1st Round: JohnH 1, George 0

I am a fairly prolific emailer regarding political issues. Sometime my emails get forwarded to other folks. And sometimes the folk who receive these forwarded emails are Democrats that resent any data that happens to threaten their worldview. Sometimes these indignant dolts—thinking that they are setting me straight—write me amusing little notes that only accomplishes digging themselves deeper.

I live to annoy these people with facts.

Anyway, I recently replied to someone about some topic—I cannot remember what it was about—and one of the recipients evidently forwarded whatever I wrote to a certain George S. George subsequently sent me the following email:

[George’s full name and email address redacted to protect his privacy.]

Subject: Reality

The GOP warned us what would happen if Gore was elected in 2000:

1. We would go to war.
2. The national debt would soar.
3. The US economy would plummet.
4. The stock market would plunge.
5. Unemployment would be rampant.
6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value.
7. We would have a huge budget deficit.

They were right.
Gore won and all those things happened.

Well, boys and girls, you can already see how much fun we can have with this one. Here’s my reply to George:

Dear George,

I smiled when I received your letter reciting the Democratic Party’s toxic myth that “Al Gore won”. I suppose I’m to understand that you’re convinced that this myth is true.

One of my specialties is ClueBat™ therapy; I see you need intervention.

You didn’t explicitly state the basis of your acceptance of this myth so I will just have to guess what it might be.

Some folk seem to be peeved that Al Gore didn’t win the election even though he won the popular vote. It is not in dispute that Gore won the popular vote but people who are familiar with this country constitution understand that it is the one who wins the majority of the Electoral College vote gets to be the president. Like George Bush said: “the rules say the majority of the electoral college. If they specified a majority of the popular vote I would have run a different campaign.”

Another possibility is that you believe that Al Gore might have won if he won at the Supreme Court. He wouldn’t have.

As you may know, the Democrats conducted a months long search in pursuit of some way of counting the vote that would have made Al Gore president. The Miami Herald reported on their findings and stated in April 2001:

What would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not halted the sweeping recount of undervotes -- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines -- ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 8, a month after the November election?

The answer: under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won.

So as you see, Bush won the presidency under either outcome.

Most of your email was based on the premise that “Gore won”. Now that I’ve shown the premise that you based the rest of your email on to be false I don’t need to invest any more time refuting the remainder of your email. I reached this conclusion using a little mental trick I call “logic”, that is the ability to reason correctly.

Since you evidently believe that Al Gore won the presidency you might also believe he invented the Internet. Very well, I will humor you.

I recommend you use Al Gore’s invention to fact check your emails before you send them to those who are already familiar with basic facts. For example, a few minutes with google would have spared you the embarrassment caused by your “Al Gore won” comment.

I apologize if I have exposed you to any trivially accessible information that threatened your worldview. But, as you know, you cannot make an omelet with out breaking stale clichés and all of that.

Perhaps next week we can work on, say, Blood for oil”; if, of course, you think you can survive another ClueBat session

My Best Regards

JohnH

George immediately responded with:

[Full name and email redacted]

Subject: How Sad

Mr. [My last name redacted],

What you don’t understand is HOW BAD Bush is for America. Under his leadership this is what occurred the last 3.5 years:

1. We fought an unjust war. We were lied to about why we went to war with Iraq. You know it was a lie and it’s been one revisionist reason after another since the lies became known.

2. The national debt soared.

3. The US economy has plummeted.

4. The stock market has plunged.

5. Unemployment has been rampant. Bush is the 1st president in a century that lost more jobs then were created.

6. The US dollar has lost significant value.

7. America’s budget deficit is HUGE thanks to Bush. Remember he had a Republican congress, so you are gonna blame?

Whether or not Gore won Florida in 2000 is a non-issue. The question is: Has Bush been a successful president? The answer is: undeniably NO he has not. He’s been the worst president in our history. And if he wins a second term, the damage he’ll cause may be incurable during our lifetimes.

Well folks, leaving aside George’s other assertions, contrary to his previous email he now assertes that “Whether or not Gore won Florida in 2000 is a non-issue”. Well I’m glad we cleared that up!

A little more quick analysis: George doesn’t exactly concede that Al Gore didn’t win in 2000; he just claims that his preceding email’s primary point is actually “a non-issue” and changes the subject.

Whatever. I’ll whip him on his new issues too.

At this point I’m feel justified in declaring that I’ve won the first round.

JohnH 1 – George 0

The unending litany of good news from Iraq

The MSM has underplayed any news that risks sending messaged that contradicts their “Iraq is a quagmire” spin. Chrenkin' off has an excellent —and long— review of Iraqi success stories here and here .

Hat tip to Glen

Genuflection toward Chrenkin' off for this massive compilation

Republican Sex Lives are better; and unlike CBS, they aren't faking it

ABC news' Primetime Live conducted a sex poll that captured political party affiliation:

Oct. 18, 2004 — American Sex Lives 2004, a new "Primetime Live" sex poll conducted in conjunction with the ABC News Polling Unit, is among the most comprehensive surveys of its kind in decades and establishes a new, detailed picture of sex attitudes and behavior in America today.

[snip]

The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:

• Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?Republicans — 87 percent; Democrats — 76 percent


• Who is very satisfied with their sex life? Republicans — 56 percent; Democrats — 47 percent


• The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:Republicans — 72 percent; Democrats — 62 percent


• When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

Well I don't see why I should contribute any commentary; this poll speaks well enough for itself.

Hat tip to Mark Steyn

Saddam’s Coalition of the Bribed II

I’ve already blogged about this topic before, now Eli Lake, reporter for the NY Sun, has just written a damning article on the countries that participated in the UN’s Oil for Food Program (AKA: UN’s Oil for Security Council Vetoes Program). A major element of Lake’s article pertained to the Charles Duelfer’s CIA report [pdf], which documented—among other things—particular government officials, particular state industries and particular UN officials that Saddam saw fit to enrich.

Coincidently, Duelfer’s report also “connects the dots” regarding these payoffs and refusal to join Bush’s coalition to remove Saddam’s regime. The connection between these dots is apparently invisible to Kerry’s naked eye since he persists in claiming that it was “Bush’s failed diplomacy” that drove these potential allies away; not their preexisting defacto alliance with Saddam.

Of course this report is having diplomatic repercussions. Here’s a fragment from Lake’s article:

One American diplomat told The New York Sun yesterday that the allegations were "a diplomatic nuclear bomb." The diplomat added, "Most of our ambassadors pleaded with the White House not to release the information." State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said "the report looked solid to us."

“A diplomatic nuclear bomb” huh? Excellent! I’m beginning to have high hopes for this report.

Actually, on second though, I prefer think of this as a diplomatic neutron bomb, that is, a weapon of diplomatic mass destruction that diplomatically eradicates weasel nations while leaving Bush’s coalition unharmed.

Duelfer’s report shows the utter vacuousness of John Kerry’s drivel regarding Bush’s purportedly “failed diplomacy”. Further, I know that John Kerry already knows that everything he is saying is drivel. How can I know this? Because it was already common knowledge among anybody that was following the antics of the weasel members of the UNSC—plus Russia and China—that these countries were doing everything possible to remove sanctions regardless of Saddam’s behavior.

Kenneth Pollack, who is former director of Gulf affairs for the National Security Council, detailed in his in his pre Gulf War II book The Threatening Storm, all of the reasons why Iraq’s sanctions were on the verge of collapse. Pollack uses 32 pages to pedantically discuss the history of Iraqi sanctions, the tireless efforts of the French, Russians, and Chinese to make the sanctions ineffective. Pollack then assigns blame for the impending total failure of the sanctions:

Americans like to blame themselves, or their domestic opponents, the failures of containment of Iraq. … However, to say that the United State could have handled containment better than we did is not to suggest that we were responsible for its demise. We weren’t. Indeed, we and a handful of other countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Great Britain, Holland, Japan, and Australia come immediately to mind—are the only ones that are blameless in this tragedy. The culprits are the French, Chinese, Russians [emphasis mine—johnh], and every other country that not only walked away from the commitments they joined the international community in making in 1990-91 but actively worked to undermine them. The reason that we are now faced with such unpleasant choices regarding Iraq is not so much because of our own failures but because of the perfidy of others.

