FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from
Right Intention: October 2004

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Journalist Cries for Arafat

This is just sickening.

Foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr Arafat's fate than anyone in Ramallah.

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

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

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

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

Could someone explain to me why the left (MSM = Leftists) loves murderous dictators? Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Arafat, etc. all get more favorable coverage than, oh, let's see, Bush, for example.

Can Anyone Tell Me Why I Should Vote For Kerry?

Mark Steyn is another of my favorite columnists. Here's his latest:

Reading the media "endorsements" of John Kerry is like having lunch with a woman who wants to tell you about her great new boyfriend. She spends seven-eighths of the time bitching about the old boyfriend -- cocky, hot-headed, insensitive, never wants to listen, never gonna change -- and in the remaining few minutes tries to come up with the new guy's good points:

It's way more than just the media. I have yet to see anywhere any sort of reasoned analysis of why someone should vote for Kerry as opposed to against Bush. I haven't seen anything written anywhere, and I've looked. There must be something, but I haven't seen it. If it exists, someone please enlighten me.

But the fact that a case can't be made to vote for Kerry without exagerations (his miraculous ability to woo allies), distortions (his entire Senate career), and glossing over inconvenient information (his entire antiwar record) is pathetic. Lying to the electorate by trying to dress up Kerry presenting him as an acceptable candidate will cost Democrats and their media allies dearly in the future, even if Kerry wins. The truth about him will come out eventually, and what little credibility the media and the Democrats currently have will evaporate. Quite frankly, they should hope Kerry loses. The backlash will not be pretty.

Vietnam and This Election

Chrenkoff found a lengthy but interesting essay on Vietnam and the current election that was written by Isntapundit. No, read that again. I wonder if Glenn Reynolds knows about this site?

Here are some snippets:

Vietnam wasn't a strategic and military defeat. It was a cultural, intellectual and spiritual defeat from which America has not yet recovered. Our best chance to avoid repeating that disastrous history is to really understand it, which we have yet to do...

I absolutely agree with this. It’s too bad the MSM is still furiously trying to prevent an honest assessment of what actually happened in Vietnam. They don't want to acknowledge their role in our defeat.

Nevertheless, the notion seems to have taken hold. In January of 1968 the Viet Cong and the NVA launched the historic Tet Offensive, with all the force at their disposal. They made astonishing gains at first, but were repulsed in a matter of days and suffered devastating losses, the Viet Cong especially. The general in command of the Viet Cong, Vo Nguyen Giap, later wrote that he was defeated in spirit, and ready to sue for peace at this time. Total American casualties in the war up to that point were about 10,000, a fraction of the final tally.

Tet was a major military victory for the US, and should have been a massive propaganda victory as well; when the US and ARVN forces drove the Communists from Hue city after a 26-day siege, they found that the Communists had executed thousands of Vietnamese and piled them in mass graves.

Walter Cronkite took a dejected and demoralizing view of these events in his
broadcast of February 27. "We are mired in stalemate," he said, and concluded that victory was beyond our reach. Cronkite's broadcast discouraged millions of Americans, stalled the war effort at that critical juncture (President Johnson's Defense Secretary, Robert MacNamara, resigned two days after the broadcast), gave heart to the battered Viet Cong (Vo Nguyen Giap specifically credits Cronkite for this), and set America on course for a painful and humiliating defeat.

I’m no expert on the Vietnam war. But I’ve now read in a few places that, according to Giap’s biography, we were on the verge of victory until he realized that Cronkite and his fellow leftists were doing their best to destroy our morale and will to fight. I must read this book. I could end up being even more disgusted by the MSM than I am now, which I didn’t think was possible.

John F. Kennedy would not recognize the Democrats of today, except as adversaries.

Bingo. I’ve been saying this for a while. I have no idea what happened to my party. I just know that I want nothing to do with them until they regain their sanity.

A vote for George Bush is not just a vote against John Kerry. It is a vote to reject John Kerry's defeatist, shame-faced worldview, and the Communist propaganda at its root; the propaganda Kerry parroted so eagerly in 1971. It is a vote to ignore the major media's narrative of hopelessness. It is a vote against the idea of American soldiers as monsters and/or victims, and of America herself as a cowardly, baleful interloper in world affairs.

He is speaking my mind. One of the many reasons we need to re-elect Bush is to try to destroy the Vietnam era mindset once and for all. The shameful lying of the hysterically screeching left and their media allies cannot be allowed to succeed again. These people must be marginalized once and for all. I dream of a day when their influence on national discourse is on a par with that of the Ku Klux Klan. Which is to say, none at all.

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is one of the best columnists out there. Here's his latest.

Let's make this simple. John Kerry is the candidate for those who wish we hadn't gone to war in Iraq. But John Kerry can't admit that, even though everyone knows it is true......

Kerry cannot be honest about the most elemental issue of the election because he will lose the election if he does, and rightly so.

