An Iran-Israeli war?

09.30.04 (8:52 am)   [edit]

God, let's hope not.

An Iran-Israeli War?
Peter Brookes
September 29, 2004

Time after time, the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. Yet Tehran keeps on thumbing its nose at the U.N. body, saying its uranium enrichment is just a peaceful effort to produce electricity.

To many nations, especially Israel, it seems only a matter of time before Iran breaks out as a nuclear power, ratcheting up tension across the Middle East. An Israel-Iran showdown over Tehran's outlaw nuclear-weapons program now seems increasingly imminent.

Last week, for example, Israel charged that Iran was merely "buying time" and will never abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons. It called for the U.N. Security Council "to put an end to this nightmare."

Addressing reporters at the U.N., Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom kept all options on the table by avoiding answering whether Israel would take military action against Iran if it continued to pursue nuclear weapons.

Also last week, the administration informed Congress that it was selling Israel 5,000 precision-guided "smart bombs," including 500 satellite-guided, one-ton JDAM "bunker busters" of Baghdad fame. (JDAMs are capable of penetrating six feet of concrete.)

In response to the arms sale, Iran warned Israel against attacking its nuclear facilities, saying it would react "most severely" to any Israeli military action against Iran.

Then, over the weekend, Iran pointedly announced that its Shahab-3 ballistic missile was now operational. The missile can reach Israel, and Iran has 25 to 100 of them. Defense Minister Ali Shamkhrani crowed that Iran was now "ready to confront all regional [read: Israeli] and extra-regional [read: American] threats."

OK, so you say, a little chest-beating isn't the same as the beating of war drums. True. But bear in mind, Israel takes the threat of nuclear weapons in its neighborhood quite seriously. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

In 1981, Israeli fighters conducted a low-level, 700-mile, daylight raid through Saudi Arabian and Jordanian air space into Iraq. In a minute and a half, the fighters laid waste to the French-supplied Osiraq nuclear reactor - the centerpiece of Iraq's burgeoning nuclear-weapons program.

So what would happen if Israel decided to conduct a pre-emptive surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?

Some say that an Israeli attack on a Muslim country would set the Middle East ablaze in an anti-Jewish frenzy. Possible, but not likely.

Sure, all Muslim governments would vociferously condemn the Israeli strike. But most would breathe a quiet sigh of relief. No one in the Middle East (except maybe Syria) wants to see fundamentalist, hegemonic Iran go nuclear. This is especially true for Iran's cross-Gulf rival, Saudi Arabia.

No Arab country would strike back at Israel, but Iran's Lebanese terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, would almost certainly target Israeli (and perhaps U.S.) interests in the region.

Iran itself could decide to retaliate on Israeli cities with missile strikes. And while Israel has a limited missile defense system, missiles raining in on Tel Aviv, a city of 3 million, could be devastating. But Israel could threaten to respond to Iranian strikes on Israeli civilian targets with nuclear weapons.

The other problem is exactly how to inflict sufficient damage on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has as at least 24 suspected nuclear facilities scattered around the country. Some are underground; others are (intentionally) located by major population areas to ensure civilian casualties during a raid.

But the cost of doing nothing may be the most expensive. An Iranian nuclear breakout would mean a radical shift in the balance of power in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia would certainly move to go nuclear (with likely help from Pakistan).

Tehran might, as well, put Damascus under its new nuclear umbrella or, worse yet, give Syria the bomb. (Happily, even Iran's likely to see giving a nuke to Hezbollah as way too risky.)

Clearly, there are no easy choices, only hard decisions. A peaceful end to the Iranian nuclear problem should continue to be sought, but the countdown to a nuclear Iran has already begun.

Israel - at least for the moment - seems to be committed to a peaceful solution. But don't be surprised if Israel decides to jump the diplomatic track in an effort to end - or at least forestall - Iran's bid to become the first anti-Israeli member of the exclusive nuclear club.

Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a New York Post columnist.

©2004 Peter Brookes

Some Kerry myths exposed: on the draft, Afghanistan troop levels, Medicare premiums

09.30.04 (8:44 am)   [edit]

Kerry's myth making
Robert Novak (back to web version) | Send
September 30, 2004

 WASHINGTON -- John Kerry in a press conference last week repeated his accusation that Gen. Eric Shinseki was "forced out" as U.S. Army chief of staff because he wanted more troops for Iraq. The trouble is that the Democratic presidential nominee was spreading an urban myth. The bigger trouble is that it was no isolated incident.

 Sen. Kerry last week also said the Bush administration may push reinstatement of the military draft, when in fact that idea comes only from anti-war Democrats. At the same time, he said retired Gen. Tommy Franks complained that Iraq was draining troops from Afghanistan, when the truth is he never did. Over a week earlier, Kerry blamed Bush for higher Medicare premiums when in fact they are mandated by law (one that Kerry voted for).
 
Exaggeration is a familiar political staple, but presidential candidates usually are held to a higher standard. Kerry's recent descent into myth making may reflect the campaign's anxiety in the final weeks. The immediate questions are whether he will engage in misstatements during Thursday's first presidential debate, and whether he will be challenged if he does.

 Kerry is voicing inaccurate statements that have been repeated so often on the Internet, on radio talk shows and by campaign surrogates that they have come to be regarded as the truth -- for example, the explanation for how Eric Shinseki's long and distinguished military career ended.

 Kerry picked up the story April 13 during a campaign event in Providence, R.I., declaring: "Gen. Shinseki said very clearly: We need 200,000 troops. And what happened to him? He was forced into early retirement." Kerry reiterated this last week at a Columbus, Ohio, press conference: "Gen. Shinseki told this country how many troops we'd need. The president retired him early for telling the truth."

 That is not true, and even Bush critics in the Pentagon know it. The truth is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding control of the Army, collided with Shinseki on issues unrelated to Iraq. In March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand" soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty.

 In his Philadelphia speech Sept. 24, Kerry declared: "All you have to do is ask Gen. Tommy Franks how surprised he was that those troops moved out of there (Afghanistan) when he was trying to do the job he was doing." As a former trial lawyer, Kerry should have known the answer to the question he was asking. He could have known by reading Franks' best-selling memoir ("American Solider"), in which the general denies that Bush starved Afghanistan for the sake of Iraq.

 "President Bush had stressed his concern that we maintain momentum in Afghanistan," wrote Franks (who supports the president's re-election). Indeed, when Kerry in a Sept. 21 press conference in Jacksonville, Fla., suggested that Bush had taken needed troops out of Afghanistan, Franks that very day said in an ABC radio interview with Sean Hannity: "That's absolutely incorrect."

 One day after Kerry misrepresented the former Central Command commander in chief, the Associated Press reported that the candidate at West Palm Beach, Fla., "raised the possibility" of a reinstated draft. That is an old saw on the Internet even though there are no such plans at the Pentagon. The only advocates of renewed conscription are liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who believe it would discourage U.S. military intervention around the world.

 Earlier, on Sept. 8 in Cincinnati, Kerry put the blame on Bush for higher Medicare premiums. In fact, health care experts told me, the premiums were mandated by a 1997 codification of the law on which Sen. Kerry cast a favorable vote.

 On Jan. 8, 1976, I wrote a column detailing six major untruthful statements by Jimmy Carter -- about himself, not his opponents -- during two public appearances. He went on to the presidency without ever refuting what I wrote. It will be interesting to see whether John Kerry follows the Carter model during the four weeks left for this campaign.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

If Diane Sawyer can make Kerry look stupid, how hard can it be for Bush?

09.30.04 (8:39 am)   [edit]

Consider this exchange between Sawyer and Kerry on yesterday's "Good Morning America."  Savor it.

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

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

DS: So it was not worth it.

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

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

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

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

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

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

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

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

**

Why can't Kerry just simply say what he means?  Maybe it's because he doesn't know what he means.  Maybe it's because he's taken ever position known to man on every issue known to man.  Just maybe.

At tonight's debate expect a Kerry cheap shot-- a raised voice, some fake anger, a photo op, etc.

More left-wing attempts at voter fraud. IDs should be required.

09.30.04 (8:33 am)   [edit]

From the racist Michelle Malkin's blog--

So Kerry endangers the lives of troops just to make a point about the wealthy?

09.29.04 (4:57 pm)   [edit]
Yes, that's his new defense of the "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" nonsense.

As reported by the AP:

'On the eve of a foreign policy debate with President Bush, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in an interview that his explanation of why he voted in favor of additional funding for the war in Iraq before voting against it was "one of those inarticulate moments" in the campaign. . . .

"It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments," Kerry said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "But it reflects the truth of the position. . . . I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest."'

[b]So...I thought John Kerry was the articulate one and George Bush was the guy who can't say anything, and worse-- what kind of world is John Kerry living in that he'll take such a vital piece of legislation, one that encompasses the lives of soldiers, and vote against it for protest?

I mean, refuse to fund something else in protest of the wealthy, but not something like this. My God, does anyone want someone with such basic priorities out of whack leading this country?[/b]

Of course, it could be that Kerry is lying here, because he told Good Morning America that he was inarticulate because it was late at night when he made the comment. The comment was actually made at 12pm in March at a campaign event at Marshall University.

What a guy. I am left unable to adequately articulate what a sleazy, self-centered guy Kerry is.


BY THE WAY: When he says that 'I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden', what he means is that they should have paid most of the cost-- that it should have been like a grant from the wealthy. Since the rich pay most of the taxes in America, guess what? The rich did not "share the burden" -- they took most of it.

Even Kerry's defense of his Iraq funding flip-flop is not based in truth.

John Kerry says there is no connection between Hussein and terror: facts speak otherwise

09.29.04 (4:38 pm)   [edit]
[b]Inconvenient Facts
John Kerry has now decided that he must deny any links between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism. There are some facts which he should be confronted with at tomorrow's debate.[/b]
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/29/2004 7:39:00 AM


THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION argues that the Iraq war was the central front in the war on terror. Not long ago, John Kerry agreed. He called Saddam Hussein a terrorist. He worried about Iraq passing weapons to terrorists. His running mate prominently cited Iraq's terrorist connections as a chief reason for the war. As recently as early September, Kerry praised soldiers in Iraq as freedom fighters in the war on terror.

All of this has changed. The Iraq war, Kerry says now with borrowed conviction, was a distraction.

"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy: al Qaeda," Kerry claimed, adding, "Iraq is now what it was not before the war--a haven for terrorists."

In an interview with Time magazine, Kerry claimed that the 9/11 Commission found not only that Iraq was not behind the September 11 attacks, but that Iraq had "nothing to do with al Qaeda."

In the past two weeks, his surrogates have gone even further. To wit: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war," said Stephanie Cutter, chief spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign, on September 9. "Iraq and terrorism had nothing to do with one another. Zero," said Teresa Heinz Kerry in a September 22 speech in Arizona. "Saddam Hussein and Iraq never were a threat to our national security or to the United States," claimed Ted Kennedy in an appearance on Hardball on Monday.

Why is Team Kerry so eager to separate the Iraq war from the broader war on terror? If voters believe that Iraq is an important part of the war on terror, they are more likely to be patient with difficulties there. On the flip side, if Kerry were able to convince voters that the Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terror, he would erode confidence not only in Bush's handling of Iraq but also of the broader war on terror. According to numbers released in yesterday's USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll Kerry needs to do just that. Self-identified likely voters were asked about whether they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq and the war on terror. Forty-eight of those surveyed approved of Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq" and 49 percent disapproved. But the numbers spike when likely voters were asked about Bush's handling of the war on terror; 62 percent approve and only 36 percent disapprove.

So it's not difficult to understand why Kerry's campaign wants to separate Iraq and the war on terror. But to claim that Saddam had "nothing to do with al Qaeda?" That there was no terrorism in Iraq before the war? That Iraq has never been a threat to the United States? These are preposterous statements. They're not debatable, or a matter of interpretation. They are demonstrably false.

Here are some relevant facts about Iraqi support for terrorism:

* On March 28, 1992, the Iraqi Intelligence Service compiled a 20-page list of terrorists the regime considered intelligence assets. Atop each page was the designation "Top Secret." On page 14 of that list is Osama bin Laden. The Iraqi Intelligence document reports that bin Laden "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." The document has been vetted and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The existence of the document was first reported on CBS's 60 Minutes. It has been widely ignored.

* Saddam Hussein hosted regular conferences for terrorists in Baghdad throughout the 1990s. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, reported on one such gathering in an article published January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahideen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." One speaker praised "the mujahid Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers. Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."

* Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.

* Later that same month--March 1993--Wali al Ghazali was approached by an Iraqi Intelligence officer named Abdel Hussein. Ghazali, a male nurse from Najaf, met another IIS agent named Abu Mrouwah who gave him an urgent mission: assassinate former President George H.W. Bush on his upcoming trip to Kuwait. On April 14, Kuwaiti police found Ghazali and other Iraqi Intelligence assets with two hundred pounds of explosives in a Toyota Landcruiser. Ghazali, the would-be assassin, told a Kuwait court that he had "been pushed by people who had no mercy." He said: "I fear the Iraqi regime, the Iraqi regime pushed me."

* According to numerous press reports, the deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, Faruq Hijazi, met face-to-face with Osama bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for anti-ship mines and al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There is no indication that Iraq made good on his requests.

* That same year, according to internal Iraqi Intelligence documents authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community and reported in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence to facilitate the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

* According to the New York Times, the same Iraqi Intelligence document said that bin Laden earlier "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative" and that "presidential approval" had been granted to the Iraqi Intelligence service to meet with him. Bin Laden "also requested join operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. At bin Laden's request, Saddam Hussein also agreed to broadcast on Iraqi television sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric.

* The Clinton administration cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

* The 9/11 Commission reports that Iraq and al Qaeda had a series of "friendly contacts" that did not appear to have developed into a "collaborative operations relationship." The final report provides details of meetings between senior Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda terrorists throughout the spring and summer of 1998 and indicates that "Iraqi official offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."

* The offer of asylum was also included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan review of prewar intelligence. From p. 335 of the Senate report: "A [CIA Counterterrorism Center] operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's "standing offer of safe haven to Osama bin Laden."

* This, from p. 316 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report: "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports, from multiple sources, indicated IIS 'casing' operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting, that throughout 2002 the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests."

* Page 331 of the Senate report: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."

* Abu Musab al Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002. He lived in Baghdad with the knowledge--and perhaps sponsorship--of the Iraqi regime. A passage from p. 337 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report cites a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims it could not find him." More, from p. 338: "Al Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq."

* More recently, Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, told Agence France Presse that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said in an interview published August 29, 2004. Azzam added that al Qaeda fighters "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran" and that once they arrived, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities.

Does John Kerry truly believe that "Iraq and terrorism had nothing to do with one another?" Good question.

Does Jim Lehrer read THE DAILY STANDARD?

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Therealspartacus' ignorant fit about FOX news

09.29.04 (4:29 pm)   [edit]
Therealspartacus posted a blog entry indicating that a Fox News poll showed that most people think Hussein was behind 9/11. Somehow, this means to Therealspartacus that Fox's news reporting is politically biased. At least I think that's what he means, because all news organizations editorialize and have a right to. CNN is liberal. PBS is liberal. Fox news isn't. How a poll has anything to do with either Fox's news reporting or editorializing is beyond me, but therealspartacus doesn't seem to care for that.

Here's my comment to Therealspartacus:

"There have been non-Fox polls asking the same question, with similar results, since 9/11 happened.

What the poll proves is that Americans erroneously think Hussein has something to do with 9/11. It does not indicate that Fox News is politically biased.

CNN airs headlines like "Apparently, Bush Leads Kerry in Polls" when Bush has a 12 point lead, but I don't recall reading blogs by you about political bias at CNN.

[b]And I haven't seen one word from you on the blatant political bias at the networks, including CBS, which aired forged documents in an attempt to smear Bush.[/b]

Please, Spartacus. Now, if you can actually find political bias in Fox's NEWS REPORTING, you might have a point. After all, news organizations have a right to editorialize, but bias in news is supposed to be a taboo. The NY Times, and other McTimes across the nation disagree.

That you ran this post means you're either stupid, unjustly hateful of FOX, or both."

**

Fox news ran a poll similar to others from OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS that indicate the majority of the American people think Hussein had something to do with 9/11. This is leapt upon as "proof" that Fox news is politically biased, instead of proof- perhaps-- that the American people are misinformed on the topic.

How this can be held up by the great spartacus as bias in the face of clear abuse of trust and power by CBS news in running forged documents that smear Bush is beyond me. But don't expect sparto to comment on that.

Or anything else that doesn't bash conservatives.

CBS again uses discredited documents, this time to raise draft fears, help Kerry

09.29.04 (2:43 pm)   [edit]

CBS news is at it again carrying water for the fringe Kerry camp. Last night they used discredited documents to attack president Bush, this time on rumours of a draft. You can read the transcript here-- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/ev eningnews/main646055.shtml" title="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/ev eningnews/main646055.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.cbsnews.com/storie...

Who says the documents used to drive this report are fake? FactCheck.org...

From Annenberg Political Fact Check-- http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=200" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=200" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails

Primary document-- THIS makes the Iraq war 'illegal'?

09.29.04 (2:20 pm)   [edit]
Remember that John Kerry is now against this war, a war he voted to authorize. Remember that he once called the war "brilliant". Remember he voted against the 87 billion. Hey, remember that John Kerry argued for unilateral military action against Iraq way back during the Clinton administration (in addition to his support in 2002) -- http://www.realclearpolitics.... . Remember that Kerry was a member of the Senate Intelligence COmmittee, which sees the very same intelligence as the President of the United States.

This is the Congressional Law that authorized the war with Iraq. This act was demanded by Democrats who didn't believe that the President had the authority to go after Iraq with the resolution passed after 9/11. This law represents the will of the people. How is it "illegal"? What's more, how is this "Bush's war"? What's even more, how is this based on a "lie"?

Bolded parts are of particular import. Notice that the president did exactly as outlined. That he tried to get international 'support', a stamp of approval from the useless UN. Also keep in mind that we did gain over 30 countries' support, including Great Britain, Italy, and Poland, of "Old Europe" fame. We didn't get the support of France and Germany, and why they're so important is beyond me. They're only the major players, besides Japan, in the two most destructive wars in world history.

[b]Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)
Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.[/b]

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

[b]SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.[/b]

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

If Cat Stevens is telling the truth, the implications are worse than if he is lying

09.29.04 (9:06 am)   [edit]

The Real Problem With the Cat Stevens Affair

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004

One thing that has been overlooked in the whole recent Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens imbroglio is that if he is indeed telling the truth, the implications are even worse than if he is lying.

Islam, the former pop star, was denied entry into the U.S. last week because, according to Homeland Security department spokesman Brian Doyle, “of activities that could potentially be related to terrorism. It’s a serious matter.”

 

DHS has steadfastly remained mum about what exactly these activities are. Opponents of the department have rushed to fill the vacuum with theories mining both the incompetent and the sinister. Islam himself complained: “The whole thing is totally ridiculous. Half of me wants to smile, half of me wants to growl.” Time magazine asserted that it was a case of mistaken identity based on a spelling error: it quoted “aviation sources with access to the list” to the effect that “there is no Yusuf Islam on the no-fly registry, though there is a ‘Youssouf Islam.’” The Muslim American Society chipped in with the sinister angle by posting at its website a message from a leftist blogger named Kurt Nimmo, asserting that Bush kept the singer out of the U.S. “as a public relations ploy in an effort to seize control of airline passenger lists … and also portray a famous Muslim and peace activist as a terrorist in support of Hamas.”

 

DHS wouldn’t have had to work very hard to portray the ex-Cat as a supporter of the terrorists of Hamas. The connections to Hamas in particular are more recent: in 1998, Yusuf Islam spoke at a fundraising dinner sponsored by an organization, the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services, that has been identified by the Canadian government as a Hamas front group. He exhorted his hearers to donate to the group in order to “lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land.” In 2000, he was denied entry into Israel for donating thousands to Hamas. Again, Islam denied it all, saying: “I want to make sure that people are aware that I’ve never knowingly supported any terrorist groups — past, present or future. It’s simply an attempt to cast doubt again on my character and good intentions.”

 

So in essence, if Cat Stevens is not a proponent of the global jihad, he is, by his own admission, a dupe. He sent thousands to Israel to support his “brothers and sisters in Palestine”; even if he really didn’t intend it to go to Hamas, it did. This is an indication of what Muslims who do not support terrorism face daily: so many Islamic “charities” have turned out to be terrorist fronts that many whose intentions were quite different have ended up being supporters of terror unwittingly. There is no separation in mosques and Islamic communities between moderate and radical Muslims, and neither camp has shown any indication of wanting to create one.

 

What’s more, the checkered post-conversion career of the former feline himself indicates that even the moderate/radical distinction itself is not hard and fast. He publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (“The Qur’an makes it clear,” said the author of “Peace Train,” that “if someone defames the Prophet, then he must die”), although he has backtracked since then. His statements supporting the Rushdie fatwa are a case in point: now he says he spoke out of new convert’s enthusiasm and based his answer on abstract considerations of Islamic law, not intending actually to support the novelist’s murder — thereby saying something about both Islamic law and converts.  Khomeini’s fatwa, as the Cat the student of Islam had no doubt recently learned, was no innovation, but entirely consistent with Islamic law mandating death for blasphemers. And his convert’s zeal, anxious as he was to act upon the newly-absorbed lessons of Islam, has manifested itself in more ominous forms more recently: witness “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, shoe bomber Richard Reid, dirty bomb hopeful Jose Padilla, and on and on. They didn’t set out to learn “radical Islam” or “moderate Islam.” They just wanted to learn Islam.

 

Thus if Cat is telling the truth about not supporting terrorism, his case is a striking reminder of the deep crisis within Islam: terror has intertwined itself with the religion so tightly today that it cannot be separated even by those who claim to abhor all that the terrorists stand for. Muslims today can’t seem to ride the peace train even if they want to.  

---

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).

"Farenheit 9/11" gets rejected by Iranian people, dashing Mullah's hopes

09.29.04 (8:59 am)   [edit]

Iranian Citizens Trash Fahrenheit 9/11

By Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004

A few weeks ago, Mamoun Fandy, a media analyst, syndicated columnist and former professor of Arab Studies at Georgetown University, was interviewed on the subject of Michael Moore. Fandy stated that Iraqis who were familiar with the film found Moore’s portrayal of them to be exceedingly racist; he went on to say that Moore’s callousness to the plight of the Iraqi people and to the unbelievable human rights devastation in Iraq was outrageous.

 

And that was only the verdict of the Iraqis.

 

I have also been asked to express the judgment of a number of Iranians who saw the film in Iran. They sent e-mails, faxes and even phoned me to ask me to report their reviews. 

 

First, other than David Lynch’s film, ‘The Straight Story’, Iranians have not really been exposed to any western films in their cinemas. The Mullahs’ film board forbids the display of women’s uncovered hair and all the other “corruption” Western filmmakers spread. For Iranians, therefore, viewing Michael Moore’s film was a tremendously novel experience.  

 

After 25 years of living in a virtual concentration camp, Iranians have become exceedingly socio-politically savvy. Moore’s anti-American propaganda did not attract anywhere near as many viewers as the Mullahs had hoped for. Tehran’s despots had hoped the film would challenge the Iranian people’s favourable notion of President Bush and promote John Kerry.

 

But Iranians are too smart.

 

A group of 12 university students, for example, composed of both men and women who had seen the film, collectively wrote me and signed an e-mail which said: “Wow, this guy complains that Bush lied once. What would this windbag do if he lived here where our president lies to us once an hour?”

 

Another comment was: “This guy gets to publicly accuse Bush of lying and becomes famous and adored worldwide. We, here, complain about some decrepit and inconsequential government lackey and we not only go to prison but some of us get death sentences. He ought to thank his lucky stars he lives in a country where he’s allowed and even encouraged to be this obnoxious…”

 

Someone else quipped: “If he thinks that the U.S. is so bad, he’s welcome to trade places with us…since he’s so forgiving of brutal Middle Eastern dictators!”

 

Another young man said: “They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea of America being the great liberator; maybe Americans themselves don’t appreciate what they have but we sure do!”

 

Another comment was: “Outside such pathetic ideological schemes, Moore’s fixation to reprimand and castigate his own society is so great that he is BLIND to the fact that our ancient land and society cannot be regarded and dealt with in the same fashion; therefore he has fallen pray to the Mullahs for whom he is nothing more than a tool to discard when his mission for them is completed.”

 

My father, Siamak Pourzand, a 75-year-old Iranian journalist, film historian/critic/promoter has been a political prisoner since November of 2001 in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he has experienced severe torture. During this time, not one member of the self-involved, international film community, to whom I reached out about his plight, responded. When in the fall of 2002 I called Michael Moore’s office, (like I did many other Hollywoodites) I was told: “Sorry, but Mr. Moore is too busy AND just can’t get involved in these types of matters because we can’t be sure who you are and what your agenda is.”

 

I am sure Moore is a busy guy, but with all the blowhard exposing of “evil” that he proclaims to be doing, I’m sure he could have asked someone on his team to find out who I was and what my so-called “agenda” was. But unfortunately, he cannot even be bothered to contact the brilliant Ray Bradbury to get permission to use Mr. Bradbury´s copyrighted title, let alone contact some random Middle Eastern wretch like me, who’ll challenge his myopia and force him to cast a critical eye outside the little box that he so cozily lives in.

 

Most intelligent and politically savvy people from my part of the Middle East and the vicinity, with whom I network, believe that Moore is not qualified to address our issues; he is simply not familiar with our cultures, history, mentalities or peoples’ needs; NOR does he have to right to impose his diatribe on our exhausted and abused peoples.

 

Mr. Moore and his mindless and greedy distributors thought that they could manipulate the Iranian people; but this goes to prove a crucial point: Moore thinks he speaks for his audiences but he does not know them.  Otherwise, he would not have agreed to screen his film in a country whose citizens’ collective, real-life experiences drowns the clamor of Moore’s vapid bitching

Sign the petition to get John Kerry to sign form 180 and release his service records-- Bush did!

09.29.04 (8:40 am)   [edit]

Kerry says he has nothing to hide, so why doesn't he authorize the release of his military records?

Sign the petition here-- http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=282" title="http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=282" target="_blank"http://www.conservativepetiti...

The CIA's insurgency against Bush

09.29.04 (8:38 am)   [edit]

From OpinionJournal.com--

The CIA's Insurgency
The agency's political disinformation campaign.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration.

We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad.

Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate.

This follows Joe Wilson, whose CIA-employee wife nominated the anti-Bush partisan to assess intelligence on Iraq. Then there's the book by "Anonymous," a current CIA employee who has been appearing everywhere to trash U.S. policy, with the approval of agency higher-ups. And now we have one Paul R. Pillar, who has broken his own cover as the author of a classified National Intelligence Estimate this summer outlining pessimistic possibilities for the future of Iraq.

That document was also leaked to the New York Times earlier this month, and on Monday columnist Robert Novak reported that it had been prepared at the direction of Mr. Pillar, the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia. Mr. Novak reported that Mr. Pillar identified himself as such during an off-the-record gathering last week and, while denying he leaked the document, accused the Bush Administration of ignoring the CIA's prewar speculation about the consequences of war with Iraq. Others have since confirmed the thrust of the Novak report.

Keep in mind that none of these CIA officials were ever elected to anything, and that they are employed to provide accurate information to officials who present their policy choices for voter judgment. Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Yet somehow the White House stands accused of "politicizing" intelligence?

None of this is surprising in the case of Mr. Pillar, who is also trying to protect his own lousy track record in misjudging the terrorist threat. Around September 11, he had the misfortune to write a book that rejected the "war" metaphor for counterterrorism, comparing it instead to "the effort by public health authorities to control communicable diseases."

In a public lecture last year at Johns Hopkins University, he sought to downplay Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism. And his corner of the CIA has long claimed that the "secular" Baathists in Iraq would never do business with the fundamentalist al Qaeda. Tell that to Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the Baathists now cooperating in Fallujah.

Yesterday's CIA leak, of the January 2003 memo, also turns out to be what the spooks call "disinformation." We're told that its ballyhooed warning of an insurgency is not among the document's key findings and occurs only in the very last sentence of its 38 pages. We're also told there is not a single mention of Zarqawi, the dominant terrorist now in Iraq, or of "the Party of Return," the name the Baath Party remnants began circulating soon after the fall of Saddam.

The document's after-thought sentence reads: "In addition, rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare against the new government or coalition forces." We highlight that phrase about "existing terrorist" groups because critics of the war like to claim that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war; now we know that in January 2003 even the CIA said there were.

Notably, too, the leakers of this document somehow overlooked the many predictions it made that did not come true. Those include: sectarian violence, seizure of the oil fields in the north by Kurds and in the South by Shiites, a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and the possible use by Saddam of "chemical or biological weapons against his own people and coalition forces." Worst of all, the document anticipated that the Iraqi police and regular army could be relied upon to provide order in Iraq after the invasion. Deputy Director John McLaughlin personally assured Mr. Bush on this one--which we now know to be a mistake as large as predicting that finding Saddam's WMD would be a "slam dunk."

Our point here isn't to assail everyone at the CIA, which includes thousands of patriots doing their best to protect America. But clearly at senior rungs of the agency there is a culture that has deep policy attachments that have been offended by Mr. Bush, and these officials want him defeated. American voters need to understand this amid this election season. As for Mr. Goss, his task is to tell the Pillars of Langley to shut up--or quit and run for office themselves.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Iraq was the right war at the right time.

09.29.04 (8:29 am)   [edit]

Stopping an outlaw

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Published September 28, 2004

---

President Bush took the United States to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological or nuclear arms that can be used to kill on a grand scale. All agree that Saddam Hussein had such weapons at the time of the first Gulf War, and that he failed to prove that this arsenal had been destroyed.
    T hat proof was the price of a cease fire in 1991, and Saddam never paid it. As a legal and policy matter, this fact alone fully justified the United States taking military action against him in 2003. America was not required to live with the risk that Saddam would use these weapons against itself or its allies. There was, however, a second and equally compelling policy justification for destroying Saddam Hussein's regime -- to prove beyond doubt that an international outlaw could not defy American power, and get away with it.
    T here is little doubt, of course, that Saddam did exactly that for more than ten years; and he made much of this success in his own appeals to the "Arab street." Not only did he mislead and thwart the United Nations inspectors, who were supposed to oversee his disarmament, he periodically intimidated them and -- in the end -- engineered their withdrawal altogether. By 1998, sympathetic states like France, Russia and China (all of which exercise a veto on the U.N. Security Council), were calling for a significant relaxation -- in addition to the United Nations' spectacularly corrupt "oil-for-food" program -- of the international sanctions that were supposed to contain Saddam. When the Bush administration tried to strengthen the U.N.'s measures against Iraq in 2001, introducing a system of "smart sanctions" targeted more directly at Saddam, France and Russia again resisted, and effectively killed the effort. By 2003, the "sanctions regime" was on life-support.
    W hatever effect America's failure to force Saddam's compliance may have had on ordinary men and women in the Arab world, it cannot have been lost on one highly important observer of Middle Eastern affairs -- Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden famously described the United States as a "weak horse" -- an easy mark that could be driven from Islamic lands, and even to social and political collapse, if hit hard enough -- and there can have been no better proof of this theorem than the survival, and evident recovery, of Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden and his Islamicists may well have despised the butcher of Baghdad for his "secular" approach to dictatorship, but his example surely showed them the way.
    A s a result, humbling Saddam was critical to the recovery of American prestige and credibility in a region where such things matter and this, in turn, is a necessary pre-condition to ultimate victory in the war on terror. It is true, of course, that considerations of national prestige or honor have long been discredited as acceptable causes for war in the West. This is understandable, given the costs and carnage of World War I. The outbreak of that conflict can, in no small part, be traced to a desire by Europe's "Great Powers" to avoid being outmaneuvered, and/or humiliated, following the murder of Austria-Hungary's Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, and the result was an unprecedented disaster for the entire Continent.
    E urope's experience, however, was not shared by most of the Islamic world. Across the great arc of territory from North Africa to Indonesia, where Islam is the dominant spiritual, and increasingly political, force, there remain today may highly traditional societies, where personal honor, and unapologetic machismo, continue to matter a very great deal -- both in private and public life. Men in many of these countries (from which most of al Qaeda's leaders and foot soldiers are drawn) would not view Woodrow Wilson's famous sentiment (expressed during his ultimately unsuccessful efforts to keep the United States out of the Great War), that America was "too proud to fight," as a noble aspiration. At best, they would view it as idiocy. At worst, it would be considered an indication of rank cowardice.
    O bviously, this does not describe the entire Islamic, or Arab, world -- not by a long shot. However, the movement away from a culture of "honor" in many Middle Eastern countries remains part and parcel of that very march toward modernity that al Qaeda and its allies are so determined to stop, and roll back. Permitting Saddam to continue his defiance of American power, in the face of Security Council resolutions, threats, and even periodic bombing raids, would simply have reinforced America's image as weak and decadent, and ripe for the slaughter. This is another very important reason why the war in Iraq was, despite Sen. John Kerry's claims to the contrary, the right war, in the right place, at the right time.
    