Notice that of the countries that Pollard held to be blameless includes coalition members such as Great Britain, Australia, Holland, and Japan. Also notice that the nations that Pollard identifies as the primary reason why sanctions were both failing to the verge of collapse are the same countries identified in Duelfer’s report as the primary beneficiaries of the UN’s corrupted Oil for Food program.

Of course beneficiaries of the UN’s corrupted Oil for Food program are also the same countries who strained to prevented the U.S. from removing Saddam.

These facts—whose general outline, if not the specific details—were well understood before the war. For campaign purposes John Kerry pretends not grasp that logical consequences of these facts indicate that the countries that benefited by the continued presence of Saddam would never give U.S. permission to remove Saddam. For example, the French would have to act against their immediate self-interest; an event that has never occurred in recorded history.

To be pedantic, an everlasting UN Oil for Food program would also mean everlasting bribe and kickback money for the French, Chinese, and Russians. These were also the same countries that opposed the U.S. pursuit of Saddam and one of these countries—France—was prepared to veto the last UNSC resolution so as to continue to benefit from an uninterrupted UN’s Oil of Food program.

If John Kerry can be believed, Kenneth Pollack and everyone else except John Kerry knew that France, Germany, Russia and China were never our allies and that they had every reason to oppose us; both then and now.

The Soul of the Left

The cover art for the July 2004 issue of The Intellectual Activist is titled The Soul of the Left.
The Cox and Forkum team designed this artwork.



The Soul of the Left

Yearning for the Mud: The Kerry-Heinz Ticket and the Psychotic Party Platform

Gerard Van der Leun (www.americandigest.org) has written an awesome post that, I think, puts its finger on the Democratic surrender monkey syndrome and explains that John Kerry's base is at least partially comprised of wretched Americans who’s mental image of America is that of a humiliated, losing, and pathetic giant.

Just recall Jimmy Carter’s Desert One debacle if you want to get the flavor of the America these Americans aspire to.

Gerard Van der Leun has also graciously given permission for his post to reproduced. So, with this permission, I have reproduced his entire post below.

================

While they promise them liberty,
they themselves are the servants of corruption:
for of whom a man is overcome,
of the same is he brought in bondage.
-- The Second Epistle of Peter 2:19

Listening to John Kerry whip out his plodding French to pander to the sad Haitian vote yesterday put me in a nostalgic frame of mind.

I lived in France for a number of years. I have a lot of French friends. My daughter was conceived in France. I lived in Aix, Paris, and along the Western Front. Unlike others, not all my thoughts of France are negative. But when I consider what the Democratic Party's perverted primary process disgorged as their offering in this year's election, and when I listen to half of it spout execrable French and the other half denigrate mothers and librarians after a career of hunting billionaires to extinction, it brings out the French in me.

When I hear Kerry-Heinz speak, I think "Ah,nostalgie pour la boue." They say that their campaign is about the future. It's not. It is about the past; about nostalgie pour la boue.

The Kerry Campaign is not some expression of deep American values and ideals, but an expression of the lowest realms of American Political life, something that has always been part of our politics -- the subconscious yearning for American defeat.

We saw this in the Revolutionary War with the die-hard monarchists who worked without end to thwart the Revolution and return us to the Crown. We see the same pasty anti-patriotism today in the doddering foolishness of Jimmy Carter and his "one-world" pap.

We saw it again in the traitorous "Copperheads" of the Civil War who worked within the Union for its ruin; that their treason could command a place in history. It did, it gave them a place in historic ignominy.

The Cold War and Vietnam engendered millions who played and protested that this country become less free --- and they did it under the banner of "freedom." They were often, as the years wore on, celebrities or the very rich; those who knew that they could live on the bounty of the society they betrayed. They were also the millions spewed out by the twisted academies that year after year filled up via nepotism with failed socialists, thwarted communists, half-baked artistes, malevolent poets, doomed scribblers and all the other remnants of the intellectually insane of America who couldn't get fat jobs in the mainstream media.

Over time, these elements made up the American Al Queda [Translation from the Arabic -- "the base."] From that base we got decades of insipid, irony-drenched, heavily nuanced and depraved "underground" movements that oozed ever upward until the underground was above ground displaying a few fine tattoos inked deep into its behind.

Indeed, if you cast about today for a carefully contrived political and marital career that paralleled this relentless rise of the underground mud to the surface, you couldn't do better than that of John Kerry. He's in the foreground or background photograph of every movement to defeat and weaken America that has been hatched in this country for the better part of forty years.

Today this movement peaks in these last few weeks in the life of the Kerry-Heinz ticket. [Work with me here in realizing that John Edwards is the greatest political "beard" since, well, Al Gore.] The Kerry-Heinz ticket, along with their millions of so-so supporters, and the legion of celebrities and media personalities, is willing to have others 'bear any burden' so that their little degenerate dream world isn't subsumed by history.

They are consumed by a twisted ideology that has been thriving under the protection of freedom for so long, they do not even realize that what they advocate is the defeat of the only system that allows them to live as degenerate a lifestyle as they like. It's not often that the internal self-loathing of millions is expressed in a serious run at the Presidency, but that's what we're seeing now; the therapeutic culture with teeth on fire.

It is not only dangerous, it is also embarrassing, and becoming more so by the day. What can at last be heard is the sotto voce DeanScream in the now panicked posturing of John Kerry and his lunatic wife.

Listen and you will hear the rantings of people so wealthy, and so deep in the bubble of wealth, that they have no hope of seeing how perverted their ideology actually is. Having wealth that they did not earn, but obtained instead by accident and marriage, makes unable to realize their own net-worth has no bearing on their self-worth. In addition, they will have been careful to surround themselves with sycophants in order that their mellow never be harshed.

It is said that a neurotic is a person just slightly out of touch with reality, but a psychotic is a person totally in touch with reality -- it just happens to be their private reality. That psychosis is what we are seeing in the Kerry-Heinz ticket; a psychotic couple locked together in a psychotic stumbling break-dance, taking an entire party down with them into the crazy place. The screeching and posturing continue unaware that the actual platform their entire party is running on is expressed by: "Democrats: Join with Us in Our Subconscious Desire for American Defeat." While that may appeal to many of their peers who have already degenerated past redemption, it is unlikely to translate into a win.

Still it is worthwhile to ask, faced with such a massive manifestation of the "Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds" just what is going on here? How can so many of our fellow citizens fall "half in love with easeful death?"

When I last looked at this in December, dementia is what I found. It holds even more true today. The only thing that has changed is that, having found a willing host in Kerry-Heinz, the psychosis has metastasized.

What's going on is a massive, subconscious desire on the part of millions of our fellow Americans to ensure that America loses -- not only in Iraq, but in the wider First Terrorist War. But why?

The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue which means, roughly, "yearning for the mud." Nostalgie pour la boue is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. This is a specialty of the French culture.

Nostalgie pour la boue is usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. You can see it at its most graphic in the party scenes in the French film, Killing Zoe. Most people try this sort of thing a time or two in their youth, but grow out of it when time, experience, or, in many cases, God gets the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Many never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as "perverts" but are now more kindly seen as "differently minded" and left to go their own way in our "consenting " culture.

A minority of the last group manage to make a career of nostalgie pour la boue and are generally known as "celebrities."