Other Bin Laden Comments

Hmmm. Look what Al Jazeera didn't broadcast from the recent OBL tape:

Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

What are the chances the MSM will advertise these comments, which are clearly beneficial to Bush? Is it near zero or exactly zero? I can't make up my mind.

(From Polipundit)

Democrats Willing to Destroy System

Vodkapundit said it better than I on October 14th:

Because, in the end, that's what the national Democrats are doing: They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it.

That's exactly how I feel, although he's more generous than I am about how intentional the Democrats are about destroying the system. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. My party seems willing to stop at nothing to get elected.

Here's another good article on the subject.

I agree with the Democrats on one thing. Similar to their refusal to accept a Bush victory regardless of the margin, I'm starting to feel the same way about Kerry. I'm so convinced that my fellow Democrats are literally willing to do anything to win this year, that I will have a hard time believing Kerry won fair and square. How many other Bush voters feel the same way? This is not healthy. We need federal election standards with clear consistent rules that are rigorously enforced. The system needs to be saved before zealots on both sides break it for good.

Democrats Behaving Badly

I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive. And I'm sure that it materially undercounts of attacks on Democrats. Having said that, no reasonable, fair-minded person can possibly conclude that the Republicans have behaved anything like the Democrats this election season. Between the violence, fraud, beyond the pale attacks, rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and whatever else, I am embarrassed to be a Democrat.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Is Kerry ineligible under 14th amendment?

Kerry's post-VietNam activities are well known at this point. One could easily make the case that his meeting in Paris with North Vietnamese generals in 1970 contitutes treason. Further, this meeting may make him ineligible for the office of president under the 14th amendment's prohibition of "giving aid or comfort to our enemies". Here's the acutal amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

-- United States Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3

Kerry = The Manchurian Candidate

More on the Manchurian Candidate. How is this guy even in the race?

One of three newly discovered Vietnam War documents shows Hanoi's communist regime encouraged the U.S. anti-war movement's new strategy in the early 1970s of urging members to run for public office, a path John Kerry took when he vied for a congressional seat in 1972.

Hanoi said it maintained "relations" with an anti-war group closely tied to Kerry that sought "to eliminate reactionary candidates and plant progressive people in the Senate and House of Representatives," according to a "circular" issued in December 1971 and captured by U.S. troops the following May.

If Bush had these skeletons he'd be crucified by the press. I am stunned that the MSM believes that Kerry's past merits little examination.

The European Press

Here's a look at the European press. I like this passage in particular:

...."Why Europeans don't like Bush" has a shiny obverse, which is "Why Americans care less and less." The commonplace observation is that the end of the Cold War means that the Europeans no longer have to rely on the U.S. for protection, so they can be as self-serving and duplicitous as they wish. But what Americans seem to finally be understanding is that what the end of the Cold War really means is that the U.S. no longer has to give a damn about a European "alliance" at all — especially one dominated by French and Germans. The solution to rampant, hysterical, angry anti-Americanism is cold, practical, systematic anti-Europeanism.

The last three years have been an eye opener for me. I no longer have much regard for Europe. I'm more or less an anti-European already. Screw 'em.

Another Reason to Vote for Bush

I like this column. It certainly captures part of why I want Bush re-elected. I think the criticisms of Bush are generally fair, but maybe a little harsh here and there. But I am in total agreement about one thing. One should really examine Bush's enemies. The list of people and institutions whose heads will explode should Bush win is almost a complete list of those who really irritate me. That's worth a lot.

I'm Disgusted With the Left

This is absolutely true. I've said this for a while. The left needs to look in the mirror. The left has gone from being the loyal opposition to openly siding with the enemies of America. Is anyone on the left the least bit bothered that OBL’s latest read like a Michael Moore rant, a revered member of the Democratic Party?

Friday, October 29, 2004

MRI brain imaging spots republican/democrat differences

Here is a wacky story about MRI imaging technology used to spot differences between democrats and republicans.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

German Newspaper Endorses Bush

Somewhat surprising, but when you read the reasons, it makes more sense. Fully three (and arguably four) reasons are because they want the US to bear the financial and human cost of fighting terrorism. At least they are honest about wanting to continue to mooch off of our generosity.

A contrast in styles

Think our treatment of Gitmo detainees is the height of evil? Maybe it's time to contrast our style with our enemy's style.

We: Capture the enemy on the battlefield and put them somewhere safe - arguably the safest place on earth from their perspective. Let them pray. Feed them three meals a day. Give them clean clothes and a place to sleep. Occassionally, give them a formal hearing and let them go so they can fight us again.

They: Capture the unarmed enemy on the battlefield, lay them down on their stomachs and shoot them in the back of the head.

We: Go to extreme lengths to minimize civilian casualties. Take fire rather than engage the enemy in situations where high civilian casualties could occur.