    David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP.

The Democrats Hit Bottom with Draft Paranoia

09.29.04 (8:26 am)   [edit]

From PowerLine Blog--

Of all the contemptible things the Dems have done during this election cycle, the "reinstate the draft" rumor is the most vile. A reader forwarded to us the following email, which is being sent to a countless number of young Americans by the "Rock the Vote" people, an ostensibly non-partisan group:

YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" title="http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" target="_blank"http://action.rockthevote.org...;l=4476

This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.

As it is, our military is stretched almost to the breaking point trying to maintain troop levels in Iraq and around the world. If Pakistan, North Korea or other nations begin to pose new military threats, how would we expect to meet the demand for troops?

Did you know that:

* It would only take two to three days for Congress and the President to authorize a draft and set the Selective Service System's plans in motion?

* Twenty-year-olds would be the first to be inducted?

* Women are very likely to be included in the next draft?

It's up to us to educate ourselves. In the event of a draft, we won't have much time to form an opinion. And with just 34 days left until the election and only a few days left before many state registration deadlines, we need to take a stand now by registering to vote:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" title="http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" target="_blank"http://action.rockthevote.org...;l=4476

Copy this URL into your web browser to get the facts about a potential draft, and to find out what you can do:

http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" title="http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&" target="_blank"http://action.rockthevote.org...;l=4476

Sincerely,
Rock The Vote
and
Alliance For Security

This is a time when serious issues need to be debated. But the Democrats are incapable of anything but the lowest form of demagoguery.

The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq, Afghanistan

09.29.04 (8:20 am)   [edit]
fighting words
Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT

There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.

As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. …

The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.

I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.")

What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.

Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.

The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?

I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His new collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming in October.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107193/" title="http://slate.msn.com/id/2107193/" target="_blank"http://slate.msn.com/id/21071...

Is using Viagra immoral?

09.28.04 (7:44 am)   [edit]
From Catholic Exchange.com--

[b]Is Using Viagra Immoral?[/b]
09/28/04

[i]Dear Grace, I know that the Catholic Church prohibits artificial birth control because it "goes against nature." What is the Church's position on Viagra? I think it goes against nature just as much as artificial birth control does.[/i]

The Church has not condemned the use of Viagra, but your question is interesting and occasions an opportunity to make an important distinction. Artificial contraception, as you must know, is the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures before, during, or after a voluntary act of intercourse. Viagra, on the other hand, is a drug that helps males to overcome a pathological condition preventing them from engaging in the conjugal act with their spouses. Destroying or denying a good (conception) is quite different from enhancing or strengthening a good (as by use of Viagra).

Is it wrong for a married man to be assisted by medical treatment to have sexual relations with his wife? Surely it cannot be. Scripture tells us that God, out of His infinite and powerful love, created man and woman for each other. He then said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gn 1: 28). God had a beautiful plan for marriage. And in order that they would be able to fulfill that plan, God created them with a natural desire for each other. This desire is good and noble when it is satisfied in the way that the Creator intended. Sex is a sacred and holy gift from God to a husband and wife because this is one of the means by which they can fulfill the two purposes and meanings of marriage — to be unitive and procreative. Let us not make the mistake, though, of placing all of the focus on sex. Sexual performance is not the end-all in marriage and really has little to do with the spiritual aspect of marriage.

Use of drugs such as Viagra to help overcome pathological conditions can certainly not be immoral. The difference between use of such drugs and artificial contraceptives is that contraceptives do not help overcome a pathological condition. Being fertile is not a pathology. There is quite a difference. Viagra does not go against nature — it assists nature. Artificial contraception does not assist nature — it goes against nature.

I assumed, of course, that you were referring to married men in your question. If, however, you were asking about all men using Viagra, then that would change the answer. The Catholic Church has always taught consistently that sexual intercourse “must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes grave sin and excludes one from sacramental Communion” (CCC #2390.

You can see, therefore, that because we believe firmly that sex outside of marriage is immoral, then the use of Viagra — a drug specifically used to assist males to be able to have sexual intercourse — would most naturally be condemned as immoral if used by single men. This teaching by the Church regarding no sex outside of marriage is often not a popular one and creates a tremendous challenge for many single persons today, but the reality is that it is a beautiful teaching, for it comes from God, and therefore we know that it comes from His loving heart and is, thus, for our ultimate good and true happiness.

© Copyright 2004 Grace D. MacKinnon
For permission to reprint this article, or to have Grace speak at your event, contact Grace MacKinnon at grace@deargrace.com.

Grace MacKinnon holds an MA in theology and is a syndicated columnist and public speaker on Catholic doctrine. Her new book Dear Grace: Answers to Questions About the Faith is available in our online store. If you enjoy reading Grace’s column, you will certainly want to have this book, which is a collection of the first two years of “Dear Grace.” Faith questions may be sent to Grace via e-mail at: grace@deargrace.com. You may also visit her online at www.DearGrace.com.

Badnarik might as well agree with Jimmy Carter, because no one agrees with him

09.28.04 (5:55 am)   [edit]
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president believes in this, and this is all you need to know about him: the US brought 9/11 upon itself, terrorists are freedom fighters, and the world will be a model of peace if we pull back our influence.

Is it any surprise, then, that he would agree with Jimmy Carter, who allowed the very Iranian revolution-- at the heart of the Cold War-- that resulted in the movement which brought us 9/11? The same man who provided the framework for North Korea's ascension to nuclear-power status?

What an absurd little man Badnarik seems to be. Maybe he can run Mayor McCheese as his running mate.

No one cares.

Badnarik says that Bush squandered the world's sympathy after 9/11. I ask you, which is more important: the world's sympathy or self-defense? I don't think Badnarik thought that through. The Bush administration had to defend itself after 9/11, but I guess since Badnarik believes that OBL is George Washington, we couldn't do that. Some administration had to solve the Iraq mess-- a mess that included two former presidents a wallowing UN, and a believed threat of WMDs into terrorists hands. But no matter! For an intellectual giant like Badnarik, the real answer here is that if the US takes its troops out of the world ( except Europe, Badnarik doesn't seem to care if we have troops in Germany ), then all will be better. Peace will spread like wildfire.

Badnarik makes a series of claims that he can't back up, including his assertion that there is a "brutal regime" in Iraq now oppressing the people. Only a first-rate nobody like Badnarik would call the first representative government in Iraq and in the Arab world a "brutal regime".

Badnarik is probably the same type of history buff who would be against the Civil War because of Lincoln's constitutionally questionable- but arguably necessary-- actions to save the union.

I see now why people who love moral relativism love Libertarianism. Libertarianism in its current form is static, it doesn't care for history or context. It pretends that the US is heaping abuse on itself because it isn't isolationist. That we author all of our tragedies. In this respect it is little different than liberalism.

The US was isolationist when war broke out in World Wars I and II. If we had not acted in both the world would be a charcoal briquette spinning around the sun.

You'd have Communism and Fascism battling it out on a worldwide scale with the frequent use of nukes. Jews would no longer exist, and Catholics probably wouldn't either. Because the US is the freest country on earth with a system of government that Communists and Fascists despise, it would only be a matter of time before we were annhilated.

And for folks like Badnarik, that too would probably be our fault.

Former Vietnamese refugees defend the honor of American Vietnam Vets

09.28.04 (5:32 am)   [edit]
[b]Ask the 'Dominoes': Former Vietnamese Refugees Defend the Honor of American Vietnam Veterans[/b]
-- by Michael P. Tremoglie

During the Vietnam War, veteran John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that an investigation, conducted by Kerry and his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), revealed that American soldiers committed war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam. The investigation was called Winter Soldier.

Now that Kerry wants to be President, some of his former colleagues, quite understandably, resent his allegations and his consorting with the North Vietnamese--as he did in Paris. Although this may be a shock to many liberals, American military policy in Vietnam was not to commit war crimes and atrocities.

Some try to defend Kerry's Senate testimony (for text, see humaneventsonline.com) by claiming he was not trying to indict all Vietnam veterans as war criminals. Yet, only a couple of weeks prior to Kerry's appearance, Oregon Sen. Mark Hatfield (R.) made a speech during a Senate session in which he referred to Kerry's investigation. Hatfield said, "There has recently been brought to my attention testimony relating to the policy and conduct of American forces in Indochina which has grave and very serious implications."

This was a direct reference to Kerry's auto-da-fé. One can only wonder if there were some coordination between Hatfield, Kerry, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

The statement by Hatfield refutes the idea that Kerry was not referring to all the soldiers. Indeed, the very purpose of Winter Soldier was to impugn the integrity of, and to demoralize, American soldiers. It is a standard ploy to demonize enemy soldiers. This is routine propaganda--which is exactly what the Winter Soldier confab was.

Our soldiers were not the baby-killers that the anti-war protesters said they were. Our military did not kill three million Vietnamese as MSNBC's Chris Matthews recently claimed.

Kerry wants to be President, the elected official primarily responsible for conducting the foreign policy of the United States. However, he allies himself with those who still believe--as Kerry did then--the same Vietnamese Communist cant designed to influence American public opinion against American soldiers.

Kerry slandered his colleagues as war criminals merely as a pretext for withdrawing troops from Vietnam. He was pandering to the people who said the "domino theory" was not valid. These are the same people who said the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were nationalists--not murderous Communist tyrants.

What they said was false then and it is false now.

If anyone would like to know if the Vietnam War was a noble cause, if anyone wants to know if Americans committed war crimes, then ask those affected most by the war--Vietnamese civilians.

Simply put, if you want to learn if the domino theory was true--ask the dominoes.

A few weeks ago, I did just that. I met with a group of Vietnamese refugees--past and present. Some were among the 1980s "Boat People," who fled the horror of Communist Vietnam on rafts, boats, and pieces of driftwood, risking their lives in the process. Others were more recent arrivals. All fled the purported utopia Vietnam was supposed to become according to Kerry and his anti-war colleagues.

These people can attest to who is telling the truth--John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or John O'Neill, B.G. Burkett, author of Stolen Valor, Carlton Sherwood, former Pulitzer journalist and producer of the documentary Stolen Honor, and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth. These people will tell you who was telling the truth.

Quyen V. Ngo currently works for a local college. He was a boat person rescued by an American merchant ship after three nights at sea. Fifty-nine years old, Quyen was a schoolteacher in Vietnam and a Captain in the South Vietnamese army (ARVN).

He was born in Nam Dimh near Haiphong before the country was partitioned. Before the partitioning, his parents emigrated in 1953 to South Vietnam to escape the Communists.

When I asked him if he thought the war was worth it, Ngo said that American troops did not have to stay as long as they did. The Vietnamese people just wanted to be trained and supplied. They would do the rest. However, the Americans were trying to protect the people from the Communists and that was a good thing.

I asked him if the Communists committed genocide after they obtained power. He said the Communists killed many people. Those who were not killed were placed in re-education camps. There they worked 12 hours a day and had little food.

Ngo never witnessed any atrocities by American soldiers, neither did he hear of any American atrocities. He said he did not believe a thing Kerry said about American troops, systematically committing war crimes. He thinks Kerry fabricated this.

He felt sorry for those who opposed the war because they did not see the truth about the war and the Communists. As far as he is concerned, they betrayed the American and Vietnamese soldiers. Testimony like Kerry's, Ngo believes, resulted in encouraging the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong Communists to kill more Vietnamese and American soldiers.

Hoang-Phuong Vo is a 20-year-old immigrant from Vietnam. She is a student majoring in Pharmaceutical Science.

Vo said she came to America 10 years ago. She said that during her youth in Vietnam, she was shown propaganda movies of American soldiers, murdering, raping, and mutilating Vietnamese. They were also portrayed burning and pillaging villages.

Her father, also a teacher, had been in the Vietnamese Army and spent seven years in prison. Her parents met while fleeing Vietnam.

Thuoc Nguyen, 68, was also an ARVN soldier. Captured in June 1975 by the Communists he was imprisoned until October 1984. His crime was that he was an ARVN soldier.

Currently, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has cited several examples of atrocities by Vietnam's Communist rulers. One such was the Easter week massacre. Montagnards, protesting the lack of religious freedom, were killed. According to HRW ". . . sources in the Central Highlands confirm . . . hundreds of demonstrators were wounded and many were killed by security forces . . . ."

Can you imagine if Kerry and the other Vietnam Veterans Against the War would have received such treatment during their famed Operation Dewey Canyon? Would Kerry have been able to conduct an "investigation" in North Vietnam?

Of course not, yet Kerry stated during his testimony that all political groups would be represented in a Communist Vietnam.

Kerry proved that he was incapable of guiding American foreign policy then, he has been incapable during his tenure in the Senate--and he is incapable now.

This article was published by Human Events Online

Apparently, Jordanian King sees no chance of holding ANY elections-- he's a king, right?

09.28.04 (4:36 am)   [edit]

Why do the US and Iraqis care what Middle East dictators think about Iraq's chances of pulling off an election?  They're not really big on that whole "democracy" thing in the first place, a major reason why they opposed the 2nd Gulf War.

A succesful, Democratic Iraq means trouble for all of the unelected throughout the Middle East, so it wouldn't matter if a perfect Jeffersonian democracy was budding in Iraq, Jordan's KING would be against it.

I can't believe that westerners gulp this down with a straight face.  King Abdullah of Jordan, unelected, hopelessl y corrupt, who by the way persecutes the Palestinian majority that lives inside his kingdom (along with his 'parliament') , said that he doesn't think Iraqi elections will occur.  Oh no, really?  The left-wing nutjob blogger DianneMaire has kindly provided us with the text and link, which follows--

(From that noted News powerhouse of objectivity, Al Bawaba-- http://albawaba.com/news/inde...;lang=e&dir=news )--

 

US attack kills four in Fallujah as Jordanian king sees no chance of holding Iraq elections

28-09-2004, 09:08

US forces bombed again a site in Fallujah early Tuesday where several men loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were believed to be holed up, the American Army said. "Intelligence indicated that the militants targeted were rising associates of al-Zarqawi and planning attacks using foreign suicide bombers in vehicles rigged with explosives," the military said in statement. At least four people were killed in the latest US attack on the city, AlJazeera reported. Ten others were wounded. Meanwhile, king Abdullah of Jordan said in an interview published Tuesday that elections in Iraq are impossible in the current chaos and that he sees no chances of improvement in the short term. The Jordanian monarch, who was paying a brief visit to France, told Le Figaro newspapaer that, in his view, it is the "extremists" who would gain the upper hand in the current conditions in Iraq. "It seems impossible to organize indisputable elections in the chaos of Iraq today," he was quoted as saying. "The situation is very, very difficult and in the immediate I don't see any chance of improvement." (albawaba.com)

***
Why is it news that a Jordanian King would be pessimistic on the chances of any election, let alone Iraq's?  Only because it is hoped that it helps the defeatists in the west thwart Bush. 

It shouldn't matter who is president-- everyone on this planet that cares about freedom should want to see Iraq succeed.  It says alot about the Left-wing and John Kerry that they almost seem to hope and pray that Iraq doesn't hold elections. 

They, along with the great Kind Abdullah, don't seem to care who is ruling Iraq.  For the westerners, it is because the US is the root of all evil, for the fine folks like King Abdullah, who runs torture chambers as a matter of established government policy, by the way, it is because democracy threatens him, and every other thug in the Middle East.

It is shameful that the west wouldn't care that others be free.

Euro leaders despise Bush, but do they really want him to lose?

09.27.04 (10:18 pm)   [edit]
From the Weekly Standard--

[b]A la Recherche du Bush Perdu
From the October 4, 2004 issue: European leaders despise the president, but do they want him to lose?[/b]
by Gerard Baker
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04


EUROPEAN PUBLICS, fed by their media a steady diet of horror stories from Iraq and Michael Moore-style caricatures of the Bush administration's criminality, could be forgiven for being mystified and dismayed by the course of the U.S. presidential election.

With polls suggesting President Bush continues to enjoy a small but potentially crucial lead over John Kerry, Pierre and Wilhelm must be shaking their heads and wondering how on earth anyone could even be considering reelecting the half-wit war criminal currently in the White House.

John Kerry was not lying when he said in March that the rest of the world was egging him on. An opinion poll this month by the University of Maryland and the polling company Globescan found Kerry cruising to a landslide in the blue-state territory of Europe.

Bush scored just 5 percent among the French; in Germany he trailed Kerry by 59 percentage points. Even in Britain the president enjoyed only 15 percent support. The Poles were the only Europeans to favor Bush--and even then, by the thinnest of margins.

But Europeans don't get to vote in U.S. elections, fortunately. If they did, Ronald Reagan would never have been president; instead there would have been 16 glorious years of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.

But what about European governments? They might be expected to have a less monolithic attitude towards the choice before American voters.

It looks simple enough. The Atlanticists, those governments who backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, could be expected to hope for a Bush victory. The Poles in particular have let it be known that they do not take kindly to being derided by John Kerry as part of "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Tony Blair has staked his political career on victory in Iraq; a win for John Kerry, whose assault on the Bush administration must apply equally to Blair, would surely sound the British prime minister's death knell.

In Paris and Berlin, on the other hand, it is easy to imagine that candles are being lit every night for the triumph of St. John the Multilateralist over the Evil One. It is hard to imagine the French looking forward to the prospect of another four years of being lectured to by Donald Rumsfeld.

But the calculations in the chancelleries and palaces of Europe are actually a little more nuanced than that. Take Britain first.

There's no doubting Blair's warm personal relationship with President Bush and the respect the two leaders have for each other's steadfastness. The White House is so enamored of Blair that it has even stopped talking to the Republicans' old international ally, the British Conservatives, the party of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, because of their attacks on Blair.

I bumped into a rising Tory politician visiting the Republican convention in New York earlier this month and asked him whether he had been getting the cold shoulder from GOP delegates. On the contrary, he replied gloomily. "As soon as they hear my accent they break into a broad smile, shake me warmly by the hand and say, 'I just wanted to say how much I love your prime minister, Tony Blair.'"

A defeat for Bush might sound like another ominous roll of the drums for Blair, after José María Aznar's loss in Spain earlier this year. If John Howard were also to lose next month in Australia's general election, could Blair really survive?

Blair himself has instructed party officials not to get involved in any way in the U.S. election, even rebuking some of his Labour colleagues who are begging to get out and help in whatever way they can the Kerry campaign.

But there are Machiavellian figures in Downing Street who don't necessarily see it the same way. A Kerry win might, at a stroke, remove Blair's biggest political liability within his Labour party--his close relationship with the despised Bush administration.

And though John Kerry might like to disdain Britain as a Bush lackey for its role in Iraq, he must know that any hopes he has for a renewed transatlantic relationship will still have to go through London, where an American will always find a more receptive audience than he will in Paris.

It's unlikely Blair himself sees it that way; his support for the Bush administration's foreign policy is genuine. But do not be surprised if he proves as adept at transitioning from Bush to Kerry, if Kerry wins, as he was from Clinton to Bush.

And what about Old Europe: the French and the Germans? Their diplomatic behavior of late certainly suggests they are digging in for a Kerry victory.

They have studiously avoided doing anything that might be of the slightest help to Bush in his reelection effort. At the NATO summit in Istanbul this summer they declined to help the United States out in any meaningful way in Iraq, denying the administration a diplomatic victory that might have deflated some of Kerry's coalition-building rhetoric.

At the same time they are doing nothing directly obstructive that might provide ammunition to the Bush campaign, enabling Republicans to point up the unreliability of Kerry's favored allies. They have instead carefully sat on their hands, apparently hoping against hope for change in November.

But would they really be happy with a Kerry win?

European governments are steadily beginning to realize that Kerry will ask the Europeans for all kinds of things they will be unwilling or unable to provide. The Democrat has staked his candidacy on getting more international support in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will find it hard to take "Non" for an answer from Paris. That may make for an uncomfortable series of discussions between President Kerry, President Jacques Chirac, and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Given the level of expectations on both sides, Old Europe might think it would be better off dealing with another four years of President Bush, who at least will expect nothing and get nothing from them.

There's another reason the French and the Germans might be quietly rooting for a Bush victory.

[b]The unpopularity of President Bush, and Chirac's and Schröder's aggressive stand against him, is the only thing that gives the French and German leaders any sort of credibility in the eyes of their own people. Both head otherwise unpopular governments pursuing largely failed economic policies at home. In particular, anti-Bush sentiment keeps alive the French dream of uniting Europe in opposition to the United States--Chirac's famous counterweight to the superpower.[/b]

They need Bush.

In any case, the French governing elite would surely miss having someone to scorn in Washington. It feeds their innate self-belief and superiority complex. A senior French diplomat was recently overheard bemoaning to a fawning audience of like-minded souls the rising level of anti-French sentiment in America.

"They've stopped eating French fries in the Capitol. Some restaurants in New York no longer sell French wine," he said. Then, the sarcastic coup de grâce: "I've even heard that George Bush has stopped reading Proust."

They'd never be able to heap that kind of abuse on John Kerry.

Gerard Baker is U.S. editor of the Times of London and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Oakland stops DUI checkpoints because illegal immigration activists took offense

09.27.04 (8:51 pm)   [edit]
The horror! While trying to stop drunk drivers, Oakland PD discovers illegals without licenses and detained them. Never mind that they are here illegally, driving illegally, and the like: this is discrimination!

Criminals are now a protected class of people......how nice.

Read on and wow yourself...

From the Oakland Tribune--

[b]Oakland police halt DUI checkpoints
Immigrant activists say roadblocks discriminate against those without licenses[/b]
By Heather MacDonald
STAFF WRITER

Sunday, September 26, 2004 - OAKLAND -- Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.

The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law.

"These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. "I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk."

The complaints and pressure from De La Fuente, who represents the largely Latino Glenview-Fruitvale district and plans to run for mayor in 2006, prompted police Chief Richard L. Word to order his officers to hold off on any more DUI checkpoints while new guidelines are drafted.

"The checkpoints are a great tool for law enforcement," Word said. "We'll develop a better focus on drug hot spots and stopping sideshows."

However, the month-long moratorium on checkpoints has outraged Councilmember Larry Reid (Elmhurst-East Oakland), who calls the change a threat to public safety.

"It is absolutely insane to stop these checkpoints," Reid said. "I would not want to explain to a mother why we stopped doing these checkpoints when we know they work and her son or daughter was killed."

Reid also criticized elected officials for "micromanaging" the police department, although he did not single out De La Fuente for blame. Reid and De La Fuente are usually on the same side of issues before the council and recently worked together to propose a measure to raise taxes to hire more police officers.

The new checkpoint guidelines, which are not final, may call for police to notify Latino community organizations of the time and location of coming checkpoints. The checkpoints will be held after the evening rush-hour commute and rotated throughout the city, officials said.

"It's simple common sense," De La Fuente said. "You don't want to stop

people going to or from work. If there are kids in the car, give someone an opportunity to call someone to pick up their kids rather than create chaos."

Legislation that would have allowed illegal immigrants who submit to background checks to apply for a California driver's license was vetoed this week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both Word and De La Fuente supported the legislation.

While officers have some discretion, the cars of unlicensed drivers are usually towed. To get their cars back, owners must pay $125, plus any storage fees. That is a significant burden to many illegal immigrants, Rodriguez said.

Reid said he has little sympathy with Rodriguez's position.

"I don't care if they are illegal immigrants," Reid said.

"They should not be driving on our streets without a license, without insurance. I expect the Oakland Police Department to do its job and get them off the street."

The council is expected to take up the issue at its Oct. 19 meeting.

E-mail Heather MacDonald at hmacdonald@angnewspapers.com .

Mexican official seeks open borders

09.27.04 (8:46 pm)   [edit]
Neither Bush nor Kerry give a crap about illegal immigration, and it is clear to see why Mexico wants open borders. It if for the same reason India is really big on 'free trade'. Economically, unchecked immigration is a boon to Mexico, and there's a bonus: it prevents the Mexican government from actually cleaning up its corrupt behavior and governing its citizens.

That Bush wants amnesty to illegals in a 9/11 environment is his biggest flaw.

[b]Mexican official seeks open border[/b]
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 27, 2004

Mexico's newest border czar wants to begin building additional travel lanes at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border and to increase the number of border crossings into the United States -- the first steps, he hopes, toward an open border with no checkpoints.

Arturo Gonzalez Cruz, a Tijuana businessman named in April by President Vicente Fox as the Mexican Foreign Ministry's institutional liaison for northern border affairs, said access changes along the 1,940-mile U.S.-Mexico border were "necessary" to facilitate increased travel and trade between his country and the United States.

"I would like to see a border similar to the one that Europe has right now ... where they have common, very common objectives," he recently told reporters in Tijuana. "They have a common economy. They have policies that transcend their borders where they work with them to get it."

Travel across national borders in the European Union is unregulated, and citizens of EU member nations traverse borders as freely and easily as Americans cross state lines.

Mr. Gonzalez, who has said he wants to promote "better coordination and cooperation" between the United States and Mexico, is expected to outline his proposals during a keynote address at a Mexico City meeting this week of the Border Trade Alliance.

In his new job, according to the Mexican government, Mr. Gonzalez is responsible for ensuring that border issues involving the Mexican Foreign Ministry are "correctly channeled." Within Mexico, he also has been asked to formulate that country's responses to new U.S. border-security measures -- particularly in the wake of the September 11 attacks on America.

Mr. Gonzalez, a former president of Mexico's National Federation of Chambers of Commerce, has said that the location of future ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border is crucial to that country's trade concerns and that decision-making on their locations, which historically has taken from seven to 10 years, needs to be reduced dramatically.

He replaced Mexican border czar Ernesto Ruffo Appel, former governor of Baja California, who quietly resigned earlier this year after saying government officials in Mexico City "listen to us, but don't understand" the border.

Mr. Ruffo's mandate was to promote economic development along Mexico's northern border, but his commission's functions often overlapped with those of other government agencies.

Mr. Fox has said he favors open borders across North America and has proposed removing all immigration barriers between Mexico, the United States and Canada, allowing the three nations' citizens to live and work in the country of their choosing.

At a rally in California after his surprise 2000 election, Mr. Fox said his government would "use all our persuasion and all our talent to bring together the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments so that in five or ten years, the border is totally open to the free movement of workers."

In January, shortly after President Bush proposed a temporary guest-worker program for illegal aliens living and working in the United States, Mr. Fox said a North American "bloc" of countries could be the leading and most competitive group of nations in the world "by working together and, through that, be able to keep increasing the quality and the level of life of our citizens."

Mr. Bush's guest-worker proposal, offered as a set of principles and not as specific legislation, would allow illegal aliens in the United States to remain if they have jobs and to apply as guest workers.

Under the proposal, the aliens could stay for an undetermined number of renewable three-year periods, after which they could seek permanent legal status.

But Mr. Bush initially began lobbying Congress to pass a new alien-work program in 2001, although that effort was sidelined after the September 11 attacks and renewed concerns over border security. At the time, Mr. Bush and Mr. Fox had agreed to consider granting permanent residency, or green cards, to as many as 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States.

Once a loser, always a loser....

09.27.04 (8:03 pm)   [edit]
Some of you who have been here for awhile know that I deal occasionally with a resentful little "man" named Matthew Martin. This guy is so insecure that he has to inform me about his "awesome" job, as if I care, and generally hurl insults at me on a regular basis. His weblog is full of them, and you can read it here-- http://jimmytherighteous.com

He used to be known as Dogmeat Jones, and he used to comment on my old blog http://jamesyerian.tblog.com . He was an obnoxious prick, I said so, and then he made it his mission to piss me off. He succeeded, too. But I've realized that I'm only being as petty and childish as he is if I go off like he does routinely.

I mean, what does a guy who presents himself as having the world as his oyster need with attacking me? If you read his blog, you'll know that not only does he have an "awesome" job, but he's a genius, and he's got one hell of a social life. It must be out of some nutjob personal flaw that he still finds the time to associate on Tblog.

Oh well. Now he's going off because I called him anti-American. I pretty much knew that would do it, too. That's the kind of guy he is. So he pulls a John Kerry and lists his family members that have served in the US military. Wow. I have had family members serve in the military too, all the way back to the revolutionary war, but what does that mean?

No, the m.o. of Matthew Martin is that he attacks me on a personal level. He thinks that this makes him look like a man. I mean, hey Matt, I get passionate too, but usually it revolved around politics or someone's viewpoint.

At any rate, all you need to know about Matthew Martin is this: he was a ghost in high school. No one knew him. And those that did knew he was the same guy he is now: a petulant, irritating parasite. He was a loser (and is now). I guess now that he got through college and received his great contract he feels he's special, but his blog consitently proves how petty he is. If was truly "da man", he would have left Tblog to pursue this great social life he informs us he has.

There's more, much more, including his father's exploits, but I don't want to bring that up. And how dare I, considering Matthew Martin is so much better than everybody else?

I'll concede, Matthew: your big fat contract in your "awesome" job, and your amazing social life that still doesn't prevent you from writing on Tblog, stuns me and humbles me. You win the war, Matt. Now please, enjoy your life.

:-)

Social Security a risky govt-run pyramid scheme that deserves privatizing

09.27.04 (7:25 pm)   [edit]
[b]Privatizing Social Security[/b]
Thomas Sowell
September 28, 2004

Would you sign a contract that enabled the other party to change the terms of that contract at will, while you could neither stop him nor make any changes of your own? Probably not. Yet that is exactly what happens when you pay money into Social Security.

No matter what you were promised or at what age you were supposed to get it, the government can always pass a new law that changes all of that. But you still have to pay into the system.

A private annuity plan run by an insurance company is legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem its promises.

One of the few issues on which Senator John Kerry has taken a stand and not changed it (yet) is Social Security. He has said: "I will not privatize Social Security."

This has long been the position of liberal Democrats, and John Kerry's voting record in the Senate makes him one of the very few Senators more liberal than Ted Kennedy. That is the ranking given by Americans for Democratic Action, a leading liberal organization that ought to know.

Why are liberals against letting people put part of their Social Security payments into private investments?

Risk is one of their arguments. Al Gore incessantly repeated the phrase "a risky scheme" during the 2000 election campaign and risk still seems to be the big objection to letting people put their own money where they want.

Some liberals may actually believe that politicians know what is best for you better than you know yourself. That is, after all, the philosophy behind many other government programs.

Another reason for liberal opposition to private investment of Social Security payments is that it deprives them of control of billions of dollars that they have been spending from the Social Security trust fund for years. They can buy a lot of votes with all sorts of giveaway programs, financed by money taken from Social Security.

As for the risk of making private investments, that might be a real concern if people were putting their money into commodity speculation or other volatile markets. Most people have better sense and privatization could limit where Social Security premiums could be invested.

Although the stock market bounces up and down from day to day, people are not investing today in order to retire next week. They begin paying Social Security premiums when they first get a job and they retire decades later.