There's a lot of cross-over between celebrity culture and media culture. Indeed, it is becoming hard to tell them apart. Both live, for the most part, in an insulated bubble that is impervious to moral, psychological, or political rehabilitation, or exacts the penalty of expulsion from the bubble in the event of such rehabilitation.

I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture; one that arises from nostalgie pour la boue, but is more damaging to the body politic: nostalgie pour la défaite.

Nostalgie pour la défaite is that dark state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by a leftist or liberal of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America. American defeat is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the right view and right milieu. It is simply "the way things must be."

An America that is ascendant rather than retiring, an America whose policies are aggressive and not apologetic, is an America these lovers of defeat are unequipped to inhabit or report on. They have, quite frankly, an empty tool box when it comes to this task and no raw materials with which to build.

American media personalities and American celebrities with nostalgie pour la défaite are derived from decades of beliefs in an America that is best as a "pitiful, helpless Giant." It is literally the only America they know and their entire professional and personal lives, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, from the Hamptons to Aspen to Beverly Hills, are based on this grand assumption. They've even had a President that, commuting to and from these locales, confirmed it to them. Their coworkers in their jobs confirm it to them. Their significant others, drawn from the same ranks, confirm it to them. The parties they attend, the awards they give and receive, the places they vacation, the books they read and the films they make and see, all confirm it to them over and over again. It is not only the only America they know, it is the only America they can know.

Anything that confirms the nostalgie pour la défaite is news they can use. Anything that does not, is not, by definition, news at all. Which is why you see so little of it.

In sum, these defeatists are bad and sick Americans raised and trained to desire that, in all things, America should lose and become less of an important force in the world. The results of a weaker America do not concern them. It is only important that America remains weak and hamstrung.

What do they propose in its place? The short form for their vision of the future is "an empowered United Nations." At which point they step from nostalgie pour la défaite into classic nostalgie pour la boue -- the yearning for the mud. In the final analysis, it isn't that big a step.

Which is why, after over two years of rabid campaign activity, the Democrats have come up with the Kerry-Heinz ticket; two do-nothing elitists with a yen for flash UN parties, big summits, long ponderings over Chablis at sunset, and a general prostitution of the core values of America to the world at large. After all, when you look at it, when you really stare at the Kerry-Heinz resumes, who would know more about prostitution than this swinging couple?
======

A note from the johnh: This is not my work. The following note from the article's author specifies the conditions for reproducting this work.

A Note Concerning Reproduction Rights: In response to many requests, I hereby grant my permission for this essay to be reproduced freely in any form or medium as long as it carries the name of the author, Gerard Van der Leun, and the URL this site, www.americandigest.org. In addition, such reproduction is not to be done for profit, but must be given freely and without charge to interested parties. I would appreciate being notified about any such use at vanderleun@gmail.com, but it is not strictly necessary.


Hat tip to lucianne

Kerry's big plan: A Do-Not-Terrorize List

Scot Ott has the good on Kerry's deep thoughts

That ought to help put the swing in a few states.

Scot Ott reveals Bush's plan to , "turn hundreds of thousands of America-hating, anti-Bush slackers into patriotic, voting Republicans. "

Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California.

Richard Rushfield conducts an experiment to see whether red or blue America is less politically tolerent.


Hat tip to lucianne

United Flight 925

Here’s a hair-raising story (yes, even for baldy like me) regarding threatening behavior by middle eastern men on United Airlines flight 925; a transatlantic flight. The threatening behavior included:

• Several of the men had had no carry-ons.


• Once the flight was in the air, a flight attendant in the coach class cabin noticed a bag in the aisle. She asked that the owner of the bag identify him or herself at once. No one came forward to claim the bag. One of the late-arriving Middle Eastern men was seated nearby. The flight attendant asked the man pointedly if the bag was his. He replied "no" in English. Later, this same man approached the flight attendant and said that the bag in the aisle was his bag and that he wanted it back.


• the men evidently knew each other despite having paperwork that indicated that they came from different countries and arrived at the airport of departure (Heathrow airport) from different airports


• One of the men carried a hand-held mirror as he walked around the plane. According to one flight attendant, the man "was holding [the mirror] and moving it around so he could see what was going on behind him.


• the men had electronic gadgets with them that the flight crew couldn’t identify


• Captain radioed in to Heathrow airport, asking that the men's names be re-checked against the terrorist "no-fly" list. Word came back from the Captain to the crew that two of the nine men were on the "no-fly" list

Now I have read of these sorts of antic before. My opinion is that the terrorists are conducting research; probing the flight crew’s sensitivity to—and reaction to—various types of “unusual behavior”. That is logical. It is also consistent with al Qaeda’s methodical pre-terror attack preparations.

Anyway, the flight crew and the air marshals reacted correctly. The air marshals had their weapons below their blankets and the Captain requested that FBI meet the plane in Washington.

The part of this article that enraged me was United Airline ignored the captain’s orders.

But when the plane landed at the nation's capital, not a single law enforcement officer met the aircraft. No FBI, no Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), no airport police. Instead, there was one United Airlines supervisor with a clipboard.

WTF?! What were these baboons on the ground thinking?

According to the flight crew, the Captain was furious. "The pilot went ballistic," said a flight attendant. "The Air Marshals went ballistic. The Captain had requested law enforcement -- two of those guys were on the "no-fly" list and they [United Airlines] disobeyed Captain's orders!"

Without a single law enforcement officer to question the men, all nine suspects -- two of whom were possibly a threat to national security -- walked off the plane and disappeared into the crowds.

Astounding. My mind reels at the utter incompetence and negligence of United Airlines.

Hat tip The American Thinker

Dems intend to win--at any cost to America

Democratic Virginia Gov. Mark Warner gives voting rights to 1,892 felons, more than the state's three previous governors combined.

Well, far be it from me to assert that all democrats are felons; but it is true that a large majority of felons are democrats.

Warner wants to ensure that the Kerry gets the full benifit of the convict vote.

Amber Alert! VP candidate missing!

I found this giggle on Commies for Kerry:


fer sure, fer sure 

Additional identifying characteristics:

• Prissy, known to use a compact mirror when primping hair.


• Lightweight grasp of nation security issues.


• Helium-filled grasp of nation security issues compared to Dick Cheney.


• This Ex-Trial Lawyer has been recently occupied defending a known traitor from attacks by American Patriots.


• Substantially more wealthy than his American Patriot opponents due to using junk science to win huge malpractice awards. Just look at his bank account if you want to see where your health insurance premiums are going.

Open Letter Signed By 121 Retired Flag Officers On John Kerry's Political Expediency Regarding The War On Terror

The following is a letter signed by those 121 retired flag officers.

I have little to add except to make the blindingly obvious observation that other than the one general who—for reason of his own—has sided with Kerry.



To Interested Parties:

There is nothing more important than supporting troops at war. We understand that because we have commanded Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen. We know that President Bush understands this obligation to the men and women of our armed forces. He increased pay and military funding prior to September 11th and has given our troops the support they need in the War on Terror.

In contrast, Senator Kerry has a record of votes against military spending. In his first Senate race at the height of the Cold War, Senator Kerry advocated a comprehensive reduction in our armed forces, and his record since has reflected that priority.

Senator Kerry has repeatedly voted against military spending and support for troops, but no vote was as egregious as his vote against the troops currently fighting in the War on Terror. In October of 2003, after voting to send troops to war, Senator Kerry was given a chance to vote to support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with supplies like body armor and ammunition. He voted no.

Just weeks earlier, Senator Kerry said that a no vote on the funding would be "irresponsible" and would amount to a vote to "abandon our troops." And yet, that is exactly what Senator Kerry did.