They: Capture unarmed civilians and make them beg for their lives on videotape. After a view days or weeks of torture, behead them slowly with a kitchen knife and post the video clip on your website.

We: Fight for a free democratic Iraq.

They: Kill anyone, civilian, soldier, Iraqi, American, it doesn't matter, anyone who wants freedom and democracy in Iraq.

A contrast, ultimately, between a free and civilized society and pure, unadulterated evil.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Red Sox Win!

I don't care that the Red Sox won the World Series, but now that they have, anyone care to bet that the MSM will try to tie it somehow to the Kerry campaign? Perhaps try to generate a little false momentum for him? Again? I'll bet anything that we hear something stupid like "The Red Sox effect" over the next 48 to 72 hours. Possibly a "sign from above" that Kerry should win? The media is desperate and will literally try anything to drag Kerry over the finish line.

Russia Helped Move Iraq's WMDs?

This has been suspected for a while. If there is actual proof, now would be the time to show it.

Kerry: "Provide nuclear fuel to Iran"

Ilan Berman points out (UPI report "Iran -- Pyongyang redux") that many seem to have missed Kerry's response to Jim Lehrer's question about his proposed Iran policies during the September 30th debate:

Kerry: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together".

So, does this poor blogger have it right? Is this Kerry's master plan for Iran? Give them nuclear fuel and keep an eye on them? You've got to be kidding. It would be a joke if the future of our country wasn't on the line.

Hillary for Bush?

This strikes me as true. I'm up in the air about another Clinton Presidency. It all depends on if she has the guts to pursue a tough foreign policy and not kowtow to anti-American international organizations. And to stand up the the psycho element of her own party. I wouldn't reject her candidacy outright.

France is Mad at Us

France is mad. How cute. Oooohhh, we'd better watch out, or France will retaliate by using whatever means they have to oppose anything we want to do. How that is different from the last 200+ years I haven't figured out yet.

Arafat Ill?

I hope this is true. The world will be a better place when he's gone. How much you want to bet that he will seek treatment in the US? After all, we are only evil in the eyes of the world until we are needed for something they cannot do themselves. He might be able to get good treatment in Europe, but you get the idea.

Kerry the Leader

This article has it exactly right. I don't understand why the administration hasn't hit Kerry harder on his Monday morning quarterbacking. Not only did Kerry miss the vast majority of his intelligence committee meetings, but he's been campaigning nonstop for the last two years. Has he actually gone to work in that time? If he had anything useful to add to the important questions of the day, he could have done so easily. But he hasn't. Kerry just goes along with the crowd until the position becomes unpopular, and then he switches and becomes a vocal critic. Kerry's style is the antithesis of leadership. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Kerry = The Manchurian Candidate

It looks as if Kerry’s past association with the North Vietnamese government was much deeper than we thought. It’s quite likely the NVA was directly involved in the antiwar movement to some extent.

The CDEC cover sheet of the "Directive" indicates it was "acquired" on May 12, 1971. The cover sheet itself is dated June 30, 1971, and is entitled "VC Efforts to Back Antiwar Demonstrations in the United States." It shows a detailed knowledge of such VVAW activities as the Dewey Canyon demonstration on the Mall in Washington in April 1971, mentioning the "return of their medals." And the Saigon American military intelligence cover sheet dates the information in that document as being assembled in Vietnam only a week after the Washington VVAW demonstration had taken place.

The CDEC Viet Cong document titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the US" notes, "The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly (VC/NVN) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks." It also notes that "The seven-point peace proposal (of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government) [the Viet Cong proposal advanced by one of its envoys, Madame Binh, operating out of Paris] not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement."

If we had a real media, these types of activities would have long ago been investigated. And Dan Rather wouldn’t even have to forge the evidence. It’s readily available. But we have few real journalists in this country.

But I digress. Reading this story reminds me of the movie “The Manchurian Candidate”, which I saw a few weeks ago. It’s pretty clear that the movie had an anti-Bush slant (the remake had a big evil corporation controlling a dimwitted candidate) but now I wonder if it more resembles Kerry. Think about it. At almost every opportunity during his public life, Kerry has promoted the position of the enemy of the US. He met several times with North Vietnamese and then spent the rest of the war advocating the communist’s position and doing irreparable harm to the war effort. He did it throughout the 80s (Central America, Soviet Union). Fortunately, he was less successful then.

And now he’s at it again. But the enemy position he’s taken up this time isn’t that of the terrorists, obviously. He just wants to ignore them and hope they go away. A stupid and dangerous idea to be sure, but this isn’t the enemy I’m thinking of in this case.