Stocks are far less risky in the long run than they are in the short run because the ups and downs balance out over a long period of time. It is virtually impossible to find any 40-year period in which the stock market has not paid a higher rate of return on your money than you get from Social Security.

There are some mutual funds that simply buy a mixture of the stocks that make up the Dow Jones average (or Standard & Poor's), so that their clients will have the kind of return on their investments that the stock market as a whole has. They don't make a killing but they don't get killed either.

How did Social Security get into its present mess in the first place? Because politicians made it the "risky scheme" that they now claim privatization would be.

The same political expediency which caused Social Security to be called "insurance," in order to get public support, guaranteed that it would be nothing of the sort. Unlike an insurance company, Social Security has never had enough money to pay for all the pensions it promised.

Instead, Social Security has been run like a pyramid scheme, where the first people to pay in get money back from the second wave of people who pay in, and the second wave get money back from the third wave, etc. This is so risky that pyramid schemes are illegal -- except when the government does it.

They have gotten away with this thus far because the first generation covered by Social Security was an unusually small generation that was followed by the unusually large "baby boomer" generation. But when the baby boomers retire, the pyramid scheme will no longer bring in enough money to pay for their pensions.

Nothing is more risky than depending on politicians.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The military is in much better shape than Kerry acknowledges

09.27.04 (7:23 pm)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

[b]A Nuance Too Far
The military is in much better shape than Kerry acknowledges.[/b]
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

John Kerry has a national-security problem. Anyone wondering why the Democrat is now talking about Iraq and agreed to allow Thursday's presidential debate to be about foreign policy--President Bush's strong suit--need only look at the polls that forced Mr. Kerry to refocus his campaign two weeks ago. In one of them, a New York Times/CBS survey, 60% of likely voters didn't think Mr. Kerry could handle an international crisis. That's not a healthy number for a challenger during wartime.

To beat this voter assessment, Mr. Kerry is trying to make the case that the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less secure because it has degraded international alliances, military readiness and efforts to win hearts and minds in the Middle East. We've heard the international alliance argument ad nauseam, and Ayad Allawi handily dispelled doubts about whether the U.S. is making any allies in the Middle East. Indeed, Iraq's prime minister sounded a lot like Mr. Bush in telling a joint meeting of Congress that the Iraqis understand the sacrifice Americans are making and will help win the war on terror.

The third component of Mr. Kerry's strategy, however, is not so easily dismissed. Whether or not Iraq eventually proves to be a quagmire, keeping 138,000 troops engaged in a shooting war halfway around the world isn't easy, and some signs of strain are beginning to show. The U.S. is pulling back some troops from the demilitarized zone in Korea and repositioning troops out of Western Europe to better meet security needs. Without the war in Iraq, such rebasing may not have proved necessary. The military is also using "stop loss" rules that prevent soldiers from leaving the service while their unit is deployed in a combat zone. And, of course, since Sept. 11 the military has leaned heavily on the reserves--partly because military police and other sought-after skills are heavily concentrated there.

Last summer a rash of reports of low morale in the Army appeared in the media. Today we see similar reports that the National Guard is likely to miss its recruiting goals this year in part because reservists aren't happy with long combat deployments and won't reup at the end of their enlistments. Mr. Kerry hopes to take the concern about military strain one step further by telling those likely to be most affected--service members and their families--that during a second term Mr. Bush would make their lives a lot harder. Mr. Kerry has said Mr. Bush has a "secret plan" to escalate the war after the election, and while other Democrats keep raising the specter of a return of the draft, Mr. Kerry says what the administration is doing amounts to a "backdoor draft."

The problem for Mr. Kerry is that there isn't a lot of substance to these attacks. Wars are tough and they are costly, but that doesn't necessarily mean the military is weaker as a result. Fighting an insurgency in the heart of the Middle East has arguably made the U.S. military more adept at identifying the bad guys in that part of the world. The combat lessons they're learning on the battlefields of Iraq are making their way back into military classrooms in the U.S.

What's more, Iraq is proving to be the front line in the war on terror. The Marines stationed near Fallujah are camped out in a massive complex that housed four terrorist training camps during Saddam Hussein's regime. The military is also successfully killing and capturing terrorists every day in Iraq. With al Qaeda operatives active in Iraq and foreign fighters comprising half or more of the "insurgents" killed in some battles, it's really a misnomer to describe what's going on there as an insurgency. No patriotic American enjoys seeing American servicemen killed in battle, but most of us would rather see the war on terror fought out in the streets of Najaf than in New York.

It's true that the National Guard will likely report 51,000 new recruits this year, 5,000 short of its goal. But that's only half the story. The number of people trying to get into the military isn't decreasing. In fact a record number of students applied to the Air Force Academy this year. One of the reasons the military is finding it hard to hit its recruitment numbers is that the force size is actually increasing. The military is larger now than it was on Sept. 11 because the administration has been able to add about 20,000 troops to the rolls temporarily. Meanwhile, Congress is readying legislation that would add as many as 30,000 soldiers to the Army along with 10,000 Marines. And yesterday the New York Times reported that the Army is considering getting away from 12-month deployments in Iraq in favor of six-month combat tours. That's what the Marines do now, and they aren't having any trouble meeting their recruiting goals.

Mr. Kerry knows he's rallying his base when he complains about firehouses being opened in Baghdad and money going to the war effort rather than "after-school programs" and when he says this is "the wrong war at the wrong time." But he's also hoping to avoid the fate of George McGovern, while also capitalizing on the natural unease Americans feel while their sons and daughters are in harm's way. Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, that is likely to prove to be a nuance too far.

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

She's clinched my Bush vote...

09.27.04 (7:04 pm)   [edit]

From Reuters, at a Bush Ohio rally-- http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...;u=/040927/ids_photos_ts/ r525305939.jpg&e=8&ncid=1617

Was it President Bush or his critics that lied about Iraq?

09.27.04 (1:34 am)   [edit]
[b]Lies about Iraq[/b]
By Bobby Eberle
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 27, 2004

In every presidential campaign, there is an issue, which rises to the surface and dominates the debate. In 1992, it was the economy. In 1980, it was inflation, unemployment, and a tarnished national image. In 2004, it is the war on terror, and in particular, the Democrats are attempting to make this election a referendum on the war in Iraq. Time and time again, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has said his opponent has "misled" the American people on Iraq. At the Democratic National Convention, President Jimmy Carter made the same claim. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has gone even further, saying that the president "lied" to the American people about weapons of mass destruction. The question thus remains: did the president lie about Iraq?

Some time ago, while speaking from the Oval Office, the president looked into the eyes of the American public and said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

The president added that the purpose of this military action was "to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." The president explained that Saddam Hussein "must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

During the course of his Oval Office address, the president said that other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, but with Saddam, there is one big difference. "He has used them," the president said. "Not once, but repeatedly." "Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq," the president explained.

Setting an ominous tone, the president declared, "The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

So... is the president lying? According to the Democrats, led by Sen. Kerry and Terry McAuliffe, because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, the president must be lying to the American public. It is the centerpiece of their presidential campaign. It doesn't seem to make a difference that information on Iraq's WMD program was supported by the CIA, Great Britain's MI6, and Russian Intelligence operatives. No, people simply compare the president's public statements and the lack of current WMDs as evidence that the president lied.

Continuing with our examination of the president's actual statements, the president noted that by working through the United Nations, "The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance."

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments," the president said. "And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

The president added, "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."

Based on these words, some Democrats may already be feeling that churning in their stomachs -- the feeling of a hawkish president building a misleading case against Iraq in order to rush the country to war. But before judgment is passed, a more complete review of the president's statements is in order.

In taking questions from reporters following his Oval Office address, the president was asked whether military action was the right thing to do. "This was the right thing for the country," the president said. "We have given Saddam Hussein chance after chance to cooperate. We said in November that this was the last chance. We acted swiftly because we were ready, thanks to the very fine work of the Defense Department in leaving our assets properly deployed. We had the strong support of the British."

In looking forward regarding the situation in Iraq, the president added, "I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."

In talking about regime change, did the president "show his hand?" Did he want Saddam out of power simply for personal reasons, perhaps to the extent that he would lie to the American people about Iraq's weapons programs?

Regardless of the intelligence gathered and studied by American sources regarding Iraq's WMD programs and the fact that conclusions were supported by both British and Russian intelligence sources, the question still remains as to whether the president lied. Based on the strong and definitive statements cited here by the president, he must be called to account before the American people. The brave servicemen and women who are called into harm's way by the president of the United States must have confidence that their commander-in-chief is acting on credible information and not "lying" to the American public. Thus, President Clinton, please come clean. Were you lying about Iraq and WMDs? The American people have a right to know.


Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.

US making progress in training of Iraqi security forces

09.27.04 (1:19 am)   [edit]
From PowerLineblog--

[b]Is "tangible progress" cause for real optimism?[/b]

David Petraeus, head of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, reports that "tangible progress" is occurring as "Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up." Petraeus predicts that "with strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue."

Petraeus provides something that is missing from nearly all MSM coverage of Iraq -- data. For example, there now are 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers in the field and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces. Six battalions of Iraq troops are conducting operations. Fifteen more will be ready by January. Iraqi troops were prepared to enter the mosque in Najaf and have conducted succesful operations in that city. Seven hundred Iraqi security force members have been killed, but thousands continue to enlist in the army and the police force. On an impressionistic level, Petraeus reports that the Iraqi security forces are determined to succeed and "eager to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq."

How optimistic should we be in light of this report? I'm in no position to say. Indeed, Petraeus, while optimistic, stops short of saying how optimistic he is. One thing seems clear, though. We can more optimistic about the prospect that Iraqi security forces will prevail down the road if U.S. forces become more aggressive in killing the enemies of those forces at this stage of the struggle.
Posted by deacon at 10:01 PM

How on earth is John Kerry a 'realist'?

09.26.04 (7:24 pm)   [edit]

I did something I don't like to do tonight, and it's all because I can't sleep.  I read a Smirking Chimp article.  And not just any article, an article posted by one of the Left-wing clones on the tblog site, PatriotActs.  The article is titled "Cult of Positivism: Bush smiles blindly in the face of disaster", it is by a gal named Cathryn Sykes.  -- http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=17996&" title="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=17996&" target="_blank"http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...;mode=nested&order=0

It's freakin' awesome!

Sykes says that George Bush intentionally denies reality by putting a "corporate" positive message on everything, while John Kerry is a "realist" who knows that things are going terribly in Iraq and elsewhere.  Sykes basically makes the connection that the "reality" today is all negative, so therefore being a realist today means being totally negative.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do believe that maybe, just maybe, John Kerry is "negative" about everything because he's trying to become president, and so therefore must criticize everything the president has done.  Since Bush, in an odd stroke of "realism",  has time and again explained that things are not perfect in Iraq, Kerry has to resort to exaggerating how bad things are.  For example: did it escape everyone's notice that Senator Kerry, a guy who is going to unite the world when he's president, basically said that Iraq's new prime minister is a liar?  That he called another head of state a puppet of Bush? 

Is that a uniter?  John Kerry's negativity isn't "realist", it is over exaggerated, machine-gun negativity.  It is stupid negativity, designed to demoralize voters into voting for Kerry.  When confronted with negativite info about Iraq, Bush does not put a positive spin on it: what he routinely says is that we have to stay the course.  The problem with Kerry, et. al is that they know the American people are choosing to stay the course also. 

The [i]reality[/i] in Iraq is that there is a hell of a lot of fighting and chaos in parts of the country.  But, and this is what Kerry in his "realism" leaves out, and that is because it makes Bush look good, is that Iraqis are finding more and more work everyday, education is flourishing, things are getting better.  Much better. [i]The people of Iraq are optimistic about the future, and that is something Kerry cannot change.[/i]  Progress marches on.  The reality is that Kerry in addition to Bush should be on the same page about making Iraq a success.  Instead, Kerry paints everything with the same brush.  His faith-based hatred of Bush and anything goes breach of decorum with world leaders is all he has, and his relentl ess mantra of "chaos" and "quagmrie" falls on deaf ears.  He simply isn't being appropriately negative, because to do so calls for an acknowledgement of postivity-- in short, true realism.

John Kerry is not a realist.  If he were, he wouldn't have seven or eight different positions on Iraq.  This is a man who stumped for Hussein's overthrown in the 1990s.  A man who was both for and against the first Gulf War.  A man who saw the same intelligence as President Bush.  A man who voted for the war and then voted against its funding.  This man does not live by principles and the only reality he recognizes is his own, which is that of a desperate man trying to achieve power at any cost.

 

 

Leftists gearing up for massive voter fraud in Wisconsin

09.26.04 (9:51 am)   [edit]
From Greater Milwaukee Today.com--

[b]Leftists still refuse to do what’s right
Wisconsin voting rules make it easy for election fraud[/b]
--Mark Billing

September 15, 2004

With Wisconsin being a swing state in the presidential election, the Democratic vote fraudsters who surfaced in 2000 will be back in droves this year. In fact, they’re already here.

An outfit called the "New Voter Project" claims to be nonpartisan but is being bankrolled and staffed by leftists. The organization is already active in Wisconsin and already involved in trouble. Thousands of "voters" registered by this group in the last few weeks have submitted registration forms without the legally required proof of identification. This has forced village and city clerks all over the region to send out notices asking for the information. Why would so many of these forms be filled out without identification?

You tell me.

There’s more. The director of the Wisconsin branch of the New Voter Project is Jessy Tolkan. She’s already been involved in election fraud! Tolkan ran for the Madison Common Council in 2001 and was elected. She gave up the seat under pressure and a pending investigation after allegations were made that she lied about her address on her nomination papers and was not a resident of the district in which she ran. Tolkan’s father, an attorney, has threatened to sue me in a lame attempt to get me to stop reporting on his daughter and the slimy activities of the New Voter Project.

Virtually none of the forms sent out by the local clerks to the shady registrants have been responded to. The only plausible explanation for that is that the "voters" not only aren’t voters but aren’t real people, either.

Here’s the method to the New Voter Project madness. In Wisconsin, you can register to vote at the polls on Election Day. You have to produce identification when you register. But sending in a phony registration in advance puts you on the voter list before the election. Already-registered voters don’t have to show any identification. By putting perhaps thousands of fake names on the voter lists, it will be possible for fraudsters to show up at the polls and simply claim to be the person who was already "registered."

One former employee of the New Voter Project has told me that many staffers simply took names out of the telephone book to fill out their daily quotas. He quit his job in fear there’d be a criminal investigation.

* * *

Other than me, there isn’t anybody in the media digging into the New Voter Project. My guess is that they don’t want to find the truth about this group, just as they tried to pretend that the 2000 "smokes for votes" operation was isolated, that the thousands of absentee ballots requested en masse by organizations were legitimately filled out, that the hundreds of people who showed up at Milwaukee polling places in 2000 after 8 p.m. closing time were legitimate voters etc.

* * *

Wisconsin has made itself open season for vote fraud. Here’s what we allow:

1. casting votes without any proof of identification at the polling place

2. requesting of unlimited blank absentee ballot forms by political organizations

3. absentee ballots to be accepted so long as someone attests they are legitimate (which can be anybody)

4. registration at the polls

5. checking of voter lists on Election Day to see who has, and who hasn’t, voted.

Democrats have consistently blocked Republican attempts to tighten these loopholes to protect election sanctity. Why? Because they’re the ones who benefit from vote fraud.

* * *

Several leaders of a Milwaukee voter operation known as "ACE" are in jail for submitting false absentee ballots in the race involving Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee Holloway. The recording secretary of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party, Fidelis Omegbu, was also sentenced to jail for vote fraud. A New York multimillionaire was caught on videotape bribing street bums with cigarettes to cast absentee ballots for Al Gore. The list of left wing election cheating in this state just goes on and on.

Now, the New Voter Project is turning in thousands of dubious voter registration forms and the organization is run by a woman who has already been linked to election fraud. Bush better get 52 percent of the actual vote in Wisconsin because at least 2 percent of the Kerry vote is going to come from cheaters.

Israel believed to have killed top Hamas leader in Syria

09.26.04 (3:39 am)   [edit]
[b]Car Bomb Kills Top Hamas Leader in Syria[/b]
By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press Writer

DAMASCUS, Syria - A car bomb killed a leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas in Damascus on Sunday, and Israeli security officials acknowledged that the Jewish state was involved.

Police at the scene were seen retrieving pieces of the body of Izz Eldine Subhi Sheik Khalil. His death was also reported on the official Hamas Web site and by Israeli security sources.

The bomb went off at 10:45 a.m. in the al-Zahraa district of the Syrian capital, the local Palestinian media center told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. A member of the Hamas political bureau, Mohammed Nazzal, told AP in Cairo, Egypt, that a bomb had been planted in Khalil's car and it exploded when he tried to start it.

Nazzal accused Israel of assassinating Khalil, 42, a top member of the group's military wing who used to work for Hamas in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites).

Israeli government and military officials declined to comment. But security sources in Jerusalem, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged Israel's responsibility.

Israel has killed top Hamas leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites) in recent years but it refrained from going outside the Palestinian territories.

But after a Hamas suicide bombing attack killed 16 Israelis in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba on Aug. 31, top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and the army chief, warned that no Hamas leader — at home or abroad — was safe.

Vice Premier Ehud Olmert, a close confidant of the prime minister, said Israel's war on militants would reach "every place, every corner." He spoke at a memorial service for soldiers killed in the 1973 Mideast war.

Before the bombing, Sharon reportedly said during Sunday's Cabinet meeting that he had ordered the army to step up its war on Palestinian militants ahead of Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Sharon, who wants to pull out of the entire Gaza Strip by next September, said he told military leaders "to strengthen the war on terrorism" to make sure the withdrawal did not look like Israel is fleeing, participants at the meeting said.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two of the most active Palestinian groups that oppose the interim peace accords with Israel and stage attacks in the Jewish state, both maintain headquarters in Damascus.

Sharon last week reiterated a demand that Syria crack down on these groups. The United States also has stepped up pressure on Syria to stop sheltering militants.

Israel expelled Khalil from Gaza in 1993 along with a large group of Palestinians who spent weeks in the no-man's land between Israel and Lebanon as Lebanon initially refused to accept the deportees in protest against their expulsion.

In the Shajaiyeh neighborhood in Gaza, people converged on the Khalil family home to offer their condolences.

Khalil's brother, Rafik Khalil, blamed Israel and called his brother a "martyr."

"Since he left the country, we have had no contact with him because he chose to live a secret life," Khalil said.

___

Associated Press reporter Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Kerry's performance last week indicates he's unfit for president

09.25.04 (7:24 am)   [edit]
From the Weekly Standard--

Disgraceful
From the October 4, 2004 issue: The disgraceful behavior of John Kerry and his team is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president
by William Kristol
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

WE REALLY DON'T KNOW what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?)--all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows? What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president. On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Senator Kerry decided not to say anything supportive of the president as he made the American case to the "international community." Nor did he simply campaign that day on other issues. No. Less than an hour after President Bush finished speaking in New York, Kerry was criticizing his remarks in Jacksonville, Florida: "At the United Nations today, the president failed to level with the world's leaders. Moments after Kofi Annan, the secretary general, talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the president of the United States stood before a stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. . . . He does not have the credibility to lead the world." So Kerry credits Kofi Annan--who a few days before had condemned the "illegal" American war in Iraq--as a more accurate source of information on the subject than the president of the United States. Kerry also seems to think it significant that the General Assembly sat "stony-faced" while the president spoke. Would the applause of delegates from China, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, France, have made the president's speech more praiseworthy in Kerry's eyes? Then Kerry was asked about Kofi Annan's description of the war in Iraq as an "illegal" invasion. Kerry answered: "I don't know what the law, the legalities are that he's referring to. I don't know." So the U.S. government is accused of breaking international law, and Kerry chooses not to defend his country against the charge, or to label it ridiculous or offensive. He is agnostic. Then Kerry continued: "Well, let me say this to all of you: That underscores what I am saying. If the leader of the United Nations is at odds with the legality, and we're not working at getting over that hurdle and bringing people to the table, as I said in my speech yesterday, it's imperative to be able to build international cooperation." It's our fault that the U.N. is doing almost nothing to help in Iraq. After all, according to Kerry, "Kofi Annan offered the help of the United Nations months ago. This president chose to go the other way." Leave aside the rewriting of history going on here. The president of the United States had just appealed for help from the United Nations and its member states to ensure that elections go forward in Iraq. Kerry could have reinforced that appeal for help with his own, thereby making it a bipartisan request. He chose instead to give the U.N., France, Germany, and everyone else an excuse to do nothing over these next crucial five weeks, with voter registration scheduled to begin November 1. If other nations prefer not to help the United States, the Democratic presidential candidate has given them his blessing. Two days later, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition. But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign? John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible--and not even in his own best interest. There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself? --William Kristol

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Kerry is looking for American failure-- and he's it

09.25.04 (7:23 am)   [edit]
 

Kerry's looking for American failure -- and he's it

September 26, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

Iran tests 'strategic' missile

09.25.04 (4:01 am)   [edit]

53 minutes ago

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Saturday it successfully tested a "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, state-run radio reported.

AP Photo

The report did not say whether the missile was the previously announced new version of the Shahab-3 rocket, which already was capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, or was a new missile.

Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani declined to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats," the report said.

"This strategic missile was successfully test fired during military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces," Shamkhani was quoted as saying. The exercises were held Sept. 12-18.

The announcement came four days after Israel said it was buying about 5,000 U.S.-made smart bombs, including 500 one-ton bunker-busters that can penetrate 6-foot-thick concrete walls.

In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq ( - )'s nuclear facility before the reactor could begin operating and the smart bombs are believed capable of destroying Iranian nuclear sites. Iran is suspected by the United States and others of developing nuclear arms and is under increasing international pressure to cease some atomic projects.

The maneuvers conducted by Iran's Revolutionary Guards this month near the border with Iraq were described by top military officials as being designed to reinforce the country's resolve to defend itself against "big powers."

During the maneuvers, state-run radio said a "long-range missile" would be test fired, but there had not been any official confirmation of the test.

The military exercises came a few weeks after Iran said it had test fired a new version of the Shahab-3. Iran's Defense Ministry didn't give the missile's new range, but Israeli sources speaking in Jerusalem later said it was more than 1,200 miles, or about 400 miles longer than its previous range.

The development of the Shahab, whose name means "shooting star" in Persian, has raised fears in Israel about possible attack by the Iranian government, which strongly opposes the Jewish state's existence.

Earlier this month, Israel launched a spy satellite meant to monitor Iran but the Ofek-6 plunged into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after launch.

Bush makes surprise visit to troops headed to Iraq-- heartwarming

09.25.04 (3:57 am)   [edit]

From the Washington Post via BlogsforBush--

White House Pool Report: Bush Surprise Visit To Troops Headed to Iraq

The following is a press pool report on President Bush's surprise visit to a plane full of troops headed to Iraq.

After the pool boarded Air Force One, following the president, it was observed that the Secret Service had not boarded, and we were told that the plane was "waiting." It eventually was learned that we were waiting for the arrival of a "World" airlines charter MD-11 carrying 292 Guardsmen and reservists for duty in Iraq. The plane departed from Ft. Bragg with the 30th Brigade Combat team, a guard unit from North Carolina, the 414th Transportation Batallian reserve unit from South Carolina, and the 230th Area Support Group, a guard unit from Tennessee. There seemed to be a few other units as well, such as the 150th armored cavalry, a guard unit from West Virginia. They are heading to Germany and then to Kuwait, for 18-24 months duty in Iraq. They were obviously excited to see the president, and a few confessed to being down when they had to say goodbye to their families, but they said they were boosted by the president's appearance. They were reluctant to talk about the mission in Iraq, appearing stoic about that. They were all wearing desert fatigues and filled virtually every seat on the 3-engine plane. The officers were seated in business class.

The soldiers mostly had cameras ready to take snapshots of Bush. Several requested autographs. They called out phrases such as "this is awesome." The president put a tie and suit jacket on after the rally and walked down one aisle and back up the other, offering gentle smiles and words such as "I'm proud of you" and "thank you." Pool was not close enough to hear any more than that. As he got to the rear of the plane, Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 22, of the 230th, called out, "That's my president, hooah!" and there were cheers. At the end of the handshakes on the packed, hot plane, Bush got on the PA system from the middle galley. "I appreciate being president to such fine men and women. May God bless you all. May God keep you safe." Potus took the limo the few hundred yards between the two planes.

Brief interviews with a few of the troops: Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 230th. On president: "This is very exciting." On the mission: "I'm ready. I'm ready to go 'til the mission is done." Sgt. Shelly Bivens, 230th, Enthusiastic about mission? "I'm excited to serve our country." Master Sgt. Johnny Scott, 230th, a postal worker: "It's unusual, very unusual. It's pretty cool, a good morale boost." Sgt. 1st class Bill Freeman, 230th, a steelworker union member with Goodyear tire in Tennessee, "I think he's the best president of my lifetime? I can guarantee you right now this is the best thing that ever happened to me in my lifetime." Specialist Brian Parker, 230th: "We were down when we left our families," he said, giving a thumbs down. "But then we heard Air Force One was here. It's a good morale boost." Sgt. 1st class Bobby Dailey, 150th, a Fedex worker. Good spirits? "We are now. It's a nice surprise. It ain't every day you land somewherer and the president gets on your plane." Asked if he was a Bush supporter, he said, "We're commander-in-chief supporters." Spec. Sgt. David Spence, 230th, 54, on the election: "I'm still balancing the issues. I'm not sure. I'd like to hear what he (Bush) has to say." A machinist, has one daughter. Specialist E4 Eddie Latham. "I can't believe it's him." 35, factory worker. "I think he's a great leader, but I'm nervous to go to Iraq." Will still vote for Bush. 2nd Lt. Roxana Pagan-Sanchez. 30th brigade,30 yrs, 12 year old son. Bush said he was proud of her. Works at urgent care clinic in Raleigh, army environmental scientist. Voting for Bush. "He told me he's proud of me. I'm so proud of him."

Bush aides knew the plane was on its way here and due to arrive about 5 minutes after AF1 left. "They pushed the gas pedal a little bit," Card said, and AF1 waited. Card said after Bush finished the Bangor rally speech they got word that the logistics would work and Bush gave permission to wait.

The plane's pilot, Mikkel "Mike" Hansen, said that they got word from the World Airways hq that they were attempting to hook up with AF1 in Bangor. "We pushed it about 50 or 60 knots," Hansen said. The Los Angeles based pilot added that they received further instructions from the control tower as well as directly from AF1. "You don't get that every day." Gary Goodpastor, another pilot called a "check captain" because he monitors other pilots, said it was a "thrill."

All the soldiers had been given absentee ballots in the day or two before they departed. Many still had the ballots with them.

Dana Milbank/Washington Post

Matt Cooper/Time

This is a good question...

09.25.04 (3:53 am)   [edit]

Retired Colonel: Bush volunteered for Vietnam

09.25.04 (3:42 am)   [edit]

From WVLT in Tennessee-- http://www.volunteertv.com/global/story.asp?s=2346701&" title="http://www.volunteertv.com/global/story.asp?s=2346701&" target="_blank"http://www.volunteertv.com/gl...;ClientType=Printable

Retired Colonel: Bush Volunteered for Vietnam
A retired National Guard officer now living in East Tennessee is weighing into the debate over President Bush's service record.

Volunteer TV's Eric Waddell says the man who swore then-Lieutenant George Bush into the Air National Guard, is rising to the President's defense from his Blount County home.

Retired Colonel Ed Morrisey served in the Air National Guard and is familiar with the President's record since the beginning of his service.

  

Opposite a portrayal of a soldier not performing his duty he describes a flyer, near the top of his class.

Retired Colonel Morrisey has trained, developed and commanded lots of soldiers over a distinguished career.

  

He also swore in one very notable officer.

"George W. went to pilot training, seated well, being selected to be a fighter pilot, which is at the top of the line in the Air Force selection process.  Came back to train in the F-102 at Ellington. He stood alert like anyone else," says Colonel Morrisey.

According to Morrisey, then-Lieutenant Bush more than fulfilled his guard requirements.

   

Morrisey says in the six years the President served he never failed to meet participation point requirements.

"Bush averaged 176 per year. In no year did he have less that 50," says Morrisey.    "He was rated by his commander, Col. Maurice Udell in the top 5 of his pilots."

One of the criticisms leveled at the President is that he sought guard service to keep him from serving in Vietnam.

  
Morrisey says, "not so."

"The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go.  But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go,” Morrisey recalls.

Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy.

"He flew in active air defense missions, training missions.    Day, night, regardless of inclement weather," Morrisey says.

Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

Morrisey says he considers himself to be more of a Libertarian than Republican or Democrat.  Nonetheless, Morrisey says he is voting for George Bush come election day.

The AP-- news organization or Kerry campaigner? Another wonderful "news" article...

09.25.04 (3:36 am)   [edit]

Check out this AP article.....the AP dresses this as a "news" story, but it is clearly a biased piece of pro-Kerry apologetics.  I've never read any AP or Reuters, or UPI article that writes anything like this for Bush. 

This is so transparent, the AP is almost as bad as CBS.  They should just go ahead and admit to the public that they are pro-Kerry.

1 hour, 37 minutes ago

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WACO, Texas - President Bush ( - ) opened several new scathing lines of attack against Democrat John Kerry ( - ), charges that twisted his rival's words on Iraq ( - ) and made Kerry seem supportive of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein ( - ).

AP Photo http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.y... && (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.y... ~~ "http") -- AP Photo Slideshow: President Bush Latest headlines: · AP - 1 hour, 37 minutes ago · AP - Sat Sep 25, 4:40 AM ET · AP - Sat Sep 25, 4:39 AM ET

It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush's words.

Campaigning by bus through hotly contested Wisconsin on Friday, Bush sought to counter recently sharpened criticism by Kerry about his Iraq policies:

_He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

_Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

"You can't build alliances if you criticize the efforts of those who are working side by side with you," the president said in Janesville, Wis.

Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations.

_Bush also suggested Kerry was undercutting an ally in a time of need, and thus unfit to be president, when he "questioned the credibility" of Iraqi interim leader Ayad Allawi.

"This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America," the president said in Janesville. "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Bush repeated the attack later in the day and Vice President Dick Cheney ( - ) echoed the message in Lafayette, La. "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage," Cheney said.

Kerry's point was that the optimistic assessments of postwar Iraq from both Bush and Allawi didn't match previous statements by the Iraqi leader, nor the reality on the ground, and were designed to put the "best face" on failed policies.

"Facts can be stubborn things," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. "When there's a gap between the reality and the words coming out of the White House, we are going to point them out."

That's not to say Kerry hasn't been playing fast and loose with Bush's words.

Just Friday, the Kerry campaign sent an e-mail to supporters entitled "He said what?" citing Bush's remark that he had seen "a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

The e-mail from campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill accused the president of having "no plan to get us out of Iraq" and thinking "the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America."

Bush has a plan for Iraq — Kerry just disagrees that it is working. And the president wasn't comparing Iraq's future to that of the United States, only accurately reflecting one recent survey in Iraq and the latest trends in America that asked participants for their assessment of the direction their countries are going.

After campaigning in Wisconsin, Bush settled into his ranch in Crawford, Texas, which will be his base of operations for several days as he crams for the first debate of the presidential campaign, to be held Thursday in Coral Gables, Fla.

The first practice session was expected to take place Saturday night, with Sen. Judd Gregg (, , ), R-N.H., playing the part of Kerry for a couple of hours and a slew of Bush's most senior White House aides and outside advisers on hand, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

___

A response to cogito's cut and paste tripe

09.24.04 (8:52 am)   [edit]
Hey everyone, cogito wrote a blog here-- http://www.tblog.com/template... ...it seems somewhat dated, but is entitled "To Be a Republican".

This is my reply.


1)Republicans don't hate homosexuals. They just don't believe they deserve marriage. Civil Unions? Sure.

