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours.

The most startling moment on the Osama bin Laden videotape shown yesterday was his description of the morning of 9/11, which is certainly derived — albeit in garbled form — from a viewing of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said.

Just think. If the reprehensible Moore wins an Oscar for his disgusting piece of propaganda, Hollywood will be seconding the favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden.(/snip)

If Hollywood awards MM with an Oscar for his treasonous propaganda, this movie fan and usual watcher of the Oscars, will no longer support this industry. It will be over! In the past, I would simply change the channel to keep from hearing an idiot celebrity spouting their political beliefs so that I would not feel the need to boycott their work. But no more. There is a line that must be respected, that even Hollywood should not cross. I will not support an industry that emboldens our enemy. Its just that black and white, folks.
He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands."

In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe.

"Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said.

This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security."

Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood."

Now bin Laden is talking truce.

What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness.

Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight."

Maybe they're buckling.

(emphasis mine)

John Kerry either voted for and/or voiced his support and praise for everything Bush has done on the WoT at some point in time. His criticisms are Monday morning quarterbacking at its worse. It is GWB that has made the most difficult decisions. It is GWB who has remained true to his convictions. Bush does not waver with weekly polls. Remember that last president who led by public opinion, turned down the opportunity to get UBL three times.

There has never been a more clearer choice.

UPDATE: Go here to see the UBL movie poster. A proud day for MM.

Friday, October 29, 2004

No More Polls!!

I am getting really tired lately of all the polls. They all tend to be skewed one way or the other, and I am simply burned out on polls, videos, missing explosives, NYTs, See-BS, the spin, etc, etc... Excellent analysis of all of these issues can be found at many of the blogs linked to your right. What is a political junkie to do? I have overdosed. Plain and simple. However, feeling the need to post on something tonight, I ran across this.(HT: Blogs for Bush) Seems as though employees of the Labor Department had some extra time on their hands and ran economic data through some models to make a prediction of the election.
The Labor Department report, obtained by The Associated Press, includes an analysis of economic models that suggest Bush will beat Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites). Titled "In Focus: Predicting the Election Outcome," the memo says, "Nearly every single model has him winning."

"Some show the margin of victory being smaller than the models' inherent margin of error, while others report the lead as substantial. And this is without the consideration of a third-party candidate."

Bush's win of the popular vote could be 57.5 percent, 55.7 percent or 51.2 percent, said the paper, dated Oct. 22 and prepared by the department's Employment and Training Administration staff for the assistant labor secretary.

I hope they are correct because I am dizzy from the polls and it is time for it all to be done.

Simply Drawn

Link here to check out some funny stick drawings serving as a presidential endorsement. (HT: Instapundit)

After a heavy day of news, this should lighten things up.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Speaking Out: A Vietnam Vet's Story

It is my priviledge to honor a Vietnam Veteran, Ernie Stevens, the director of the WWII Museum located in Ruston, LA. What you are about to read are his words and his story.

It is a privilege to address you today as the Director of Louisiana’s newest State Museum. The Louisiana Military Museum serves as a reminder that the freedom we so richly enjoy has not been handed to us as a gift. It has been earned – paid for through the sacrifices of patriots who believe that tyranny and evil shall not rule on this earth. Whenever I am at the Military Museum, working on new displays, or archiving information on local veterans, I am reminded of these sacrifices.

Most of you know me. I was born in Ruston and grew up here. Those of you that do know me are aware that I am a Veteran of the Vietnam War. Like most veterans, I have kept silent about my experiences in that war. One thing common among veterans is that most of us are uncomfortable talking about war. However, on occasion we do – today I’d like to make an exception – I feel that what I would like to say is relevant to what is going on today. Let me share a personal experience with you.

On a very hot day in July of 1966, the men of Kilo-Company, 3rd Btln, 4th Marines discovered a North Vietnamese field hospital and supply depot deep in the jungles just south of the DMZ. The main force of NVA was out in the jungle, trying to engage other companies from our battalion. They had left only a handful of soldiers to guard the base. Just as we hadn’t counted on finding this base camp, they hadn’t counted on us coming in from behind and had left the back door open – so to speak.

We lost two marines in the fight, but we killed the NVA defenders and took over the hospital base. It was quite an adventure, digging through all the equipment and material they left behind. Guns, munitions, helmets, uniforms, medical supplies, radio equipment, personal gear – all there for us to explore. What caught our attention most was the discovery of medical supplies clearly marked ‘A Gift to the Army of North Vietnam from the Students of Berkley California”.

It caught our attention, but it didn’t make us mad. At the time, we had more important things to worry about than a bunch of bleeding hearts from Berkley. We had a war to fight. We were well aware that we had taken over a major supply base.

Somewhere out there in the jungle, was the 324-B Division of the North Vietnamese Army. They would want it back. We were also aware that we were below Co. Strength, about 90 strong. We secured our positions and readied for the counter attack we knew was coming. For the next five days and nights, the NVA tried to take their base back from us. They made a determined effort, but they failed. We killed the sappers they sent in to destroy our gun positions. When they attacked in force, we beat them back. In bitter night fighting, we repulsed every attempt they made. For many of us, the fighting got down to the most primitive type of combat – hand to hand. Pistols, bayonets, and entrenching tools often became the weapons of necessity. Eighteen year-old boys grew up fast in Vietnam.

In a foxhole at night, in the Jungle, we learned that the only things you could count on were your own skills, the skills of the Marine next to you and your faith in God. We did our job well. The NVA were unable to retake their hospital/supply base. In the end, we destroyed the base and all the supplies. We took prisoners and left behind hundreds of dead NVA. We were young, but we were Marines! We upheld the finest traditions of the corps, and I have no doubt that the Marines from Belleau Wood, Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, Chosin Resovoir would have said "well done”.

We went on from there to fight in many other deadly battles. Whenever we met the NVA in combat, we defeated him. The fight was hard, we lost many good Marines; we saw and did things that are unnatural for most men, but we did our job and asked for nothing in return.