The group of enemies that has caught the fancy of Kerry this time are international organizations like the UN, and countries like France and Germany. The UN, whatever it once was, is now little more than a forum for anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. This is the organization to which Kerry wants to kowtow, and to give a veto over our national security concerns. And he’s made it perfectly clear that he doesn’t consider any American endeavor legitimate without the approval of France and Germany (global tests and whatnot). Considering the mindless hatred the UN in general and these two countries in particular have towards the US and our interests, you really have to wonder why Kerry would side with them. Or how he’s managed to take the enemy’s point of view in practically every major foreign policy question of the last few decades. Kind of makes you wonder if he had a chip implanted in his head during one of the visits with the NVA in the early 70s.

Kerry = The Manchurian Candidate.

Update: Here's another article on this topic.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Saddam's Reign of Terror

Everyone should see this. A nice touch: photos of terrorist suicide attacks, followed by actual images of the $25,000 checks paid by Saddam to the families of the suicide bombers. This $25,000 incentive payment was a formal policy announced on March 11, 2002 by Tariq Azziz and reported by Reuters the next day.

Great Anti-Kerry Ad

This should have been out sooner.

Anti Bush Ad

I gotta admit, this is the best anti-Bush ad yet.

Bush Smarter Than Kerry

Snicker. Since it's in the NYT and will disappear in a few days, I'll quote liberally (no pun intended).

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry....

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.....

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

Falling for style over substance. The hallmark of today's Democratic party.

French Language

Read these two posts from Eurosoc. The first is about trying to prevent the spread of the English language, and the second is a useless effort to promote their own language.

The French government is becoming a caricutare of what a government should be doing. Instead of focusing on how to make their economy work, national security and other mundane issues, they spend their time on idiocies such as this. If the French government spent as much time trying to run the country and improve their condition instead of mindlessly opposing anything American in some desperate attempt to make them feel better about themselves, maybe they'd become a country worth taking seriously again.

Kerry Refuses to Talk to Bob Woodward

Kerry has steadfastly refused to answer pretty much any questions about what he's actually do in Iraq, except for magically conjuring up some messiah-like French and German troops and then copy every single thing Bush is already doing. And the media has allowed that to happen. What a joke. Have some guts, Kerry. If you are too afraid of talking to a reporter who will actually ask real questions, how can you be man enough to take on Al Qaeda?

Kerry Caught in Another Lie

If this were Bush, you and I both know the MSM would Abu Ghraib the coverage. But since it's Kerry, there will be little to no mention of it.

Update: Polipundit has a great quote from Kerry about this phantom meeting. Cambodia, anyone?

Election Problems- Dems Register Al Qaeda in Ohio

Is it just me or will this be the most screwed up election ever? Let's pray for a landslide so the other side cannot complain. And then one of the first duties of the new congress is to introduce federal election standards and to fund it appropriately. The massive election fraud being committed on both sides is becoming insane. You want to ruin our democracy? Make no one believe the results. Hell, even in Afghanistan, the opposition has accepted the election results. Does anyone believe that will happen here? If you do, you are a fool. The system needs to be fixed. Now.

Update: Here's a good George Will column on election fraud.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Jimmy Carter???

The least effective president in US history told the Guardian in an interview that "Bush has been adrioit at exploiting that (9/11) attack" for his political gain.

Former President Carter, who, along with great peacemakers like Yasir Arafat, won the Nobel Peace Prize, goes on to further criticize Bush's handling of Iraq and nuclear proliferation.

This is truly Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst. With all due respect to President Carter, I shudder to think what would have happened if he had been President on September 11, 2001.

Call them what they are: Terrorists

Honest Reporting reports on MSNBC's Dan Abrams piece today on the media's habit of softening their words in describing terrorists, and on Accuracy in Media's observation that MSNBC would do well to heed Abrams' advice.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Vaccine Shortage

Some details on the real reasons why we are short on vaccines are starting to emerge.

I Love Scrappleface

Funny lesson on manufacturing.

Another Reason for Jews to Vote for Bush

Charles Krauthammer is one of the best columnists out there. Read him regularly.

Bill to Take Over for Kofi?

I would be totally fine with this. I think Bill Clinton would be an excellent choice to become the Secretary General of the UN. For starters, he's not anti-American, unlike the majority of the UN members or a good chunk of his political party. Second, he's been fairly consistent on Iraq and WMDs. He believed Hussein had them, too. And he's said so in a number of forums. The mainstream media has just refused to tell anyone. Third, it lessens significantly the chances of Hillary becoming President in 2008. There is no way we will have a husband/wife SecGen and President.

A Look at the European Press

Here is a somewhat humorous look at the latest in the European Press. My Favorites:

The poll details aren't very remarkable at first glance. Only 16 percent of all responding Frenchies like Bush. Since the press and TV coverage are relentlessly shrill in their coverage of W., this is the same as saying 16 percent of the French are deaf illiterates.

I suppose it should be pointed out that Bush's support among the benighted French is almost exactly the same as his support among the packsters who cover the White House. In fact, at 20 percent, Bush's favorable rating is probably higher in France than it is in most U.S. newsrooms. This will explain why neither the New York Times nor its Devil's Island, the International Herald Tribune joined in the polling fun. It's a terrible admission of failure on the part of the Times to have to report that Bush is actually supported by at least half the American public, while, according to the Pew Center, most Americans don't trust journalists at all.