2)The US should get out of the UN precisely because the UN doesn't enforce its resolutions. We end up shedding the blood anyway-- why give taxpayer money to fund 22% of a useless organization?

3)NAFTA? Clinton. MFN status for CHina? Clinton. Move on.

4)A woman with a child is caring for another human being. No one own another human being. And the left claims to care about human rights?

5)Republicans don't believe being addicted to drugs is a crime. They believe selling and dealing drugs is a crime. But nice touch.

6)The Bush administration had to "slash" benefits for vets to levels they were before 1996. Why? Because the CLinton administration allowed full, no premium benefits for all vets. Social Security couldn't handle it, so now if you're not a disabled vet, you pay a miniscule co-pay. Do you know how to read and reason? Because the soldiers' pay hasn't been cut, either.

7)Group sex and drug use are sins, and haven't been championed by Republicans because Ah-nold ran for governor. Most conservative Christians, who aren't always Republicans, are appalled by such behavior.

8)Nope, that's no what Republicans believe. But condoms in the school accept promiscuity as fact, and encourage a "consequence free" view of sex that is false. That's the reality.

9)They belittled us. We asked them to help us. They played politics. And we're only asking for their help to be inclusive. Anti-Americanism is a sport in Europe, sort of like lying about conservatives is a sport for Liberals.

10)HMOs were partly the brain child of Ted Kennedy. So fuck you.

11)The kind of health care available to all Iraqis is dwarfed by the quality of health care available in a free market system. Don't believe me? Ask Canadians and Europeans why they come to the US for surgery and treatment.

12)Creationism should only be taught in schools as an alternative theory. You see, asshole, Evolution is a theory, not fact. Conservatives think all theories, not just one, should be taught.

Global warming isn't junk science, but man's affect on it has not been adequately proved.

13)Is the bin Laden family guilty by association? If that were the case, then Kerry would be in prison for dealing with communist Vietnam in questionable business dealings; the same with Clinton and China. ANd on and on....

14)Saddam was never a good guy, even when we armed him. It was called the Cold War-- a postmodern chess match involving nuclear destruction. Shortly: the USSR tried to rule the world by conquering nations and making them Marxist. Iran was one of those nations that had a heavy communist bent. In order to prevent the Soviets from taking over the Middle East, we had to make the queasy choice of arming Hussein.

That's a tough decision. Sort of like going to war in Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson-- both Democrats).

15)A president lying about anything under oath is perjury and impeachable. Which is what CLinton did. There is no proof whatsoever that Bush "lied" about a thing to get support for a war that WAS ALREADY US POLICY (IRAQI LIBERATION ACT), and UN policy (cease fire?).

16)Hillary Clinton is the only person I can recall that ever talked about censoring the interent. Recently I heard some nut on Air America talk about censoring the net because bloggers are unchecked news sources. Sorry, pal-- censorship is your baby.

As far as gay marriage goes-- if it becomes an amendment, the will of the people has spoken. What's wrong with that?

17)The public only had a right to know of Hill's cattle trades because it was part of a larger investigation (an investigation in which indictments were handed down). You see, cogito, even for liberals, if you break the law you have to face the music.

18)If it involved illegal drugs, federal law trumps it. This has been settled by your God-like Supreme Court over the years. Live with it.

19)This is a rather dated cut and paste....but what Clinton did was never deemed vital to the national interest, but it is still unseemly. Actually, what Kerry did in the late 1960s and early 1970s is of vital national interest because he lied about our vets in the service of the enemy-- while still part of the Navy reserves- a first rate traitor.

20)Bush authorized the release of all of his service records-- form 180. Kerry has refused to do so. That, AND THE FACT THAT KERRY HAS MADE HIS 'VOLUNTARY' SERVICE THE CENTERPIECE OF HIS CAMPAIGN means it should be put under the miscroscope.

* I say "vountary" because Kerry tried to get a deferment (like Cheney), but when he was denied, he voluntarily joined the Naval reserves, knowing that the Navy didn't see much combat.

Iraqis aren't as discouraged as westerners-- polls show optimism, hope

09.24.04 (8:26 am)   [edit]
September 24, 2004, 8:28 a.m.
[b]Coming Unhinged?
Public opinion in Iraq.[/b]
--James Robbins

During Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi's Rose Garden appearance Thursday, President Bush referred to public-opinion polls in Iraq to make a point about how things are going. "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America," he said, prompting Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart to claim that the president had become "unhinged from reality." I found Lockhart's comment odd. It strikes me that polling data are a better reflection of conditions on the ground in Iraq than, say, Democratic talking points. Lately I have been looking over the results of two Iraq polls released in July and August, conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies (IIACCS). They are scientifically conducted polls with large sample sizes and low margins of error. The results are extremely detailed, and fascinating reading.

The datum for which the president courted Lockhart's ire was the response to the question, "Do you feel that Iraq is generally heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?" In July, 51 percent said right direction, 31 percent said wrong direction. An Annenburg survey from that same period in the United States did in fact show almost the opposite result (37 percent right track, 55 percent wrong track), as the president rightly observed. Thus, contrary to Lockhart's assertion, the president was well grounded in reality, very strongly hinged. Incidentally, of those who said Iraq is on the wrong track, only 5 percent said it is because of unemployment, which tends to undercut John Kerry's model of an insurgency being fuelled by the angry unemployed. He stated Monday that unemployment in Iraq is over 50 percent, and Al Jazeera reported in August that the rate was 70 percent. But polling over the summer showed unemployment typically in the teens. The nationwide figures were 14.1 percent in June, 13.8 percent in July, and just under 12 percent in August. There are of course regional variations; for example unemployment in the southern city of Umara was 35 percent in June (dropping to 25 percent in July) — but in Baghdad the unemployment rate was below the national average (12 percent in June and 9 percent in July). In Najaf the July rate was under 9 percent. Rates that high are nothing to crow about by our standards, but they make more sense than Kerry's inflated figures. Also worthy of note is the finding that average household monthly income increased 72 percent from October 2003 to June 2004, according to surveys conducted by Oxford Research International.

Levels of satisfaction in Iraq varied by region. Among the Kurds, 85 percent think life has improved since the fall of Saddam. In the Mid-Euphrates region and the south, 52 percent are more satisfied. In Baghdad there was a three-way split between better, worse, and don't know. And in the Sunni Triangle only 12 percent think things have gotten better, understandable given both the fact that they had enjoyed special privileges under Saddam, and those who are now denied those privileges are making life difficult for everybody. Naturally, the security situation is on people's minds. Around 70 percent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, "Life today is full of uncertainty" and "I am afraid for myself and my family." However, there were similar high scores agreeing to the statement "I am hopeful for the future," and the highest scoring statement of all was "I think things will slowly get better." Responses to these questions showed the same regional dynamics, with the Kurds being the most hopeful, but even in the Sunni areas a plurality (42.5 percent) believed things would get better, against only 29.2 percent thinking they would get worse. When Iraqis were asked what issues concerned them the most, crime ranked as the number one initial response, at 39 percent. The insurgency ranked fifth at only 6 percent. This focus on reducing crime ties in to a general result I noted citing polls in my last NRO piece, that the Iraqi police are the most respected group in the country. There is broad approval (in the 60-percent range across the board) for the government, judges, the police, the army, and national guard. Sixty-two percent rated the interim government as either very or somewhat effective, and sixty-six percent placed Prime Minister Allawi in the same category.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was quoted Thursday saying that if parts of Iraq are still too violent to hold elections, they should go forward anyway. The polls reveal why keeping to the timetable is so important. It is a matter of maintaining the legitimacy of the process. Seventy-eight percent rate fair elections as their most important political right, and eighty-seven percent plan to vote in the elections in January, a far greater participation rate than we can expect in this country. Three quarters view increased violence as either very or somewhat likely in the period leading up to the election, and a similar percentage sees that as an acceptable reason for a delay; but almost two-thirds would have a negative view of the elections if they were delayed for one month. Even if the U.N. said the elections were not fair, 53.6 percent see that as an unacceptable reason to delay voting. Most people believe that no current Iraqi political party represents their views, and most also believe that political parties are dividers not uniters. Forty-five percent would be less inclined to vote for a party that maintains its own militia, not surprising given the misbehavior of the Baath party. In the Metro/Retro race, 64 percent would prefer a traditional candidate, against 18 percent preferring one with more modern values.

The place of religion in Iraqi politics is mixed. About 12.5 percent gave as a first response that Iraq should "defend Islamic values." Yet 70 percent believed that "Islam and the Sharia" should be "the sole basis for all laws and legislation." Thirty percent (the highest total for any one category) thought religious figures would make the best candidates for elections, followed by university professors at about 24 percent. Seventy-eight percent rate religious leaders as somewhat or completely trustworthy, coming in a close second behind academics. (Can you imagine a government of professors? I go to faculty meetings, believe me, philosopher kings are in short supply.) Most Iraqis say they would prefer that all religious sects practice their faith freely. But separation of church and state was attractive only to a quarter of those surveyed.

Some good news for fans of big government: When asked the best way to alleviate unemployment, a whopping 45 percent responded, "Start large public works programs." Creating jobs by encouraging investment came in last at under 6. Capitalism clearly takes some getting used to. Free health care was rated as the number one economic right by a small plurality (21 percent). Fifty-seven percent want to see a strong central government in Baghdad, rather than some form of federalism. Seventy-four percent believe that government, rather than individuals, are responsible for people's wellbeing. The statement "It is the role of the State to create wealth for the people" attracted 69 percent support, and "Wealth must be fairly and equally divided among the public by the State" was viewed favorably by 85 percent. On the other hand, 69 percent approved of the statement, "It is the responsibility of the individual to create wealth and the State must protect that right," and 60 percent agreed that "A person must earn their way in this world." So maybe the Lockean worldview has a chance after all. Finally, 57 percent either somewhat or completely trust the media, versus 36 percent who do not, almost the opposite of conditions in this country. Few Iraqis watch 60 Minutes however.

There are other polls of Iraqi opinion showing pretty much the same results. I have not gone into all the findings, mainly for lack of space. Anyway, I encourage people to read the reports themselves. The point is that if we are going to have a public discussion of how the war is going or whether we should be optimistic about the future of Iraq (and I think we should be), our views should be based on something more substantial than off-the-cuff remarks by political spokesmen. It is understandable that news coverage will focus on violence, and administration critics will spin events as negatively as possible. But if solid majorities of Iraqis believe conditions are improving, I think we should take them at their word. They have a better grip on their own reality than we do.

The UN has done nothing to fight terrorism

09.24.04 (8:19 am)   [edit]
September 24, 2004, 9:15 a.m.
[b]U.N.derwhelming Response
The U.N.’s approach to terrorism.[/b]
By Anne Bayefsky

In the weeks immediately following 9/11 there is another anniversary — that of the U.N.'s response to the global threat of terrorism. On September 28, 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which requires states to take steps to combat terrorism.

That resolution has proved, however, to be the high-water mark. Despite Senator Kerry's repeated calls for greater U.N. involvement in the war on terror, the organization's contribution has gone downhill ever since.

Three years after resolution 1373 was passed, the U.N. still can't even define terrorism. Member states are essentially divided into two camps. In one corner is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) composed of 56 states insisting that terrorism excludes the "armed struggle for liberation and self-determination." More precisely, blowing up Israelis of all ages in cafes, synagogues, buses, and discotheques is considered legitimate. In the other corner is the rest of the world.

For eight years the U.N. has been struggling to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. But it cannot finish the task because the OIC continues to hold out for an Israeli exclusion clause. Another round of bogus negotiations is scheduled for early October. No U.N. member state is prepared to change the rules and insist that a vote be called in the absence of consensus.

The upshot is one line on the U.N. website devoted to the definition of terrorism. It refers interested parties to the ongoing discussion over a terrorism convention that "would include a definition of terrorism if adopted."

The U.N.'s inability to identify a terrorist has real-life implications. In the last month, the Security Council has been faced with terrorist acts in Beslan, Russia, and in Israel. A recent bombing in Beersheva, Israel, claimed 16 lives and wounded 100 from a population of under seven million. The hostage-taking in Russia left 326 dead and 727 wounded out of a population of over 143 million. Proportionally, the trauma was as great in Israel.

The Security Council deadlocked over the Beersheva attacks and no unified presidential statement was possible. Instead there was a statement to the press saying council members (read: some, not all) condemned the bombings along with "all other acts of terrorism" (code for "Israel engages in terrorism too"). During the debate, Security Council members Algeria and Pakistan maintained a position of "principle" — there should be no double-standards, no singling out of one act, no selective condemnation. That was August 31.

On September 1 the Security Council adopted a presidential statement on behalf of the council as a whole concerning Beslan. It strongly condemned the attack, expressing the deepest sympathy with the people and government of Russia and urging all states to cooperate with Russian authorities in bringing to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the terrorist acts.

Of course the council couldn't mirror such calls when it came to Israeli victims, since the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of Palestinian terrorism start with Yasser Arafat and end in the protectorates of Damascus and Tehran. What happened to Resolution 1373?

The resolution's legal requirements are impressive: to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts"; to "take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts"; to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts"; and to "prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens..."

To implement these obligations, 1373 gave birth to a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). The CTC then spawned 517 state reports about all the steps being taken to implement the resolution. Among them is the most recent report from Syria — headquarters of Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and others featured on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. It informs the Security Council about "procedures and measures adopted and in force in the Syrian Arab Republic aimed at the suppression....and prevention of terrorist crimes, and...the denial of safe haven, refuge, assistance or any form of help in the territory of...Syria."

A parallel universe, one in which the U.N.'s chief global response to 9/11 — the Counter-Terrorism Committee — has never managed to name a single terrorist organization or individual, or a singe state sponsor of terrorism.

Another U.N. committee was created in 1999 under Security Council Resolution 1267, in response to al Qaeda and the Taliban. This so-called sanctions committee has never agreed about which states have failed to comply with their obligations, nor has it given the council a list of delinquent states for further action.

Meanwhile, almost all of the rest of the world stands paralyzed, intimidated, or furiously giving campaign speeches about U.N. multilateralism as the sensitive way forward in the war against terror.

— Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Michael Ledeen: Iran will go the way of the Evil Empire

09.24.04 (8:16 am)   [edit]
From National Review--

September 24, 2004, 9:34 a.m.
[b]Iran, Impossible?
Nope. The mullahs will go the way of the Evil Empire.[/b]
--Michael Ledeen

After years of baffling silence, George Will has finally written about Iran. His guide is the justly celebrated Azar Nafisi, but her one-liner Will used to portray contemporary Iran — "What differentiated this revolution from the other totalitarian revolutions of the twentieth century was that it came in the name of the past" — demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the past (the Führer's movement was every bit as anti-modern as Khomeini's) and thus of the future (both forms of fascism being quite capable of asserting a terrible revolutionary claim on the destiny of all mankind and unleashing their murderous hatred on a global scale).

Worse, Mr. Will tosses off a dismissive pronunciamento so absolute and categorical that he implies it is writ in the very nature of things: "There is no plausible path to achieving (regime change in Iran)." Why? Because "the regime-changers have their hands full with the unfinished project next door to Iran."

He'd have done better to concentrate his great talent and energy on preventing major-league baseball from reaching Washington, D.C. The claim that the United States cannot possibly bring about the fall of clerical fascism in Tehran is as silly as similar claims directed at Ronald Reagan when he set about bringing an end to the evil Soviet Empire. Indeed, skepticism about our determination to defeat Soviet Communism was far more justifiable than doubts about the thoroughly plausible path to end the Iranian mullahcracy. For only a small minority of the oppressed peoples of the Soviet Empire were ever willing to openly challenge the Kremlin — as, for that matter, were the people in the Philippines under the Marcos kleptocracy, or in Yugoslavia under the mad Milosevic. Yet all came crashing down, defeated by their own people, who were inspired and supported by Americans.

In Iran today, upwards of 70 percent of the population is openly hostile to the regime, vocally desirous of freedom and democracy, and bravely supportive of the Bush Doctrine to bring democratic revolution to the entire region.

If we could bring down the Soviet Empire by inspiring and supporting a small percentage of the people, surely the chances of successful revolution in Iran are more likely. By orders of magnitude. "No plausible path," my derriere! (as Senateur Kerry might put it). Ask Comrade Gorbachev about the power of democratic revolution before you write off the Iranian people.

I think that Mr. Will got it wrong because he assumes that regime change implies military conquest. But we don't need armies of fighting American men and women to liberate Tehran; the foot soldiers are Iranians, and they are already on the ground, awaiting good leadership with a clear battle plan. The war against the Iranian terror masters will be political, not military. The weapons that will end the dreadful tyranny — so well described by Mr. Will and Mrs. Nafisi — are ideas and passions, not missiles and bullets. To our great shame, we have failed to support the Iranians' battle against their hated regime, but that is a failure of will, not a failure of means.

Mr. Will believes it inevitable that Iran will become a nuclear power in the near future, and this may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Surely the United Nations, the British, and the Europeans are doing everything possible to bring it to fulfillment. But this is a fallacy of "static" thinking in a rapidly changing world. South Africa and Ukraine were members of the nuclear club when they were oppressive tyrannies, but scrapped their nukes when they became free. It is certainly true that the current Iranian regime will stop at nothing until they have atomic bombs, but a free Iran might well make a different choice.

Most importantly, there is a huge difference between atomic bombs in the hands of fanatical mullahs, and atomic bombs controlled by a pro-Western and democratic country. Mr. Will says it is "surreal" for Condoleezza Rice to discuss the Iranian nuclear program in terms of what we can "allow" Iran to do, I suppose because he is convinced we have no plausible path to prevent it. That may or may not be true; I don't know if there is a politically acceptable military option, and I agree that diplomacy cannot possibly derail the mullahs' mad atomic march. But it is at least equally "surreal" to dismiss the prospects of democratic revolution in Iran, and thereby join the ranks of the appeasers.

If Reagan had listened to this sort of criticism — and there was no shortage of it in the early '80s — Gorbachev would still be managing the gulags and funding Communist movements all over the world. If Bush accepts George Will's view of Iran, we will soon see the world's primary sponsor of terror armed with atomic bombs.

It is not inevitable. We can beat them. Delay costs lives, both ours and those of the brave Iranians who challenge clerical fascism.

Faster, please.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

Kerry, CBS forced to commit forgery because of Truth

09.24.04 (7:41 am)   [edit]
This is a funny, but pretty accurate, quote: "Despite a total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media, the Swifties had driven Kerry's poll numbers into the dirt long before the Republican National Convention – proving once again that it's almost impossible for liberals to brainwash people who can read."



[b]Dan Rather: Fairly Unbalanced[/b]
September 22, 2004
Ann Coulter

I believe we now have conclusive proof that:

(1) Dan Rather is not an honest newsman who was simply duped by extremely clever forgeries; and

(2) We could have won the Vietnam War.

A basic canon of journalism is not to place all your faith in a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago who hates the target of your story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years. And that's true even if you yourself are a lunatic stuck on something that happened years ago (an on-air paddling from Bush 41) who hates the target of your own story and has been babbling nonsense about him for years, Dan.
Books

CBS' sole source authenticating the forged National Guard documents is Bill Burkett, who's about as sane as Margot Kidder was when they dragged her filthy, toothless butt out of somebody's shrubs a few years back. Burkett has compared Bush to Hitler and Napoleon, and rambles on about Bush's "demonic personality shortcomings." (This would put Burkett on roughly the same page as Al Gore.)

According to USA Today, an interview with Burkett ended when he "suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair" – an exit strategy Dan Rather has been eyeing hungrily all week, I'm sure. Burkett admits to having nervous breakdowns and having been hospitalized for depression.

At a minimum, the viewing public should have been informed that CBS' sole "unimpeachable" source of the forged anti-Bush records was textbook crank Bill Burkett in order to evaluate the information. ("Oh no, not that guy again!") The public would know to use the same skeptical eye it uses to watch the "CBS Evening News With Dan Rather" itself.

Whoever forged these documents should not only be criminally prosecuted, but should also have his driver's license taken away for the stupidity of using Microsoft Word to forge 1971 documents.

And yet this was the evidence CBS relied on to accuse a sitting president of a court martial-level offense 50 days before a presidential election.

As of Sept. 20, Dan Rather says he still believes the documents are genuine and says he wants to be the one to break the story if the documents are fake. (Dan might want to attend to that story after his exclusive report on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.) Rather is also eagerly awaiting some other documents Burkett says he has that prove Bush is a brainwashed North Korean spy.

By now, the only possibilities are: (1) Dan Rather knew he was foisting forgeries on the nation to try to change a presidential election or (2) "Kenneth" inflicted some real brain damage when he hit Rather in the head back in 1986.

Liberals keep telling us to "move on" from the CBS scandal – which means we're really onto something. They act surprised and insist this incident was a freak occurrence – an unfortunate mistake in the twilight of a great newsman's career.

To the contrary, such an outrageous fraud was inevitable given the mendacity and outright partisanship of the press.

Burkett didn't come to CBS; CBS found Burkett. Rather's producer, Mary Mapes, called Joe Lockhart at the Kerry campaign and told him he needed to talk to Burkett. Lockhart himself is the apotheosis of the media-DNC complex, moving in and out of Democratic campaigns and jobs with the mainstream media, including at ABC, NBC and CNN.

CBS was attempting to manipulate a presidential election in wartime. What if CBS had used better forgeries? What if – like Bush's 30-year-old DUI charge – the media had waited 72 hours before the election to air this character assassination?

There is one reason CBS couldn't wait until just before the election to put these forgeries on the air: It would be too late. Kerry was crashing and burning – because of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Funny that the Swift Boat veterans haven't been able to get on Kerry PR agency CBS News.)

Despite a total blackout on the Swift Boat Veterans in the mainstream media, the Swifties had driven Kerry's poll numbers into the dirt long before the Republican National Convention – proving once again that it's almost impossible for liberals to brainwash people who can read.

Even the New York Times had to stop ignoring the No. 1 book on its own best-seller list, "Unfit for Command," in order to run front-page articles attacking the Swift Boat Veterans.

The "Today" show has given Kitty Kelley a chair next to Katie Couric until Election Day. (It's now Day Seven of Kelley's refusal to produce records concerning charges that she is in the final stages of syphilitic dementia.) At least they're more likely to get the truth in Kitty Kelley's book than in Doug Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." But Katie hasn't had time to interview the Swift Boat veterans.

CBS showcased laughable forgeries obtained from a man literally foaming at the mouth in order to accuse the president of malfeasance. But CBS would never put a single one of the 264 Vietnam veterans on the air to say what they knew about Kerry.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up. The veterans who served with Kerry told the truth and the American people listened (as soon as they managed to locate a copy of "Unfit for Command" hidden on one of the back shelves at their local bookstores).

CBS was forced to run a fake story so early in the campaign that it was exposed as a fraud – only because of the Swift Boat vets. These brave men, many of them decorated war heroes, have now not only won the election for Bush, they have ended Dan Rather's career.

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society.

It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts.

CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one.

Burkett admits he and Kerry camp's Lockhart discussed fake memos

09.24.04 (7:33 am)   [edit]
Full Knight-Ridder article here-- http://www.mercurynews.com/ml...

'During a single phone conversation with Lockhart, Burkett said he suggested a "couple of concepts on what I thought (Kerry) had to do" to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents."'

Of course, Burkett isn't very credible. But, then, neither is Joe Lockhart, or the Kerry camp in general.

Stay tuned.

Kerry says Bush wrong to go after Hussein...so why did Kerry vote to give Bush that power?

09.24.04 (7:12 am)   [edit]
Hey man, you got me. Welcome to Kerry's world, the left-wing world, where hypocrisy doesn't matter one bit. In KerryWorld, you think the average person is unfathomably dumb while you pursue whatever policy makes political sense at the moment.

This is why Kerry voted for the war, but against its funding, and then attacked the war as "wrong". This is why Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but then called it an invastion of our civil liberties. This is why Kerry said a month ago that, knowing what he knew now about Iraq-- now stop and think about that-- he's still vote for the war.

But today, Kerry says:

"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaida"

"George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority."

But, Senator Kerry, you didn't make OBL the top priority. You thought he was as important as Bush did, [i]for you helped give the president the authority to wage war against him.[/i] I'm mean, seriously folks-- how insane do you have to be to think this is going to wash?

And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the US is not going after Al Qaeda, that it hasn't been a top priority, or that we haven't vigorously pursued OBL. Kerry has no proof of this. OBL has 15,000 US troops and special forces hounding him. He has Pakistan doing their best on the other side. Kerry has said previously that he would have gotten OBL by now. Again, he's asking us to trust him as a leader, when the only record he has to go on is 4 months in Vietnam 30 years ago where he faked injuries, came home, and then smeared the very US military he wants to lead.

But wait..there's more!

Kerry says:

"I actually view them as extreme, and I think their policies have been extreme, and that extends all the way to Iraq, where this president, in my judgment, diverted the real war on terror — which was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida — and almost obsessively moved to deal with Iraq in a way that weakened our nation, overextended our armed forces, cost us $200 billion and created a breach in our oldest alliances."

If all of the negatives about Iraq are true, guess what? The president asked for the authority and the money to pursue Hussein. Congress gave the president this authority. They wrote him the check. As a Senator, Kerry voted for the war-- so he committed himself to authorizing the president to send our troops to Iraq, to overextend our military, to "divert the real war on terror that weakened our nations" and create "a breach in our oldest alliances." (which means not pissing off Germany and France, an aggressor responsible for two world wars and Adolf Hitler, and a nation that we from that aggressor TWICE).

This means that if the Bush administration is "extreme", so is John Kerry (and Bill Clinton, and Madeline Albright and the UNSC-- circa 1998).

Kerry outlined his "detailed" plan to "contain" terrorism (remember when Bush got bashed for his perceived assumption that the war on terror wasn't winnable? Of course that is not what he said, but the media doesn't seem to care that Kerry has implied just that), which is exactly what the president is doing.

The sad part of this is that we are in a war with many fronts. When we win, the Left is sad. When we fail, or, more importantly, when the media portrays the US as failing, the Left finds new life, and churns out the hate.

If you vote for Kerry, you are cavalier about your life and your nation's security.

Did Therealspartacus actually say that we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan?

09.24.04 (3:41 am)   [edit]

In a stupid post about the 2nd amendment by DrForBush, this is what Therealspartacus had to say about the 2nd Amendment:

"Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan have ironically proven the 2d Amendments importance- when it comes down to it, a determined and armed populace CAN defeat the most powerful armies in the world."

Now, I am a biased person.  I am conservative.  And so is this individual Therealsparto.  However, I don't know of that many people, liberal or conservative, that are calling Iraq a "defeat", much less Afghanistan. 

Besided the telling assumption that we've been defeated, there is the assumption that in Iraq and Afghanistan "the people" are the ones fighting the US.

This is more than galling-- words can't describe therealspartacus' break with reality.

All evidence is abudantly clear that terrorist groups that have strong links to Al Qaeda and other established terror groups, including Iranian and Syrian groups, certainly not the Iraqi people, are causing the problems in Iraq.  In Afghanistan, we're dealing with Al Qaeda and leftover Taliban. 

Now, I'm sure most Iraqis don't want us there-- what country would want a foreign military presence in their backyard.  But there is no evidence that "the people" are taking up arms to defeat the US.  Most Iraqis and Afghanis are extremely grateful that their mass-murdering, unelected regimes are through.  This is still something that left-wing nuts like spartacus refuse to believe.

But to think that we are already defeated is simply unbelievable.  To dress the actions of known terrorists (Zarqawi, for example, in Iraq) as the actions of the people is the same stupid, left-wing rhetoric that made us lose the political war in Vietnam.

Let's review: in Afghanistan we defeated a regime that harbored the man who brought us 9/11.  The Taliban was left to fight it out in a gruesome civil war with other factions throughout the 1990s.  When they took over they imposed a brutal regime dedicated to killing anyone that didn't adhere to their ultra-violent brand of Islam.  Bin Laden found a place where he could operate from and, even though the Clintons knew this, was left largely alone.  The US realized that the only way we could stop the Taliban and OBL was to destroy the Taliban regime and pursue OBL.  Afghanistan is free, and while things are not perfect, I bet there isn't a soul in the country who wants to go back to the bad old days.

In Iraq we had a dictator who slaughtered millions of his own people.  Who invaded his neighbors.  Who defied the world's demands.  The world, embodied in the worthless UN, didn't do anything about this, even after he promised he would own up to his WMD.  After 9/11, the idea that this guy, Hussein, still had WMD (WMD everyone said he had) and could give it to Al Qaeda, et al.  was and is unthinkable.  We tried one last time to cooperate with Hussein.  He refused, and we invaded.  The Iraqi people are very happy they're free: even their protests against the US prove that.  They could not do that before.  As the new Iraqi government takes shape, it is hoped by sane people that it will flourish.  It is hoped by folks like therealspartacus that it will not.

Once upon a time I thought therealspartacus was smart and relatively objective.  But when he can't even acknowledge basic facts about the conflicts we are in, when he almost enthusiastically portrays the insurgency in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan (both of which we are winning-- it is not even close, but thanks to the media all we get is the bad news) as a struggle by the people in which we've already lost, I just assign him to the same category as I do fine folks like Matthew Martin, Winston Smith, Whoisjohngalt, and the rest-- unserious, willfully ignorant, left-wing America haters.

 

 

That's really what this comes down to.  We never lost a military battle in Vietnam.  We haven't in Afghanistan or Iraq.  But when we have our major media setting the foundation of this nation's discourse with the wrong biased assumptions, when this war isn't clear spelled out as what it is, then we start to lose the political war.

 

George Will: The Iran Dilemma

09.24.04 (3:18 am)   [edit]
The Iran Dilemma
George Will (back to web version) | Send

September 24, 2004

 A ten-year-old had awakened his parents in horror, telling them he had been having an ``illegal dream.'' He had been dreaming that he was at the seaside with some men and women who were kissing, and he did not know what to do.
     -- Azar Nafisi, ``Reading Lolita in Tehran''
    
     WASHINGTON -- What the young Iranian should have done to please the regime running the Islamic Republic of Iran is obey the prison rules in Vladimir Nabokov's novel ``Invitation to a Beheading'': ``It is desirable that the inmate should not have dreams at all.''
  
Nafisi, who left Iran in 1997 and now teaches at Johns Hopkins, says, ``What differentiated this revolution from the other totalitarian revolutions of the twentieth century was that it came in the name of the past.'' In the name, that is, of a lost religious purity and rigor.

     Iran is not a mere literary dystopia. It is perhaps the biggest problem on the horizon of the next U.S. president because it is moving toward development of nuclear weapons, concerning which the Bush administration has two factions. One favors regime change, the other favors negotiations. There is no plausible path to achieving the former and no reason to expect the latter to be productive.

     The regime-changers have their hands full with the unfinished project next door to Iran. Negotiations cannot succeed without one of two things. One is a credible threat of force, which America's Iraq preoccupation makes unlikely. The second, which is also unlikely, is a mix of incentives, positive and negative, that can overcome this fact: Iran's regime is mad as a hatter, but its desire for nuclear weapons is not irrational.

     Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood, near four nuclear powers -- Russia, India, Pakistan and almost certainly Israel -- and the large military presence of another, the infidel United States. Iran has seen how the pursuit of nuclear weapons allows the ramshackle regime of a tin-pot country like North Korea to rivet the world's attention. Iran knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired such weapons, he would still be in power -- and in Kuwait. And even if the major powers could devise security guarantees sufficient to assuage Iran's geopolitical worries, there remains the regime's religious mania:

     Until 1994, Nafisi says, Iran's chief film censor, who previously had been theater censor, was nearly blind. He would sit in a theater with an assistant who explained what was transpiring on stage and took notes on the cuts the censor required. The showing on television of ``Billy Budd'' was condemned because it supposedly promoted homosexuality -- although the television programmers chose it because it had no female characters. After the 1979 revolution, the regime lowered the marriageable age of women from 18 to 9. Since 2002 -- this is Iranian moderation -- a court's permission is required to marry younger than 13.

