Saturday, October 30, 2004
John F. Kerry: George W. Bush sat there for seven minutes - seven minutes as the planes were flying into our buildings
Osama Bin Laden: We never would have imagined that your Commander in Chief would sit there for seven minutes as 50,000 Americans were under attack.
Now, who you gonna vote for?
John Kerry's career began in 1971 attacking every member of the United States Armed forces including their families here at home leading to the worst treatment of our servicemen in our nations history.
Hopefully John Kerry will end his career with this final attack (pick your poison - the failed in Tora Bora or they let the weapons in Al QaQaa disappear) on every member of the US armed forces!
Who you gonna vote for?
Friday, October 29, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF NONSENSE: So Osama has released a new video in which he harshes on Bush:
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone ... because he thought listening to a
child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said, referring to Bush's visit to a school when the attack occurred.
Just goes to show, you get a little nutty when you spend too much time living in a cave.
Seriously, had you heard this anywhere but from the Moore-on's and terrorists!As Daly Thoughts puts it:
I look at it as very good news for America.
Al Qaeda wanted to influence the Spanish elections, and did so by bombing and mass murder.
Now they want to influence our elections. They did so by releasing a tape.
They would have hit us if they could.
Knock on wood! Remember if they can they will hit us before the election if they think it will defeat Bush!
We'll just have to pray and keep on attacking them on their land rather then waiting for them to hit us here!
"Your taking an illogical premise and proceeding logically to an illogical conclusion." Donald Rumsfeld
This is what the elite left has been doing for years in their intellectual high minded nuance they have managed to completely eliminate any right or wrong from our society. In they process they have eliminated any personal responsibility.
In the War on Terror I couldn't say it any better then Right Wing News did here:
Consider that in just 4 years, Bush took down Afghanistan, a nation that stymied the Soviets for a decade in 2 months, smashed the Taliban & Al-Qaeda's training camps, and helped Afghanistan to have a successful nationwide election earlier this month.
He also crushed Saddam Hussein, who had been sticking in his thumb in our eye since the Gulf War, and that country has elections scheduled for January of next year. (I might add that Saddam attacked our airmen every day as we did the work of the UN)
That's 50 million people freed from tyranny and two enemies of America taken down.
Furthermore, we've rounded up more than 3000 Al-Qaeda operatives world wide and captured 3/4ths of their pre-9/11 leadership. And if Osama Bin Laden wasn't killed at Tora Bora -- which is a big "if" -- he has been hiding in a hut somewhere laying low for almost two years and unable to run day to day operations for Al-Qaeda. That's one of hell of a record.
On top of that, Bush has convinced Libya to get out of the WMD and terrorism business, turned Pakistan from a terror supporter to a terror fighter, broken a nuclear arms ring that had been run out of Pakistan, and he has gotten Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea together to bring North Korea to heel. He has also, amazingly enough, kept Al-Qaeda from hitting us again since 9/11...at least so far. How many people would have predicted that on 9/12/2001?
If that's a record of "incompetence", we should be so lucky as to have another four years of it.
But, you know why people like Sullivan can get away with calling Bush "incompetent" without people laughing at them for saying something so ridiculous?
Because they obsessively focus on minutiae. The press spends weeks examining every detail of relatively unimportant stories like the minor looting that occurred at the Baghdad museum, Abu Ghraib, and these Al-Qaqaa explosives which were almost certainly moved before we ever arrived, while hardly looking at the big picture.
Imagine if the spinmeisters and the press spent as much time incessantly carping about every little thing that went wrong in WW2 as they do about the war on terror? How do you think things would have turned out if the Republicans and the press were all calling the war an unwinnable quagmire a few weeks in and saying a thousand men lost was an unacceptable loss? And in 1941, we didn't have to worry about a Kamikaze or a Nazi sneaking a nuclear weapon into New York or LA and making the city disappear under a mushroom cloud.As Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant, a man who was criticized for his tactics even he has helped lead the North to victory, "I can't spare this man he fights". And yes, George Bush may have a position on gay marriage that Andrew Sullivan doesn't care for, but we cannot spare George Bush because "he fights" and he has shown that he can do it exceedingly well...