Now that I am older, and those battles are long past, I often think about that day when we found the “Gifts” from the Berkley students. There was something wrong with this picture-We were Americans, and as we fought, our enemy was being aided by other Americans! I wonder just how strong the resolve of the North Vietnamese would have had been had they not believed that many Americans were on their side.

As we fought and died in the unforgiving jungles of Vietnam, in America, students were protesting in the streets against the war. Some openly waving Viet Cong flags while burning American flags. Popular folk singers flooded the airwaves with anti-war songs. The National News Networks gave extensive coverage to these events and delighted in broadcasting that Walter Cronkite, with all his military genius, proclaimed that the war in Vietnam was un-winnable. Draft dodgers followed the yellow streak on their backs and fled to Canada.

American actress and anti-war activist Jane Fonda traveled to North Vietnam to publicly denounce the war and label American prisoners of war “murderers”. While she frolicked with North Vietnamese generals, some of these prisoners were being tortured to death. During the darkest days of the Vietnam War, these people and many others aided the enemy on a daily basis – and nothing was done about it.

In World War II, a popular poster proclaimed ‘loose lips sink ships”. Americans took that war seriously and acts of treason weren’t tolerated.

Today, we are engaged in another war. Again, young men are growing up fast, this time in the deserts and cities of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. They see and do things that will stay with them the rest of their lives.

Those of us who have seen war know that these brave, young Americans are doing a difficult, deadly job. They are doing it well and professionally. They have earned the unflinching respect of this Marine. I don’t know, that if during their searches, they are finding ‘gifts’ from Americans here at home. But, I do know that every day they fight, their enemy is emboldened to resist by listening to the ‘gifts’ of treasonous rhetoric from Americans who should know better.

Every time I hear one of these liberal idiots raving –
That – "We shouldn’t be in Iraq because thee were no WMD."
That – "America is responsible for this war."
That – "American forces are occupiers not liberators."
That – "Because we haven’t captured OBL, somehow we have lost our focus in the War on Terror."
That – "We NEED countries like France, Russia, Germany in order to defend ourselves." The list goes on and on…

For every excuse I hear, I get angry. But more than angry, I can’t help but be puzzled. For the most part, and there are exceptions, I think that the people who say these things are good descent people. I don’t doubt that they love this country. I think that if the enemy was knocking at their door and threatening their family, they would fight back. But history has proven to us that waiting for the enemy to knock at the door is waiting too late.

When Sam Houston was able to raise a force large enough to attack Santa Anna, for the defenders of the Alamo, it was too late. When the Jews decided to fight back in the Warsaw Ghetto, it was too late. When terrorists flew two commercial airplanes into the WTC, and another into the Pentagon, for over 3,000 Americans, it was too late!

When it is too late, its just that: Too late.

I have a 13 year-old daughter at home. She is my pride and joy. I love her very much and I would defend her with my life – no hesitation. If I knew that you had publicly stated that you intended to harm her, if you had been warned to stop threatening and you did not stop, and I was convinced that you possessed both the ability and the means to harm her, there is no way I would wait for you to knock at the door.

I would take the fight to you. I would hit you hard, where you live, with every weapon at my disposal and I wouldn’t stop until you no longer had the ability to harm her. I would do this with no regard for you or anyone who assisted you. I might worry about it later, but only after you no longer presented a threat. Even then, I doubt that I would worry about it very much. I would much rather explain why I harmed you, than for you to explain why you harmed her. By the same token, I love this country! I have fought and bled for her, with no hesitation or regrets.

As an individual citizen however, I cannot, on my own, strike against those that plan to do her harm. I am thankful that we have a Commander in Chief that looks after our country like I look after my daughter. I am thankful that our President has what it takes to go after the enemy – hit him hard, where he lives, and destroy his ability to harm us.

I imagine that the victims of 9/11, if they had the chance, would wish that our former Commander in Chief, when he had the chance, would have had hit the enemy hard – and destroyed his ability to harm us.

Recently, one man boasted loudly and repeatedly. “I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President”.

I say – He defended our country in combat for 4 months, and in the process, wounded himself, awarded himself medals (which he later dishonored) and it would appear, spent more time engaging in photo ops than engaging the enemy. Upon his return from Vietnam, he joined forces with the likes of American traitor Jane Fonda and engaged in a blistering attack on the men still fighting the war.

On his own, while in Paris, he met with the leaders of North Vietnam. A gesture that was so well received in Hanoi that today a photo of this meeting hangs on the wall in the Hanoi War Museum.

Our president on the other hand, has defended this country without hesitation since 9/11. He has taken the fight to the enemy and is destroying his ability to harm us. He has been unwavering in his resolve, and in the process, shown steadfast respect for the men and women in uniform.

My only objection is that he is too soft on the enemy. He is a politician. He has a warriors heart, but he is still a politician. In my opinion, if he would turn the military operations over to the generals – let them do their job, the war would be won and over in no time.

The enemy respects nothing, but they fear one thing – strength.

I would show them the full strength of the United States, and in doing so would extend them no more mercy than they extended Daniel Byrne, Nick Berg, or the sailors aboard the USS Cole, or the 3,000+ innocent Americans on 9/11. We would discuss things when the smoke cleared, not until.

My daughter sleeps well at night. She knows I will protect her with all I have. I sleep well at night, secure in the knowledge that our President has what it takes to protect us as a nation.

We are at war! Not a conventional war where armies can be defeated and governments surrender. We are in a war against “Terrorist”. These are people who pledge allegiance to no flag, and care nothing about human life. Makes no difference to them if they kill civilians, women and children, just as long as they kill us. If they die in the process, they are satisfied.

Our enemy is intent on one thing, and that is to destroy our way of life. They hate us for what we are – free thinking people. They have declared war on us and they do not intend to stop, until they win, or they are destroyed. I vote for the latter.

The Louisiana Military Museum is filled with artifacts that represent men and women who, when history demanded it, in their time, also voted for the latter. Evil is not new in this world. It has existed in many forms: Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism, and communism. By whatever name it has been known, evil has been met and defeated by good men throughout history. Today, the evil is called Terrorism. Once again, history has called upon America to lead the fight.

America is fortunate to have now, and must retain, the leadership with the will to see this mission completed. Through it all, those of us who can no longer serve on the front-lines, will continue to serve on the home front. We will never yield in our support of our fighting forces.