We now know from Senator Biden and from Senator Kerry's own staff that this vote against the troops was cast out of political expediency as a way to stall the momentum of Governor Dean. Senator Kerry voted against troops in combat for his own political benefit.

A candidate who sends troops into harm's way and then denies them the supplies they need to do the job cannot lead our nation in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Rear Adm. John Adams
Rear Adm. Donald S. Albright, Jr.
Lt. Gen. Teddy Allen
Brig. Gen. Dwayne Alons
Lt. Gen. Charles Bagnal
Brig. Gen. John Bahnsen
Rear Adm. Stephen Baker
Maj. Gen. John Barry
Rear Adm. Timothy Beard
Rear Adm. Frances Buckley
Brig. Gen. Richard Bundy
Brig. Gen. Carl Butterworth
Rear Adm. Joseph Callo, Jr.
Vice Adm. Kent Carroll
Brig. Gen. Robert Chadwick
Vice Adm. Edward Clexton, Jr.
Lt. Gen. John Conaway
Maj. Gen. Boyd Cook
Lt. Gen. Charles Cooper
Rear Adm. Frank Corley
Rear Adm. Michael Coyle
Maj. Gen. John D'Araujo, Jr.
Gen. John Davis
Vice Adm. George Davis VI
Gen. John Deane, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Gene Deegan
Rear Adm. Jeremiah Denton, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Neil Eddins
Rear Adm. Ernest Elliot
Rear Adm. Paul Engel
Maj. Gen. Merrill Evans
Rear Adm. Edward Feightner
Rear Adm. Kenneth Fisher
Maj. Gen. John France
Maj. Gen. Joseph Franklin
Rear Adm. J. Cameron Fraser, Jr.
Rear Adm. Alan Gemmill
Lt Gen William Ginn, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Harold Glasgow
Maj. Gen. Richard Goddard
Rear Adm. Fred Golove
Rear Adm. William Gureck
Rear Adm. Wallace Guthrie
Rear Adm. Frank Haak
Lt. Gen. Robert Hails
Maj. Gen. Jack Hancock
Vice Adm. Patrick Hannifin
Rear Adm. Whitney Hansen
Vice Adm. Peter Hekman, Jr.
Rear Adm. Grant Hollett, Jr.
Rear Adm. Bobby Hollingsworth
Lt. Gen. John Hudson
Brig. Gen. Oscar Hurt
Lt. Gen. James Johnson, Jr.
Gen. P.X. Kelley
Adm. Robert Kelly
Adm. George Kinnear
Rear Adm. J. Koenig
Brig. Gen. Peter Lash
Rear Adm. Paul Lautermilch
Maj. Gen. James Livingston
Rear Adm. Walter Locke
Rear Adm. Noah Long Jr.
Rear Adm. Joseph Loughran
Rear Adm. Thomas Lynch
Maj. Gen. William Lyon
Adm. James Lyons
Maj. Gen. Clark Martin
Rear Adm. Fredrick Metz
Brig. Gen. Thomas Mikolajcik
Rear Adm. John Moriarty
Rear Adm. Thomas Morris
Maj. Gen. James Mukoyama
Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter
Brig. Gen. Michael Neil
Maj. Gen. Stanley Newman
Vice Adm. John Nicholson
Lt. Gen. John Norton
Brig. Gen. Thomas O'Brien Jr.
Rear Adm. Robert Owens
Lt. Gen. Dave Palmer
Vice Adm. John Parker, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Jeremiah Pearson III
Vice Adm. Douglas Plate
Rear Adm. Don Primeau
Brig. Gen. John Quinn
Rear Adm. Conrad Rorie
Lt. Gen. Donald Rosenblum
Vice Adm. Robert Schoultz
Rear Adm. Luther Schriefer Jr.
Brig. Gen. Dennis Schulstad
Rear Adm. Jud Scott
Rear Adm. Kenneth Sears
Rear Adm. Joel Sipes
Rear Adm. Robert Smith III
Adm. Leighton Smith Jr.
Maj. Gen. Frank Smoker Jr.
Brig. Gen. William Spruance
Gen. Carl Stiner
Vice Adm. Edward Straw
Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Larry Taylor
Lt. Gen. David Teal
Rear Adm. William Thompson
Vice Adm. Howard Thorsen
Vice Adm. Nils Thunman
Brig. Gen. William Tiernan
Rear Adm. Ernest Tissot
Rear Adm. Paul Tomb
Brig. Gen. Guy Townsend
Vice Adm. Jerry Tuttle
Maj. Gen. Glen Van Dyke
Brig. Gen. Guy Vander Linden
Rear Adm. Lloyd Vasey
Maj. Gen. Russell Violett
Rear Adm. Edward Walker, Jr.
Rear Adm. Lemuel Warfield
Maj. Gen. Gary Wattnem
Rear Adm. Harvey Weatherson
Maj. Gen. William Webb
Adm. Steven White

Bush has all of the right enemies

Strange Women Lying in Ponds has noted the names of some of the "International Leaders" whom Kerry insinuated were desperate for a Kerry election to save the world as they knew it.

It is—how you say—not an impressive list.

It also shows that Bush has all of the right enemies. Put another way, Kerry has attracted some pretty disturbing and creepy international supporters.

Check it out.

State Department Republican Underground

I know that this sounds like a contridiction in terms, but The State Department has a Republican Underground?

Who'd thunk it?

Whoever this guy is, he has his work cut out for him. This is from the About Me portion of his blog:

A Blog by career US Foreign Service officers. They are Republican (most of
the time) in an institution (State Department) in which being a Republican can
be bad for your career -- even with a Republican President!

A quick survey of his blog shows that it is well worth reading

cheers!

Steven den Beste notices interesting trends in the polls

Steven den Beste noticed some interesting data within the poll plots derived by Real Clear Politics.

A few words about Steven den Beste: among other things, he designed electronic test equipment during a substantial part of his career. It so happens that I was one of unknowing users of his work when I was a hardware test engineer during the same few years that he was designing equipment.

Anyway, the designers of test equipment are accustomed to not only making measurements but they become accustomed to both identifying the data that results from bad measurements and rejecting this bad data.

Rejecting bad data improves test equipment’s performance.

Now a word about Real Clear Politics: this site—which appears to be unbiased to me—publishes a chart that plots the average derived from a set of national polls (e.g., Zogby, Time, Gallup, CNN, ABC, CBS, et al).

Now back to Steven den Beste’s insight.

While reviewing Real Clear Politics’ poll plots Steven was struck by the what he recognized as indications of bad data. Here’s Steven:

If I saw something like that in scientific or engineering data, I'd be asking a lot of very tough questions. My first suspicion would be that the test equipment was broken, but in the case of opinion polls there is no such thing. My second suspicion would be fraud.

Steven den Beste worked with Real Clear Politics’ data to generate the following plot:


Real Clear Politics’ Poll Plots with den Beste's filtering added. Red is Bush and blue is Kerry.

Removing the data that Steven identifies as either noise or poll sampling error shows Bush slowly overtaking Kerry around July/August and terminating with a 2 point lead around November 2^nd.

I recommend that you read den Beste’s post to get all of the details

Hat tip The Belmont Club

Update:

I just read wretchard's commentary on den Beste's post and, as usual, it is excellent.

Update:

Bob White also looked at the Real Clear Politics’ three-way race chart and annotated the poll-spread timeline with certain political significant events. The poll-spread timeline is a histogram that shows the extent that Bush is either leading or trailing Kerry. The histogram’s data is derived by subtracting Kerry’s composite poll numbers from Bush’s composite poll numbers.


Real Clear Politics’ three-way race chart with annotations identifying time and nature of significant political events. (Click to see full size image.)