     President Kennedy could not have imagined that such a backward-facing regime would be among those that would acquire the most modern of weapons. In the 1960 presidential campaign, he cited ``indications'' that by 1964 there would be ``10, 15 or 20'' nuclear powers. As president, he said that by 1975 there might be 20 nuclear powers. Today it is unclear whether North Korea has become the ninth by weaponizing its fissile material.

     It is in America's interest -- indeed, the interest of all members of the nuclear club -- to keep new members out. But a mere aspiration is not a policy. The club will expand over time. U.S. policy can vigorously discourage this, but must discriminate among, and against, nations. It is unlikely, but possible, that China's weight, properly applied in the context of North Korea's desperate material needs, can prevent North Korea from crossing the threshold. However, Iran is almost certainly going to cross it.

Iran can negotiate in bad faith while it continues its progress toward development of such weapons, as North Korea has done while increasing its supply of plutonium. When that tactic has been exhausted, Iran can come to agreements that it then more or less stealthily disregards, as North Korea has done.

     On Tuesday, four days after a U.N. agency told Iran not do it, Iran announced that it has begun processing 37 tons of yellow cake (milled uranium) into a gas as part of a process to produce a compound that can be used in nuclear power plants, but also can be a precursor of highly enriched uranium for weapons. U.S. policy is that the ``international community,'' whatever that is, ``cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon'' (Condoleezza Rice, Aug. 8). It is surreal to cast this as a question of what anyone will ``allow'' Iran to do.

©2004 Washington Post Writers Group

Bush signed form 180, Kerry hasn't-- Bush served honorably in the Texas ANG

09.24.04 (3:05 am)   [edit]

From GOPUSA.com--

Bush's Honorable Air National Guard Service
By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004

George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush's because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee's Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.

Lt. Bush's opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don't remember looking ahead (and I'm sure Lt. Bush didn't either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard's Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)

Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country's National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush's mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.

I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don't strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I've been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying "Missing Man Formations" and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.

Cowards (or people who lack courage) don't take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot." "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," Colonel Killian wrote: "He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."

As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized -- with short notice -- to deploy anywhere in the world.

During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.

Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush's Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush's documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.

As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush's service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 -- the impetus for me to write this letter.)

There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush's honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn't be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces.

Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes -- they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election -- as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe.

Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States -- having given their lives for their country.

Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry's four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.

Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm's way.

As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.

Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I'm grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country's success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy.

We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn't be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.

The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust?

Addendum

DNC - Kerry Campaign - CBS 60 Minutes
Left-Wing Allegations and Fraudulent Documents
Response to DNC Video "Fortunate Son

The Democrat National Committee (DNC), the Kerry Campaign, CBS 60 Minutes and their liberal media supporters have launched the fifth major attack on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The purpose of this attack is to enhance Kerry's election prospects by dishonoring President Bush's service in the Air National Guard (ANG) and undermining his credibility as Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces.

Concurrent with the airing of Dan Rather's (CBS' 60 Minutes program on 09/08/2004) hit piece on President Bush, DNC's Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senator Tom Harkin piled on with vitriolic attacks on President Bush's service record. CBS' program (using fraudulent documents to launch their attack on President Bush) served as the kick-off call for a coordinated nationwide attack on Bush's ANG record. "Operation Fortunate Son" is the code name that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC have given for their attacks on George W. Bush's service in the Guard.

Lying Allegation:

The DNC alleges that President Bush falsely claimed he served in the United States Air Force and therefore lied about his military service record. This is the DNC's specific allegation: "George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," "George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,"

Response to Allegation:

When I went through flight training in the United States Air Force (USAF), we had Air National Guard (ANG) Officers in my pilot training squadron. For economic reasons, the ANG turns to the Air Force to do its undergraduate pilot training. President Bush served in the Air Force for more than a year (as an ANG officer) while going through USAF flight training.

Also, the United States has exchange officers from other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that come to the U.S. to fly in our Air Force flying squadrons. Upon return to the UK, these Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots would say they served in the USAF (as an RAF Exchange officer) and that's what would be reflected in their personnel records. Similarly, our flying officers are assigned to squadron flying positions in the RAF. Their personnel records would reflect that they served in the RAF (as an USAF Exchange Officer).

Additionally, as part of Lt. Bush's training (prior to attending USAF Flight Training), Lt. Bush was placed on active duty with the Air Force for 120 days. This would be another basis for saying he served in the Air Force. To deny that fact would mean that all service people who are in training status are not serving their country. This would be absurd but nothing surprises me any more with the DNC/Kerry Campaign and what they will do and say in their quest for power.

Conclusion: The DNC doesn't know what it's talking about. You don't have to be an active-duty Air Force officer to serve in the Air Force as either an ANG pilot or an exchange pilot. George W. Bush's description in his campaign literature as having served in the USAF and ANG was correct; he did not lie about his service record as alleged by the DNC.

Influence Allegation: Another allegation is that Lt. Bush used political influence to get in the ANG.

Response to Allegation:

President Bush's father (President George H.W. Bush) has publicly stated that the Bush family did not pull any strings to get George W. Bush into the ANG. George W. Bush got a pilot slot in the ANG because he took the steps necessary to make himself a worthy applicant.

Left-Wing Democrats have alleged that there were 150 applicants trying to get in the ANG; that Bush was a "Fortunate Son" who was given preferential treatment; and that he was leapfrogged over all these applicants based on political pressure and special influence. This is a false charge. Here are the facts.

Most applicants were applying for ANG enlisted positions not for pilot training. The highest number of pilot applicants that the Texas ANG Group had (at any one time) during the Vietnam War was around ten. The reason for this very low number was there were stringent educational, security clearance and physical requirements that had to be met for pilot training in the ANG; also, there was a high "danger factor" in flying the F-102 aircraft. For every ten pilot applicants, usually only two were selected by the ANG to attend USAF pilot training school.

The question everyone needs to honestly ask themselves is: Why wouldn't the ANG want George W. Bush in their organization? How many Yale graduates do you think the ANG had to choose from (probably only one) his name was George W. Bush? So when George W. Bush went for his interview with Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt (Texas ANG Group Commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston), it would seem to me that Col. Staudt's decision to select George W. Bush for pilot training was a good one for the ANG - separate from any other consideration. Given that George W. Bush ended up being President of the United States, one might conclude that Colonel Staudt was an excellent judge of character; that he made the right decision.

Ben Barnes, another one of CBS' 60 Minutes helpers in orchestrating the attacks against President Bush's ANG record, states in his interview with Dan Rather that he helped George W. Bush get into the ANG. The only problem is that Ben Barnes previously swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting George W. Bush into the Guard. Additionally, this question came up in the 2000 election and Ben Barnes' daughter asked her father if he had anything to do with helping George W. Bush get into the ANG. He told his daughter no (that he didn't help Bush get in the Guard). So what has changed? Ben Barnes is now a big fund raiser and supporter of John Kerry and may have a job with Kerry - should Kerry be elected President. This is the "reliable source" Dan Rather used to attack President Bush and help validate the content of CBS' fraudulent memos.

Conclusion: I believe that the liberal media - agenda driven - propaganda machine has not presented a fair and balanced perspective about George W. Bush's ANG service, instead, their many articles have left readers with the impression that George W. Bush was given preferential treatment over 150 ANG applicants and that the only way he would have been selected for a pilot slot would be if someone helped him politically; nothing could have been further from the truth.

Default Allegation: George W. Bush defaulted on meeting his ANG Service Requirements

Response to Allegation:

Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush's time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973.

It was not uncommon for pilots to depart the ANG earlier than their established service commitment back in the early seventies. Allowing pilots to transition into civilian life served the best interests of the ANG in managing its pilot force. Why? The answer is simple: there were too many pilots versus the number of cockpits required to keep pilots current in their assigned aircraft. The glut of pilots was the result of a phase down of flying operations in Southeast Asia and Vietnam.

Also, it was common for ANG pilots (who were going to leave the service) to work out with their commanders, assignments not involving flying duty. The benefit to the individual was that it helped work the transition from ANG service to civilian life. The benefit to the Guard was that they could replace less experienced pilots with "high flight time" combat seasoned pilots.

An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn't take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102's in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge.

Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush's ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.

Byron York in his September 9, 2004 article provided the numbers I use in the below chart.

All I did was add up the points. NOTE: Any objective reporter could have totaled the numbers to give people a more balanced perspective on Lt. Bush's ANG record; they chose not to. Now let's look at the ANG point system and how Lt. Bush measured up against it.

Accumulating Points toward Air National Guard Service Requirements

As you serve in the Air National Guard, you accumulate points toward meeting your ANG service requirements. When Lt. Bush was serving, the minimum points required (annually) to meet ANG requirements was fifty (50 points). The DNC, Kerry Campaign and Liberal Media are obsessed with validating that Lt. Bush earned all the ANG points necessary to qualify for his honorable discharge. They are particularly concerned with points accumulated after April 1972.

I've constructed the chart below to show that Lt. Bush not only met his annual requirements but exceeded them threefold - 954 earned versus a 300 point minimum requirement. Lt. Bush's strong record of Guard service supported his early release from a six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School. He received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973 having served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days.

BUSH EXCEEDS AIR NATIONAL GUARD ANNUAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (THREEFOLD FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD)

Air National Guard Service Period
Minimum Annual Requirement
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush

May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253

May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340

May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137

May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112

May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Ref:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx" title="http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx" target="_blank"http://www.hillnews.com/york/...
Minimum Annual Requirement - 300
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954

Fraudulent Documents Used to Attack Bush

Multiple salvos are being fired at Bush by the DNC, Kerry Campaign and their liberal media surrogates - to dishonor President Bush's service in the Air National Guard and undermine George W. Bush's credibility as Commander-In-Chief. The preponderance of evidence is that the Kerry Campaign was the planned benefactor of the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush. But something went terribly wrong; we have a fraudulent document scandal and the mask has been pulled off CBS' extraordinary effort to undermine the President of the United States; help the DNC and get Kerry elected President.

It appears that CBS' 60 Minutes attack on Bush helped to get (in one fell swoop) thousands of liberal writers to dust off their last article (bashing President Bush's ANG service), touch it up and re launch it. This massive left-wing driven effort hopes to get the media focus off of Kerry and back onto President Bush.

Now look at the Fraudulent Memo to File (below) produced by CBS.

As of 09/15/2004, CBS' 60 Minutes stands by its story that the memos were copies of original Air National Guard documents.

Observations regarding the 18 August 1973 memo:

Typewriters used by the Air National Guard in 1973 (at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron) lacked the technology to produce the 18 August 1973 Memo for File -- to the specifications of today's Microsoft Word technology. The technology lacking was proportional typeface, superscript, curly apostrophes, Times New Roman font and vertical spacing.

Should you have doubts that the memo is a fraud (after viewing my re-type), then validate the memo yourself. Instructions: Take the 18 August 1973 memo that CBS says is a copy of the original document produced in 1973 and copy it into Microsoft Word. Then set your font to the default setting - "Times New Roman Font 9". Don't change anything from Microsoft Word default settings; i.e., the type size (font 9), tab stops, and margins. Now type the memo that CBS says Lt. Col Killian typed over 30 years ago. Walla, you get the 1973 message exactly. The spacing is the same, letters line up (look above and below each sentence) and line breaks are the same.

Since anyone can quickly ascertain that this document is fraudulent merely by going through the above exercise (you don't need a documents expert, handwriting expert or typewriting expert), then why weren't the DNC, Kerry's Campaign and CBS able to determine that these documents were fraudulent (using their experts)?

Other Points about the 18 August 2004 Memo for File:

Filing a memo with "SUBJECT: CYA" is unlikely; files are subject to inspection.

During the years Lt. Bush was in the Air National Guard (ANG) the abbreviation for an Officer's Efficiency Report would be O.E.R. not OETR.

Col. Staudt retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March 1972 almost 1½ years before the date of the fraudulently constructed memo of 18 August 1973.

Staudt would not be in a position to exert pressure on Hodges or Killian (to sugar coat Lt. Bush's O.E.R.) because he was not in the command line of either; he was retired.

Lt. Bush would not be getting an O.E.R. from Lt. Col Killian because he wasn't under Lt. Col Killian's observation for the number of days required to rate him. Also, Lt. Bush was leaving the Air National Guard and such a report would be of no advantage to the Guard and no advantage to Lt. Bush for career advancement in the Guard. The import of an O.E.R. (being rendered on Lt. Bush) would be minimal since he was on his way to Harvard Business School and leaving the military.

I'm not going to analyze the other CBS memos but offer this comment. Most of these memos would be a lot about nothing even if they weren't fraudulent. It's fascinating that the content of these memos just happen to coincide with the attack points used by the Kerry Campaign/DNC.

The DNC, Kerry Campaign, CBS' 60 Minutes and the liberal media establishment know nothing about ANG flying units; know nothing about the conversations Lt. Bush had with Lt. Col Killian 30 years ago; know nothing about what Lt. Col Killian authorized Lt. Bush do (regarding meeting his service requirements); know nothing about what they talked about concerning Lt. Bush's flight physical and know nothing about the views of the officers holding command positions at the time Lt. Bush served in the ANG.

But what all of us now know (based on the recent comments of ANG Colonels and Generals) is that George W. Bush was seen as an excellent officer, a top-notch pilot and highly respected by the officers and commanders who flew with him in the ANG. We know, also, that he was greatly respected by his Fighter Interceptor Squadron Commander - Lt. Col Jerry Killian -- based on comments of Killian's wife and son. We know that Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge from the Air National Guard.

Despite all the positive comments of the commanders in Lt. Bush's ANG chain of command (as well as the pilots that flew with him), the DNC/Kerry campaign and the mass liberal media continue belittling the service of our Commander-In-Chief.

Kerry's efforts to malign Bush's military service in the Air National Guard and undermine President Bush's credibility with the American people (while promoting himself as a war hero) will not be well received by the American people. See my article: Kerry's Strategy to Undermine Bush CLICK HERE Zell Miller best discribes John Kerry's qualifications for Commander-In-Chief (Click Here). President Bush has served as Commander-In-Chief for three and a half years. We can judge his performance. I'm voting for the re-election of President Bush.

What Should Happen Now?

CBS must divulge who gave them the fraudulent documents. It's okay for news organizations to protect information sources. It is not okay for them to use their journalistic cover to protect people who have played a part in a hoax on the American public. The use of fraudulent documents (in an effort to influence the outcome of a national election and take down a sitting President) is serious criminal activity and needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted.

-----------

John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

The Dems, CBS, and fake memos: chronology of character assasination

09.24.04 (2:56 am)   [edit]

From GOP.com--

CHRONOLOGY OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
_________________________ _________________________ _________

PRIOR TO THE CBS REPORT: "In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed 'down and dirty' tactics against Bush. He said that he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed 'afraid to do what I suggest.'" (Michael Dobbs, "Parallels Drawn Between CBS Memos, Texan's Postings," The Washington Post, 9/18/04)

IN AUGUST, PRIOR TO THE CBS REPORT: "Ultimately, Burkett decided to turn over the documents to one of the most persistent journalists, CBS producer Mary Mapes, sometime in August. He and his wife met Mapes and CBS reporter Mike Smith at a pizza restaurant a few miles from their ranch. At first he gave them only two of the six documents, which Mapes said she planned to have analyzed for authenticity, according to Burkett."  (Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson, And Jim Drinkard, "CBS Backs Off Guard Story," USA Today, 9/21/04)

19 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Bill Burkett, the former Texas National Guard officer who has been caught up in the mystery of how CBS News acquired memos that seem to question President Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, unsuccessfully offered information and advice to help the Kerry campaign attack Mr. Bush, according to a posting Mr. Burkett wrote in an e-mail newsletter.  'I spent some time on the phone with the Kerry campaign seniors yesterday,' Mr. Burkett wrote on Aug. 21 in an e-mail letter circulated to a list of about 600 Texas Democrats. He complained that he had to 'get through seven layers of bureaucratic kids trying to get a job after the election.' (David D. Kirkpatrick And Jim Rutenberg, "Texan Involved In CBS Report Tried To Help Kerry Campaign," The New York Times, 9/18/04)

19 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT:  'I talked with Max Cleland,' Mr. Burkett continued, referring to the former senator from Georgia who has been supporting Senator John Kerry's Democratic presidential bid.  Alluding to advertisements by a veterans group that deprecates Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service, Mr. Burkett continued, 'I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack.'  'So I gave them the information to do it with,' Mr. Burkett wrote. 'But none of them have called me back.'"  (David D. Kirkpatrick And Jim Rutenberg, "Texan Involved In CBS Report Tried To Help Kerry Campaign," The New York Times, 9/18/04)

6 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "'I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled America into Iraq,' Kerry said at a late-night rally in Springfield, Ohio."  (Jill Lawrence, "Kerry Strikes Back After 'Anger, Insults,'" USA Today, 9/3/04)

6 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "In the rush to air the documents Burkett provided, CBS producers inadvertently left clues about their confidential source. People asked by CBS to authenticate the documents said the papers bore a header showing they had been faxed from a Kinko's in Abilene, Tex., 21 miles from Burkett's home. Documents examiner Emily Will said the footer indicated the document had been sent at 6:41 p.m. on Sept. 2." (Michael Dobbs, "Questions Surround Man Who Provided Documents," The Washington Post, 9/21/04)

4 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.  Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart." (Kevin Johnson et al., "CBS Arranged For Meeting With Lockhart," USA Today,9/21/04)

4 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: CNN's BILL HEMMER:  "I know at the outset of your answer there you said this discussion has nothing to do with -- does it really rely so much on a conversation you had on Saturday night? It was the [4]th of September, was it, if memory serves?" KERRY ADVISOR JOE LOCKHART: "It was the Saturday -- that sounds right."  (CNN's "American Morning," 9/21/04)

3 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Burkett said he passed the rest of the documents to Smith [CBS Reporter Mike Smith] around Sept. 5, at a drive-in restaurant near Baird." (Dave Moniz, Kevin Johnson, And Jim Drinkard, "CBS Backs Off Guard Story," USA Today, 9/21/04)

2 DAYS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT:  "[H]oward Wolfson, a strategist dispatched to the DNC by Kerry's campaign to go negative on Bush …  The DNC has nicknamed its effort 'Operation Fortunate Son' after a Creedence Clearwater Revival anti-war anthem from the 1960s."  (Ron Fournier, "Democrats Taking A Chance On 'Fortunate Son' Criticism Of Bush Guard Records," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

 

THE DAY BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Its time for President Bush to release all his records, come clean and tell the American people why he stopped flying when he was in the Air National Guard." (Democrat National Committee, "Cabrera Statement On Breaking News Regarding Bush's Military Record," Press Release, 9/7/04)

9 1/2 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Adding to the criticism of Bush, a group called Texans for Truth announced an advertising campaign questioning whether Bush ever trained with the Alabama Air National Guard. The advertisement, set to run in several swing states, quotes a retired lieutenant colonel in the Alabama unit who says he searched for Bush but never met him in 1972 or 1973."  (Matt Kelley, "Democrats Accuse Bush Of Lying About His Air National Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/8/04)

THE DAY OF THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'"  (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

CBS REPORT AIRS:  CBS' DAN RATHER: "George W. Bush had just graduated from Yale and faced the prospect of being drafted himself. This man, Ben Barnes, says he helped keep that from happening. … 60 MINUTES has now obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Colonel Killian's personal file." (CBS' "60 Minutes II," 9/8/04)

JUST HOURS AFTER CBS REPORT: "The rap on Mary Beth Cahill …  Maybe so, but hers was among the first congratulatory calls Ben Barnes received in Austin late [September 8] night. … 'You did a great job,' Cahill told him after it had aired. 'You did a brave thing.' Sen. Ted Kennedy (for whom Cahill once worked) called with the same message." (Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff, "Slime Time Live," Newsweek, 9/20/04)

THE DAY AFTER CBS REPORT: "'You absolutely are seeing a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates,' White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. 'The polls show Sen. Kerry falling behind, and it's the same old recycled attacks that we've seen every time the president has been up for election.'  Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said McClellan was 'hurling nonsensical, inaccurate and baseless charges.'"  (Judy Keen, "Accusations Exchanged Over Bush's Military Record," USA Today, 9/10/04)

15 1/2 HOURS AFTER CBS REPORT: "Democrats insisted the documents, made public Wednesday, take the matter beyond presidential politics. 'This is about George Bush getting special favors,' said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). 'This is about George Bush getting special privileges. This is about George Bush not doing his duty in the National Guard and then lying to the American people about it.  Americans deserve to know the truth, and we won't know the whole truth until the president himself meets these facts head-on,' he said.  The documents, obtained by the CBS program '60 Minutes II' for a report Wednesday, were written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, the commander of Bush's squadron in Texas. Killian is deceased."  (Ken Herman, "Memo: Bush Disobeyed Guard Order," The New York Times, 9/10/04)

THE DAY AFTER CBS REPORT: "But now we know that Bush dishonored the Oval Office by lying to the American people."  (DNC, "Take Action! Help Us Hold President Bush Accountable," E-Mail, 9/9/04)

THE DAY AFTER CBS REPORT: "The colonel [Killian] goes on, the 'officer,' meaning then-Lieutenant Bush, 'has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical.' [CBS '60 Minutes,' 9/9/04] …BUT HE TRIED TO GO OVER HIS COMMANDER'S HEAD TO GET A POSITIVE EVALUATION In August 1972, Bush's superior officer Lt. Col. Jerry Killian notes in a memo that Bush had gone over his head and was 'talking to someone upstairs' to avoid service in Alabama. [CBS '60 Minutes,' 9/9/04]" (Democrat National Committee, "Bush Lies," Press Release, 9/9/04)

On the march: US kills Zarqawi mentor

09.23.04 (10:09 am)   [edit]
From the Washington Times--

[b]Zarqawi's mentor said to be killed by U.S. hit[/b]
From combined dispatches

BAGHDAD — The Muslim cleric responsible for the practice of beheading hostages in Iraq — including two Americans this week — has been killed in a U.S. air strike, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said yesterday.

Two more beheadings could not be confirmed. A group calling itself the "Jihad Organization" said it had "slaughtered" two Italian female hostages in Iraq, in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.

The two Italian aid workers are Simona Pari and Simona Torretta. They worked for "Un Ponte Per ..." ("A Bridge to ...") and were seized Sept. 7.

The Muslim cleric, Sheik Abu Anas Shami, 35, was killed when a missile hit the car he was traveling in on Friday in the western Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, said the clerics, who have close ties to the family in Jordan. They spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The independent Jordanian newspaper Ghad quoted Shami's family as saying they were preparing a wake in the eastern Amman suburb, where Shami had lived before he went to Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion last year.

Shami, who taught that "beheading is God's justice to inflict pain and sow fear into the hearts of the infidel crusader enemy," was the spiritual mentor of Abu Musab Zarqawi. The latter is the leader of the militant group Tawhid and Jihad — Arabic for "Monotheism and Holy War."

Zarqawi and his group are blamed for some of the worst attacks in Iraq, including the bombing of the U.N. headquarters last year and the beheadings of foreign hostages — including the two Americans this week.

After making public a video of Zarqawi personally slaying the first American — Eugene Armstrong, 52 — on Monday, Tawhid and Jihad set a 24-hour deadline for its demands to be met or the next hostage would be killed.

When the deadline passed, it announced in a Web posting that the second American, Jack Hensley, 48, was killed.

The group posted yet another video on an Islamic Web site yesterday showing a man identifying himself as British hostage Kenneth Bigley pleading for British Prime Minister Tony Blair to help save his life.

"To Mr. Blair, my name is Ken Bigley, from Liverpool," the man said in the videotape. "I think this is possibly my last chance. I don't want to die. I don't deserve.

"Please, please release the female prisoners that are held in Iraqi prisons," the speaker said.

Mr. Bigley was seized from a Baghdad house with the two Americans last week.

Tawhid and Jihad has taken responsibility for the slaying of at least seven hostages since the U.S.-led invasion began, including American Nicholas Berg.

In edicts published on Islamist Web sites, Shami said Islam permitted the beheading of hostages who cooperated with the U.S. military.

"Whenever a major kidnapping would take place, they would take from him a ruling on how to handle the hostage according to religious Shariah teachings," said one Islamist who declined to be identified.

The Islamist who knew Shami in Jordan said his militancy was shaped by four years as a religious seminary student in Saudi Arabia, where he fell under the influence of the strict Wahhabi brand of Islam before returning to Jordan in 1991.

Shami, a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, also was known as Omar Yousef Jumah. He was thought to be the voice on several audiotapes that Tawhid and Jihad released via the Internet.

He also was credited with writing many of Zarqawi's letters and statements that have appeared on Web sites that take responsibility for suicide bombings and attacks in Iraq, associates said.

Uncertainty over the fate of the British hostage who was kidnapped with the two Americans generated confusion yesterday when Iraq's Justice Department said a decision had been made to release a top female germ-warfare scientist for Saddam Hussein.

Inevitable speculation followed that the announcement was driven by Zarqawi's demand that all female prisoners be freed in exchange for the hostages.

But Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and U.S. officials quickly moved to squelch the idea.

Mr. Allawi told the Associated Press that his government has begun reviewing the status of its detainees, including the two female scientists known as "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax" because of their involvement in Saddam's biological-weapons programs.

The U.S. military says it has two Iraqi women in custody, both high-profile security detainees held at an undisclosed location — Rihab Rashid Taha, the scientist known as "Dr. Germ" for helping Iraq make weapons out of anthrax, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, a biotech researcher known as "Mrs. Anthrax."

Mr. Allawi said the review process had nothing to do with the current hostage situation and had started weeks ago.

"We have not been negotiating, and we will not negotiate with terrorists on the release of hostages," he said in a telephone interview from New York. "No release takes place unless I authorize it."

A decapitated body was found in Baghdad yesterday. The family of Mr. Hensley said it had received confirmation that the body was his.

Later, a videotape appeared on an Islamic Web site purportedly showing Mr. Hensley's beheading.

The blindfolded man who was killed wore an orange jumpsuit and sat in front of five masked militants dressed in black. One terrorist read a statement as the five stood before a Tawhid and Jihad banner.

After the terrorist finished reading the statement, he pulled a knife and jumped on the blindfolded man from behind, slit his throat and cut off his head.

Meanwhile, U.S. aircraft and tanks attacked rebel positions in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, killing 10 persons and wounding 92. Suicide attackers set off two car bombs in Baghdad, one of them killing six persons. The second, in the upscale district of Mansour, wounded four U.S. soldiers and two Iraqis.

A U.S. soldier was killed in one of the bombings, the military said hours later, but it didn't specify which bombing.

Two other U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, officials said. One was killed by a roadside bomb about three miles south of Tikrit. The second died of his wounds after an attack on a patrol in the northern town of Mosul.

U.S. and Iraqi troops also battled with insurgents in the central city of Samarra, where U.S. forces had earlier touted success against militants waging a 17-month insurgency, police said. At least one child was killed and five persons wounded in the fighting, police said.

DVD Sales of "The Passion" Enrage Critics

09.23.04 (9:29 am)   [edit]
From the Catholic League-- http://www.catholicleague.org...

September 17, 2004

[b]DVD SALES OF “THE PASSION” ENRAGE CRITICS[/b]

The Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” has been available on DVD for less than three weeks and already it has sold 9 million copies, breaking all previous records. But not everyone is happy: noting its DVD/VHS release, about 100 theologians have now signed a statement condemning the film for being anti-Semitic.

Commenting on this is Catholic League president William Donohue:

“The success of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ conclusively demonstrates that the unethical campaign to censor the movie and malign the millions who love it has been an abject failure. But some never learn, and no segment of the population is slower at learning than the learned ones in the academy.

“The arrogance of the theologians who hate this movie is unsurpassed. Consider the comment, ‘we also acknowledge that many who see the film are honestly unaware of its anti-Jewish elements.’ Read: many who like the movie are just too dumb to pick up on its bigoted elements. But fear not, to the rescue come the learned ones.

Here’s another example: ‘Acknowledging that many people have responded positively to the film, we still find it lamentable that Christian leaders so easily pass over its anti-Jewish character in favor of what they perceive to be its positive aspects.’ Perceive to be? In other words, in reality the movie is devoid of positive aspects; some (the unlearned ones) have obviously been deluded. Once again, our benighted savants have come to the rescue. Just put on their lens and watch the film their way, and all will be well. Make no mistake about it, this isn’t the stance of educators—it’s the work of the thought police.

“Finally, the high priests of theology and theater are forced to admit that ‘antisemitic violence has not occurred.’ But, they say, this ‘gives us minimal comfort.’ Maybe so, but it sure gives the rest of us a lot of satisfaction knowing just how wrong they’ve been all along.”

[i]The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. It defends individual Catholics and the institutional Church from defamation and discrimination.[/i]

The UN? Who cares? Deeds, not words, matter.

09.23.04 (9:10 am)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

The U.N.? Who Cares?
Kofi Annan & Co. might as well move to Brussels or Geneva.
BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:01 a.m.

These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.

Despite the seemingly disparate geography of these continued attacks, we are always familiar with the similar spooky signature: civilians dismembered by the suicide belt, car bomb, improvised explosive device and executioner's blade. Then follows the characteristically pathetic communiqué or loopy fatwa aired on al-Jazeera, evoking everything from the injustice of the Reconquista to some mythical grievance about Crusaders in the holy shrines. Gender equity in the radical Islamic world is now defined by the expendable female suicide bomber's slaughter of Westerners.

In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck.

For years, gay-rights activists and relief workers in Africa have complained that the U.S. did not take the lead in combating the world-wide spread of AIDS. President Bush now offers to spearhead the rescue of the world's infected, with $15 billion in American help in hopes that the world's financial powers--perhaps Japan, China and the European Union--might match or trump that commitment.

Nongovernmental organizations clamor about the unfairness of world trade that left the former Third World with massive debts run up by crooked dictators and complicit Western profiteers. President Bush now talks not of extending further loans to service their spiraling interest payments, but rather of outright grants to clean the slate and thus offer the impoverished a new start.

International women's rights groups vie for the world's attention to stop the shameful international trafficking in women and children, whether as chattel or sexual slaves. The president now pledges to organize enforcement to stop both the smugglers and the predators on the innocent.

For a half century, liberals rightly deplored the old realpolitik in the Middle East, as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that "for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability." He promises not complacency that ensures continual oppression, but radical changes that lead to freedom.

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were once the United Nations' twin embarrassments, rogue regimes that thumbed their noses at weak U.N. protestations, slaughtered their own, invaded their neighbors, and turned their outlands into terrorist sanctuaries. Now they are gone, despite either U.N. indifference or veritable opposition to their removal. The United States sought not dictators in their place, but consensual government where it had never existed.

What was the response to Mr. Bush's new multifaceted vision? He was met with stony silence, followed by about seven seconds of embarrassed applause, capped off by smug sneers in the global media. Why so?

First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy--infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.

Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan.

Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "illegal," but neither advocates reinstitution of a "legal" Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the U.N. membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate.

Our own problems with the U.N. should now be viewed in a context of ongoing radical change here in the United States, as all the previous liberal assumptions of the past decades undergo scrutiny in our post 9/11 world. There are no longer any sacred cows in the eyes of the American public. Ask Germany and South Korea as American troops depart, Saudi Arabia where bases are closed, and the once beaming Yasser Arafat, erstwhile denizen of the Lincoln Bedroom, as he now broods in his solitary rubble bunker.

Deeds, not rhetoric, are all that matter, as the once unthinkable is now the possible. There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva. There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria's censure or a Chinese veto.

So Americans' once gushy support for the U.N. during its adolescence is gone. By the 1970s we accepted at best that it had devolved into a neutral organization in its approach to the West, and by the 1980s sighed that it was now unabashedly hostile to freedom. But in our odyssey from encouragement, to skepticism, and then to hostility, we have now reached the final stage--of indifference. Americans do not get riled easily, so the U.N. will go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Indeed, millions have already shrugged, tuned out, and turned the channel on it.