The Louisiana Military Museum will continue to collect, catalog, preserve and display the artifacts that represent the contributions made by the men and women who have fought, and are still fighting the good fight.

God bless our President, God bless our fighting forces, and most of all God bless America.
Thank you Mr. Stevens for your great service and sacrifice. May God bless you and your family. Many of us stand with you in honoring all of our fighting forces and all veterans.

Ranting the Terrorists to Oblivian!

HunterByrd is on fire tonight over the ABC Terror video, and it is excellent. Go over and find out that you are not alone in how you feel about terrorists, ass-hat liberals, the media, etc.... Check it out!

Compacts, Big Hair, and Flipping Birds - Oh My!

Oh my goodness!!This video is too much! Watch the contrast of how two very different men primp before a TV appearance. After this, there will be no doubt who is equipped to fight the War on Terror.

Watch it to the end - the best part is the very last.

Enhance your Brain at Brain-Terminal

Evan Coyne Maloney has a new post over at Brain-Terminal. Evan is busy with making movies and does not post very often, but when he does there is never disappointment. I will only post a few graphs, please go and get the full dose.
Say what you want about either candidate, the contrast couldn't be more stark. George W. Bush is a radical in the sense that after September 11th, he looked at our default foreign policy stance, one very much rooted in the Cold War, and decided it was obsolete against our new enemy. He's a classical liberal in the sense that "the transformative power of liberty," as he puts it, is his rallying cry for reforming the Middle East. Oddly, John Kerry is a conservative in that he can't let go of our old way of doing business. To Kerry, the institutions built as responses to World War II and the Cold War are sufficient for handling the War on Terror. But those slow-moving debating societies were created when the only actors on the world stage were nation-states; they were not designed to battle worldwide networks of loosely-tied terror cells. John Kerry wants to fight this war with the weapons of the last one.

The choice we have on election day is between the worldview of September 10th--embodied by John Kerry--and President Bush's September 12th worldview.(/snip)

In 1983, terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon killed 241 Marines. In 1988, 270 people were killed on the PanAm flight that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland. Six were killed in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, 19 at Khobar Towers in 1996, 224 at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and 17 more on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Many more plots--such as the bombing of the major bridges and tunnels in New York City and the millennium attack in Los Angeles--have been foiled. This is all just a nuisance to John Kerry. Not to me, and not to anyone else who recognizes that our enemies have been at war with us for decades.

Unfortunately, we don't get to decide whether we're at war; we can only choose how we respond. John Kerry doesn't get it. President Bush does.

UBL often said that the U.S. was a "Paper Tiger", and unfortunately, that idea was reinforced by this country's meager responses to dead americans and soldiers. I pray that on Nov. 2nd over 51% of the population 'gets it'. We can never show hesitation, for the terrorists' interpretation will be that we are weak. Shame on us....Never Again if we Stand United.

French-Kissing Arafat

France is on top of things as usual. Link here to read of the French falling all over themselves for Arafat.
France will be always on the side of the Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier declared Thursday.

"France, as I told you (Arafat) in Ramallah on June 30, will be always on your side to back your effort in favor of a just and negotiated peace," Barnier said.(/snip)

According to one of Arafat's doctors, the 75-year-old Palestinian leader is suffering from a potentially fatal blood disorder which will require more tests to determine the cause outside the West Bank, where he has been kept under virtual house arrest for the last three years.

French presidency announced on Thursday evening the leader's imminent move to Paris for treatment at the request of Palestinian Authority. He was expected to arrive in Paris on Friday.

Ahhhh yes, what an honor for France. They get to nurse a power-grabbing murderous terrorist back to health. France might even get bragging rights: "Bring us your sick, confined terrorists and we'll make them as good as new!" Unyielding support....just don't hurt us...Pleeeease.

Where I come from, "blood disorder" at Arafat's age is code for the big "C". Just as the Israelis have said. The only hope for an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is for Arafat to no longer be with us anymore to screw it up. This man has a tremendous amount of blood on his hands. I'm sure there will be a special place in Hell just for him, right along with UBL and all those other terrorists Israel have been shooting missiles through.

I won't be sending flowers.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Time for Vladimir to Start Singing: Russians Moved Explosives

Bill Gertz of the Washington Times is breaking a huge story tonight. The Russians went to Iraq and started shredding evidence and moving explosives before the war:
"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloguing the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said. (/snip)

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.(emphasis mine)

The article is much longer with tons of details, so you know what to do.

That being said.

Putin fought us on the Iraqi War, just as France and Germany did, because of personal interests and gain. I pray that after Beslan, Putin has repented for his past sins. One can only hope. Now is the time, he needs to start revealing what he knows. Immediately. Again, we can only pray and hope this man makes the just decision.

Piss off Europe! Vote Bush!

The poor, poor europeans are upset that we free-thinking, liberty loving, independent americans are going to vote for GWB. Well that's just too dog-gone bad. (Sticking tongue out)

My favorite cartoonists are at it again. Cox and Forkum have a new cartoon out with these baffled europeans trying to figure us out.

They probably think we need to be on medication, while the first time they get their lazy, socialized derrieres in a bind, we'll be the first one's they'll call.

Holbrooke for Bush

Heh Heh Heh... The man that would-be Secretary of State should J.Fn.Kerry be elected, is stumping for Bush. (Hat tip: Opinion Journal)
'I'm not here to criticize President Bush," Holbrooke, a former United Nations ambassador, told hundreds of members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a major pro-Israel lobbying group, gathered for their annual summit. ''His support for Israel is, in my mind, unquestionable."

The crowd -- to Holbrooke's chagrin -- offered rousing applause. ''That was not," he said wryly, ''supposed to be an applause line."

But that's not all Holbrooke has been up to on Bush's behalf. Defending Bush (HT: RCP) is on the to-do list as well:
It seems that Monday's groundbreaking New York Times story on missing explosives in Iraq was certainly not groundbreaking and may not even be true. The allegations that nearly 400 tons of "high explosives" were missing from the al Qaqaa arms dump are based on charges leveled by Mohamed al Baradei, chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The claims are old and increasingly suspect. But that hasn't kept John Kerry's presidential campaign from using the story in a new television ad and in virtually every stump speech and media appearance over the past two days.