War Protest Photos

If you want to know how unglued the fringe left has become you need look no further than protesters and their idiotic signs. Some of the better ones, with my commentary in italics:

"We are the terrorists"
Brilliant. The guys chopping the heads off innocent civilians with dull knives and videotaping it are the GOOD GUYS. We're the bad guys. Here's my question: How many years in therapy would it take for the person carrying this sign to work out their issues of self-hatred and loathing?

"War kills the innocent"
Yes, sometimes it does. This is sad. There is lots of sadness in the world.

"9-11 You Knew, You Knew"
The next sign will probably be "Moon Landing? It never happened"

"STOP BUSH" (The S is a Swastika)
Ahhh...the swastika. What would an anti-war protest be today without it? The constant Hitler references show just how pathetic the left has become.

"Defeat the US Imperialist Empire"
What can you say to this? Elect Che Guevara?

"War is terrorism"
Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Rootie toot toot and rootie toot tootie.

"End US Funding of the Israeli Occupation"
Hmmm....In a word, No. How about "End suicide bombing". I like that one better.

"Our President is a Moron"
Oh. Yale Undergrad, Harvard MBA. But of course it goes without saying that the person holding the sign is Albert Einstein.

"They Hate Us Because We Steal, Lie, and Kill Their Children"
There's room for two on the therapy couch. Maybe you can get a 2 for 1 rate if you team up with the "We are the terrorists" person.


What a joke.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Iraqi Elections

Instapundit wonders why this hasn't received more attention. Isn't it obvious? It's not a negative for Bush, that's why.

Flipper v. George W. Bush, 9th circuit

What's next? Maybe the squirrels in my back yard will contact Johnny Cochran and start a class action suit against me for not feeding them.

Released Gitmo prisoners return to the fight

The Washington Post reports today that at least 10 released Guantanamo detainees have returned to the fighting, and have been either killed or recaptured.

What a brilliant new wartime strategy: 1)Capture the enemy, 2)Hold the enemy for a while, 3)Let the enemy go while the war is still on so they can begin attacking us again.

"Just a Few Tons" of VX Nerve gas

I happened to be re-reading the transcript of Hans Blix's weapons inspection report to the UN in January, 2003, and found this gem:

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable".

OK. Let me see if I understand this. Iraq admitted to producing a "few tons" of VX nerve gas.

A few tons? VX is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the deadliest nerve gas in existence. According to this and other sites, 10 milligrams per minute per cubic meter (airborne) or .3 mg orally, are fatal doses. Any visible amount of VX on your skin, no matter how small, will be quickly fatal if not washed away immediately upon contact.

How many milligrams are there in a few tons? A very large number. And this is what they admitted to! The report goes on to say that although Iraq says the stocks were all destroyed in 1991, "UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared".

Thursday, October 21, 2004

British Medical Journal anti-Israel propaganda caught this unbelievable anti-Israel article in, of all things, the British Medical Journal. This disgraceful article deserves a response; a link to the editor is included for those that want to voice their protest.

Stolen Honor

I'm stunned. I'm genuinely stunned. An article advocating showing Stolen Honor is in, of all places, the New York Times. Since it will disappear in a few days, I'll quote some here.

Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism. ...

That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner's mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a "contemptible act," Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother's grief "purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."

(Thanks, Newsmax)

How Will American Jews Vote?

Bush has made a case for their vote, in my opinion.

Iraqi Blogs

Since the mainstream media has proven to be all but worthless the last few years, the best information on Iraq has come from Iraqis themselves.

Terrorists in Spain

Hmmm. I thought the Spanish were getting their knees calloused for no reason. Not that they will admit that, of course.

Bush Rumors

Sounds serious.


Iran has already rejected another Kerry foreign policy initiative. Let's count 'em up. There will be no troops from France and Germany, there is no enthusiasm for unilateral talks with N Korea, and Iran does not want to import nuclear fuel. Anyone going to ask Kerry about this? Anyone in the press going to hold him to account? Somehow I doubt it.

Media Bias

Media bias is a big problem. And the public's concern over media bias is making its way to the news desks. Interesting quote from Peter Jennings:

"I'm a little concerned about this notion everybody wants us to be objective," Jennings said.

The article then goes on to say:

Jennings said that everyone -- even journalists -- have points of view through which they filter their perception of the news. It could be race, sex or income. But, he said, reporters are ideally trained to be as objective as possible.

Could have fooled me.

Andrew Sullivan

Those who read, or used to read, Andrew Sullivan's blog know he has changed considerably over the past few months. He's gone from being a fair-minded Bush supporter to one of his larger critics. It's distressed more than a few of his fans. Polipundit found a blogger that expresses everything that bothers me about Andrew Sullivan's transformation far more eloquently than I could. This guy is a phenomenal writer. Definitely read this essay.