Mr. Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Why Cat Stevens, or Yusuf Islam, was turned away from the US

09.23.04 (9:02 am)   [edit]
[b]Is Cat Stevens a Terrorist?
Why Yusuf Islam was turned away from the United States.[/b]
by Stephen Schwartz
09/22/2004 5:43:00 PM

ON TUESDAY, U.S. authorities diverted a United Airlines London-Washington flight to Bangor, Maine, where the ex-pop singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, now as Yusuf Islam, was questioned by federal security agents, and then ordered deported back to Britain. Yusuf Islam, it turns out, is on the official "no-fly list."

This action will doubtless provoke loud and prolonged guffaws from those who consider American security policies to be excessive. But a look at the career and associations of Yusuf Islam since he became a Muslim in 1977 shows that the decision was correct.

Yusuf Islam is already well known for his public endorsement of the death sentence issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie in February 1989. "Salman Rushdie, indeed any writer who abuses the prophet or indeed any prophet under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death," he said at the time. In addition, he has been barred from entering Israel because of alleged financial aid given to terrorist groups.

Is the singer a terrorist himself? Probably not. Is he an active sympathizer of terrorist groups? Perhaps not as much as he was in the past.

But Yusuf Islam is most certainly a fundamentalist Muslim, whose views are radical enough to set him at odds with the great majority of the world's Islamic adherents, and they are no better expressed than in his comments on his own field of expression: music.

Wahhabism, the state religion in Saudi Arabia, and the inspirer of al Qaeda, is especially known for its hatred of music. In Wahhabi theology, all music except for drum accompaniment to religious chanting is haram, or forbidden. For anybody who has had contact with Muslim civilization, this is a fairly shocking bit of information, since music is one of the great glories of Islamic culture.

Yusuf Islam has demonstrated his sympathy for this posture on several occasions. Above all, he is careful to point out his caution about bucking the Wahhabis in this realm. In 1997, he released an album titled I Have No Cannons That Roar, dedicated, he said, to the cause of the Bosnian Muslims. In an interview with Stephen Kinzer, appearing in the New York Times on December 8, 1997, he commented on the project, "I've . . . used a very conservative approach. You only hear my own voice, a slight choral accompaniment and drums. Let's say that's the safest option according to certain Islamic schools of thought. I've made minimal use of musical instruments, and in some schools of thought in Islam musical instruments are disapproved of."

This attitude was particularly dissonant given that Bosnian Muslim music is anything but conservative, and Bosnian songs about the recent war used violins, accordions, and numerous other instruments considered haram by radical Islamists. One popular Bosnian soldiers' ballad included a verse declaring devotion to their "old songs," which would be anathema to Wahhabis. But for Yusuf Islam, honoring the Bosnians, who had shed their blood defending their religious identity, was less important than honoring fundamentalism.

The album itself has been advertised in a misleading way by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), part of the "Wahhabi lobby" that imposes Saudi theology on the majority of American Sunni Muslims. The ISNA website falsely describes Yusuf Islam as "the primary composer and lyricist" of the album. Actually, he wrote only two of the songs. Most of the rest were composed by a Bosnian poet, Dzemaludin Latic, who is notably moderate in his views and--full disclosure here--a close friend of mine. When I saw him in Sarajevo a month ago, Dzemo Latic was writing a memorial article for Czeslaw Milosz, something Yusuf Islam would probably never think of doing. And the Bosnian songs on that album employ haram instruments.

Yusuf Islam's own website further reveals his fundamentalist and radical bent. It celebrates his collaboration with a notorious American Islamist, Shaikh Hamza Yusuf [Hanson]. Hamza Yusuf was known before September 11 for his radical preaching. In 1991, Hamza Yusuf "gave a provoking speech about why 'Jihad is the Only Way,'" at an International Islamic Conference held at the University of Southern California by the local unit of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a front for the al Qaeda-allied Jama'at-i-Islami movement in Pakistan. The same Los Angeles event was addressed by Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator named in 1995 in a plot to blow up New York City monuments.

At the 21st ICNA Annual Convention, held at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1996, Imam Hamza Yusuf declared, "I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society. . . . [T]here should be no voting or debate . . . [W]e have no room for ayes or nays."

After September 11, Hamza Yusuf adopted moderate camouflage and boasted of meeting with and "advising" President George W. Bush. However, at this year's convention of the Islamic Society of North America, on September 3, 2004, Hamza Yusuf declaimed, "the Republican party is basing an entire political platform, in the most powerful military nation on the earth . . . on the idea that Islamic fanatics are a threat to the security of this country, and this must be condemned. . . . I have never believed in my lifetime that a presidential election had any significance. . . . We must reject what is happening in the current administration in our name. . . . Those neoconservatives . . . that claim that this country was designed by people that wanted Christianity to be the law of the land . . . are telling a grave lie to the people of the United States." Hamza Yusuf followed up these rantings with fantasies of Islamic conquest of the United States and an endorsement of none other than Patrick J. Buchanan as a defender of "indestructible" Islam.

Those who scoff at the idea that the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens could end up on the U.S. government's "no-fly list" only show how unfamiliar they are with his beliefs and most prominent associations and activities over the last two decades.

Stephen Schwartz is the author of The Two Faces of Islam.

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Kerry insults Iraq's leader and its people, basically roots for the terrorists

09.23.04 (8:55 am)   [edit]
I also find it fascinating that Kerry is accusing Iraq's PM of contradicting himself. The context shows that he wasn't, but it is still rich.

Does Kerry know that he's supposed to be running a presidential campaign instead of a meeting of Neo-Marxist local 151?

And how, exactly, would Kerry know about the "reality" in Iraq? This is a Senator who doesn't even show up for his Intel Committee meetings and is now embracing the US intel community, which he used to routinely bash, because it painted a bleak picture of Iraq (which helps...KERRY!).

But Kerry should keep rooting for failure. It will only tank his chances of winning the presidential election.

[b]Kerry: Allawi's Take on Iraq Unrealistic[/b]
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said Thursday that Iraq (news - web sites)'s Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the "best face" on a Bush administration policy that has gone wrong.

Shortly after Allawi, the interim government's prime minister, gave a rosy portrayal of progress toward peace in Iraq, Kerry said the assessment contradicted Allawi's own statements as well as the reality on the ground.

"I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country," Kerry said. "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA (news - web sites) estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

Kerry was referring to comments Allawi made Sunday on ABC's "This Week." But Allawi also expressed optimism about the mission in that appearance.

"Foreign terrorists are still pouring in, and they're trying to inflict damage on Iraq to undermine Iraq and to undermine the process, democratic process in Iraq, and, indeed, this is their last stand," Allawi said. "So they are putting a very severe fight on Iraq. We are winning. We will continue to win. We are going to prevail."

Allawi told a joint meeting of Congress Thursday that democratic elections will take place in Iraq in January as scheduled, but Kerry said that was unrealistic.

"The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq," Kerry told reporters outside a Columbus firehouse. "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."

Kerry said Bush should convene a summit of international leaders to ask for their help in Iraq. He also said the president missed an opportunity to get foreign support during two days of diplomacy at the United Nations (news - web sites) this week.

"The president skedaddled out of New York so quickly he barely had time to talk to any leaders," Kerry said.

Kerry's remarks come one day after he told The Associated Press that President Bush (news - web sites)'s statement that a "handful" of people were willing to kill to stop progress in Iraq was a blunder that showed he was avoiding reality.

"George Bush (news - web sites) let Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) escape at Tora Bora," Kerry said in the brief interview Wednesday. "George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops. And George Bush said on the record we can't win the war on terror.

"And even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," Kerry said. "I think he's living in a make believe world."

Bush, campaigning in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, said: "It's hard to help a country go from tyranny to elections to peace when there are a handful of people who are willing to kill in order to stop the process. And that's what you're seeing on the TV screens. You know, these people cannot beat us militarily."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday, "It only took 19 people to take down the World Trade Center towers and kill 3,000 people." He said that in Iraq, "you've seen how a small number of suicide bombers can have a dramatic effect."

Bush said Wednesday the insurgents "use the only tool at their disposal, which is beheadings and death, to try to shake our will. They understand the nature of America. ... We weep when we think about the families affected by those who have been brutalized by these terrorists."

Kerry's voice was scratchy and breaking from a cold on Wednesday. He canceled most public events for Thursday in Columbus and in Iowa to rest his voice, though his words were clear at the firehouse. The campaign said running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) would take Kerry's place in Iowa.

Kerry spoke to the AP in West Palm Beach, Fla., shortly before boarding a flight to Columbus and after Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) delivered a scathing attack on the Democrat. Speaking to reporters after meeting with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, Cheney argued that Kerry has a penchant for wavering that makes him a weak alternative to a "steadfast leader, which is exactly what we have in President George W. Bush (news - web sites)."

N Korea may be preparing missile launch

09.23.04 (3:29 am)   [edit]

Here's the perfect opportunity for John Kerry to tell the world how he would handle North Korea.  Along with the rest of the whining left-wing chorus, Kerry has said that Bush "let" Iran and N Korea fester into nuclear chaos.  If I remember correctly these are the same folks that said that Bush was wrong to include Iran and N Korea in his "Axis of Evil".  These are the same folks that, while in power, gave N Korea food and electricity for their "promise" not to develop nukes, an agreement that basically allowed N Korea to freely develop their weapons in secret.  And yet they say that this is Bush's fault?

But now is the time.  John Kerry said that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to send troops to Iraq when he did.  So for a guy who has taken thousands of positions on everything, the question is: what would you do in regards to N Korea.

Indeed, what can anyone do beyond what Bush is doing? 

The answer is there isn't anything more than can be done.  But I'd like to hear Kerry give it a shot.

From the Washington Times- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JAP AN_NKOREA?SITE=DCTMS&" title="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JAP AN_NKOREA?SITE=DCTMS&" target="_blank"http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/...;SECTION=HOME

Doesn't Kerry care about the sacrifices our troops make?

09.23.04 (3:17 am)   [edit]

DEAD SOLDIERS BY RALPH PETERS  Email  Archives  Print  Reprint September 23, 2004 -- Taking comfort from Kerry: Celebrating in Baghdad under the black flag of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi's group around a burning U.S. tank. AFP IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific. We would have called it treason. And we would have been right. In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt. Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear. Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq? And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning? Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves — with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country — despite the violence that alone makes headlines. Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness. But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy. Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed. As he always does, Kerry slips in qualifiers. Of course, Iraq's important. And he'll fight terror, too. It's just that the Bush administration doesn't know how to do anything. A Kerry presidency would let us withdraw our troops, collect more allies, succeed where others have "failed" and win the hearts and minds of the whole, wide world. Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested. As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans. As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry. Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals. I think it's great that Kerry speaks fluent French. I wish he'd go to France where he could speak it all the time. In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility. If Kerry were insisting, without caveats, that we're going to stay the course and win, while backing up his criticisms with convincing details of how he would improve our efforts, that would be fine. But his mad claims of disaster and his inability to maintain a firm position unquestionably give aid and comfort to the enemy. The terrorists and their allies already intended to increase the level of violence in Iraq before November. But Kerry's pandering has encouraged them to pull out all the stops. I wish it were otherwise, that our election process had more integrity, but the truth is that every roadside blast and car bomb in Iraq is meant to support John Kerry. Meanwhile, Kerry has assembled the most despicable cast of has-beens and failed officials in campaign history. He's represented by the likes of Jamie Rubin — a Clintonite who so loved America that he moved to London, returning to our shores only to tell real Americans how we need to vote. Putting Rubin on the talk-show circuit demonstrates how badly the Democratic elite is out of touch with the country it claims to represent. With his permanent sneer and his condescending snicker, Rubin represents nearly all that working Americans — and our troops — despise about today's Dems. In 1944, the Democrats had FDR. In 2004, they've got the stretch-limo version of Mike Dukakis. There was a wartime election in 1864, too. The Democratic Party's candidate, former Gen. George McClellan, ran on a platform that declared President Abraham Lincoln's policy a failure. The price of McClellan's rhetoric was a prolonged war and tens of thousands of dead Americans. In 1864, the citizens of the North were steadfast. They rejected the Democratic Party's warnings of defeat and saved the Union. In 2004, the American people, North and South, East and West, need to reject the cynical lies of John F. Kerry and vote to support our troops and save Iraq. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace." .

Column of the day: "A Hole-in-One for Anti-Americanism"

09.23.04 (3:12 am)   [edit]

From Townhall.com--

A Hole-in-One for Anti-Americanism
Laura Ingraham (back to web version) | Send

September 22, 2004

So far we’ve learned one big thing about anti-Americanism:  it seems to help your golf game.  This weekend, for the second time in a row and the fourth time in the last five matches, the European golfers defeated their continent’s version of the Evil Empire, trouncing the United States to keep the Ryder Cup.  The enthusiasm with which the Europeans pounded the red, white and blue – along with the odd lack of passion from the U.S. side – were eerily similar to last month’s basketball competition at the Olympics, where foreign players challenged our NBA sleepwalkers as if they were playing the Great Satan himself.

Sports always reflect popular culture, and what we are seeing in the international sports arena is just a simplified version of what goes on every day in the real world.  Intellectuals around the globe – lost and adrift for years after the failure of socialism – have largely settled on anti-Americanism as their new ideological vehicle of choice.  You can see this in Al-Jazeera’s rah-rah attitude toward the suicide bombers and hostage-takers who have disrupted our efforts in Iraq.  You can see it in the tight-lipped anger of Kofi Annan, who never misses a chance to let slip a bad word about the United States.  You can see it in the electorates of Western Europe, where struggling governments in France and Germany use anti-U.S. rhetoric to maintain the political support.  You can even see it across the border, where Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin held onto office a few months ago by accusing his conservative opponent of pushing ideas that were too American.

 Indeed, you cannot understand the current world crisis unless you appreciate the extent to which much of the world is down with the anti-American flu.  Why isn’t Kofi Annan happy that the United States and its allies finally implemented the many U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein?  Why aren’t so-called “moderates” across the Moslem world happy that Hussein has been hauled off to prison?  Why are lefties across Britain screaming for Tony Blair’s head?  Why does Michael Moore get feted with rose-petals across Europe?  Why doesn’t anyone care that China is stomping on democracy in Hong Kong, but foreign election observers are coming to check on our presidential race?  In every case, the explanation relates to simple, raw, unreasoning hatred for the United States.  For too many people around the world, anything that’s good for the United States must be bad for everyone else.

 It is difficult to imagine a more unpleasant situation for American liberals.  For the most part, these folks are far more at home in Paris or Geneva than they would be in Cincinnati or St. Louis.  For decades, American liberals have basically stolen all of their ideas from Western Europe.  The sexual revolution, pacifism, sucking up to the Soviet Union, higher taxes, a more restrictive welfare state:  each and every one of these ideas originated in Europe before being embraced by the American left.  Heedless of the fact that Americans often disagree with Europeans, and that ideas designed for the French electorate might not play in Peoria, the liberals have paid heavily for their dependence on foreign thought.  But even American liberals have to be a bit wary of promoting anti-Americanism to an American electorate.

 So they have adopted the see-no-evil hear-no-evil strategy:  just pretend that anti-Americanism doesn’t really exist.  Oh, no, promises John Kerry, it’s not that they hate us, they just don’t like George Bush.  Once he’s gone, it’ll be just like the days of John F. Kennedy and Ich bin ein Berliner.  We’ll get allies to help us in Iraq, the United Nations will sign off on any preemptive strikes we’d like to launch, the lion will lay down with the lamb, and the “alliance” will be restored.

 The problem with this argument is that the American people have slightly better memories that the Democrats give us credit for.  We remember all the silly anti-Reagan marches across Europe in the early 1980’s.  We remember that as long ago as 1975, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of all people, was moved to call the United Nations “a theater of the absurd.”  We remember that de Gaulle kicked NATO forces out of France in the late 1960’s, and that France wouldn’t even let us fly through their precious air space when we retaliated against Libya in 1986.  And we remember that when Bill Clinton – who the Democrats tell us was loved around the world -- negotiated the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court treaties, the results were so hostile to our interests that he didn’t even try to get Senate approval.  In short, we know that anti-Americanism is nothing new, and we can tell the difference between “allies” who really wants to help us – think Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Tony Blair – and countries who despise us but who occasionally refer to themselves as “allies” because they need our help.

 Right now, that knowledge is carrying George Bush to victory.  Americans aren’t naïve:  we know that the situation could be better in Iraq, and we have real doubts about the prospects for democracy in the Middle East.  Most of us are still concerned about whether we’re doing enough to defend our homeland – particularly given this Administration’s refusal to defend our borders.  In short, we would be willing to consider a serious criticism of the Bush Administration and its foreign policy.

But we also know that Kerry’s fantasia about reaching out to Europe and the United Nations isn’t serious.  At least the Bush Administration is standing up for us, instead of countries and institutions who hate us.  Unlike John Kerry, President Bush sees that anti-Americanism is real.  He knows that the International Criminal Court would be used against our soldiers.  He knows that the Kyoto Protocol would be used against our economy.  He knows that the United Nations is both a haven for despots and the world-wide headquarters of anti-Americanism.  He knows that weakening ourselves won’t win the respect of the world, but will simply let them hurt us even more.  And right now, with anti-Americanism running amuck, we need a president who knows those things.

 If John Kerry wants to turn this election around, he has got to accept the fact that Americans see no reason to trust the rest of the world.  Until he and the other Democrats show that they will stand up to anti-Americanism, Zell Miller will remain a hero, and the Republicans will keep getting big cheers for their applause lines about “not outsourcing our foreign policy” and “not getting a permission slip from the U.N.”  And unless Kerry turns this thing around very quickly, the America-bashers around the world will help put George Bush right back into the White House.

Laura Ingraham is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show and the author of the just released "Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America".

©2004 Laura Ingraham

Rove scoffs at charge he was CBS source

09.23.04 (2:57 am)   [edit]

Rove scoffs at charge he was CBS source


By Stephen Dinan and Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

White House political adviser Karl Rove yesterday scoffed at Democratic charges that he was somehow behind the release of faked documents to CBS that attacked President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.
    A nd he returned fire, saying there are plenty of outstanding questions that Democrats must answer about their involvement with CBS anchorman Dan Rather's now-discredited story, which heavily relied on the bogus memos.
    D emocratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has insinuated twice since CBS' "60 Minutes" aired the charges on Sept. 8 that Mr. Rove or other Republicans might have been involved in some way. 

    Mr. McAuliffe has offered no proof. 
    M r. Rove mocked the suggestion when asked about it at a luncheon with editors and reporters of The Washington Times.
    " Obviously, you know the answer is no. Do you feel good about asking that question?" he said before repeating, "The answer is no, obviously."
    H e also called Mr. McAuliffe "a wild-man ranter and raver."
    M r. Rove also said it's not for him to demand an apology from Mr. Rather to the president. But he said it was noteworthy that Mr. Rather has yet to admit that the documents were forged, instead saying only that their authenticity cannot be proved.
    " He's probably the only person in America that still thinks there's a possibility these are true and accurate documents," Mr. Rove said.
    R epublicans think they have evidence of collusion. Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett of the Texas Air National Guard, who this week acknowledged leaking the memos to CBS, talked with Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart before CBS aired the documents. Mr. Lockhart says he did not discuss the memos.
    " 60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes, who got the memos from Col. Burkett, referred the longtime Bush critic to the Kerry campaign.
    M r. Rove told The Washington Times yesterday that it's not up to him to say whether Mr. Lockhart should be fired.
    " I'm going to leave it up to the Kerry campaign to decide whether or not someone who was clearly in collusion with CBS on this should stay or go," he said, but he challenged them and CBS to answer a series of questions.
    " What did Mary Mapes tell Lockhart? We haven't heard from her on this. Who did Lockhart tell what to in the campaign? What other contacts were there between CBS and people in the campaign?" he said.
    H e then said Mr. McAuliffe and the DNC must answer questions about their own series of attacks on Mr. Bush's National Guard record, which he said "broke coincidentally with the CBS story."
    " I mean, they'd have to be awful nimble to have prepared all those ads and materials without foreknowledge. And the question is: Did they have foreknowledge, and if so from who, and why?"
    M r. Rove said the Kerry campaign has shifted in the past few weeks toward a strategy of personal attacks with the addition of new advisers, some of them former Clinton aides, including Mr. Lockhart.
    " When they arrived, they made it clear that they were going to run a campaign of character at the president, which was a polite way of saying they were going to run a campaign of character assassination. And they've been true to their word," he said.
    " When you have to defend as many different positions and votes as he has offered up, you want to change the subject. And the best way to change the subject, as this crowd on the other side believes clearly, is to go after the personal character of their opponent."
    T wo days after expressing regret over the Sept. 8 report on Monday, CBS yesterday named an independent panel to investigate the process by which the storied news division reported the much-criticized story.
    C BS named Dick Thornburgh, U.S. attorney general in the Reagan administration and first Bush administration; and Louis D. Boccardi, who retired in 2003 as president and chief executive officer of the Associated Press.
    T he naming of Mr. Thornburgh, a Republican and former Pennsylvania governor, appeared to be a gesture toward political conservatives who think Mr. Rather and "60 Minutes" is biased against them.
    M r. Boccardi most recently served on a group of journalists who examined the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times. The reporter's trail of fictitious reporting and plagiarism ultimately resulted in the resignation of executive editor Howell Raines.
    C BS News President Andrew Heyward, after resisting an internal probe and vouching for the segment's accuracy, did an about-face on Monday. The network and Mr. Rather announced that it no longer had confidence that the memos were authentic, but they did not say they think the memos are fake, a conclusion reached by virtually all documents experts contacted by the press.
    W ithin hours of the "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sept. 8, bloggers and document analyzers posted items on the Internet charging that the documents are fakes. Later, the mainstream press quoted forensic experts as saying the memos, supposedly written by Mr. Bush's squadron chief, the late Lt. Gen. Jerry Killian, were produced by computer software not available in 1972 and 1973.
    A major question for Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Boccardi is why CBS went ahead with the broadcast after two of its hired experts expressed doubts about the memos' authenticity.
    A CBS statement said "the two-person review panel will commence its work this week and will have full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as all of the resources necessary to complete the task. The panel will report its findings to CBS News and CBS. The findings also will be made public."
    R epublican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie yesterday noted the close timing between a Democratic National Committee ad campaign, dubbed "Operation Fortunate Son," and the CBS broadcast.
    " One might argue that these steps were taken without advance knowledge of the existence of the documents and this is all coincidence, but that strains credibility," Mr. Gillespie said.
    M r. Gillespie specifically mentioned Democratic National Committee spokesman Howard Wolfson, a senior Kerry aide, as the man behind the "Fortunate Son" attacks.
    M r. Wolfson responded by saying, "Republican allegations of a 'vast left-wing conspiracy' designed to expose the truth about the president's military service are laughable. No conspiracy is necessary to make clear that the president used strings to get into the Guard, missed his required physical and failed to fulfill his duty."

Fake anti-Bush documents, Rather, and Democrats-- This IS Watergate

09.22.04 (2:58 am)   [edit]

IT IS WATERGATE By ERIC FETTMANN =http://www.nypost.com/postopi..." Email  Archives  Print  Reprint September 22, 2004 -- LAST week, as the furor over Dan Rather's National Guard memos grew more and more intense, media critic Ken Auletta, appearing on PBS, criticized Fox News Channel for having "treated this story as if it were Watergate. It's not Watergate." Actually, in many respects, it is indeed broadcast journalism's Watergate. And that was true even before the latest disturbing revelation: USA Today's report that CBS producer Mary Mapes, as part of a deal with Bill Burkett (the network's discredited source for the documents), put him in touch with one of John Kerry's top aides. There are two serious problems with this entire episode, beyond the obvious blow to CBS News' credibility. One is Rather's defensive — even accusatory — reaction to any and all questions about the documents' legitimacy. Sure, all news organizations whose reporting is questioned invariably take a "we stand by our story" stance — at first, anyway. But Rather and his boss, CBS News President Andrew Heyward, went much further. First, they refused to consider any questions whatsoever — even from respected news organizations — about whether the documents were forged. Then Rather repeatedly charged that only "partisan political ideological forces" were the ones raising doubts. Back in the days of Richard Nixon, that was known as "stonewalling." Over the years, just about every major news organizations has screwed up badly. Back in 1993, NBC was forced to admit that a "Dateline" expose of General Motors trucks was rigged. NBC News head Michael Gartner, who lost his job in the fiasco, explained — in words that now sound hauntingly familiar: "I saw that I had been too ready to believe our so-called experts without trying to find out who they were." Even "60 Minutes" has had problems in the past: In 1999, the program was forced to apologize on-air for a story about drug smuggling that, it turned out, was based (how's this for irony?) on a supposed government memo that turned out to be bogus. This story, however, is different: Because Rather and CBS set out specifically to undermine the credibility of a candidate for president during the heat of a national election. Which is why it's especially significant that Rather admitted Tuesday night that CBS approached Burkett — whom the anchor admits was well-known for having tried repeatedly over the years to discredit George W. Bush — for the documents after a five-year search. In other words, the documents didn't just fall into CBS' lap: The network went looking for them, and approached a source whose hatred for the president was well known. And the broadcast was aired at a time when John Kerry was sinking in the polls, largely because of questions being raised about his own military record — which led much of the national media to start refocusing attention on Bush's National Guard service. Indeed, Rather and others at CBS repeatedly complained that the critics were "ignoring the larger story." Now comes an admission that Rather's senior producer put Burkett directly in touch with the Kerry campaign — as a condition, says Burkett, of getting the documents. Even Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have done that. In fact, in "All the President's Men" they write of angrily spurning a request from the McGovern campaign for an advance on the next day's "hot" Watergate story, saying it would undermine their credibility to show partisanship. Which is why journalists at other networks fear they may end up catching the flak for CBS's sin. Those who have long been convinced of a liberal bias in journalism have found their smoking gun — and those who were undecided may now be asking themselves some serious questions. How CBS reacts is important, too. Its initial response, claiming only that Rather & Co. were "misled" about the documents' origins, is hardly the kind of mea culpa other news organizations have responded with in similar situations. (In fact, Rather yesterday told The Chicago Tribune he still doesn't think they were forgeries.) When The New York Times discovered that one of its reporters had been fabricating details in his stories — a serious misdeed, but hardly as consequential as trying to influence a presidential election — the subsequent fallout cost the paper's two top editors their jobs. During the NBC "Dateline" scandal, "60 Minutes" honcho Don Hewitt said, "If that had happened at '60 Minutes,' I'd be looking for a job tomorrow." Well, no heads have rolled at CBS. For now, anyway, the network has been circling the wagons — and hoping the public accepts its Watergate-style limited hangout. Thirty years ago, Watergate changed the rules of American journalism. Now, it's time for another upheaval — and Rathergate could make that happen.

The method to Zarqawi's madness-- has to do with Iraq's WMD

09.22.04 (2:51 am)   [edit]

From PowerLineblog--

It's been a while since we've linked to Debka File, a well-known site that is said to count Israeli intelligence agents among its sources. Its record is by no means infallible, but Debka strikes me as more reliable than most, and more interesting than almost any. So here goes--Debka File on the most recent hostage outrage in Iraq:

The dreadful moment - 2:44 am Iraqi time on Tuesday September 20 - when the Jordanian terrorist Musab al-Zarqawi applied a knife to the 53-year old American construction worker, Eugene Armstrong, from Hillsdale, Michigan, was meticulously recorded on one of al Qaeda’s unspeakable videotapes for broadcast. US sound experts who checked the tape identified the voice reading the short statement before the “execution” as belonging to the masked man who dictated the terms for freeing all three hostages on the tape released soon after their capture, namely Zarqawi in person. The two remaining hostages, the American Jack Hensley and British Kenneth Bigley, now face the same dread fate as Armstrong within 24 hours unless Iraqi women prisoners are released from Baghdad jails.

In the White House and 10 Downing Street, president George W. Bush nor prime minister Tony Blair are holding firm against surrendering to the demands of al Qaeda’s operations chief in Iraq. But they are quietly questioning why Zarqawi attaches so much importance to securing the release of the only five Iraqi women left in American hands.

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources say the answer comes in two interrelated parts:

1. Zarqawi is smart enough not to pose wild ransom demands, such as the release of Saddam Hussein or top-flight Iraqi ex-generals like Chemical Ali Majid to buy the lives of hostages, because then, Bush and Blair’s refusal would be fully backed by Western opinion. He is therefore setting the seeming inconsequential price of five Iraqi women. He reckons that if he keeps on snatching hostages and meting out the same barbaric treatment as he did to Eugene Armstrong on a series of videotapes, public pressure will build up and force the two Western leaders to put a stop to the savage slaughter by abandoning their dogged resistance to the hostage-takers’ demands and setting the women free. Such surrender would then be hailed as a major triumph for the al Qaeda terrorist chief and augur a rising scale of increasingly steep demands.

2. The only five Iraqi women held by the Americans are a long way from being inconsequential. They include two senior scientists attached to Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program: Dr. Rihab Taha, a microbiologist known as Dr. Germ, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, head of his anthrax project and member of the Baath ruling command council.

Syria handed the two women over to the Americans on April 28, 2003, together with Dr. Taha’s husband, Gen. Amir Muhammed Rashed, director of Iraq’s missile development program – as first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 107 five days later, on May 2, 2003.

According to DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, Zarqawi has been tipped off that one of the two Iraqi scientists is on the point of breaking under questioning and spilling the beans on Saddam’s WMD to her American interrogators. He therefore interceded by seizing the three Western hostages, either to gain her release or scare her into holding silent.

Our sources also believe that Zarqawi has personal acquaintance going back five years with one or both the Iraqi women scientists. A poisons expert himself, the Jordanian terror master frequently passed through Baghdad in the years 1998 and 2002 on his way to the biological and chemical weapons laboratories made available to al Qaeda in the northern Iraqi town of Biyara. He may even have been supplied with equipment, materials and instruction manuals by those very women. The facility was located in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam which it later transpired was an operational wing of al Qaeda. Zarqawi may be seeking their release so that they can be hired by al Qaeda to continue the biological weapons researches they performed for the deposed Iraqi dictator.

In any case, their loss would put paid once and for all to the Bush administration’s best chance of obtaining evidence to prove Saddam Hussein was running an active banned weapons program. Outside Iraq, the argument over Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction may have ended in favor of the gainsayers; not so on the battlefields against the terrorists.

The enemy we are fighting in this war is so evil--as evil as any, in my opinion, in world history--that it is sometimes hard to detect the patterns of rational, albeit twisted, thought in the sea of madness. Is Debka's analysis right? It is certainly plausible. A great deal more plausible than the image currently promoted in the liberal media of a reformed Saddam who was cowed by impotent U.N. inspectors into abandoning his life-long quest for weird weapons.

Sure, Bush hasn't handled Iraq perfectly. But who could?

09.21.04 (8:52 am)   [edit]
From National Review--

[b]September 21, 2004, 8:41 a.m.
Good Enough
Sure, Bush hasn’t handled Iraq perfectly. But who could?[/b]
by Jonah Goldberg

Ten criticisms I'm willing to concede are valid about Iraq:

1. Iraq is a mess.

2. The failure to find WMDs is the material evidence (or lack thereof) necessary to make this the worst intelligence blunder since Pearl Harbor.

3. It was a heartbreaking mistake to allow the looting of Iraq to take place under the tacitly approving gaze of American forces.

4. It was a miscalculation in retrospect not to keep the Iraqi army on the payroll and confine them to their barracks.

5. Whatever the truth of the Chalabi weirdness, the notion that he would or could be the first president of a Democratic Iraq now appears naïve.

6. Abu Ghraib was, at minimum, a preventable public-relations disaster.

7. We haven't devoted enough money and other resources to security in Iraq. Indeed, the pace of spending in general has been borderline scandalous.