Bob identified eight distinct political events; four of which exactly coincided with sharp changes in the poll-spread timeline. I added two more events, the 60 Minutes II broadcast on Abu Ghraib and Reagan’s death, to support my commentary. The events related to sharp changes are:

• The Swiftboat ads


• The GOP convention


• The first debate


• The third debate

Two of these events (i.e., the debates) were one-night affairs that coincided with dramatic changes in the polls. The other two events (i.e., the Swiftboat ads and the GOP convention) were not one day events— the Swiftboat ads are still running to this day—and yet the poll spread changed dramatically on the launch of these events.

The other four events took at least a week to run their course and didn’t coincide with any dramatic changes in the poll spread. 60 Minutes II broadcast the Abu Ghraib on April 28^th and the MSM clung to this story, reciting it with an iron determination, until Reagan’s death on June 5^th forced them to temporarily change the subject for about a week.

The poll-spread timeline shows Bush’s number began to decline just before May 1^st (the 60 Minutes II broadcast) and began to recover around the first week in June (Reagan’s death). Bush’s numbers rose and plateaued-off at around +2 percent for three weeks before declining again under the influence of resumed Abu Ghraib and “Iraq is a mess” coverage.

Bush’s numbers returned to negative territory (i.e., Kerry was leading Bush) until late August. During this time Kerry named Edwards as his running mate on July 6^th and the Democratic National Convention ran from July 26^th to July 29^th. Nothing the Democrats did seems to have any affect on the poll number (remember all of the marveling at the Kerry’s “bounce less” convention?)

Except for the respite that occurred when Reagan died, Bush had relentlessly terrible news from May until September and this suppressed his poll numbers. My recollection is that the MSM relentless talked-up the Abu Ghraib scandal ad nauseum and considered it topic ‘A’ until the DNC convention.

The Democrat’s Convention also kept Bush’s numbers down but couldn’t make them any worse. It appears that a Kerry lead of about +2 percent is a floor that Bush couldn’t fall through if he tried.

Regarding Bush’s bounce following Reagan’s death

Bush’s bounce following Reagan’s death wasn’t abrupt. It took awhile for memories to be refreshed and for Reagan and Bush to be mentally compared. The bounce that occurred after Reagan’s death occurred not because sympathy was somehow transferred from Reagan’s family to Bush but because Reagan reminded everyone of how much more effective Republican administrations are at foreign policy and national security.

Of course the news commentators strained themselves to avoid discussing this blindingly obvious contrast with the Democrat’s best efforts and would only discuss Reagan in terms of his exceptional personality, his acting career, his sense of humor, joke telling and jelly beans.

Not discussed was Reagan’s rollback of communist infestations in Granada, Nicaragua, El Salvador—which Kerry opposed.

Not discussed was Reagan’s successful challenge of the USSR’s deployment of SS20 missiles in Eastern Europe by counter deploying Pershing and cruise missiles to NATO—which Kerry opposed.

Not discussed was Reagan’s dismissal of the massive leftist demonstrations in Western Europe demanding the removal of missiles from European soil (our missiles, not Russia’s, of course); which similar to current demonstrations against our war on terrorists.

Not discussed was Reagan’s defense buildup—which contributed to the USSR’s collapse and our victory over Saddam during Gulf War I—which Kerry opposed.

And the MSM commentators were completely silent as to how their current portrayal of Bush is exactly the same way they always portrayed Reagan when he was president; as a clueless dolt that was always on the verge of destroying the world.

I think that Reagan’s death reminded those of us who are old enough to remember Reagan’s era that that Reagan was right and that the MSM was dead wrong. They remember that Kerry opposed Reagan’s effective policies. I believe that these same people had to have noticed that the MSM’s treatment of Reagan and Bush is identical and began to discount the MSM non-stop bad news drivel. They probably realized that anyone so persecuted by the MSM might have been correct all along; just like Reagan.

The bounce that occurred after Reagan’s death lasted for about three weeks before beginning to decline. The MSM’s relentless storyline about Iraq and Abu Ghraib began to reassert itself and Kerry got his lead back.

As an aside, I wonder what went through the MTV slacker’s minds during Reagan’s funereal as they listened to the MSM’s droids drone endless about his jokes and jellybeans? They are too young to remember anything about Reagan and his accomplishments. They had to have been puzzled as to how anybody with so little talent could get so much respect.

Regarding why Bush’s poll numbers are robust and Kerry’s are brittle

Four of the political event’s added to the chart coincided with abrupt changes in the poll spread timeline. Three events, the Swiftboat ads, the GOP convention (August 30^th through September 2^nd) and the third debate, all seemed to have an immediate and sharp effect. Note that little polling was conducted during conventions so the jump from the GOP convention occurred when polling resumed after the convention.

Except for the first debate, all abrupt movements were in Bush’s favor. Kerry’s gains were gradual; moving slowly as the MSM’s monochromatic backdrop of bad news took its toll on Bush’s poll numbers. Bush’s poll numbers, in contrast, seem to be positively buoyant. Bush’s numbers pop right back up whenever the backdrop of bad news is removed.

I conclude that Bush’s normal numbers are something like +2 percent. The MSM is capable of hauling Kerry into positive numbers but it cannot be sustained without sufficiently bad news to work with; it isn’t sustainable.

Of course some of the data in the same chart contradicts my conclusion. Regarding Bush’s steep drop following the first debate: I don’t have an airtight explanation. I suspect the MSM just talked down Bush’s performance and persuaded the people who were subsequently polled that Bush’s performance was poor. I didn’t think it was poor and neither did the Kerry campaign’s staff—at least when they thought they were having private conversations.

Also the data prior to the 60 Minutes II broadcast shows no abrupt changes; it just undulates. Why? I don’t know. I suspect the imminent election has focused a lot of minds. I know that the Bush campaign was simply silent before the GOP convention and not defending itself from even the most moonbatian allegations. This behavior is useful for gulling the opposition further into indefensible positions but it doesn’t help the poll numbers.

In any case, the Bush campaign passivity in the face of Democratic attack is no longer a problem; they have both feet on the accelerator and firing back with gusto.

My conclusion: It looks to me that Bush has a latent 2-4 percent advantage over Kerry.


I want to thank milkchaser for his work on the annotated chart.

Kerry's base phones home

Osama sweats the outcome of the 2004 election.



Hat tip lucianne

Sinclair Broadcasting in Tampa bay

The Sinclair Broadcasting group’s documentary on the “Stolen Valor” documentary will be shown sometime in the near future. As of this writing (October 16th) the exact date and time is undetermined.

The Sinclair Broadcasting station in my area (Tampa) is WTTA WB38.

For those of us using TV antennas you can find this station at UHF channel 38.

For those of us subscribing to Brighthouse Cable this station can be found on channel 6 unless you live in Adelphia, in which case you can find it on channel 13.

For those of us subscribing to DishTV this station can be found on channel 8694.

Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down

As I have noted, Sinclair Broadcasting is under full assault by the DNC for their upcoming documentary regarding Kerry's misconduct following his return from Vietnam. Here is the text of an email I just sent to Sinclair Broadcasting:

Subject: Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down

Greetings,

I offer a heartfelt salute to Sinclair Broadcasting for planning to air the very necessary and important documentary based on Stolen Valor. It is important that we have a fully informed electorate by the time we vote in November and, consequently, it is also important that Sinclair present this essential information to the public.

Apparently the Kerry campaign is determined to stop the broadcast of politically inconvenient facts and information by applying incredible pressure on Sinclair. This is perfectly understandable; a fully informed electorate makes harder for them to drag their guy across the finish line in November.

Put another way, the Kerry campaign’s carefully manufactured myths are designed to avoid reminding voters of a certain age that he double-crossed his former comrades on his return from Vietnam. Specifically, these myths can only be created and sustained by highly selective usage and omission of facts and information regarding what Kerry did and said after returning from Vietnam. Your documentary will not only reveal the full extent of Kerry’s misconduct but will render the Kerry campaign’s myth-making unsustainable.