Anyway, I think what bugs me most about Andrew Sullivan's switch is that he became a single-issue voter and he's not being intellectually honest about it. It's all about gay marriage. It's an important issue, no doubt, particularly to him. But everything Bush says and does is now viewed through that prism of disappointment. Pretty much anything associated with Bush is now viewed less favorably, and vice versa for Kerry. To be sure, Sullivan bends and twists and contorts himself to justify his newfound view of the world, which, now that I think about it, is par for the course for most Kerry supporters. But what's really baffling is that Kerry is furiously trying to paint himself as having an almost identical position to Bush on gay marriage, so as not to offend anyone, in typical Kerry fashion. The difference between the two is potentially a big one (amendment), but one that has zero- and I do mean zero- chance of becoming reality. So what's the actual difference between the two? In the real world, there is no difference, assuming that Kerry is being honest, which admittedly is a big assumption. In the end, I wish that Sullivan would just come out and say that his disappointment with Bush on gay marriage is so great that he most likely won’t vote for him, regardless of his view on any other issue. His fans would respect that a lot more.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Ralph Peters

In my opinion, Ralph Peters is one of the best columnists out there with respect to military matters. He's very fair, and praises and criticizes both sides of the aisle equally. And you always know more about how things really work in the military after you are finished with one of his columns. Read today's if you haven't already.

Kerry's Take on Terrorism

There is an interesting article at Tech Central Station that talks about Kerry's infamous "nuisance" comment about terrorism.

By now, everyone in America knows that John Kerry has compared fighting terrorism to prosecuting organized crime figures for gambling and prostitution. The comparison has attracted a lot of criticism. Actually, it's a pretty good analogy -- but it leads to a different lesson than Kerry believes.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Election in an Alternate Universe

In an alternate universe, this is the speech that Kerry would be giving. And guess what? If this were reality, I'd be voting for Kerry. Personally, I believe you should vote for the ideas, not for the party. But that's just me.

By the way, this blog doesn't seem to have an easy way to link to the specific entry. It's the October 19th one. October 18th is pretty good as well.

(Thanks, Instapundit)

The UN can't find Kofi Annan's son

The NY Post reported yesterday that Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son, is under investigation by a federal grand jury in Manhattan for activities related to the Oil-for-Food program. The story reports his connections to Cotecna SA, which won a $4.8 million contract in the Oil-for-Food program.

But the comical part is this: The UN spokesperson is quoted as saying Kojo Annan "couldn't be reached for comment". Or better yet, Bloomberg news reports that a UN official said he couldn't be contacted because "the UN doesn't have a phone number for him".

Wow. Now there's a dead end if I've ever seen one. No number in the Rolodex.

If this is the type of answer that a Federal Grand Jury gets, I hate to think what faces Paul Volker in his quest for the truth.

Paul Krugman

I really try hard to avoid reading anything Paul Krugman writes. He really should stick with opining on economic subjects. But here he is doing his best to continue spreading rumors about the draft.

Notice how he doesn't mention that Bush cannot start a draft. He needs Congress. He also doesn't mention that the military does not want one. Apparently this is an unimportant detail. Also not worth mentioning is that the bills that were recently voted down in Congress with respect to the draft were SPONSORED BY DEMOCRATS! It was a cynical attempt to stir up antiwar sentiment. Why is it that little fact is never mentioned when the left is spreading draft rumors?

Tommy Franks

Retired General Tommy Franks is unimpressed with Kerry's version of the events at Tora Bora. It is incredible that Kerry constantly misleads people about Tora Bora and the mainstream media simply lets him get away with it.

Terrorism is All in Our Heads

There is a new documentary about to aired in Britain that pretty much says terrorism is just a figment of our imagination. The title is "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" and it's profiled- where else?- in the Guardian.

I'm not sure what offends me most about this. In one way it's predictable. The September 10th mindset is found on the left in general, not just amongst the Berkeley demonstrators here in the US. There is a fervent desire amongst those on the left to put their heads in the sand and pretend September 11th never happened. Their worldview of every person on the planet holding hands singing “kumbaya” and of peace, love & harmony was shattered on that day and the leftists want to return to it, whatever the cost. However, there is this inconvenient “terrorism” problem that has to be dealt with first. How do deal with it? By downplaying it at every opportunity. You either say the threat is exaggerated, accuse anyone who discusses terrorism of fear mongering, try to convince people that we somehow deserved 9-11 and we can make the whole problem go away by being nice to the terrorists, or try to define it in as narrow of terms as possible.