Make your plans now to vote on Tuesday for someone who will Fight for our nation not someone who will spend their time following the illogical conclusion that the United States are always on the wrong side of every issue. The terrorists do not have valid reasons to murder innocent people.
The United States is not the evil empire! John Kerry was too nuanced to confront evil in the 1980's and based on his "plans" he would find it hard to do so now because it isn't in his nature!
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Despite the fact that he was aware that his actions were based on lies he continued until the US was defeated here at home. The result was the slaughter of millions throughout South East Asia, the prolonging of the suffering of the POW's in Vietnam, the demoralization of our troops, the demoralization of the United States, and the division of the US population.
In 2004 John Kerry has reemerged as a media hero by attacking the reputations and actions of every soldier currently serving in Iraq and elsewhere in the War on Terror. He has advanced the theory that everyone from the President to the lowliest private has not done their jobs in the manner they should have! Proclaiming that he, in all his infinite wisdom could do it better. He has done this to advance his personal and ideological goals no matter what the cost.
In so doing he has emboldened our enemies and a John Kerry victory in the upcoming election could bring about the same type of demoralization of America and her brave troops that led to the slaughter of over 2 1/2 million innocent people in communist Asia.
John Kerry is a member of the intelligence committee and if he had bothered to attend the meetings he would have known that his actions were based on lies. He has jumped upon a story that is falling apart under the light of logic and today we find out that The Russians moved the missing explosives prior to our invasion of Iraq. John Kerry might very likely have known that this was a strong possibility based on the satellite photo's available to him if he attended these committee meetings (his attendance record is less then 25%) . It is also a possibility that he was aware of these facts but decided that the promise of a Kerry Presidency justified the lies.
I need to add that I am on a roll lately - Just days ago I mentioned that it was very possible that the President knew something about this (and WMD, which I mentioned weeks ago) that he was not at liberty to disclose for various military, security, and diplomatic reasons! If John Kerry was aware of the possibility of the Russian involvement in the missing weapons he most likely knew that the President was not able to discuss it. John Kerry chose to use it to advance the attack on this and in so doing he very well may have jeopardized our national security!
Even worse is the fact that John Kerry's answer to all of our problems is the UN and those Old Europe allies that Saddam had in his back pocket!
The President's failure to admit mistakes, as the Lie-N-Hype Moore-on's like to say, could be because he KNOWS he did not make these same mistakes he is being accused of! If this proves to be the case then John Kerry needs to be tried for treason and given the punishment that a guilty verdict guarantees in the constitution.
There are many keys here that give us a look into John Kerry's beliefs, but one of the most disturbing is the fact that it is difficult to tell if he is just so ideologically driven that he believes that the ends, a Kerry Presidency, justify the means, the attacks on our soldiers, President, population, and reputations - THE DEFEAT OF THE US HERE AT HOME.
Either that or he is such an opportunistic Fuck that he would do anything to get what he wants - the Presidency.
What we do know is that President Bush has the interest of the United States as his primary motive for every decision he makes! John Kerry has placed his own interests and the interests of the UN ahead of his own country.
PS - This may be a rambling mess, but I am very tired right now and wanted to lay out these thoughts while they were fresh.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Caroline Kennedy (via Drudge):
CAROLINE KENNEDY TO BUSH: STOP INVOKING MY FATHER
Wed Oct 27 2004 15:19:01 ET
WASHINGTON, DC *In response to George W. Bush's invocation of prominent Democrats including President John F. Kennedy, Kennedy's daughter Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg issued this statement. "It's hard for me to listen to President Bush invoking my father's memory to attack John Kerry. Senator Kerry has demonstrated his courage and commitment to a stronger America throughout his entire career. President Kennedy inspired and united the country and so will John Kerry. President Bush is doing just the opposite. All of us who revere the strength and resolve of President Kennedy will be supporting John Kerry on Election Day." Developing....