There is another factor to consider: many voters are too young to have ever known what John Kerry did on his return from Vietnam. I believe that many of these voters would care about what John Kerry did and said but they will not know and cannot care unless it’s televised. Obviously the Kerry campaign likes it much better when this information is withheld.

In my view, it is Sinclair’s obligation—all broadcasters’ obligation, really—to broadcast this documentary. That said, it is also every American’s right to vote for a turncoat in a presidential election. It is every American’s right to elect a man—who actively undermined a war while our troops were in the field—to be Commander in Chief. It is every American’s right to elect a man who sided with our enemies in a time of war to be a wartime president.

On the other hand, there is one particular right I want to deny my fellow Americans. If he is elected—and after his philosophy’s predictable failure modes begin emerging—I want no American to have the right to claim that, when he voted, he didn’t know he was voting for:

• a turncoat who betrayed his comrades when they were on the battlefield,


• a turncoat undermined a war and contributed to our loss of that war,


• a turncoat who would rather ally himself with our enemies instead of America in a time of war.

Put another way, in the event that Kerry is elected president, I want nobody to be able to claim that he didn’t consciously and deliberately elect such an unsuitable Commander in Chief.

Obviously the Kerry campaign will employee all available means—including illegal intimidation—to protect itself from a fully informed electorate. Kerry campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton, proved this when he publicly threatened Sinclair Broadcasting on national television: “I think they're going to regret doing this—They better hope we don't win.” This simply proves your documentary is exactly the sort of free speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Don’t let them shake you; Chad Clanton’s naked threat to use the force of government to silence Sinclair is both empty and ironic. Surely the same first amendment that protects Michael Moore’s anti-American propaganda will also protect Sinclair’s documentary. Regarding the obvious irony: the leftists, who always quick to cry "censorship" when they attempt to silence criticism of far-left or
anti-American speech (e.g., the Dixie Chicks’ defense), immediately resort to the force of government when they encounter speech they don’t like; not to criticize said speech but to crush it.

Generations of American military men died defending our constitution. Our debt to them is to not allow the current bully of the moment to intimidate us out of the exercise of the freedoms they won for us; including your right, as a member of our free press, to confidently publish or broadcast information that some politician
finds politically inconvenient.

On another note, I must say I was impressed with your spokesman, Mark Hyman, when he was interviewed on FoxNEWS regarding Clanton’s threat. I was especially impressed with Mark Hyman after I learned the following about him via google:

• He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1981


• He has conducted worldwide travel with extensive time spent in the Middle East.


• He is Captain in the Naval Reserve, he has served in leadership positions in CIA’s National Warning Staff, the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office and he is currently a Commanding Officer in the Naval Reserve’s Space and Network Warfare Program.


• The military organizations in which he has served have been awarded four CIA National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Commendations during his service, and he has been awarded the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and several Navy and Joint military awards.

An old proverb says, “Tell me the company you keep, and I will tell you who you are”. Sinclair’s ability to attract a man such as Mark Hyman and the Democrats’ deliberate nomination of a very different sort of man tells me all I need to know about both organizations.

the mother of all hissy fits

Well the DNC is throwing the mother of all hissy fits over the Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s decision to air a one-hour documentary titled Stolen Honor. Stolen Honor is a documentary that exposes John Kerry’s treachery after he returned from his four and one half months in Vietnam.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton publicly threatened Sinclair Broadcasting on Fox News Channel's Dayside with Linda Vester. I think they're going to regret doing this—They better hope we don't win."

Of course, after making this threat on live national TV Clanton then denied that his threatening language—which insinuated that the Kerry Presidency would use the government’s regulatory agencies to punish Sinclair—was a threat.

My immediate reaction when I heard Clanton’s threat on FoxNEWS was something like:

Goddamn right Sinclair hopes Kerry doesn’t win. All genuine Americans hope Kerry loses.


On the other hand, Kerry seems to have the transnationalist vote, the Democratic surrender monkey vote, the “contain America first” vote, the moron vote, the al Qaeda vote and the bed-wetter vote locked up. Well Sinclair and genuine Americans definitely have the right enemies.

The Kerry campaign and the DNC are terrified by being confronted with Kerry’s history of being a turncoat and contributing to our loss in Vietnam.

One additional comment: this moonbat was trying to scare his readers—or that might that be reader—with the terrifying information that Sinclair’s spokesman, Mark Hyman, is

“a Captain in the Naval Reserve, he has served in leadership positions in CIA’s National Warning Staff, the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office and he is currently a Commanding Officer in the Naval Reserve Space and Network Warfare Program.”

Hyman, not willing to hide his ties to the Company, notes that “the military organizations in which he has served have been awarded four CIA National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Commendations during his service.” Hyman’s current position puts him in a key position in promoting President Bush’s dream of Star Wars II embodied in one of the government’s most shocking documents, “Joint Vision for 2020” which commits our nation to “full spectrum dominance” of the Earth.

Yup, this Sinclair Broadcasting is ALRIGHT! If Mark Hyman, who is Vice President for Corporate Relations for Sinclair Broadcasting, is a typical Sinclair executive then I know this organization is going to have some major spine.

In other places in the blogosphere:

One hundred Percenter Newswires has some excellent commentary:

Mark Hyman, vice president for corporate relations at Sinclair, said: "Our goal here is to get John Kerry to sit down and talk with these guys. Get a chance to tell them why he branded them as war criminals, why he accused them of committing war-time atrocities."

"Is it (illegal) because there are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry?" Hyman asked.

It seems awfully hypocritical for democrats to complain about bias, when they have enjoyed a pro-democratic media for 30 years.

Recently, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, CBS's 60 Minutes, Howard Stern's highly rated morning talk show, NBC, ABC and MSNBC News, have all operated under the DNC umbrella, promoting Kerry.

"We had ("Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary creator) Michael Moore, we had CBS, which they had false documents. Having experienced over the course of a number of years what I consider to be a media bias in some cases I'm not in the business of dealing with filing complaints against media organizations," said Ken Mehlman, manager of President Bush's re-election campaign.

Democrats allege that the planned broadcasts are "not in the best interests for America." However, it seems they are convoluting democrat interests, with the broader populous[sic].

[snip]

If the democrats are successful in suppressing the voices of veterans who have something to say about John Kerry, it would set a dangerous precedent.

For the most part, America has enjoyed a free press.

Free to criticize sitting Presidents, during war. Free to slander American & Coalition Troops fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Free to tarnish America's best corporations, while promoting socialism. Free to praise terrorists and dictators. Free to malign Christianity, God and the cross. Free to begrime marriage. Free to defame the U.S. military. Free to vilify right-wing media pundits.

Free to calumniate decorated Vietnam War Veterans in a documentary called "Stolen Honor," but praise Michael Moore as a hero.

Update:

William P. Kucewicz posted an article on NRO regarding the equivalence between Sinclair Broadcasting and Robert Redford’s Sundance film channel:

Organizing what amounts to a Dump George Bush film festival, the Sundance Channel, which is under Redford's "creative direction" but is operated by Viacom's Showtime Networks, is preempting its scheduled lineup in order to devote nearly one-sixth of its airtime through Election Day to programming opposed to President Bush and the GOP. So far, however, this highly partisan scheme has slipped under the news media's radar.

Not so, the Sinclair controversy. All Tuesday, the airwaves were filled with discussion of the proposal to broadcast, at least in part, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, which NRO's Kate O'Beirne has called a "powerful documentary featuring highly decorated Vietnam POWs recounting how Lt. (jg) John Kerry's antiwar activity affected them."