8. The war has cost us dearly in the eyes of many nations around the world.

9. Iran and North Korea have gotten to be bigger problems since the war.

10. Bush has not done a very good job of communicating with the American people when it comes to the progress of the war.

11. The situation in Fallujah is particularly bad.

12. Sadr should have been killed a long time ago.

13. The interim council was.... Oh, wait, I already passed ten.

In fact, it's pretty easy to pass ten. In other words, I don't think things are going swimmingly in Iraq. In fact, I don't know anyone who does.

Now, none of this is to say that there aren't good responses to many of the points above. Very quickly (indeed, with a brevity that makes a mockery of thoughtfulness and thoroughness):

1. Iraq would be a mess today no matter what steps Bush took. It would be a different mess, but a mess nonetheless. Picking an arbitrary date and saying "It's a mess now, therefore it wasn't worth it" is silly, and could be done to every major enterprise ever undertaken, from the building of the pyramids to putting men on the moon.

2. Bush was hardly alone in believing there were WMDs, and given the convictions of so many over such a long period, he erred on the right side. His line about not being able to put his trust in a madman may get tedious, but it's true.

3. Um...let's skip this one.

4. Historically, armies are a hindrance to democracy and reform in the Middle East. In Iraq, the army was a source of repression. If we kept the army intact, we might have created a rival power structure that would hinder progress. And de-Baathification would have taken a huge blow.

5. Ummmm. Skip.

6. Abu Ghraib was terrible. It was also isolated and policed by the military before the press got wind of it. These things happen in war; the question is, How do the responsible institutions respond? Oh, and making someone wear panties on his head isn't the same as cutting off his head.

7. Ummm...

8. Many of the nations that hate us for Iraq hated us anyway. The myth — oft-repeated by Jim Carville and others — that America was beloved by the world until the Iraq war or George Bush is hogwash. Anti-Americanism — in France, in Greece, throughout the third world — has been raging for a long time and actually increased with the defeat of Communism and on Bill Clinton's watch. That's not to say it was Clinton's fault in any significant way. It was merely a fact of life. Iraq is an excuse for America-bashing among nations that clearly couldn't be counted on no matter who was in the Oval Office.

9. What would the critics have Bush do? They denounced the invasion of Iraq even though that was easy, cost very few lives, and had substantial backing under international law. Similar actions against Iran or North Korea would cost tens of thousands of lives, would have no support from the U.N., and wouldn't achieve much. Meanwhile, they denounce our policy of letting our European allies take the lead with Iran and our multilateral diplomacy with North Korea.

10. Anything Bush says is automatically ridiculed by a press scandalously hostile to him. Besides, it seems the American people get what he's talking about. What bothers a lot of critics is that Bush isn't giving war-room briefings to bloggers.

11. There are no good answers to Fallujah. Though those who ridicule Bush for being too quick to use force, need to account for the fact that he's actually being quite, um, sensitive.

12. If Bush killed Sadr, Sadr would overnight become a peace-loving martyr in the rhetoric of Katrina vanden Heuvel, Dan Rather, and the United Nations Security Council.

And so on. Of course there are responses to these responses, and there are counter-responses to those. My point isn't to say that Bush has done everything right. Quite the contrary. However, I have to chuckle at the notion that any of these mistakes were obvious to most critics when they were made. When you don't have responsibility for anything, it's always easy to shake your head at the consequences of everything. And when I say the above criticisms are valid, I don't mean that I agree with all of them. Merely, I think serious good-faith people can offer these objections without being called Doves or antiwar or Bush bashers, etc.

But, since I'm on this topic, let me make two simple points. First, the Cold War was a conflict in which the actions of our enemies were essentially rational. The spoiled secular aristocrats who ran the Soviet Union didn't want to get incinerated in a nuclear war. Their tactics and ambitions reflected this, particularly in the second half of the conflict. The Politburo became, essentially, small-c conservative: evil and tyrannical, but pretty darn cautious about not doing anything to lose their dachas.

Our current enemy is the complete and total opposite. Where the Soviets were rational and bent on self-preservation, the Islamists are irrational and relatively comfortable with suicide. Where the Soviets were dependent on conventional armaments and interested in diplomatic routes, the Islamists must use non-traditional, barbaric terrorism. Where the Soviets had defined borders and interests, the Islamists merely have a vast sea of people and nations to roam, their interests and assets submerged in shadowy webs and networks that mostly exist below the radar of the legal economy.

But most important: The Soviets could be deterred; the Islamists cannot be. It is the difference between fighting a bastard of a neighbor who's got a home and family to defend and fighting a Charles Manson cult that wanders into town. I don't mean to downplay the institutionalized evil that was the Soviet Union; I still think we blew it when we didn't knock out Stalin in 1946. That was a blunder that makes not cleaning out Fallujah look like forgetting to put the garbage out. But, as a foreign-policy challenge, diplomacy with the Soviets was often practical and, needless to say, possible.

There simply is no diplomacy with the enemy today. So, that means going on offense. That means taking the fight to them. That means, in the short term, "creating" more extremists and terrorists by fighting on their home turf. But the point isn't merely to fight them, it's to pull the rug out from under them. The ultimate goal is democracy, of course. But the interim goal is to rationalize the Middle East so that, while it may still produce enemies, they will be ones we can deal with around a table, not a crater. And the short-term goal is to kill lots of them where they live, instead of them doing the same to us.

So sure, Bush hasn't done everything right — never mind perfectly — in Iraq. Churchill didn't conduct World War II perfectly every time either. Dunkirk wasn't the sort of thing that happens when the war goes swimmingly. But Bush gets all of this. John Kerry doesn't, in my opinion. Or, to be more accurate, John Kerry "gets" everything and therefore nothing. If the choice were between Bush and a better commander-in-chief, I might not vote for Bush. But that's not the choice, now is it?

Bush gives human rights speech to cynical, corrupt UN

09.21.04 (8:41 am)   [edit]
-- And remember, that the UN was formed to champion the cause of human rights. Instead, they lobby with dictators and thugs; they prop up the evil so they can skim money off the top. They consume 22% of their dues from the US taxpayer,representing ONE NATION, and they have the gall to ask for more.

Kofi Annan said earlier in the day that no one is above the law. The US knows that-- it followed the "law" with Iraq. The UN needs to take its own advice and actually do its job.

Bush's excellent UN speech:

[b]President Speaks to the United Nations General Assembly[/b]
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

11:00 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the honor of addressing this General Assembly. The American people respect the idealism that gave life to this organization. And we respect the men and women of the U.N., who stand for peace and human rights in every part of the world. Welcome to New York City, and welcome to the United States of America.

During the past three years, I've addressed this General Assembly in a time of tragedy for my country, and in times of decision for all of us. Now we gather at a time of tremendous opportunity for the U.N. and for all peaceful nations. For decades, the circle of liberty and security and development has been expanding in our world. This progress has brought unity to Europe, self-government to Latin America and Asia, and new hope to Africa. Now we have the historic chance to widen the circle even further, to fight radicalism and terror with justice and dignity, to achieve a true peace, founded on human freedom.

The United Nations and my country share the deepest commitments. Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice -- between right and wrong -- is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation.

Wise governments also stand for these principles for very practical and realistic reasons. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst. We know that free peoples embrace progress and life, instead of becoming the recruits for murderous ideologies.

Every nation that wants peace will share the benefits of a freer world. And every nation that seeks peace has an obligation to help build that world. Eventually, there is no safe isolation from terror networks, or failed states that shelter them, or outlaw regimes, or weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, there is no safety in looking away, seeking the quiet life by ignoring the struggles and oppression of others.

In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

These rights are advancing across the world -- and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue in the Middle East and beyond. They believe that suicide and torture and murder are fully justified to serve any goal they declare. And they act on their beliefs.

In the last year alone, terrorists have attacked police stations, and banks, and commuter trains, and synagogues -- and a school filled with children. This month in Beslan we saw, once again, how the terrorists measure their success -- in the death of the innocent, and in the pain of grieving families. Svetlana Dzebisov was held hostage, along with her son and her nephew -- her nephew did not survive. She recently visited the cemetery, and saw what she called the "little graves." She said, "I understand that there is evil in the world. But what have these little creatures done?"

Members of the United Nations, the Russian children did nothing to deserve such awful suffering, and fright, and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers.

We're determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans. We're determined to end the state sponsorship of terror -- and my nation is grateful to all that participated in the liberation of Afghanistan. We're determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world -- and my nation is grateful to the soldiers of many nations who have helped to deliver the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator.

The dictator agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions -- then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say "serious consequences," for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.

Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. Our wider goal is to promote hope and progress as the alternatives to hatred and violence. Our great purpose is to build a better world beyond the war on terror.

Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. In three years the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries, and pledged a total of $5.6 billion to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention and treatment and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent. AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time, and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death.

Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We're supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws, and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed, anywhere on Earth.

Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another.

Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption, and provide aid. In 2002 we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people.

Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Since these efforts began in 1996, poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens have received more than $30 billion of relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans.

Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil, and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing. We must create permanent capabilities to respond to future crises. The United States and Italy have proposed a Global Peace Operations Initiative. G-8 countries will train 75,000 peacekeepers, initially from Africa, so they can conduct operations on that continent and elsewhere. The countries of the G-8 will help this peacekeeping force with deployment and logistical needs.

At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide. The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease-fire, and we're providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a new resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed, and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur. We congratulate the members of the Council on this timely and necessary action. I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed, and to stop the killing in Darfur.

Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women, or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We've witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom.

Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there any -- only one form of representative government -- because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them. Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.

Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and we must continue to show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies.

Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world's most vital -- and most volatile -- regions. They brutalized their peoples, in defiance of all civilized norms. Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they're fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of us all.

The Afghan people are showing extraordinary courage under difficult conditions. They're fighting to defend their nation from Taliban holdouts, and helping to strike against the terrorists killers. They're reviving their economy. They've adopted a constitution that protects the rights of all, while honoring their nation's most cherished traditions. More than 10 million Afghan citizens -- over 4 million of them women -- are now registered to vote in next month's presidential election. To any who still would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.

Since the last meeting of this General Assembly, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty. Today, in this hall, the Prime Minister of Iraq and his delegation represent a country that has rejoined the community of nations. The government of Prime Minister Allawi has earned the support of every nation that believes in self-determination and desires peace. And under Security Council resolutions 1511 and 1546, the world is providing that support. The U.N., and its member nations, must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request, and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal, and free.

A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region. So a terrorists group associated with al Qaeda is now one of the main groups killing the innocent in Iraq today -- conducting a campaign of bombings against civilians, and the beheadings of bound men. Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.

Our coalition is standing beside a growing Iraqi security force. The NATO Alliance is providing vital training to that force. More than 35 nations have contributed money and expertise to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. And as the Iraqi interim government moves toward national elections, officials from the United Nations are helping Iraqis build the infrastructure of democracy. These selfless people are doing heroic work, and are carrying on the great legacy of Sergio de Mello.

As we have seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt, and influence election outcomes. We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections. The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat, it is to prevail.

The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.

These two nations will be a model for the broader Middle East, a region where millions have been denied basic human rights and simple justice. For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.

This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The longsuffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace. Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations. And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

The democratic hopes we see growing in the Middle East are growing everywhere. In the words of the Burmese democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi: "We do not accept the notion that democracy is a Western value. To the contrary; democracy simply means good government rooted in responsibility, transparency, and accountability." Here at the United Nations, you know this to be true. In recent years, this organization has helped create a new democracy in East Timor, and the U.N. has aided other nations in making the transition to self-rule.

Because I believe the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world, today I propose establishing a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. This is a great calling for this great organization. The fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions. Money from the fund would also help set up voter precincts and polling places, and support the work of election monitors. To show our commitment to the new Democracy Fund, the United States will make an initial contribution. I urge other nations to contribute, as well.

Today, I've outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity, and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy -- these causes, these ideals, call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together, we can accomplish so much more.

History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The charter states them with clarity: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

Let history also record that our generation of leaders followed through on these ideals, even in adversity. Let history show that in a decisive decade, members of the United Nations did not grow weary in our duties, or waver in meeting them. I'm confident that this young century will be liberty's century. I believe we will rise to this moment, because I know the character of so many nations and leaders represented here today. And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.

May God bless you. (Applause.)

How many Americans are truly poor?

09.21.04 (8:36 am)   [edit]
From FoxNews.com-- http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,132956,00.html

[b]The Specter of Poverty in America[/b]
Tuesday, September 21, 2004

By Robert Rector

Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.

It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.

Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.

Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.

Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers — to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.

Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.

To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.

Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Copyright 2004 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

The terror guerilla war is reaching a climax

09.21.04 (8:24 am)   [edit]
From National Review--

September 21, 2004, 8:32 a.m.
By the Dawn’s Early Light
Critical period. Critical election.
by Michael Novak

Victor Davis Hanson said it right: In Iraq, the climactic moment is about to arrive. And not just for Iraq, but for the region — for Syria with the WMDs it just tried out in Darfur, Sudan, and for Iran with its nuclear reactors almost ready for dangerous action. And for Saudi Arabia and Palestine.

The foreign brain — including al Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, the Iranian intelligence, and others — can see November 2 on the calendar as ominously as John Kerry does. They want the equivalent of a Tet Offensive — lots of American blood — a shock like that given Madrid — before November 2. But, above all, they turn the calendar to the end of January. They have to stop the Iraqi election. They have to do something dramatic in Iraq before then.

Don't think we Americans cannot read a calendar too. Don't think we are remaining passively in our bases in our Iraq, wearing little signs saying "Hit me!" Our guys are out on multiple offensives just now, and will be out on the attack in a gathering crescendo all during the next 45 days. Watch the towns to the East of the Sunni Triangle, the towns guarding the routes fresh supplies of foreign terrorists must traverse on their way to Fallujah and Ramadi. Three of them have either fallen into American hands in the last couple weeks or will soon.

Take a look at Najaf. Sick and tired of totally useless bloodshed, this city of merchants prevailed upon the Americans and Iraqi defense forces to come back into the city, to be welcomed by children with thumbs up and repeating over and over again their few English words: "I love you" to American soldiers. The people of Najaf threw Sadr's thugs out. The people of Najaf had had enough of the riff-raff. They loathe the terrorists' religious "courts," from which those accused often simply disappeared, never to be seen again. Enough extremist terror. Americans did not have to fight their way in, they were begged to come in, and given a warm and happy welcome.

For months before the recent war to oust Saddam began, Saddam and the foreign terrorists (we now know) were planning a guerrilla war after the main invasion passed by. After the fact, they were luckier than they knew, in that the Turkish refusal to allow the American Fourth Division to march into Iraq from the North to subdue the Sunni Triangle, left the pre-planned centers of this guerrilla war — Fallujah, Najaf, Ramadi, Samarra, Tikrit — unsubdued, unpunished, unintimidated, largely unsearched. Those cities are now the center of the bomb-making, training, coordinating, planning, and dispatching of terrorist attacks on strategically pre-arranged targets.

Watch for American forces to cut these cities off, one from another — or at least split them into two separated segments — and then go into them in force, one by one.

It is odd how American journalists are not reporting this war from the side of American strategic officers and American frontline units, whose officers and men are now enjoying their own professional capacities and daily successes.

Reading the blogs of our own military guys in the field is infinitely more satisfying to intellectual curiosity than reading (or hearing) the ordinary empty droning of journalists. Compared to bloggers in America, American journalists seem like amateurs; compared to military professionals on the battlefield, journalists (whatever their age) seem like undisciplined college kids. When one compares these professions as professions, the military profession to journalism, journalism really is dropping fast — and not only because of Dan Rather.

To get back to the main subject: Expect a lot of fighting in Iraq during the next six weeks. The climactic days of the terrorist guerrilla war are at hand. When the guerrillas are broken here, and exposed to the world as the losers they are, then the Baathists in Syria and the tyrants in Tehran know they are next in getting the full attention of the United States, and feeling the full pressures of the desire for liberty among their own people. Nearly half their population is under 25 years old, and those young people are hungry for the opportunities they know the rest of the world shares, which they currently do not.

Our own Democratic party, once the party of democracy and human rights, has lost its understanding of the power of the cause of liberty overseas, among the world's most repressed and mistreated peoples. Fewer than half today's Democratic party, according to polls, grasps what is at stake in the war in Iraq. But a lot of U.S. Democrats do. They are cheering for our troops on the offensive in Iraq, and they are going to vote in droves for George W. Bush, much to the amazement of those who have not yet grasped the transformation of the world that occurred after September, 2001.

Liberty is on the march. And revulsion at Islamo-terrorists that would deliberately kill hundreds of tiny schoolchildren in a remote small-town school has been sweeping Islamic countries, as well as Western ones. Hatred is starting to turn against killers of civilians and instigators of meaningless terror, who bandy about extremist, gibberish slogans.

— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.

The Bush deficits are very defensible

09.21.04 (8:20 am)   [edit]
From National Review--

September 21, 2004, 7:49 a.m.
[b]Defending the Bush Deficits
It’s not hard to do if you look at the data.[/b]
By Aman Verjee

Since President Bush took office in 2000, the economy has gone through at least three major shocks that were not of his making: a major terrorist attack that damped consumer confidence; the depression in business spending that followed the bursting of the stock market bubble; and a series of accounting scandals that afflicted some of the largest and most visible corporations in the United States.

Yet, the U.S. economy has outperformed that of every other G7 country since 2001. Today, the unemployment rate is at 5.4 percent, where it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton was re-elected. Clinton proclaimed in his State of the Union speech that year that the “economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” In the last three quarters, since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted, the U.S. economy has been growing at a 5.4 percent annualized pace, which is the fastest clip we’ve experienced since 1984.

This remarkable record on the economy owes much to the pro-growth policies of the Bush administration. By reducing the tax code’s inherent penalties on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, the administration has kept us out of a prolonged recession. Yet, critics of President Bush’s fiscal policies have argued that today’s record federal deficit, which will reach $445 billion in 2004, will cause long-term economic growth to flounder by pushing interest rates higher.

Like Chicken Little, who caviled because she mistook a tumbling acorn for a crashing sky, President Bush’s critics are unjustified when they foretell of an impending economic doom. Alarmists who worry about the historical heights to which deficits have climbed need to review the historical data for some context.

At the end of 2001, the federal debt held by the public of the United States stood at 33 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. That was the lowest it had been in 18 years. At the end of 2003, federal debt stood at 36 percent of GDP. It is currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach 40 percent of GDP by 2005 before it begins to decline again.

By historical and international standards, these levels of debt are very modest. For instance, the debt burdens of Germany and France are over 60 percent of GDP; in Japan, debt is almost 150 percent of GDP. In the United States, there have been 24 years since 1939 when the federal debt was below 36 percent of GDP. In 41 years, the debt has been higher. The president’s critics might suggest that economic growth should have been better in the low-debt years than in the high-debt years, but in fact, real GDP growth averaged 4.44 percent in the high-debt years and just 3.14 percent in the low-debt years.

To some extent, this divergence in growth rates can be tied to whether or not the country was at war. During war years, debt piled up quickly and economic growth was relatively robust. But the story is the same over a more restricted time horizon.

Indeed, we can look only at the years since 1963, which is when the debt fell to present-day levels for the first time since WWII. Since then, public debt fell to a low of 24 percent in 1974, rose to a high of 50 percent in 1993, and fell back to 33 percent in 2001. Economic growth during this period was higher in the relatively high-debt years, averaging 3.47 percent versus 2.59 percent. Unemployment was also lower in the high-debt years, averaging 5.65 percent as opposed to 6.43 percent in the low-debt years. And consumer price inflation was almost three-times higher in the low-debt years than in the high-debt years — 7.6 percent to 3.0 percent.

Looking back at American history, it is apparent that economic prosperity can continue even if the federal government maintains a debt burden that is much higher than it is today as a percentage of GDP.

Moreover, large budget deficits have never been a cause of — nor have they even been correlated with — the high interest rates or slow economic growth that deficit hawks predict. For instance, in the late 1940s and 1950s, the Truman and Eisenhower administrations practiced fiscal restraint, keeping taxes high (the top rate was over 90 percent) and paying down the federal debt. The result: four recessions between 1948 and 1961. Contrary to the expectations set by President Bush’s critics, real interest rates actually rose slightly during this period of fiscal restraint; the real, inflation-adjusted 10-year government bond yield edged up from 170 basis points in 1953 (when the 10-year was first issued) to 280 basis points in 1961.

In the 1960s, the federal government ran modest deficits while cutting taxes. In the 1980s, the federal government ran much larger deficits, while cutting taxes sharply and increasing spending. In both periods, economic growth was robust. In the 1960s, interest rates fell slightly; throughout the 1980s, they dropped dramatically, which is exactly the opposite of what the deficit Chicken Littles would predict.

The lesson is clear: Economic prosperity can continue even if the federal government never balances its budget. The greater threats to prosperity are high levels of taxation and regulatory barriers to growth. President Bush deserves our gratitude for having steered a fiscal course that has kept the economy on track.

— Aman Verjee, CFA, is editor of Thank You, President Bush, a new anthology from World Ahead Publishing. A Muslim raised in Canada, Mr. Verjee has taught economics at Harvard and is the co-founder of American Thunder, a NASCAR magazine.

Why is mortgage fraud rampant? Illegal aliens, that's why....

09.20.04 (9:59 pm)   [edit]

From Michelle Malkin's blog-- 

WHY IS MORTGAGE FRAUD RAMPANT? HERE'S A CLUE

By Michelle Malkin   ·   ; September 20, 2004 03:31 AM

Is the Bible alone the only authoritative source of God's word?

09.20.04 (9:45 pm)   [edit]
In a word? No.

The Catholic Church has always taught that in addition to the Bible, the word of God, there is a second source of divine revelation, known as Oral Tradition. This is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught by word of mouth, passed down through the generations, and later written down by early fathers of the Church. Oral Tradition is of equal authority to Scripture; Christians are bound to believe it as well as truths found in the Bible. [b]There are many examples in the bible which suggest the existence of an Oral Tradition of equal authority to Scripture.

2 Timothy 2:2[/b]: Paul instructs Timothy to teach others as he was taught, "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." Notice Paul says what you [i]heard[/i] from me, not by what Timothy had read. The apostles wrote and preached, therefore, both written and oral traditions exist within the Church to hand down faith to others. This process is called 'catechesis' and comes from the Greek verb meaning to echo or resound.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 mentions teachings delivered by "word of mouth" or Oral Tradition, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." If oral traditions were to be condemned, there would have been a verse to do just that.

Acts 20:35 contains an indirect reference to Oral Tradition, "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Nowhere else in Scripture is there recorded this saying of Jesus. [b]The only way Luke, the author of Acts, could have known this was through Oral Tradition, since he was not one of the original twelve Apostles. He records this saying of Jesus in the bgible infallibly through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[/b]

1 Peter 1:25 says "but the word of the Lord abides for ever. That word is the good news which was preached to you." Peter states that what has been preached is binding upon all those who have heard. They must remain obedient, reverent and practice mutual love. Few early Christian had access to Bibles, as printing had yet to be invented, therefore, what Peter is saying is logical. What they had [i]heard[/i] was binding.

Rarely does a man first receive his faith by reading the Bible, but instead from listening to others, whether it be family members, friends, a preacher, or someone else. As Romans 10:17 declares, "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes from the preaching of Christ." Therefore, we can conclude that it is God's plan that His revelation come to us from Oral Tradition as well as from Scripture.

[b]But doesn't the Bible say it is the only authority we need?[/b]

No. In fact, the Bible speaks of the authorship of the leaders of the Church. Matthew 18:15-20 says, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." The "church" here is not the "two or three witnesses" or the "two or three gathered in [His]name", but an apostolic authority given the power to bind and lose. (Given by Christ) Those having such authority are the bishops of the Catholic Church, in unity with the bishop of Rome, the Pope.

[b]But doesn't 2 Timothy 3:26-27 say the Bible is all the authority a Christian needs?[/b]

No, this is a mis-reading of this verse. 2 Timothy 3:26-27 declares, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Scripture is profitable for the Christian, but not all he needs. The Bible is a collection of letter and narratives of what happened throughout Bible history. It is [i]useful[/i] for the Christian in coming to know, love and serve God, but it is not an all-inclusive handbook on how to be a Christian or govern the Church.

The Bible itself tell us that it is not all inclusive of God's revelation to man.

John 21:25 observes, "But there are also man other things which Jesus did; were ever one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Courtesy of St. Joseph Communications

Therealspartacus-- no moral equivalency here!

09.20.04 (7:49 pm)   [edit]
Therealspartacus wrote a blog claiming that I, among others, misuse and overuse the term "moral equivalency". You can read it here-- http://www.tblog.com/template... . In fact, I use it where appropriate.

For example, Therealspartacus brings up a debate on homosexuality this way:

"The term 'moral equivalency' is used to imply that the person is over-equivalating. This often arises in discussions about the morality of homosexuality. Person A may state that it is just as moral for a homosexual to love a man as it is for a heterosexual to love a woman. Person B may see these the first act as morally reprehensible, but the second as morally right. So they will accuse Person A of using moral equivalency.

In reality, they may be operating on the exact same moral principles, but merely disagree over the control an individual has over their sexual orientation. Instead of discussing why they think that homosexuality is immoral, or asking Person A why they think that it is moral, they make the accusation of moral equivalency, as though it were some exotic, anti-moral term. But Person A is not using moral equivalency in the way Person B is. For Person B, Person A's mistake is not one of degree, but of type."

For the record, I've never questioned the "control" one has over one's sexual orientation. I've always recognized that homosexuals are probably born with that orientation, and I am not against them having Civil Unions. I believe Marriage is a Christian institution and, since Civil Unions are no different than marriages, or should be, at least, in the eyes of the secular government, I have no problem with that. On a personal level I think that the practicing of homosexuality is wrong-- I adhere to the Catholic Christian belief that its practice is a sin, even if it may be something we're born with, a cross to bear, as it were. As such, I do believe that someone saying that there is no distinction between homosexual love and heterosexual love is engaging in moral equivalency. This is because my morals come from the Judeo-Christian model, and I believe they are true. But never do I think, in my apparent right-wing Christian conservative fundmantalist mindset, that we should outlaw homosexuality.

Therealspartacus continues:

"Criticizing US foreign policy is seen as morally equivalent as supporting the terrorists. Fighting the American occupiers is seen as equivalent to being a terrorist. Living in a nation that harbors terrorists is not distinguished from actually being a terrorist.

Being a liberal is equivalent with being a communist pinko. Being a Democrat is equivalent with being a Michael Moore ditto-head. Being a liberal is equivalent with being a liar."

I've criticized US policy. I don't think I'm a terrorist. However, when you say something as patently untrue as Americans are brutal occupiers on a par with Saddam Hussein, when you equivocate the Hussein's and the Bushes,that has to be noted. You may criticize Bush's foreign policy all you want, but there is simply no way-- even if you're doing something as gruesome as counting bodies-- that Bush is anything resembling Hussein-- or Hitler. This is what I mean when liberals morally equate. They overuse it, they misuse it, and they do it in lieu of thinking.

And I've really come to be upset with therealspartacus' assertion that the US intentionally harbors terrorists. Because it's not true. Chechnya did not start out as a terror movement. It started out as a drive for independence just like the other nation-states that were under the umbrella of the USSR. It has been adopted by terrorists as a "cause", primarily because Russia isn't a Muslim nation, but this does not mean that the US aids and abets terror.

It is stupid, and to use Sparto's word, "silly" to say that the US is harboring terrorists and imply that they are no different than, say, Iran. Or even Russia. The US, unlike the USSR, was not instrumental in the ascension of Yasser Arafat, the PLO, and the Iranian revolution.

These are facts, and are further examples as to why Therealspartacus cannot defend himself and his dabbling in moral equivalency.

And I think, by and large, liberalism is a lie. Perhaps not all liberals are liars, some of them are misguided. But when I say liberalism is a lie, I usually offer examples. And they keep coming-- CBS memos, for example. When I say that liberalism, a cousin of Marxism, is based on power at any costs, I keep getting proved right.

I also relish the fact that I am an extremist, another moral equivalency, because I posted part of a book chapter, in a book Therealspartacus will never read, that makes its bias known from its title "The Truth of Catholicism". It deals with Atheistic Humanism and makes a convincing argument that therealspartacus hasn't adequately refuted. Atheistic humanism does have something to do with order and chaos and human brutality-- there is historical evidence.

But therealspartacus says that they have nothing to do with each other. Therealspartacus says that I am an extremist.

Jesus Christ, by the way, said that the Truth exists through Him. I don't know why therealspartacus, a proud, religious atheist, is invoking Him to make a moral point.

Oh well.

PS: What possible explanation other than a hideous use of moral equivalency could explain designating a baby as "property". If a baby is no different than a piece of property, then that property has an owner, in this case a mother. Since she "owns" that "property", she can do whatever she wants with it-- including destroy it.

Therealspartacus claims that this is OK. That all human beings start out as property and then, at some arbitrary point, if they escape the womb, they can be deemed independent. When does that occur? No one knows, for a baby outside the womb is just as dependent on its mother as it is inside the womb. Perhaps the government can decide when a human being is viable.

The moral equivalence here is used to justify the terminating of a human life. No matter how it is justified, a human life is stopped-- stopped-- from living when it is aborted. On the other side of the coin, the liberals will say that equating abortion with murder is wrong. But I've never said that all moral equivalency is wrong. In fact, Christ uses it accurately. And if thinking about murder, and fornication, is equal to the act-- what is intentionally killing a fetus but murder?

The use of moral equivalence with abortion is correct-- because abortion is, no matter how it is explained away, an intentional termination of another human being's life. And we all have the right to life.

You would think that with all of the banter about "rights" by the left,they'd recognize the most fundamental one.

The Rather story is a Democratic party dirty trick

09.20.04 (7:22 pm)   [edit]
From OpinionJournal.com--

[b]Modified Limited Hangout
The Rather story looks more and more like a partisan dirty trick.[/b]
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The big news in yesterday's mea culpa by CBS News isn't that the network was "misled" about "documents whose authenticity is in doubt," as it was finally forced to concede. The story is the admission that the source Dan Rather trusted with CBS's reputation was none other than Bill Burkett, a noted antagonist of President Bush.

Journalists--including us--use all manner of sources, of course, and many of them are partisans of one kind or another. But as much as possible we owe readers an indication of where those sources are coming from. And if those sources turn out to be wrong, as they sometimes are, then our obligation is to own up to the error as soon as possible.

The problem in this case is that before yesterday CBS never gave its viewers even a hint that its entire controversial story hinged on the word of someone who has made it one of his main goals in life to defeat Mr. Bush. Even after the documents on Mr. Bush's National Guard service were called into question, CBS refused to let viewers in on the secret of its source's motives.

This is the real scandal here, and it makes us wonder if Mr. Burkett is the end of this story. It isn't as if Mr. Burkett's motives were hard to discover. On August 25, addressing Mr. Bush in the second person, Mr. Burkett wrote in a Web posting, "I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to 'obey the orders of the officers appointed over you.' "

More intriguing, in an August 21 posting, Mr. Burkett said he had spoken with Max Cleland, the former Georgia Senator and fierce John Kerry advocate, about how to respond to Republican campaign tactics. "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."

This, believe it or not, is the source Mr. Rather described as "unimpeachable." The kindest interpretation is that the famous anchor and CBS were gullible. But perhaps they will forgive their audience for also now suspecting some partisan bias--especially in light of an interview with Mr. Rather that the trade publication Broadcasting & Cable published August 30.

Asked if the media were paying too much attention to the Swift Boat Veterans' criticisms of John Kerry, Mr. Rather replied: "In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn't do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns." Yet nine days later Mr. Rather was reporting on Mr. Bush's National Guard service as if it were the story of a lifetime.

CBS said yesterday that Mr. Burkett admits giving "a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source." Mr. Burkett and CBS have not revealed that source, but we know he had contact with a Kerry surrogate, Mr. Cleland, who expressed a desire to "counterattack."