I am much more powerful then even I know!
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Personally, I think the 2004 campaign most resembles 1948. Just as Harry Truman had begun to wage the Cold War and formulated the Truman Doctrine, President Bush is waging the War on Terror with the Bush Doctrine. As Truman engaged in nation-building in Europe, Bush is engaged in nation building in the Middle-East. As in 1948, The domestic political opposition is supposedly energized and all the talk is about how the president could be defeated. However, the president isnt afraid to point out his opponents flaws (Give em hell, Harry!) and wins because people see him as a simple man, but a well-intentioned, trustworthy leader in a historic time.-- PoliPundit
That's what he thinks - but I had this strange thought last night that will drive the already loonie liberals crazy, see if you can follow me here:
The comparisons between John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush:
- Both men were elected in the closest elections in their century
- Both men believed in personal responsibility
- Both men dramatically lowered taxes which lead to a economic growth
- Both men believed in a strong offense as the best defense to protect the US
- Both men were met with unprecedented threats and challenges to national security
- Both men fought against the bureaucratic structures that were so set in their ways they would sabotage those changes to keep the status quo
- Both men challenged world opinion in bold military steps
- Both men united the world against a common enemy
- Both men upset the apple cart making them hated by various factions
One was assassinated by what the vast majority of the world believe was a conspiracy of the corrupt rich and powerful in an attempt to maintain that wealth and power. They have yet to be identified.
The other has had repeated attempts to assassinate him politically by what could only be called a conspiracy of the corrupt rich and powerful in an attempt to maintain that wealth and power! They are the UN, the IAEA, the media, and the Lie-N-Hype 9/11 Moore-on's!
(I know you can think of more - add them to the Drive Loonie Liberal's Crazy list by clicking on the comments link at the end of this post!)
See what can happen when that apple cart is disturbed! But can you honestly say that the changed underway now - painful to those corrupted - is not for the better just as they were in Kennedy's day?
A HUGE difference between then and now -the Democrats of today and the Republicans of yesterday - is illustrated by the following article by The Washington Times. This story confirms the depths to which the left has sunk.
John Kerry and the Lie-N-Hype Moore-on's have the blood of Americans and Iraqis on their hands! They have actively positioning the Democratic party and the entire left on the side of those who's apple cart was dumped over for political gain! This is nothing short of treason in a time of war!!!
Here are excerpts - read the whole thing!
BAGHDAD Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.
"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance. ...........................
"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."......................
The most pro-Kerry, he said, are the former Saddam Hussein loyalists Ba'ath Party members and others who think Washington might scale back its ambitions for Iraq if Mr. Kerry wins, allowing them to re-enter civic life. ..........................
"They say there are 1,100 dead soldiers. That means 1,100 families hold grudges against Bush and hate him. There are 6,000 families whose sons were injured who hate Bush and will not re-elect him."
Now, who did you say you wanted to vote for, of course you have to be careful or you may end up getting your windows shot out by the loonie lefties out there so don't tell the pollsters! However when you get in that booth make sure you remember who's apple cart you want to help push!
Just to explain or make this point - As I have said many times before - Could it be that the President and the Army knew more about what our real enemy/objective was in Iraq?
The weapons were not in the ammo dump when the army got there!
But the Documents that prove the UN was corrupt and was actually paid to be our enemy in this endeavor were still in the oil ministry! Got that! Without those we wouldn't have proof as to why they blocked us - why they stopped our entry through Turkey, which would have freed up our troops to stay behind and guard an empty ammo dump!
We wouldn't have been able to confront them (which I believe will happen in Bush's second term) and cause a real alliance against terror!
Folks, our real enemies in this matter are spinning this and Kerry and the Main Stream Media is helping them just so they can take over power. But what kind of power will they have at the end of this? We will be lucky to have the "spitballs" Zell Miller discussed at the RNC!
I have said in the past that the media NEEDS a Kerry Presidency in order to recapture it's heyday!
To start The Trek let me highlight:
Point A - Well all I have to say is it is a war for goodness sake!