Oh by the way, if you jump to the Sundance film channel you will see that it is promoting "Poltical Documentraries" with—who else?—Michael Moore and is televising Al Franken's Air (head) America radio show.

Mark Steyn's spiked column

Mark Steyn's preface to his first spiked article states:

Today, for the first time in all my years with the Telegraph Group, I had a column pulled. The editor expressed concerns about certain passages and we were unable to reach agreement, so on this Tuesday something else will be in my space.

Styen’s article was concerned with Kenneth Bigley (the Brit who was recently murdered by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), Zarqawi’s attempt to use Bigley as a wedge to split the Brits from the Americans and the way the non-islamofascist players conducted themselves in general. Apparently the editor couldn’t handle Steyn’s unapologetic annoyance with:

• the terrorists’ expectation that Britain’s government would have a propensity to be influenced by showcasing the intention to behead Bigley’s


• the British government’s effeminate handling of what is basically a POW situation


• the undignified way Bigley’s conducted himself in the face of death


• the way the Bigley’s brother rewarded the terrorists by claiming that Kenneth Bigley’s blood was on Tony Blair’s hands instead of Zarqawi’s hand—which is where Bigley’s blood literally was

I agree with Steyn: nations and peoples with backbone are most suitable to conduct war. Backbone is needed to resist flinching when faced with the atrocities that are committed for the sole purpose of breaking our will. The inability to resist flinching is simply provocative to Zarqawi and causes future reoccurrences of the atrocities.

Steyn thought it was noteworthy that the two Americans Bigley was captured with were beheaded immediately. The terrorists knew that it was pointless to parley with Bush. The Zarqawi letter (a memo from Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden that was intercepted by coalition troop) said, in part:

But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled.

Zarqawi knew that any attempts to influence Bush would be a waste of his time. He also correctly suspect that jacking Tony Blair around would be somewhat more profitable.

You should read Mark Steyn’s article, if only to discover how low the The Daily Telegraph’s editor’s breaking point is.

Hat tip lucianne

Update:

I'd no sooner posted this when I encountered another excellent post by Wretchard on this subject:

... Steyn [has] put [his] finger on the simple error that everyone from Bigley to those campaigning for his release have made. Not only is it impossible to put a rational construction on these events, it is a waste of time to try. Bigley thought he was too old; the schoolchildren in Beslan thought they were too young; the French journalists thought they were too French to be the victims of terrorism. And they were wrong. Wrong because they assumed that enemy intent rather than capability was the limiting factor to their mayhem. It is an odd statistical fact that fewer Americans have died from terrorist attacks in Iraq than Iraqi children. The one thousand US combat deaths in the months since OIF is only slightly larger than the number of Canadians killed in the 1942 Dieppe Raid over the course of 9 hours; and not because the terrorists are eager to "show the world the justice and mercy which Islam teaches us" but because they cannot kill more.

P.J. O'Rourke's sixteen debate points for Dubya

OK, of course P.J. O'Rourke is just using Bush's last debate with Kerry as a prop for another Kerry-zinging article. Here's my favorite jibe:

(15) Senator Kerry, you say you were in favor of threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using force was wrong. The technical term for this in political science is "bullshit."

I totally agree. Great minds think alike.

Kerry thinks the war on terror is merely a war on "chaos"

At a February 27th, 2004 speech at UCLA John Kerry stated:

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against the dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

First of all, ignore the drivel regarding that the War on Terror is a clash of “the best hopes of humanity against the dogmatic fears of progress and the future”. It is impossible to pick any sense from that nonsense.

Now consider Kerry’s deep thought that that —in effect —the war on terror is the war on chaos. Marvel at its magnificent stupidity.

Please… Spare me from this drivel.

Both nations and groups have used terrorism; which is more correctly understood as a form of asymmetrical warfare. And, to be pedantic, I guess I have to explicitly say that not all states or groups use terrorism.

Most of the states that I can think of that employed terrorism are the opposite of chaotic. The USSR, North Korea, Syria, Iran and—until recently—Iraq all use terrorism as a matter of state policy and —while some of these might be unstable —none can be described as chaotic.

Afghanistan was a failed state—which was run by a criminal regime— and was itself about one step less chaotic than Somalia. The Taliban themselves were no more capable of organizing 9/11 than they were capable of cold fusion. With respect for terrorism, as far as I know, all the Taliban ever did was host al Qaeda. Since I’m sure they were fully aware of their guest’s activities they’re complicit with al Qaeda’s terrorism. But on the other hand, but they themselves were only capable of playing host to a real terrorist organization.

I offer Haiti as a blinding obvious refutal to Kerry’s plainly stupid premise. Haiti is about as broken and chaotic as any country can be and still be a country. (Yes, Somalia is worse, but not that much worse.) Haiti is simply not a source of terrorism.

So to correct John Kerry, what we actually have here is not a clash between civilization and chaos but a clash between cultures; one of which uses terrorism in pursuit of its policies and one that seeks to eradicate those who use terrorism.

Now that I’ve made the point that chaos is not the “root cause” of terrorism I wonder exactly why Kerry would attempt to make such an asinine statement? What difference would this distinction make? Well a New York Times Magazine article compared Bush’s worldview with Kerry’s:

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails. [emphasis mine—johnh]

This, my friends, reveals Kerry’s transnational mindset; complete with two fundamental errors.

1. his obviously false theory that chaos causes terrorism


2. his equally false theory that “and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails”

His second theory, that “only a unified community of nations can ensure [world] order” can be refuted by anyone who reads the newspapers. The premise of theory 2 is false because the “community of nations” cannot be unified on this point because too many of them have too much to gain from terrorism!

The primary organization that—in theory—organizes “the community of nations”, the UN, cannot even agree to a basic definition of terrorism. The UN is an organization whose members of its Human Rights Commission is comprised of Sudan, Syria and Cuba; all listed by the U.S. State department as supporters of terrorism. The UN is an organization that voted to replace the U.S., which chaired the, with Syria.

The emerging UN Oil of Food corruption scandal shows that the UN is worse than useless in solving this problem; it is part of the problem.

None of these facts—which I’m sure Kerry is well aware of—mitigates his zeal to put the U.S. at the mercy of transnational organizations. Kerry’s (Jimmy) Carteresque incompetence his is unsuitable for the Presidency.

update:

Wretchard of the Belmont Club has his own comments on the same New York Times Magazine article.

I also had an afterthought regarding the same New Your Times Magazine article. I realized that Kerry’s rhetoric—which dismissively compares terrorism to street crime—reminds me of Jimmy Carter disapproval of an “inordinate fear of communism”.

I hereby predict that the Kerry Presidency—if Kerry is elected—will be Jimmy Carter reloaded.

More:

Big Trunk of PowerLine has a scathing post titled: Senator Kerry's G-8 spot. This has to be filed under great minds think alike:

The promotion of Mubarak and Abdullah—an ugly tyrant and an isolated monarch—as keys to the advancement of American goals in the Middle East. The desire to restart "the road map" without mention of the events that have required its interment. The advocacy of summits and conferences and processes and "messaging" in the face of a war on America's survival. The "unilateral" pursuit of North Korea as a negotiating partner without mention of the Agreed Framework of 1994. Is it not fair to say that this blubbering verges on the delusional?

With this we can agree: ''A new presidency with the right moves, the right language, the right outreach, the right initiatives, can dramatically alter the world's perception of us very, very quickly." We recall how the world's perception of the United States was quickly altered by Jimmy Carter's announcement that we had overcome our inordinate fear of Communism. Mutatis mutandis, John Kerry promises a restoration of the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter -- the looming presence left unmentioned in the Bai article. [Emphasis mine—johnh]

We saw a preview of the futility of Carterism in the face Islamism in the Iranian hostage crisis that terminated the Carter presidency. For those who learn from experience, the case for Carterism is even less compelling in 2004 than it was in 1980. Kerry's resurrection of Carterism in the face of the Islamist war against America would indeed alter the perception of us very, very quickly, although I fear we would not be around long enough to appreciate it fully. (Thanks to RealClearPoltitics.)