We also know that Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was quick to offer his own theory--that Karl Rove had fabricated the documents. And we know that the day after Mr. Rather's report aired, the Democrats unveiled "Operation Fortunate Son," a campaign video about Mr. Bush's National Guard service that incorporated footage from "60 Minutes."

All of this raises the question of whether CBS was a vessel for, if not a willing participant in, a partisan dirty trick two months before a closely contested Presidential election. Last week Mr. Rather told the Washington Post that "if the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story." It was too late for that; Web writers and other news organizations had beaten him to it. But if CBS wants to restore the credibility it enjoyed back in the era of Edward R. Murrow, it will now get to the bottom of the story behind Mr. Rather's discredited story.

Well, well...Kerry aide, Clintonite Joe Lockhart involved with CBS, Burkette, and fake memos

09.20.04 (7:07 pm)   [edit]
From USA Today-- http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

[b]CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart[/b]
By Kevin Johnson, Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — CBS arranged for a confidential source to talk with Joe Lockhart, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, after the source provided the network with the now-disputed documents about President Bush's service in the Texas National Guard.

Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

Burkett told USA TODAY that he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election. This "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization," said Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

"At Burkett's request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign," said Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president.

CBS would not discuss the propriety of the network serving as a conduit between its partisan source, Burkett, and the Kerry campaign. “It was not part of any deal” with Burkett to obtain the documents, West said, declining to elaborate.

But Burkett said Monday that his contact with Lockhart was indeed part of an "understanding" with CBS. Burkett said his interest in contacting the campaign was to offer advice in responding to Republican criticisms about Kerry's Vietnam service. It had nothing to do with the documents, he said.

"My interest was to get the attention of the national (campaign) to defend against the attacks," Burkett said, adding that he also talked to former Georgia senator Max Cleland and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean during the past 45 days. "Neither the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign had anything to do with the documents," he said.

Lockhart said he phoned Burkett at the number provided by CBS. Lockhart also said that subject of the documents never came up in his conversation with Burkett. Lockhart said the conversation lasted just a few minutes. "It's possible that the producer said they had documents," before his conversation with Burkett, he said.

At the end of the conversation, Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his interest and there was no further contact with him. Asked why he called Burkett, Lockhart said he talks to "a lot of people."

"I called you, didn't I?"

The White House said CBS' contact with Lockhart was inappropriate. "The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Sen. Kerry's campaign to attack the President is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director.

Contributing: Judy Keen

Bush team: Kerry line on Iraq is retreat and defeat

09.20.04 (10:03 am)   [edit]
If this seems to contradict the previous post, you're right, it does. You have a choice, dear reader: are you going to believe the Kerry presented at NYU with his Bush-light Iraq plan (which makes you wonder why you'd vote for Kerry if he'd do what Bush did), or do you believe the Kerry presented here by the Bush campaign, a man who believes Iraq is hopeless and that we should leave?

Not a good choice, is it?

From Bush/Cheney 2004--

Monday, September 20, 2004

[b]The Kerry Line: John Kerry's Retreat And Defeat[/b]

"John Kerry's latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror. This sends the wrong signal to our troops, our allies and our enemies. The American people understand the stakes and Prime Minister Allawi understands the need to defeat the terrorists trying to destroy the approach of freedom in the Middle East. President Bush has made it clear that we will complete this mission and has made it clear that the status quo is unacceptable in a region that can produce killers capable of flying planes into buildings."

- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman


John Kerry's Military Advisor Says U.S. Must Consider Withdrawal

Kerry Military Advisor Retired Admiral William Crowe Raises The Possibility Of Leaving Iraq. "'Our leaders must explain why we're going to stay, and what type of progress must be made,' he said in a speech here Thursday. 'That is the No. 1 lesson of Vietnam. We must decide if we're paying a larger price at home then justifies the gains made in Iraq.' 'Time and again in Vietnam we ignored reality,' he said in the speech to members of the University of Oklahoma Presidents Associates. 'We paid a high price for that in people and treasure.'" ("Crowe Speaks Out Against Bush Policy," The Associated Press, 9/17/04)

Kerry On "Retreat And Defeat":

Kerry Pledged To Significantly Reduce Troops In Iraq, Surprising Aides. "In an NPR interview Friday, Kerry said: 'I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan.' His comments took several aides by surprise." (Jim VandeHei And Mary Fitzgerald, "Kerry Defends Position on Iraq," The Washington Post, 8/8/04)

Kerry Said The People Running The Iraqi Election "Just Can't Do It At This Point In Time." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)

Kerry Said Our Troops Are Not Doing The Training Necessary "To Establish The Security" In Iraq. (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)

Kerry: "I Believe This Administration And Its Policies Is Actually Encouraging The Recruitment Of Terrorists." (CNN's "American Morning," 8/2/04)

Kerry Said President "Didn't Learn The Lessons" Of Vietnam And Is Putting Soldiers "At Greater Risk." (Pete Yost, "Bush, Kerry Honor Veterans On Memorial Day," The Associated Press, 5/31/04)

Kerry Wrote That Iraqis Are "Lashing Out" At U.S. Soldiers For Bush Failures. (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "A Strategy For Iraq," The Washington Post, 4/13/04)

John Kerry Called Iraq's Liberation "Wrong War … At The Wrong Time" And Declared The Coalition "Phoniest Thing." (Patricia Wilson, "Kerry On Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time," Reuters, 9/6/04)

Kerry's Surrogates On "Retreat And Defeat ":

John Edwards Said "Iraq Is A Mess." (Jennifer Bundy, "Edwards: No Military Draft If Dems Win," The Associated Press, 9/15/04)

Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Richard Holbrooke Said "The Situation In Iraq Is As Bad As The More Pessimistic Observers Have Said." (Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei, "Polar Views Of Iraq Are Defining Election," The Washington Post, 9/19/04)

Kerry Surrogate Max Cleland Called Iraq A "Nightmare" That Is "Going South." (Scott Kraus, "Disabled Vet, Former Lawmaker Campaigns For Kerry In Whitehall," The Morning Call [Allentown, PA], 9/18/04)

* Cleland Said Iraq Is "Descending Into Civil War And Chaos" And "We Have Another Vietnam In The Making In Iraq." (Paul J. Nyden, "Bush's Health Plan Unpatriotic, Veteran Says," Charleston Gazette [West Virginia], 9/17/04)

Kerry Surrogate Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Accused The Administration Of "Misrepresenting And Distorting The Progress That's Being Made Over There." (Mark Scolforo, "Kennedy Campaigns For Kerry At Union Convention," The Associated Press, 9/17/04)

Kerry Surrogate Retired General Merrill McPeak Called Iraq "A Wall-To-Wall Disaster" That Is "Likely To Get Worse." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/16/04)

Kerry Surrogate Wesley Clark Called Iraq A "Grand Strategic Blunder." (Jake Bleed, "Clark Calls On Cheney To Address Job Losses," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [Little Rock], 9/14/04)

Kerry Foreign Policy Adviser Richard Holbrooke Said: "The Situation Is Clearly Getting Worse, And There Is No End In Sight, And There Is No Strategy Either For Success Or For Victory Or For Exit." (FOX News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/12/04)

Find this item at: http://www.georgewbush.com/Ne...

Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.

Get acquainted with Kerry's Iraq plan, same as the Bush plan

09.20.04 (9:58 am)   [edit]
Let's keep in mind these fundamental facts before we begin:

1)Kerry voted for war in Iraq based on the same Intel the president asked for war in Iraq. IF Kerry believed this was a diversion from the war on terror, he should have voted against it.

2)Kerry voted against funding the war, which included funds for our troops' safety, a war which he says is a "crisis".

3)Kerry said on August 9th that knowing what he knew now, he STILL would have voted for the Iraq war.

That said, now John Kerry is going to pretend his flip flops, contradictions and self-interested behavior doesn't matter,and has presented his sweeping vision of how to bring peace to Iraq. His plan is very similar to Bush's, though he completely lacks the specifics on how he would do any of this, especially in the context of his political speeches and votes.

Quotes are taken from the NY Times--

1)[b]First, he said, he would work towards more international support. Mr. Kerry noted that the president is scheduled to visit New York on Tuesday to speak to the United Nations about Iraq.

"The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly," Mr. Kerry said.[/b]

-- The reality is that a)we have quite a bit of international support already and b)the UN simply refuses to help the US and the coalition. It refused when it was presented with its own case for war in 2002. It refused when the reconstruction began. It refuses now.

-- The US tried to get UN peacekeepers. They refused. It tried to get NATO troops. They refused. The US tried to be more inclusive at every step of the way. To say that this was a "go it alone" war and a "go it alone" reconstruction is a monumental falsehood. All that is lacking is a UN stamp of approval, but since the UN discredited itself anyway, what good would that do?

2)"Secondly, Mr. Kerry said, he would work harder to train Iraqi security forces.

He pointed out that in February Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. But Mr. Kerry asserted that in reality only 5,000 Iraqi soldiers had been trained "by the administration's own minimal standards."

"Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order," he said.

--How would Kerry do this without spending more money, which he apparently is against doing in the first place? I dispute Kerry's numbers in the first place, but it goes without question that it will take more troops and much more money to thoroughly train Iraqi forces. It will also take many more years in Iraq. Yet Kerry has provided no specific details on this.

--The premise that the Bush administration isn't working "harder" to train Iraqi security forces is impossible to prove. It's a cheap shot.

3)"Third, he said he would devise a better plan for the reconstruction of a devastated Iraq.

"Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq." Mr. Kerry said. " It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers."

--What does Kerry think the Bush administration has been doing for 17 months in Iraq but making security a priority, boosting oil production, and working on the economy? This is an empty accusation and equally empty promise. THe facts show that attacks are not widespread, that they are occuring in the usual hot spots, that oil production is improving despite attacks, and that the economy continues to improve.

4)"And lastly, he said he would make sure elections would take place in the country.

"Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role," Mr. Kerry said. "Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt.""

-- This is the UN's problem, not the US'. The UN is supposed to play a central role, but they have been dragging their feet. As they do with everything. What does it mean to "make sure" elections are held in Iraq, especially since, if elected, Kerry still won't be president before they are held IN JANUARY.

Ladies and gentlemen, if this is all Kerry has on Iraq, Bush wins by a landslide. If this is his grand sweeping "vision", he's in trouble. For this vision includes the same goals of the Bush administration. Kerry has to convince Americans he can do this better, but his sorry record in the Senate and his minute-by-minute flip flops on Iraq seem ready to doom him.

Oh well. He might have gotten somewhere farther if he hadn't made Vietnam the wave he was going to ride in on to victory.

CBS, Rather say misled on memos-- still insist, without proof, that they're accurate

09.20.04 (8:16 am)   [edit]
So this is the logic now. The fact that the BUsh administration didn't respond to the allegations made in these FAKE memos is "telling", meaning they're "true". Huh? I think, perhaps, that the reason the Bush administration didn't reply to the charges is because they knew a)the memos were fake and b)the CHARGES WERE FALSE.

It is galling that mainstream journalism has been reduced to such transparent bias. Yes, CBS says, the documents are fake, but we believe that all the info in them is true! Really? How so?

This is simply other-worldly, simply stunning. By still not admitting that they knew their source was corrupt from the beginning and by not admitting that they're wrong on the accusations themselves, they are blaring the trumpet on a bias that conservatives have always known was there.

[b]Where is the apology to George Bush for bringing this false smear to the masses?[/b]

The mere fact that information for the masses is changed to fit the left-wing bias will not register with most people-- they'll insist that there are "bigger stories" out there. WHen you start from a default media bias that colors [i]everything[/i] being reported, including those bigger stories, that bias IS the biggest story.

2 items here, first a statement from the Don of CBS news, Dan Rather:

"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

Translation: we made an obvious, third-grade mistake that is against every single ethic in journalism, were caught, and are now trying to say it was made in the finest tradition of reporting, "without fear or favoritism". Yeah, right. Even when trying to apologize, Rather shows his contempt for average people and for truth.

CBS's statement, as reported in the NY Times--

[b]CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say[/b]
By JIM RUTENBERG

After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

But they cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials met last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it had collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision. Mr. Rather was not available for comment late last night.

The report relied in large part on four memorandums purported to be from the personal file of Mr. Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos, dated from the early 1970's, said that Colonel Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat'' the record of the young Lieutenant Bush and that the officer had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical.

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian's feelings but that the documents' authenticity was now in grave doubt.

The developments last night marked a dramatic turn for CBS News, which for a week stood steadfastly by its Sept. 8 report as various document experts asserted that the typeface of the memos could have been produced only by a modern-day word processor, not Vietnam War-era typewriters.

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed had come from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents.''

But officials decided yesterday that they would most likely have to declare that they had been misled about the records' origin after Mr. Rather and a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Mr. Rather interviewed Mr. Burkett on camera this weekend, and several people close to the reporting process said his answers to Mr. Rather's questions led officials to conclude that their initial confidence that the memos had come from Mr. Killian's own files was not warranted. These people indicated that Mr. Burkett had previously led the producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, to have the utmost confidence in the material.

It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents' provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

In an e-mail message yesterday, Mr. Burkett declined to answer any questions about the documents.

Yesterday, Emily J. Will, a document specialist who inspected the records for CBS News and said last week that she had raised concerns about their authenticity with CBS News producers, confirmed a report in Newsweek that a producer had told her that the source of the documents said they had been obtained anonymously and through the mail.

In an interview last night she declined to name the producer who told her this but said the producer was in a position to know. CBS News officials have disputed her contention that she warned the network the night before the initial "60 Minutes'' report that it would face questions from documents experts.

In the coming days CBS News officials plan to focus on how the network moved ahead with the report when there were warning signs that the memorandums were not genuine.

Ms. Will is one of two documents experts consulted by the network who said they raised doubts about the material before the segment was broadcast. Another expert, Marcel B. Matley, said in interviews that he had vouched only for Colonel Killian's signatures on the records and not the authenticity of the records themselves. Mr. Matley said he could not rule out that the signatures had been cut and pasted from official records pertaining to Colonel Killian.

In examining where the network had gone wrong, officials at CBS News turning their attention to Ms. Mapes, one of their most respected producers, who was riding particularly high this year after breaking news about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for the network.

In a telephone interview this weekend, Josh Howard, the executive producer of the "60 Minutes'' Wednesday edition, said that he did not initially know who was Ms. Mapes' primary source for the documents but that he did not see any reason to doubt them. He said he believed Ms. Mapes and her team had appropriately answered all questions about the documents' authenticity and, he noted, no one seemed to be casting doubt upon the essential thrust of the report.

"The editorial story line was still intact, and still is, to this day,'' he said, "and the reporting that was done in it was by a person who has turned in decades of flawless reporting with no challenge to her credibility.''

He added, "We in management had no sense that the producing team wasn't completely comfortable with the results of the document analysis.''

Ms. Mapes has not responded to requests for comment.

Mr. Howard also said in the interview that the White House did not dispute the veracity of the documents when it was presented to them on the morning of the report. That reaction, he said, was "the icing on the cake'' of the other reporting the network was conducting on the documents. White House officials have said they saw no reason to challenge documents being presented by a credible news organization.

Several people familiar with the situation said they were girding for a particularly tough week for Mr. Rather and the news division should the network announce its new doubts.

One person close to the situation said the critical question would be, "Where was everybody's judgment on that last day?''

***

So the editorial thrust, which means bias, of the report is still in tact? Where is the proof?

WHERE IS THE PROOF?

This is behavior that no news organization should tolerate. It is sad that the networks have such a desire to end the Bush presidency that they'll make up stories, accept "anonymous" or totally incredible sources, and generally try to cover up such behavior with a series of childish, desperate excuses.

Keep in mind....

CBS ignored the testimony of folks mentioned in fake memos.
CBS ignored the opinion of document experts.

CBS and the Left wanted this to happen. THey're mad as hell that they were exposed.

Kerry's supreme commander in 'Nam calls Kerry's war heroics a "myth"

09.19.04 (7:34 pm)   [edit]
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch-- http://www.timesdispatch.com/...%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicA rticle&c=MGArticle&cid=10 31778019405&path=%21edito rials%21commentary&s=1045 855934999

[b]The Grand Deception:
'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth[/b]
ROY F. HOFFMANN
GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, September 19, 2004

The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public.

John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam.

Until the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth spoke up in press conferences, television ads, and with the now best-selling book, Unfit for Command, no one - not even the conservative media - seriously or effectively challenged the veracity of John Kerry's self-aggrandizement. Only now is his war-hero facade beginning to peel away.

Kerry arrived in Vietnam on November 17, 1968, with a strong anti-war bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for a future political career. Even a most casual review of his biography, Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, will reveal that Kerry entered the Naval Reserve as a "vain intellectual" with contempt for military authority.

[b]Stooped to Achieve Goal[/b]

In hindsight, his obvious objective was to emulate his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, serve as short a time as possible, and escape Vietnam unscathed but with sufficient credentials and decorations to portray himself in heroic terms. To achieve his goal, Kerry stooped to scamming an after-combat reporting system that was based on trust, promoting himself for a handful of medals regardless of their dubious merits, so he could "bug out" of the war zone early.

His propensity for gross exaggeration and lying was legend to those who knew him, even early on at Cam Rahn Bay, his first duty station in Vietnam. In Tour of Duty, Kerry recounts the story of the seas being so rough during the monsoon season that sailors came in "pissing red and that several people have broken bones" - a ridiculous story that was totally unsubstantiated.

Or consider the story of how Kerry, according to Brinkley, stated, "A sampan navigating in the shroud of darkness was assumed to be Viet Cong and would be fired on" - a breach of the U.S. Navy's rules of engagement. That is an outright defamatory lie. The South Vietnamese National Government had established and promulgated well-defined coastal-control zones to facilitate surveillance, illegal activity, and infiltration of enemy arms from seaward. Although our Swift Boats and Coast Guard cutters did diligently enforce the restricted areas, a boat or ship violating a restricted zone would not be fired upon unless attempting to escape inspection, and only after proper warning in accordance with U.S. Navy strict rules of engagement.

Kerry repeatedly embellishes this lie by referring to "U.S. designated free-fire zones," implying that such zones authorized indiscriminate killing, in order to portray the U.S. military as unwanted, brutish conquerors in Vietnam. In truth, free-fire zones fell within the normal rules of engagement and authorized not an order to fire but discretion to fire first if threatened by, or when confronting, enemy forces.

[b]Kerry's First Purple Heart[/b]

Another troubling sequence involves Kerry's first Purple Heart. Exactly two weeks after arrival in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in a scenario in which he was "wounded" by a small fragment, about the size of a rose thorn - a self-inflicted wound resulting from the careless use of his own M-79 grenade launcher. According to the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Louis Letson, the fragment barely penetrated the skin of his right arm and was easily removed with tweezers and dressed with a Band-Aid. Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after-action report - all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.

Still, somehow Kerry circumvented the system and somehow was awarded the Purple Heart some three months after Lt. Commander Hibbard denied the award. Who initiated the award remains a mystery and will remain so until Kerry authorizes the full release of his military and medical records, complete and unaltered. Although Kerry continues to imply that he was the officer in charge of this "Boston Whaler" operation, he fails to mention that he was under the training supervision of Lt. William Schachte, the actual officer in charge and aboard the small craft with Kerry.

Another example of Kerry's lies about his Vietnam "war hero" status involves the now infamous secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, a fabrication now disclaimed by Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan and Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley.

On March 27, 1986, the then-Senator Kerry on the floor of the U.S. Senate claimed he was on Navy duty in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, at a time when President Nixon was lying to the public, saying there were no U.S. forces in Cambodia at that time. The Congressional Record reports Kerry as saying, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have the memory which is seared - seared - in me."

Not even a good lie. President Nixon did not take office until January 20, 1969. Moreover, how does one differentiate the ethnic and political distinctions of the unseen foes shooting at you? As one lie begets another, Kerry's own biographer, Douglas Brinkley, writes in Tour of Duty that Kerry's private Vietnam journal places him on the Bassac River near the city of Sa Dec, Vietnam, 50 miles from the Cambodian border.

Further, the U.S. Army had placed on 24-hour surveillance a manned landing craft blocking passage into Cambodian waters, along with a huge sign designed to prevent entrance, accidental or otherwise, into Cambodian waters. The U.S. Navy also had two river patrol boats patrolling the area for the same reason, making it almost impossible for a U.S. craft to enter Cambodian waters.

Lt. (jg.) Kerry's third Purple Heart is as questionable as the first. On March 13, 1969, Kerry's boat, PCF-94, with provincial troops embarked was engaged in an infantry sweep of a known Viet Cong sanctuary on the Dong Cong canal, in An Xuyen province. During this operation, the troops blew up some huge bins of rice. According to Kerry's biography, "I got a piece of small grenade in my [rear] from one of the rice bin explosions." Kerry would later the same day claim this accidental and minor injury was a result of a mine explosion near his boat that threw him into a bulkhead, smashing his arm.

The truth is that there was only one explosion, and that this single explosion severely damaged PCF-3 near the opposite bank of the Bay Hop River. There was no damage to any other of the five Swift Boats in that formation.

[b]Claims of Making Rescue[/b]

Based on the after-action report filed by Lt. (jg.) Kerry, he was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds resulting from a mine explosion and a Bronze Star with a "V" for rescuing Lt. Rassmann, U.S. Army, who fell overboard when Kerry's PCF-94 abruptly fled the scene of action.

Contrary to the false after-action report citing automatic weapons and rifle fire from both banks for 3.1 miles, there were six on-scene witnesses who have stated that there was no enemy fire from either bank. Kerry did return to the scene and pick up Rassmann after it was evident that there was no hostile fire. There was nothing heroic about rescuing Rassmann, who was about to be picked up by another PCF. Had the truth been known, Kerry would have been disqualified from being awarded the Bronze Star.

Medical records also report Kerry's injuries from the March 13, 1968, incident involved only a minor bruise on his right arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. Since there was no hostile fire, and only one mine explosion, with no structural effect on PCF-94, there was no justification for the Purple Heart award.

John Kerry was the only man in the entire Task Force of 3,600 men - officers and enlisted - to request transfer out of country based on three Purple Hearts. Particularly galling to his shipmates was the fact that not one of his minor nicks was debilitating nor resulted in one lost day of duty.

Nevertheless, with his three specious Purple Hearts, John Kerry shamelessly invoked an obscure Navy directive allowing him to "jump ship" and return home, there to begin his infamous betrayal of all those U.S. soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and POWs who served honorably in the Vietnam War - more than 2 million Americans who deserved Kerry's respect.

Kerry's leadership within the fraudulent and contemptible Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and his testimony before Senator William Fulbright's Committee in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain even today an unspecified and undocumented dishonor to the men and women who dutifully and courageously stayed the course.

[b]Meeting With Madame Binh[/b]

Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years.

Kerry is not a hero. He betrayed his comrades-in-arms in time of war. He is a chronic liar and a fraud. This is not about politics; it's about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust - all absolute tenets of command. John Forbes Kerry is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

[i]Roy Hoffmann, a retired Navy Rear Admiral and the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is a resident of Chesterfield. As the commander of the Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam in 1968-1969, Admiral Hoffman was the overall commander of U.S. Swift Boats during the period of Kerry's Vietnam coastal service.[/i]

GOP activist/blogger attacked for uncovering fraud memos

09.19.04 (7:27 pm)   [edit]
Does someone want to tell me what this means:

"The identity of "Buckhead" — a blogger previously known only by his screen name on the site freerepublic.com and since lifted to folk hero status in the conservative blogosphere — is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the effort to discredit the memos was engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago."

Anyone? If a Democrat activist uncovered the fact that anti-Kerry memos were forged, no one would bat an eye. It doesn't matter who brought up the allegations because they aren't true. Are we supposed to think that committing a crime is better than a Republican finding out about it? What planet are we living on?

You know you're living in an evil place when you are treated like a criminal because you are merely a Republican.

The only "proof" that Bush got preferential treatment in the Guard came from these memos, which are fake. No one with any journalistic integrity can say that "well, the memos are fake, but they are accurate". That's call faith-based hate. Bias.

Bush's Guard service has been under the microscope since he ran for President. Why? Because the Democrats desperately want to paint Bush as the anti-American. Nothing sticks. Bush signed form 180, authorizing the release of his service records. Kerry has not.

And let's remember that it was the Democrats, during the primary and in the 2000 election, that brought up the whole issue of service to begin with.

Since once again the Left can't defend themselves against truth, they have to attack the guys who uncover their ways.

[b]GOP Activist Made Allegations on CBS Memos[/b]
Sun Sep 19, 5:30 AM ET
By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News had used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush (news - web sites)'s Air National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted on the Web within hours of airtime, citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history, as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who had helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton (news - web sites) after the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

The identity of "Buckhead" — a blogger previously known only by his screen name on the site freerepublic.com and since lifted to folk hero status in the conservative blogosphere — is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the effort to discredit the memos was engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago.

Republican officials have denied any involvement among those attempting to debunk the CBS report.

Reached by telephone Friday, MacDougald, 46, confirmed that he was Buckhead but declined to answer questions about his political background or how he learned so much about the CBS documents so quickly.

"You can ask the questions, but I'm not going to answer them," he said. "I'm just going to stick to doing no interviews."

Until The Times identified him by piecing together information from his postings over the last two years, MacDougald had taken pains to remain in the shadows — saying the credit for challenging CBS should remain with the blogosphere as a whole and not one individual.

"Freepers collectively possess more analytical horsepower than the entire news division at CBS," he wrote in an e-mail, using the slang term for users of the freerepublic.com site.

MacDougald is a lawyer in the Atlanta office of the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups: the Federalist Society and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, where he serves on the legal advisory board.

The foundation, created in 1976, advocates "limited government, individual economic freedom and the free-enterprise system," according to its website.

The foundation has fought affirmative action and domestic-partner benefits for government employees, and successfully challenged a Clinton administration plan to use proportional sampling to estimate population in the 2000 census, rather than making a hard count.

MacDougald helped draft the foundation's petition in 1998 that led to the five-year suspension of Clinton's Arkansas law license for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case.

And he assisted in the group's challenge to the campaign finance law sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.). The challenge, which went to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites), was funded largely by the foundation with Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ky.), the law's chief critic, and handled by former Clinton investigator Kenneth W. Starr.

The high court upheld the law, which banned unlimited contributions from corporations to federal candidates and political parties.

MacDougald is also a Republican appointee to the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections.

Last week he again plunged into a politically charged controversy — but this time his participation was anonymous.

Operating as Buckhead, which is also the name of an upscale Atlanta neighborhood, he wrote that the memos CBS' "60 Minutes" presented Sept. 8 as being written in the early 1970s by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman."

"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word-processing software and personal computers," MacDougald wrote on the website. "They were not widespread until the mid- to late '90s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid '80s used monospaced fonts.

"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively."

The late-night posting — less than four hours after the CBS report aired — resulted in a flurry of sympathetic testimonials from fellow bloggers, spreading within hours to other sites. The next day, newspapers such as The Times and the Washington Post began consulting forensic experts and reporting articles raising similar questions.

The network has insisted that the four memos, dated 1972 and 1973, had been authenticated by the network's experts and by "close associates" of Killian, who say "the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The memos showed Killian resisting pressure by a higher-up to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance evaluation and ordering Bush to undergo a physical so he could keep flying.

CBS has also cited an expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant, who said IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could provide proportional spacing and the superscript — the small "th" — evident in the memos.

It also has sought to counter the arguments by referring to a typewriting script distributor, who says the typing style in the memos has been available since 1931. Moreover, CBS points out, some of the lettering in question was evident in Bush's military records previously released by the White House.

Still, after Killian's former secretary came forward this week to say she did not believe the memos were authentic, anchor Dan Rather and other network executives stopped asserting that they were. They said they would "redouble" efforts to resolve unanswered questions.

While bloggers and some conservative activists have hailed Buckhead as a hero in their longtime effort to paint the mainstream media as politically biased, some Democrats and even some conservative bloggers have marveled at Buckhead's detailed knowledge of the memos and wondered whether that suggested White House involvement.

Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Terry McAuliffe speculated openly to reporters that the whole thing could have been orchestrated by White House political advisor Karl Rove. The Bush campaign called the allegation "nonsense."

The White House had access to the memos before the broadcast. CBS delivered copies to White House communications director Dan Bartlett on the morning of Sept. 8 so he could discuss them in an interview with Rather. Whether MacDougald had help reviewing the memos remains unknown.

The lawyer is an outspoken conservative and a Republican active in local politics.

"I attended a meeting on Tuesday to organize lawyers for Bush-Cheney in my state to monitor and if necessary litigate election issues," he said in a Buckhead posting last month.

Professionally, MacDougald has represented government waste whistle-blowers and challenged affirmative action laws that give racial and ethnic minorities preferences in higher education.

He is not a major contributor to political causes, having donated $250 to the Georgia Republican Party in 2002, when Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition, was chairman. Reed is now a senior strategist for the Bush campaign.

Associates of MacDougald scoff at the notion that he was doing anything but acting alone when he offered his observations about the CBS memos.

"Harry is a very strong conservative and a very passionate conservative…. So if he sees something that looks fishy, he's going to say something about it," said Lynn Hogue, a Georgia State University law professor and former executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

"When he's not absorbed with work, I think he spends the rest of his life in the wee hours of the morning on freerepublic," Hogue said. "And that's the outlet through which he shares his concerns and insights, and so rather than being a matter of conspiracy, it's just him doing what he does."

Bush, Kerry agree to 3 debates

09.19.04 (7:15 pm)   [edit]
[b]Bush, Kerry Tentatively OK Three Debates[/b]
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - The campaigns of President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) tentatively have agreed to a series of three debates that both sides hope will give them momentum in the closing weeks of the presidential election campaign, a person familiar with the debate negotiations said Sunday night.

The agreement, not yet final, calls for the presidential debates to be spread over a two-week period beginning Sept. 30.

Details of the debates were being negotiated by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III for Bush and attorney Vernon Jordan for Kerry. It was not clear when any agreement would be announced. The Bush campaign denied that there was a deal.

"No deal has been reached. Reports of a tentative agreement — I don't even know what that means _are false," said Nicolle Devenish, communications director for the Bush campaign. She said Baker had told his staff there was not a deal.

But a person familiar with the debate negotiations said there was a tentative deal for three debates but that some details were still being worked out. The person spoke on condition of anonymity since the agreement is not final.

The tentative agreement also calls for one vice presidential debate on Oct. 5 between Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), Kerry's running mate.

The source said the two campaigns have agreed on the dates and sites proposed by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates — Sept. 30 at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.; Oct. 8 at Washington University in St. Louis; and Oct. 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz.

The co-chairmen of the debate commission told representatives for Bush and Kerry on Wednesday that they must act immediately to finalize details for the debates, with the first only two weeks away.

The Kerry campaign agreed last month to the commission's proposal for venues, dates and moderators for three debates involving the presidential candidates and one for the vice presidential candidates. However, the Bush campaign would not commit to the proposal.

With a guaranteed television audience of tens of millions of people, the debates could have a major impact because of the closeness of the race and the voters who still count themselves as undecided.

In a poll by the Pew Research Center, 29 percent of those surveyed said the debates would matter in deciding how they would vote. Some 68 percent said their minds were already made up.

Those undecided voters could make a huge difference. According to a Nielsen survey, 46.6 million people watched the first debate between Bush and Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000. The second and third debates drew audiences of 37.6 million, and 37.7 million, respectively.

In 2000, Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore debated three times in 90-minute sessions in October. Their running mates debated once that month. For the third presidential debate, Bush and Gore answered questions posed by undecided voters from the St. Louis area during a town-hall session.

The three presidential debates between Bush and Gore drew television audiences ranging from 37 million to 47 million people, according to the commission, the first debate gaining the largest audience. The vice presidential debate was viewed by more than 28 million people.<