But common sense will give you a bit more insight, to start with you have the amount of explosives, reported to be 380 tons. (some confusion as to weather it is metric tonnes or english, but that isn't that important) In a land where we KNOW there were 600,000 tons of weapons - KNOWN WEAPONS 380 tons isn't that large an amount. Now don't get me wrong, any amount is dangerous - but seriously, see point A above!
Next is the timing of the reports - it seems the last IAEA confirmation report was in January 2003. The weapons were reportedly sealed in March 2003 but were open when our troops liberated the munitions dump April 10, 2003.
NBC had an embedded crew with the army unit that found the dump and confirms that the weapons were not there when they were located. Drudge is all over this - the weapons were not there when we got there! What is the deal - see point A above!
He is also reporting that MSNBC is reporting this line about our wonderful allies: Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."
What, how could that be - considering the huge sums of money that were dancing around out there could it be that they weren't quite as political as financial in their concerns!
Captain's Quarters is reporting that the NY Times didn't get the memo from NBC - they are attempting to hammer the story one more time! Just to make their point that George W. Bush is a bad man! And they have first ammendment protection!
They should be ashamed of their behavior, as Roger Simon point points out:
But I cannot shut up. This kind of biased behavior is unconscionable. Although it is nowhere near as drastic, of course, it makes me think of the days of Walter Duranty, that Timesman who won a Pultizer while white-washing Stalin. How could such things happen, I always wondered. Now I know. They happen when people think they are doing the right thing for the right cause and in their zeal don't stop to consider the reality of what they are saying and writing. Yes, this is worse than Jayson Blair.
I couldn't agree more!
By The Way (BTW) can someone point out to me how many fighting allies we had in World War II? It was only 17! Yep, only Seventeen! There were non-fighting ("Moral Support") supporting allies primarily from south and central America.
Now, although they attempted to pay off Hitler by giving him Europe Hitler wasn't able to pay off leaders of other nations in an attempt to ensure his survival! That level of greed and slime wasn't reached until the current century 0r was it, here are the reasons the League of Nations was considered a failure:
- It lacked any armed forces.
- Unanimous vote was required.
- A number of major countries were not included:
- Even though president Woodrow Wilson had been a driving force behind the League of Nations, the United States never joined, after its Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and on January 19, 1919 voted not to join the League.
- Germany was a member only between 1926 and 1933.
- Japan and Italy began as permanent members, but left in 1932 and 1937, respectively.
- The USSR joined only in 1934, and was expelled on December 14, 1939 for aggression, after it invaded Finland.
- Ineffectuality in specific situations, notably the mid-1930s crisis over Italy's invasion of Abyssinia.
- A non-permanent council and assembly made for slow decisions.
- The most important members protected their respective self-interests.
Monday, October 25, 2004
None of them are good choices - but I would guess it was a combination of the last two, after all he lied about the Cambodia incident and he re-enacted battlefield scenes for the sake of filming them for his future political use. In addition he is the Senator who demands front of the line treatment in Boston asking others, "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"
In addition to that on C-Span Elizabeth Edwards was caught telling a supporter that they didn't need to worry about riots or violence as long as Kerry/Edwards wins! Didn't I just talk about that in my last post right below here! Is she really saying that her supporter needs to barricade the doors if they lose - I wouldn't put it past them!
What's it all about? The Trek:
Well, as you can see in this video (The Daily Recycler) John Kerry stated that he had met with the entire UN Security Council before he voted to authorize the Iraq war. This was at least the second time he made this claim. But the problem is that it just didn't happen! The Washington Times investigation proves that he met with 3, and perhaps one more, but that is unconfirmed. There are 15 member council. That is a HUGE difference! Were these 3 the same for who he earlier claimed wanted him to win? Amazing to no one is that France was the only confirmed meeting with a permanent member of the Security Council.
Here is what he said:
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," -- JFKerry(D)
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
Lori at Polipundit has this:
Quite a few Polipundit readers are disappointed that this story is another one about Kerry lying. I guess when it is an everyday occurrence it ceases to be big news.