Yup, I think that I will not be needing to focus my volcanic power behind pushing this paticular meme; it is so self evident that it pushes itself.

=========

Huge Hewitt has been following the same article. Here's a fragment of his commentary:

Kerry's "this is not the sands of Iwo Jima" line continues to amaze me. Perhaps he's been fixated on Iwo Jima since the cover of New Soldier came out, Kerry's anti-war book with a staged anti-Iwo Jima Memorial cover shot including an upside down American flag.

Oooo... That had to hurt.
hat tip Glen.

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a foreign policy out of my ass!

No, I didn't think this up, but boy I wish I did.

Saddam's Coalition of the bribed

The emerging UN Oil of Food scandal UN Oil for Palaces scandal UN Oil for UN Security Council Vetoes scandal is showing that the only world leader whose coalition was comprised of bribed countries was Saddam.

Saddam bet the farm that UNSC vetoes by France, Russia and China would save him from one division of U.S. marines. Saddam had good reason to make this bet: he’d already paid for the vetoes.

If the UN—or least if the UN Security Council—operated with even the slightest shred of ethical standards then France, Russia and China would have been disqualified from voting on Iraq due to conflict of interest. Chart 1 shows the relationship between commerce with Saddam’s Iraq and concern with blocking the U.S. from removing Saddam’s regime.


Chart 1: Iraqi weapon importations 1973-2002 with respect to exporting country.
Note: credits for this chart goes to The Dissident Frogman. For some reason my chart’s image is hard to read; you can see a legible image of this chart here


The U.S. and her allies removed Saddam’s regime in spite of the opposition from Saddam’s coalition of the bribed. Subsequently, paperwork discovered in Iraq’s archives showed that massive corruption in the UN’s Oil for Food program provided our opponents with even more incentive than was already apparent.

New York Times’ reporter Judith Miller wrote an article describing how France, Russia and China systematically blocked the U.S. and the UK from pursuing inquires into corruption within the UN’s Oil for Food program:

Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars.

In a briefing paper given on Friday to members of the House subcommittee investigating the program, the investigators said their review of the minutes of a U.N. Security Council subcommittee meeting showed that the three nations "continually refused to support the U.S. and U.K. efforts to maintain the integrity" of the program.

[snip]

The paper suggests that France, Russia and China blocked inquiries into Iraq's manipulation of the program because their companies made billions of dollars through their involvement with Saddam's regime and the program. [emphasis mine—johnh]

This emerging scandal shows that the major players who are not part of our collation are exactly the same players who had the most to lose from the removal of Saddam. Put another way, our opponents on the UNSC were paid well by Saddam to be our opponents.

Typically, John Kerry got everything backwards. John Kerry was wrong when:

he blamed when the opposition the U.S. encountered in the UNSC on George W Bush instead of Saddam’s beneficiaries. Our UNSC opponents were acting in their own narrow self interest. They opposed us simply because supporting the U.S. would contrary to their own self-interest.

when he identified our UNSC opponents as “allies” that Bush failed to recruit. They are not our allies; they are Saddam’s coalition of the bribed. Furthermore, one of the Allies that Kerry aspires to recruit, France, has already preannounced their determination to not join the U.S. whether Kerry is elected or not. Put another way, France is our opponent regardless of who is the president; Bush isn’t a factor.

when he identified our allies as the “coalition of the bribed and the coerced”. Our allies are not coerced; they voluntarily joined with us and they can quit if they want too (e.g., Spain). Furthermore, it is 100% of the countries that Saddam paid-off that refused to join our coalition. True allies don’t need to be bribed.

As typical for John Kerry, he believes that the U.S.’ friction with the UN is caused by are not caused by the UN’s deficiencies but instead by America’s flaws.

John Kerry is wrong. Senator Patrick Moynihan, in a 1975 speech to the AFL-CIO, stated:

Every day, on every side, we are assailed [at the UN]… There are those in this country whose pleasure, or profit, it is to believe that our assailants are motivated by what is wrong about us. They are wrong. We are assailed because of what is right about us.

In this speech Moynihan was decrying the murderous Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Moynihan could make these same statements today about John Kerry, John Edwards and the elites in the Democratic Party and it would fit perfectly.

Update:

WhooHoo! Do great minds think alike or what!

Monica votes Republican this time!

Reason #93759038 to vote Republican:





I got this one from Stan. (Thanks Stan!)

Global Test for Preemptive Military Action by the U.S.

In the first Presidential debate John Kerry was trying to explain that he would, under the suitable conditions, use military force preemptively. Of course, Kerry being Kerry, he had to insert some pointless qualification into his list of conditions so as to create an verbal escape hatch to be used at a later date: Kerry also required that the preemptive force being consider had to pass some "global test".

Bush, marveling at Kerry's prehensile weasel wording, said:

…I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

This "global test" is currently undefined because—similarly to a UFO—nobody in their right mind had ever seen such a "global test" before. I suspect that this “global test” is anything that Kerry wants to make it. I think Karen Burke’s scathing remarks said it best:

What 45 percent of Americans didn't read into this confident nonsense is that John Kerry's most prominent intention is to turn the United States into the World's whore. His entire constitution was revealed in this statement, ''No president through all of American history has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test.'' So there you have it, security moms. If the Arab street or the European Union doesn't want your president to fight for your protection, you're on your own!

Yup, I agree. If John Kerry were President then Saddam would be brewing his WMDs in peace today.

Oh by the way, someone emailed Glen with a copy of the “global test”:

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.

1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

I think all that is required to fail the “global test” a “yes” to any of the above questions.

Now back in Sept 17^th, 2002 on MSNBS’s Hardball Kerry stated that the president can act unilaterally to remove Saddam, but for the purposes of campaigning he has indicated than the UN is more important that the U.S. If we go by his campaign rhetoric it is clear that Iraq would not pass the above test.

All fun aside, this is actually a significant event: Kerry just grabbed his equivalent of the “what if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered?” third rail.

This was the question was asked by of Michael Dukakis by Bernard Shaw during the 1988 presidential debates. Bernard Shaw’s intent was to probe the full extent of Michael Dukakis’ anti-capital punishment commitment by postulating a personal tragedy for Mike Dukakis: the rape and murder of his wife.

Mike Dukakis—by sticking to his principles recited his personal opposition to the death penalty—transformed himself, on live TV and in front of a national audience, into the defense attorney for his wife’s rapist and murderer.

This was fatal for Mike Dukakis. A significant number of Dukakis-leaning voters were creeped-out when they realized they could rely on Mike Dukakis to avenge them just as much as Kitty Dukakis could; which is to say, not at all. Furthermore, this revelation created concerns about what other undiscovered eeriness lurked with Mike Dukakis.

John Kerry has just done a Mike Dukakis. John Kerry has just clearly stated that any international threat to the U.S. can purchase immunity from our use of preemptive force by just being an excellent trading partner with one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Saddam bet the farm that France’s UNSC veto would protect him from one division of U.S. Marines.

If John Kerry were president then Saddam would still have his farm.

The obvious difference between Mike Dukakis’s gaffe and John Kerry’s gaffe was that everybody instantly knew that something big had happened when Mike Dukakis answered and—since Kerry’s gaffe was buried deep in one of his sentence’s clauses—people didn’t immediately recognized it’s significance.

Public awareness of the implications of Kerry’s attitude is now emerging. It’s now up to the Bush campaign to ensure that Kerry doesn’t live this down.

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

I found this on Drudge:

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

I love C-SPAN's fly-on-the-wall insights.