Examples? 51% of Democrats believe that America wrongdoing somehow motivated the 9-11 attacks according to a Pew study from a couple of months ago. Here’s another one. Why is it that every time the threat assessment is moved up some Democrats accuse the administration of playing politics with terrorism? It’s nice to have it both ways. If the government warns us, they are fear mongering. If it doesn’t and we are attacked, the administration is incompetent. How about the narrow focus on Bin Laden? A day doesn’t go by without the left accusing the President of failing in the WOT by the inability to find Bin Laden, at least so far. All positive developments in the Middle East are ignored. Democrats want you to believe that the second he’s caught (if he’s still alive) that the War on Terror will be over and we can get back to the 1990s. The idea that that Islamist fascism is the disease and spreading freedom and democracy is the cure is not a popular idea on the left, for some reason. And finally you have idiots like Michael Moore, amongst others, who are trying to convince people that this whole terrorism thing is exaggerated.

Here are a few parts of the article that offend me the most.

Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media."

As if September 11th never happened. 3,000 people died because of some guys with boxcutters and a fair amount of ingenuity. And now we are supposed to discount what they could do with more powerful weapons, such as, oh let me think, nukes? What planet is this person on?

"In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

This is standard leftist dogma. They believe that all things the government does must be viewed with suspicion for people in the government are inherently evil.

"If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, 'You're completely wrong,' even if the incident doesn't touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational."

So his biggest fear isn’t a massive terrorist attack with tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties. His fear is that if that scenario happens, his theory of terrorism being exaggerated will be discredited. How do people like this get a platform to present their crackpot ideas in the first place?

The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells".

No sleeper cells? Apparently he isn’t familiar with how the 9/11 hijackers lived in the US for a couple of years before they pulled off their attack.

But Curtis insists,"There is no way that I'm trying to be controversial just for the sake of it." Neither is he trying to be an anti-conservative polemicist like Michael Moore: "[Moore's] purpose is avowedly political. My hope is that you won't be able to tell what my politics are."

Can’t tell what his politics are? Who is he kidding? I’ll eat a baseball hat if he doesn’t lean severely to the left. But this statement is revealing in a way. In order to get their ideas taken seriously, the left needs to disguise them somehow. He has to pretend he’s neutral in some sense. The same way our mainstream media depends on an illusion of being fair and balanced to get people to listen, he has to pretend that he is a neutral scholar who’s solely motivated by the truth.

But whatever the reception of the series, this fear could be around for a while. It took the British government decades to dismantle the draconian laws it passed against French revolutionary infiltrators; the cold war was sustained for almost half a century without Russia invading the west, or even conclusive evidence that it ever intended to.

So now the Cold War was overblown? Perhaps the Soviet Union didn’t invade because the US promised to annihilate them if they did? Nah.

"We are probably moving to a point in the UK where national security becomes the electoral question."

God forbid that national security become an election issue.

And so forth. Look. I can respect the views about how the War on Terror should be fought. Was Iraq right or wrong? Only time will tell. Have we done our best in Afghanistan? Who knows? But I can’t respect the people who somehow believe that terrorism is all in our heads and are doing their absolute best to convince the population of this. This is the biggest issue I have with the Democratic party in general and John Kerry in particular. Regardless of how they try to hide it for general election purposes, a large percentage of the left does not take the threat of terrorism seriously and will not prosecute the war vigorously. And it’s nonsense like this documentary that prove my point.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Separated at birth?

You decide. Michael Moore and Jabba the Hut


I spend a fair amount of time trying to understand the hysterical, irrational hatred of the US. I find anti-Americanism particularly galling considering all of the nice things we do for the world, pretty much for free.

Anyway, in this article Victor Davis Hanson reviews a new book on the subject. Looks worthwhile.

Courage in France

Yup, it really happened.

Let's keep some perspective

I am reminded by my friend Ted that regardless of whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the sun will still use up its fuel and go dark in a few billion years. Assuming that the laws of physics don't change, humans will probably not have traveled very far, and there is a good chance that all evidence that there was ever a human civilization will be gone. Not a single trace will remain.

But...wait. This is actually not true.

The music of none other than Chuck Berry will in fact live on. Johnny B. Goode, along with Mozart and other sounds and music of the earth, are on a gold record inside the Voyager One spacecraft. The material that the spacecraft is constructed from will essentially last forever (at least hundreds of billions of years) during interstellar travel, and will be traveling in a straight line forever, dutifully obeying the laws of classical physics, particularly the one that says objects in motion tend to remain at motion, etc.

Every once in a while when the political situation here seems so bleak, I remember that no matter what happens on earth, the music of Chuck Berry and Mozart will last forever.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

NY Times Endorses Kerry

The sun rose in the East today and Set in the West. There were 12 hours of daylight, followed by darkness as the sun set. The New York Times endorsed a democrat. None of these merits a news headline, but the last one is at least worth a mention. Their ringing endorsement starts with:

"Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy".

They go on to say that he has qualities that "could be the basis for a great chief executive".