Now, however, the Kerry campaign admits that the information that is the basis of Senator Kerry's statements and his campaign advertisement may not even be true. Pressed on Tuesday afternoon about the accuracy of the allegations on Fox's Big Story with John Gibson, Richard Holbrooke, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said: "You don't know the truth and I don't know the truth." He later underscored this point: "I don't know the truth."(/snip)

Yep, John Kerry's senior advisor just admitted that the story is bogus. Does this stop Kerry? Well, of course not. That would require integrity. Let us continue:
The claim is, well, explosive. John Kerry says the Bush administration's incompetence is killing U.S. soldiers. Reporting from a variety of news sources suggests that the explosives may have been gone before the U.S. troops arrived. In any case, Kerry's top advisers have conceded that their claims may prove false.

Yet, Kerry has leveled an extraordinarily harsh wartime charge against President Bush.

Shouldn't he at least make sure that such a charge is true?

It also now turns out that CBS 60 Minutes was planning to echo the New York Times story two days before Election Day. So what we have is an attempt by the New York Times, CBS, and a U.N. agency to work together to promote a very likely false story to damage President Bush's reelection prospects. Perhaps no one should be surprised that the liberal media and the United Nations are willing to go to quite extraordinary lengths to promote Kerry's prospects against Bush, but their behavior is not the issue. The issue is Kerry's willingness to advance allegations that his own campaign acknowledges may not be true. (emphasis mine)

Would someone please tell the Gray lady that the Fat lady is now singing. The ride is over.

The Highest Stakes & Kerry Doesn't Get It

Ralph Peters of the New York Post writes a compelling column that should put everyone on notice for what is at stake in the Iraqi War.
October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.

Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.

"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."

My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.

But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.(/snip)

Kerry has done this before, in Vietnam. He aided and gave comfort to our enemy with his anti-war activities and false testimony to congress. He assured the communist that the U.S. would elect an anti-war president and gave them hope. They held on for another two years. Yes, by Kerry's actions, the communist were emboldened to continue. How many more soldiers died in that time period, how many POWs died in captivity, how many POWs were demoralized when Kerry handed the communist the best propaganda that torture could not buy? And now he is doing it again. Let's keep going:
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.

Too bad Kerry nor our media understands this. Or do they? Wouldn't you have to be stupid not to understand the implication of giving hope to the enemy? Unfortunately, it is a pattern for both Kerry and the Media. We did not lose Vietnam on the battlefield, we lost it right here in the USA due to manipulation and lies perpetrated by Kerry and the Media. Honor our troops and veterans and don't let this happen again!

Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.

The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.

Of course, the terrorists aren't suddenly going to quit if President Bush wins at the polls — but his re-election would be a terrible psychological blow to them. They know how high the stakes are in Iraq.

The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.

NOW is the time to defeat terrorism. It is an ugly, vile process. We are fighting an enemy who loves death. This is unprecedented for an enemy. The success of Iraq and Afghanistan is the key to changing the environment and long-term prospects for terrorism. They know this, and it is why they are fighting so viciously. This is a black and white situation. Either you are for ridding the world of terrorism, which means fighting an ugly fight, or you are for the status-quo, which resulted in the loss of 3,000 lives on 9/11 plus many more in numerous previous attacks.

And make no mistake: Kerry likes to remind people of the 90s, the supposed good ole days (you know, when UBL was bombing the Cole, Khobar towers, killing our soldiers in Somalia, the 1st WTC bombing, and planning the 9/11 attacks), with the inference that he will be like Bill. Forget it. Kerry is not like Bill Clinton, but like Carter. Plain and simple. The man is a pacifist and now is not the time for pacifism.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.

The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.

This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."

It is. For the terrorists.

Do you get it?

Look here to read about how the Vietnam communist approved and monitored Kerry's anti-war actions. New documents have recently been found and are analyzed in this article.

An excellent example of how the media helped the Vietnam Communist, go here and scroll down to the end of the page to read the correction. (to log in: for ID type 'hillaryrodham' and for password type 'isapig')

Could Kedwards Benefit From A Terrorist Attack?

Conventional wisdom says that if terrorists attack the United States pre-election to alter the outcome, the US is no Spain. The belief is that the US's electorate would rally behind the Commander-in-Chief, just as we have in the past. Ask yourself the circumstances where this may not hold true. Over at PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd has a frightening post pulled from a commenter over at the Belmont Club site:
…that NYTrogate is a set up so that if a Madrid-style attack occurs before the election, Kedwards will have positioned themselves perfectly to lay the blame on the administration’s incompetence. Moonzoo goes so far as to say that if you look closely at what Kedwards have been saying, they seem to be INVITING jihadists to attack.

…that NYTrogate is a set up so that if a Madrid-style attack occurs before the election, Kedwards will have positioned themselves perfectly to lay the blame on the administration’s incompetence. Moonzoo goes so far as to say that if you look closely at what Kedwards have been saying, they seem to be INVITING jihadists to attack.

I don’t know how much to make of this or to overly alarm anyone. But I worry that Bush supporters and all of us in the nation might have to brace ourselves for a lot more than the latest inane MSM propaganda.

NYTrogate is the name the blogosphere has chosen for the bogus NYTs story on the missing explosives. There are even more frightening thoughts on the PoliPundit post concerning motives of different groups and/or persons. Check out the post.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Calling the Senate Races

If you are interested in a state-by-state analysis on what to expect on election night, check out Jayson over at Political Vice Squad. Jayson always lift my spirits concerning the GOP's chances of increasing their margins. He specializes in current and historical economic analysis, historic implications of polls, etc... Check it out, so on election night when you see Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, and Matthews choking on their own bile, you will know exactly why!

Monday, October 25, 2004

The Company You Keep....