But it really isn't, it is HUGE, this is the man who's entire campaign was based on lies and exaggerations. From Vietnam to his claims that he would be better at building alliances, but it seems his only real concern is France!
In the Mideast, Bush dared to be different That is what the Philly.com says. I said this earlier this month and I agree with when they make these points:
War rather than law enforcement
Democracy rather than stability
Preemption rather than deterrence
Leadership rather than reaction in setting the goals for an Arab-Israeli settlement.
I would have to add the false alliances that were bought by the highest bidders. Hmmm, that is of course Russia and Kerry's UN Security Council favorite FRANCE! Wonder if he picks his alliances based on the same criteria he uses to pick his wife's?
John Kerry was given money by an Albanian terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army. They had assisted Chechen Terrorists in the past - the same terrorists that murdered children in their school! (Thanks Wizbang)
Compare this story from Slings and Arrows to the teacher who was fired for having a picture of the President in her grade school classroom:
In this required class, Snider asks students to think about: "Is it right for the Bush administration to use the War on Terrorism for political or commercial purposes? Should Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search) have been impeached for her partisan, political actions in the Bush v. Gore case? What evidence do we have that Mr. Bush and his cronies lied to the American people in promoting the Iraq war?"Was it Political Science class? No, it was English 101!
Snider also prohibits students from writing about prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, the "so-called faith-based initiative (search)," abortion and "so-called creationism," which in his opinion, "[there is] no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions."
I discussed the reasons Europe will never be a real European Union in the past and here is more confirmation of this from Captain's Quarters.
A campaign to make French the official language of European law has been launched in an attempt to show the world that France will not bow to the ascendancy of English without a fight. ...
Teaching unions and politicians have reacted with indignation to a report calling for English to be obligatory in the school curriculum, while one of President Jacques Chirac's objections to Peter Mandelson as an EU commissioner was that his French was not up to scratch.
The foreign ministry has called for a spirited campaign for the language in Brussels while the Académie Française, which campaigns relentlessly for pure French, says defence of the language should be "the major national cause of the 21st century".
English became the primary language of international trade and diplomacy not because governments imposed it but because of the ascendancy of American and British diplomatic and economic power. French influence has steadily declined since the collapse of the Republic in 1940. Instead of freeing the French to create an economic dynamo by abandoning socialism and embracing capitalism, the French have decided to just use Gallic arrogance and insist that everyone speak French because ... well, because they don't want to have to speak English.
The fact that France thinks that a popularity contest of languages is their most pressing national issue while Islamic terrorism threatens the West and their own exponentially-growing Muslim population causes increasing conflict at home demonstrates the essential irrelevancy of Paris. How can anyone take them seriously as a leader in the war on terror while they focus on their language obsession?
I would have to add that not only do they not get it, they believe the world is a zero sum game. As such they think the only way to increase their influence and power - so as to reclaim some of their past-lost greatness they have to hurt the standing of the US.
Ads like the new Moveon ad are a good example. In the ad they have a 9/11 widow who makes a very effective and emotional appeal in an attempt to get people to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately ads like these give an immediate reaction that is followed by a backlash against the candidate. The public reacts almost universally by thinking - bitter widow with misplaced anger that is being used by the candidate or organization to exploit the anger and grief. They definately remember this - but because the loon's are blinded by their hatred they are unable to see this. I wonder what happened to their media people.
UPDATE: Roger Simon wonders if Kerry is a sociopath?
Sunday, October 24, 2004
What the F.....
The Portland police are preparing for a reaction by the Dem's in the event they lose on November 2.
Where did this begin - how about this, remember the childish theft of the W's from the computers in the White House when the childish Clinton's left!
Where will it end, if you believe the tales of an internet poster who claimed to be from the future it could be when we realize we are in a new Civil War - John Titor and John Titor. Who knows, the Dem's are easy to get violent against our own - but don't ask them to defend our country against any foreign aggressors!