Link here to read an essay theorizing how the 'Wacky Left' permeated into the mainstream Democratic party.
At the time of the first antiwar marches, Marc Cooper, contributing editor of the very left magazine The Nation, wrote with alarm that “the American left—or at least a broad swath of it—is more alienated from its own national institutions than its counterparts in any other developed nation. . . . What a warning signal,” he wrote, “when you cannot tolerate the sight of your own flag.” He warned that the perpetrators of 9/11 must not be viewed as avengers of some oppressed Third World constituency and complained that peace marches were sounding the theme that America somehow invited the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, that blame-America attitude, once confined to the hard left, has been leaching into the soft left and the Democratic Party. A Pew survey last August reported that 51 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of liberal Democrats believe that America might have motivated the 9/11 attacks by doing something wrong or unfair in dealings with other nations. Admittedly, America’s strong support for Israel may have influenced the poll. Still, it’s astonishing that so many Democrats are willing to point a finger at their own country for the devastation of 9/11. In the poll, most Americans rejected this notion decisively, and Republicans rejected it overwhelmingly.

In Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz wrote of a “trickle-down effect” of virulent anti-Americanism. The anti-Iraq-war demonstrations were a grab bag of contradictory constituencies, many of which had nothing to do with war and peace. But they held out the promise that the hard and soft left, by refusing to criticize each other, could form a powerful alliance. So ordinary Democrats raised almost no objection to the many hate-America themes at these marches. (Few liberals and almost no reporters mentioned that the rallies were organized by unreconstructed Communist-front groups and Maoist fans of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.) Some of the dumber themes—Bush=Hitler and no blood for oil—moved into the mainstream left. Many stars in the Democratic firmament praised Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which carries some of these themes, including the belief that an evil alliance between the Saudis and the Bush family explains the war in Iraq.(/snip)(emphasis mine)

Watch the trailer here to see and hear protestors in action. It is one of the most effective pieces of video I've ever seen, and I have watched it many times. People, that I have shown this trailor to, are left speechless afterwards. Other sites that have amazing footage of protests, all here in the U.S., can be found at Brain-Terminal (follow the video links) and Protest Warrior. The truth behind the groups at these protests is unbelievable and frightening. Go here for a list of the groups that participated in the major marches in NYC this summer during the RNC. Take a long hard look at the names of these groups. How many can you find with the word 'socialist' or 'communist' in them. Make it a game, just for fun!

NYTs October Dud

Well the NYTs is still overtly trying to put J.F'n.Kerry in the White House. The attacks from the Washington Post and NYTs is in full force now. Tomorrow papers will have front page, above the fold articles trying to undermine Bush. What a surprise, huh? After this election they will continue to bleed subscribers. The internet will continue to take on a larger role in disseminating information. The dinosaurs are dying, thank goodness. So rather than reinvent the wheel that Captain's Quarters has already perfected, go read his breakdown of the story. It is an excellent analysis of the facts, and exposes the NYTs blatant perversion of events while withholding all perspective.
Moneyquote from Captains Quarters: "So let's keep in mind that when we're talking about 380 tons of ammunition, it represents 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion. As Mike makes clear, it will take years to find, secure, and destroy all of these caches, and the Coalition had to prioritize the sites very quickly on their arrival. Absent any IAEA seals, they did what common sense dictated: the US moved its troops into positions where they could fight the enemy and secure communications."
Also, read the Captain's rebuttal to an opposing argument. An excellent post to read.

Update: For more info (Hat tip: right thoughts) go see this post. Perspective is this guys middle-name.

UPDATE II: HA HA HA...(wiping tears from eyes after rolling on the floor) - NEW FLASH: DRUDGE (Hat tip: LGFs) is reporting that NBC News is reporting (go figure) that the entire NYTs Big Story is true to my title of this post: A Dud!
But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. 

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. 

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to inform readers how the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing when troops first arrived.

The TIMES left the impression the weapons site had been looted of its explosives recently, and since Iraq has been under US control.

The TIMES reported: "The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday."

[In a fresh Page One story set for Tuesday on the matter, the TIMES once again omits any reference to troops not finding any explosives at the site when they arrived in April of 2003. Attempts to reach managing editor Jill Abramson late Monday were unsuccessful.]

"The U.S. Army was at the site one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A senior Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

I hope Drudge is right on this one, I quit watching Network news a looooong time ago. Story is bogus anyway as above. Time will tell on this wrinkle.

Update III: Well, it looks like this is going to be another Rathergate type media meltdown. Captain's Quarters has the updated post with links to the NBC story along with comments concerning MSNBC. MSNBC is still running with the bogus Times story. What a joke of a profession.

Reagan Spanks Kerry

You must go and watch this ad. (Hat tip: Instapundit) It shows Reagan speaking from one of the debates against Mondale, but every word applies to J.Kerry. It is devastating, IMHO.

The nation mourned Reagan's death this summer to a degree that left the MSM dazed and confused. This is a great way to remind the country where the great Ronald Reagan stood on serious issues.

UN and Hamas United Together

Once again, the United Nations exhibits tremendous disregard for sanity. I resent the fact that a dime of American tax payer money goes to this corrupt, lying, terrorist supporting, anti-semitic organization. Equally troubling is the fact we allow them to base their incompetent organization in this country. Here's one of a gazillion reasons the UN needs a complete and total overhaul:
Virtue is a demanding thing. If you've got it, you have to embrace it whole, not in half-sums. You can't be virtuous if your devotion to good works and good thoughts merely offsets a commitment to bad ones. In an extreme case, if you're a terrorist who brutally murders innocents or a sympathizer who supports such crimes, to further some political cause, you can't be held any less accountable because you help people on your "good" days.

But in employing members of Hamas as relief workers in the Mideast, the United Nations is giving these cold-blooded individuals exactly that kind of free pass -- while defending that practice in the most lackadaisical terms. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about hiring from the ranks of Hamas, the commissioner-general of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, Peter Hansen, said, "I don't see that as a crime." Falling just short of a "one bad apple" argument, he averred that just because someone is a member of Hamas doesn't mean they're a terrorist.(/snip)

Yes, it's possible that among these members of Hamas there are individuals who have never killed anyone, abetted in killing or even endorsed it. But this is one case in which there is guilt by association: Hamas has massacred hundreds of men, women and children and wounded thousands, many in suicide attacks. This is the organization responsible for the atrocious mass murders on buses and in nightclubs and, infamously, at a Passover seder.

In hiring members of Hamas, the U.N. gives it a made-to-order cover for its bad deeds. There are numerous documented cases in recent years of Palestinian terrorists working for the UNRWA or using its facilities and vehicles to carry out attacks.

As cited by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's "PeaceWatch" newsletter, the UNRWA's director of food supplies for Gaza refugees, Nahed Rashid Ahmed Attalah, admitted to using his U.N. car and free travel permit to transport arms and Palestinian terrorists and make trips to Egypt, Lebanon and Syria to obtain funds to get arms to Gaza. Hamas also has a track record of using its access to civilian settings to stage meetings and recruit members.(emphasis mine)

It's time to throw these bastards out from our borders. See this post to read how inept they are at providing medical care, the one area where some people would try to defend the UNs existence.

Kudos for Kay

A dear friend and colleague has been featured in our hometown paper for providing a unique pharmacy service to women. Kay was a bridesmaid in my wedding and I was her first babysitter for her son. We go way back. She is an excellent pharmacist who has raised the bar for professionalism and effective practice. She taught me how to effectively communicate with patients, for she is one of the greatest communicators I have seen in action!

If you suffer from lack of effective hormone replacement therapy, learn about this exciting option for women. You may be able to locate a similar service in your area if you know what to ask for.

Hats off to ya Kay!

New Design

Well if you've been here before, you know that I have changed my template. I think it looks much better, the dots were getting really old. Hopefully, it is much easier to read as well.

Having said that, this was not a cake walk. Computer expert, I am NOT! But their is peace in my world once again....all of the links are back and the buttons! Phew!

I'll be having a margarita now........What? I don't care that it is 10:40AM!!

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Clarity on Iraqi War

One of my favorite columnist is Christopher Hitchens. He, like Mark Steyn, can ruthlessly dissect with his words. This column is a must read. He puts the Iraqi War in perfect focus. Many people are unaware of the victories we've had in the War on Terror, and nuclear proliferation for that matter, as a direct result of regime change in Iraq. I will post a few selected paragraphs, but please read the contains several logical conclusions that seem to get by the MSM and therefore, much of our public.
This may seem like an attempt to have it both ways, but consider: We only know all of this, about the Baathist weapons programs and their erosion and collapse, because of regime change. Up until then, any assumption that all the fangs had been removed would have been a highly irresponsible one. It would have involved, quite simply, taking Saddam Hussein's word for it. His prior record of deception, double-dealing, and concealment makes that quite impossible. The long-felt need was for an administration that did not give him the benefit of any doubt, that had a nasty and suspicious mind, and that would resolve any ambiguity on the presumption of guilt.

Few felt this need more strongly than Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, whose crucial evidence we would never have acquired without the invasion. His book is one of the three or four accounts that anyone remotely interested in the Iraq debate will simply have to read. Apart from its insight into the workings of the Saddam nuclear project, it provides a haunting account of the atmosphere of sheer evil that permeated every crevice of Iraqi life under the old regime. It is morally impossible to read it and not rejoice at that system's ignominious and long-overdue removal.(/snip)

I saw Dr. Obeidi interviewed a few weeks ago on Hannity and Colmes. This man was so polite and thoughtful. You could tell he was struggling a little bit with English, but did very well. I definitely want to read his book, "The Bomb in My Garden". This man knew fear and intimidation. His family was held hostage to force him to comply with Saddam's WMD ambitions. Oh yeah, the bomb in his garden.....centrifuge for enriching uranium along with detailed plans for a nuclear bomb that was purchased on the nuclear black market. Nice, huh?
His [Dr. Obeidi] conclusion is that, given an improvement in the economic and political climate, Saddam could and would have done one of two things: reconstitute the program or share it with others. Had it not been for 9/11, it is sobering to reflect, there would have been senior members of even this administration arguing that sanctions on Iraq should be eased. And, through the open scandal of the oil-for-food program, there were many states or clienteles within states who were happy to help Saddam enrich himself. Moreover, within the "box" that supposedly "contained" him were also living Kim Jong-il, A.Q. Khan, and Col. Qaddafi. We know from the Kay report that, as late as March of last year, Saddam's envoys were meeting North Korea's team in Damascus and trying to buy missiles off the shelf. It would never have stopped: this ceaseless ambition to acquire the means of genocide. If anything, we underestimated that aspect of it.

The supposed overestimate was, in reality, part of a wider underestimate. Libya and Iran turned out to be even more dangerous than we had thought, and the A.Q. Khan network of "Nukes 'R' Us" even more widespread. But now Iraq can be certified as disarmed, instead of wishfully assumed to be so, Libya's fissile materials are all under lock and key in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the traces "walked back" from Qaddafi's capitulation helped expose A.Q. Khan. Of course, we could always have left Iraq alone, and brought nearer the day when the charming Qusai could have called for Dr. Obeidi and said: "That barrel of yours. It's time to dig it up."
Case Closed.

Kerry, Communists, and Paris

The MSM has really blurred the issue of John Kerry going to Paris in 1970 to meet with the Vietnam communists. Surprised right? Link here to see how utterly protected Kerry is with the MSM. Here's a little, but I can not do the article justice, read the whole thing. The media's and DNC's distortions of the facts are amazing to say the least. And for a moment, consider what the media coverage would be if it involved the Republican Party? It is a history lesson of 'the times' for those of us who were toddlers when these activies were underway.
Why all the obfuscation from the Kerry camp? Because his activities were not as innocent as he would like them to be remembered. The antiwar movement, broadly speaking, had two wings. To one, the war was a tragedy: America's actions were well-intentioned but misguided. To the other, the war was a crime: America's motives were less worthy of sympathy than those of its enemies. Kerry sometimes sounded as if he were in the former camp, as when he warned against being "the last man to die for a mistake." More often, he was in the latter camp, as when he accused American forces of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command," a kind of language he never used about the behavior of Communist forces.

America had gotten so far off track that we needed a "revolution" to recapture our founding principles, Kerry said, while also suggesting that our enemies were more in tune with those principles. Ho Chi Minh, he declared, was "the George Washington of Vietnam" who was trying "to install the same provisions into the government of Vietnam" that appeared in the U.S. Constitution.
Do you remember the frenzy the media dove into over pay stubs? It did not matter that Bush got his honorable discharge and the issue had been explored through a total of 4 elections. CBS and Rather was more than willing to throw their entire reputation down the drain for this same garbage. But Kerry gets a free pass on traveling to Paris, meeting with our enemy while at war, and slandering an entire generation of veterans. Go forth and discover the TRUTH. Spread it around if you feel inclined to do so.

UPDATE: This picture says it all.

Ashlee Simpson: Taking cues from John Kerry

Last night I saw a great mishap on Saturday Night Live. Ashlee Simpson walked on stage to sing her song and - lets just say there was a technical error. Simpson was suppose to lip-sink her song and well, the wrong song was in the player. Oops! I guess Saturday Night Live is not all live. Usually I would not care about such things, however, reading the after-action report, I stumbled across an interesting quote from Ms. Simpson:
A still-humiliated Simpson apologized to her fans - and blamed her band for playing the wrong song.
So who does this remind you of? Maybe a Snowboard falling (blames SS), bike crashing(blames SS), disasterous speech giving(blames staff) Democratic presidential candidate?

Steyn: Cutting Into Kerry's Delusions

Mark Steyn is on top of his game. He covers a broad range of Kerry's delusions in this one piece. Here's the last few graphs to get you going:
So this is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying. As for Canada, yes, under socialized health care, prescription drugs are cheaper, medical treatment's cheaper, life is cheaper. After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. In other words, if, say, Bill Clinton had gone for his heart bypass to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, he would have had the surgery, woken up the next day swimming in diarrhea and then died. It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number. Unofficially, if you're over 65, the hospitals will save face and attribute your death at their hands to "old age" or some such and then "lose" the relevant medical records. Quebec's health system is a lot less healthy than, for example, Iraq's.

One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.
Go read the whole thing to get a proper Steyn dose. You will be better for it!

The Duelfer Report: What the MSM is NOT Reporting

The Duelfer report has been manipulated by the media to help John Kerry. What a surprise! This however is very sad. Sad because we are a nation at war. A war with an enemy that is unprecedented, for our enemy loves death. Read about how Europe does not understand the enemy here. (A must read and deserves its own post!) Fortunately some of the truth is making its way out to the media. Here (Hat tip: Instapundit) is a great column that everyone should read in its entirety. Here's some:
The Duelfer report confirmed that Saddam had no stocks of weapons of mass destruction, no active programs of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. In short, Saddam was a diminishing threat. But there is more to this simple headline. There is, in fact, a much darker side, and here it is:
Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's banned weapons programs, including nuclear weapons.

Saddam was determined to develop ballistic missiles and tactical chemical weapons when the U.N. sanctions were either lifted or corroded.

Saddam retained the industrial equipment to help restart these programs, having increased from 1996 to 2002 his military industrial spending 40-fold and his technical military research 80-fold. Even while U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam's scientists were performing deadly experiments on human guinea pigs in secret labs.

To what end? The overlooked section of the Duelfer report could not have put it any clearer: "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two." While Saddam had abandoned his biological weapons programs, he retained the scientists and other technicians "needed to restart a potential biological weapons program," and he "intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems [that is, missiles] and . . . the systems potentially were for WMD." These conclusions were based on interviews with Saddam Hussein, his closest advisers, and his weapons scientists, along with the kind of industrial equipment the Iraqi government imported and maintained. (/snip)(emphasis mine)
Remember folks, we decided to go to war with Iraq in a post 9/11 world. During this time, Russian intelligence called our respective agency and reported that they had information that Saddam wanted to attack and kill American abroad and in the United States. Remember the logic, Bush is criticized for not foreseeing the 9/11 attacks even though he had no specific information, but when Russia calls up and says, 'Oh, by the way, Saddam is actively plotting to kill Americans wherever they may be.", Bush was suppose to ignore this. What would have been the outcry from the Left if Saddam would have been ignored, like he had been the previous 8 years, and was successful with an attack in a post-9/11 atmosphere? I think I know.
Yes, America was wrong about Saddam's weapons stockpiles and programs. But the Duelfer report makes it clear that the sanctions were increasingly ineffective and that Saddam would simply bide his time, waiting until the sanctions were either ended or eroded while turning the U.N. Oil-for-Food program into an $11 billion slush fund to buy influence among several key U.N. members, including France, China, and Russia. With the complicity of the U.N. officials allegedly involved in Saddam's Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, can there be any doubt that the sanctions would have eventually disappeared?
The French worked at every turn to frustrate efforts to hold Saddam's feet to the fire. A French legislator even told an Iraqi intelligence official that Paris would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq. In fact, France threatened to do just that. But for what, exactly? Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told Duelfer that "French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts." National bribery on top of individual bribery--now, that's something you don't see every day. (/snip) (emphasis mine)

Remember, these are the countries that Kerry wants to cozy up to. These countries don't care one bit about my security, your security or anyone elses. These countries were whores for Saddam. Plain and simple. And I don't care if they are mad at the US for the next thousand years or more. It is their economies that are failing, their socialized medicine that are killing their own people. Anyone who wants to appease terrorists and have nationalized healthcare needs to simply move to those countries and enjoy the utopia over there!
What stopped Saddam was the will of a few strong-minded leaders who believed in a more forceful response than simply joining hands and singing "Kumbaya." (emphasis mine)

"Kumbaya" - this word is perfect for Kerry's Foreign Policy plan. The problem is, the consequences of getting bribed countries to like us may have grave consequences for others. You know, other countries that are supportive of America.

One last question. When exactly was the last terrorist attack on American soil? Maybe the terrorists got bored with us and are no longer interested in killing Americans.....Or maybe GWB has been doing some things that have protected all of us. Maybe.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

....through the blood of Infidels

Did you know that this is Jihad Month? Funny, it's not on my calender. Link here to read an astounding post at Little Green Footballs. They've posted on an article that calls for and praises the murder of Infidels to get closer to Allah, of course. Are you an 'Infidel' as I am?

Shameless Lies

As I've said before, the Kedwards ticket has no heart, no soul and will stop at nothing to further their career. Link here (Hat tip: Real Clear Politics) and read a great column that addresses many of the outright lies coming from Kerry's campaign.

However, all conservatives should be comforted that the Kerry campaign feels they have to resort to such lies. They are desperate, and it shows.

UPDATE: Read here about another 9/11 democrat that has come out with his choice for president.

Friday, October 22, 2004

A Case Study: Political Disorders

Background Info: In the blogosphere there are a lot of unique terms that get slung around pretty frequently. Let me introduce you to 2 of them.

First we have "Kael Syndrome" or "Pauline Kael Syndrome". Sadly, when looking for a link to give the exact quote, I learned that this movie critic has passed away. This syndrome has memorialized her name ....I don't think she would like it.
Goldberg cited comically horrific examples of the view from the leftist media bubble:

The late film critic Pauline Kael’s reaction to Richard Nixon’s landslide victory over George McGovern: "I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him."

"What kind of bubble did she live in?" an astounded Goldberg wondered.

Based on this quote, people in the blogosphere refer to persons who insulate themselves to an impenetrable degree as having Kael Syndrome. There are so many people, who not only close their ears to any dissenting view, but only surround themselves completely with people who agree with them and on election day they will be astonished that their candidate did not win.

Next is Bush Derangement Syndrome or BDS. No one has exemplified this more than Al Gore and Howard Dean (or Madeline Albright for that matter). Click here to read an unbelievably funny column by C.Krauthammer, a psychiatrist and Washington Post columnist, who originally diagnosed this problem and defines it wonderfully. This was the first time I've seen this column and I was laughing my a$$ off! You must read the whole thing. Here's the definition of BDS:
Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Do I really need to expand upon this any further? You may see this one in action on any given day, on any given network newscast or any political speech given by Al Gore, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Barbara Streisand, Susan Estrich, or, of course, Al Sharpton, and many, many others.

I predict on Nov. 3rd, Kael Syndrome will be rampant on the East and West coasts. Expect mass confusion. BDS will probably be found everywhere on a level never seen before. Which is a scary thought. Again, the most severe and widespread cases will be found on the East and West coasts. I would not want to be around Barbara Streisand on Nov. 3rd. If the CDC has any foresight, Haldol and Thorazine will be stockpiled in these areas.

The Case Study: I read a very interesting post over at HunterByrd. He speaks of a reasonable, lifelong friend that happens to be a Democrat. The story is a perfect example of BDS. Go and read it. I'm not trying to make fun of this gentleman, I just feel sorry for him.

UPDATE: Go here to see a great round-up of very fine examples of BDS. You also get to vote for your favorite!

UPDATE II: OH MY GOODNESS!!!!! As recently as last night on MSNBC, another extreme case of BDS was played out for all to see. Go and Enjoy the video.

Fighting the Draft Lie

MTV is a brainwashing, pathetic veil for the DNC. The use of scare tactics by Kerry are echoed every day, louder and louder, by MTV's Rock-The-Vote. Link here and read about a college group in California that is organizing to fight back and set the record straight.

Not Everyone in San Francisco is Crazy!

Link here to read a great column in the San Francisco Chronicle. The journalist makes her case as to why she will be voting for Bush. Here's a tidbit:
Still, Bush was right in his belief that Hussein was a threat. As intelligence analyst Charles Duelfer found, Hussein had used the Oil for Food program to begin rearming. His top people believed that as the U.N. sanctions against Iraq eroded, Hussein would begin to build a nuclear arsenal.

Bush also understood that Hussein's very survival sent the message that a madman could fight a global giant, lose and still come out on top. Or as bin Laden once told Time magazine, the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after the brutal 1993 murder of 24 U.S. troops in Somalia on a humanitarian mission made him realize "more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

Did the Bush administration make mistakes? Of course. There is strong reason to believe this administration sent too few troops to Iraq. And it doesn't help that the top Bushies have a way of freezing out those likely to tell them news they don't want to hear. Also, Bush so overvalues loyalty that it leads him to overlook incompetence.

The flip side of those traits means that he doesn't dump people -- or long-range plans -- because of bad polls.

Enter Sen. John Kerry, who spent a great deal of the last year claiming Bush "misled" him. That is, Kerry's vote in favor of a congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq was made in the mistaken belief that Bush would go to war as "a last resort."

Nonsense. Before the vote on the war resolution, Bush told the United Nations that it could either be "irrelevant" or a real peacekeeping body that held Hussein accountable. The war resolution echoed Bush's insistence that "the U.N. Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable." When Kerry heard "last resort," the drum was already beating "war."

Read the whole thing.

Protestors Behaving Badly

Link here (Hat tip: PoliPundit) to read an account of a young man who went to a Bush Rally and ended up wrestling with Kedwards supporters. I admire people, especially when they are greatly outnumbered, who stand up for their beliefs with facts versus numerous distortions, people who refuse to be intimidated and carry on the cause. Go read his story, it's pretty good.

Krauthammer on Kerry's Plan for Peace

Well it is Friday, which means Charles Krauthammer has a new column out today. Krauthammer of the Washington Post is, as always, at his best. Link here to read what Charles believes will be Kerry's Plan for Peace; we all have to guess since Kerry refuses to reveal details. Here's some of it:
The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in "Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel's safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violence continues and while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right to defend itself both by attacking the terrorist infrastructure and by building a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community of nations." There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.

You want to appease the "international community"? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of "peace." Apply relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian leadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000) it will never make peace.

The allies will appreciate that. Then turn around and say to them: We're doing our part (against Israel), now you do yours (in Iraq). If Kerry is elected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.

OK, so I posted the whole darn thing. How can you cut any of Krauthammer's work down? Charles is one of the smartest guys around. I almost always agree with everything he says. America needs to wake up and realize that we will always stand with Israel, which means, that some countries will always have issues with us. Which is just fine with me. I personally don't care what any country thinks of our actions, as long as this country stands up for liberty and justice.