Wow. Translation: We allow our hatred of Bush to drive our thinking to such an extent that whatever piece of driftwood that happens to get the democratic party's endorsement is fine for us. And maybe he has some things that might, in some alternate 12 dimensional universe near the Vega galaxy, be good qualities for a president. So don't feel too guilty voting for him. Especially if you are from the Vega galaxy.

They go on to say "He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core".

Oh boy. This is quite the statement. Is this a strong moral code because of, or in spite of, the following:

1)Admitting publicly that he met with the enemy in Paris while still in the armed forces and while the Vietnam war was still underway?(technically, I believe this is treason and is a capital crime).

2)having either a) been a war criminal, since he testified under oath to congress that he engaged in killing innocent civilians and other war crimes while in Nam, or b)lied to congress under oath if he did not in fact do these things.

These are surely the hallmarks of a strong moral compass.

The rest of the endorsement is what you would expect from the Times. The usual filtering of World events through their far left prism. The terrible detention of people at Guantanamo, the trampling of civil rights of Americans, etc. Hardly worth reading.

The message from the Times is clear. Anyone but Bush. If Lyndon LaRouche had the democratic nomination they would be endorsing him.

Another Bush Democrat

There are more of us than people think. (From Polipundit)

Kerry Comments Hurting Haiti

Captains Quarters has a good post about how Kerry’s words are fueling the continued violence in Haiti, according to the UN. Kerry is supposed to be the refined diplomat, but somehow he (and the rest of the party) doesn’t seem to understand that words have meaning, that others hear them, and they can have an impact around the world. Just think, how much of the violence in Iraq right now is due to the possibility of a Kerry presidency? I’m not implying that Iraq would be nothing but sweet harmony right now if not for Kerry’s continued irresponsible comments. But constant pessimism, denigration of the effort and strong hints that he wants to cut and run are clearly having a negative impact, just as his support for Aristide is hurting Haiti. I agree with Captain's Quarters remark that if this is the damage he’s causing as a candidate, imagine what would happen if he’s elected.

Kerry Apologizes for Gay Remarks at Debate

It’s getting old already, but I love Scrappleface. There are more funny entries, just keep reading.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

New Kerry Ads

Check out these new anti-Kerry ads. Hilarious. Just like the latest Swiftvet ads, Kerry earned this ridicule.

Fellowship 9/11

Watch this film. It's titled Fellowship 9/11 and is a parody of the fat boy's more famous title. It's pretty funny, but to fully appreciate it one would had to have seen the Lord of the Rings. But watch it anyway.

Amputee soldier wants to get back to his unit

Here is a remarkable report about a soldier who lost his leg in Iraq, and after getting fitted with a new carbon-fiber leg, is reenlisting in the 82nd airborne so he can fight again. He is given no special treatment and has to pass all the physical endurance tests that he took the first time.

He is one of four amputees from the 82nd airborne that have reenlisted.

Bush Hatred

Well, time for my first post

Like my friend Stewart, I am a disillusioned Democrat. Unlike him, I've voted for Republicans in the past (Guiliani once and Reagan's re-election) but am still fairly liberal. I have become very disappointed with my party for a number of reasons and I fervently support Bush. That makes me somewhat of a pariah in New York City where Bush is considered evil incarnate.

I find the topic of why the Left has an irrational hatred for George Bush fascinating. After all, you can easily argue his ideas of freedom and democracy for everyone should be right up the Left's alley, but yet they hate him with a passion I've not seen in my lifetime.

Anyway, here's an interesting symposium discussing the Left's hatred for George Bush at Frontpage Magazine. It features two individuals each on the right and left squaring off in debate. The debate morphs into more of a discussion of America's role in the world and it's perceived sins at times, but to me these topics are related. From what I've seen, those who have an irrational hatred of George Bush have a fairly low opinion of the US in general, and somehow I doubt that will change with a Kerry administration.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Q. How does Kerry know Osama Bin Laden was in Tora Bora? A. He doesn't.

John Kerry stated during the last debate that Osama Bin Laden was in Tora Bora and escaped because Bush "outsourced" the battle to Afgan warlords. Only one problem. There is absolutely no way that John Kerry can know this. The actual commanders, including General Tommy Franks and Lt. General Michael DeLong, don't remember it that way. At the time of the Tora Bora battle they had reports of Osama being in Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran, and elsewhere. Melanie Kirkpatrick makes this point clearly in her piece entitled "Tora Bora Baloney" in today's Wall St. Journal.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Righteous Europeans stand by their principles

The BBC reports today that mass graves have been found in Iraq, containing murdered women and children, including babies. Mothers were found still holding their children, both shot in the head. But then this is hardly news at this point. Even the far reaches of the left concede (perhaps grudgingly) that Saddam was not the kind of guy you'd like to see married to your sister. The real news story is that the forensic teams are not getting any help from Europeans, because they believe that the evidence they are gathering might serve to cause Saddam to be executed. And they can't be party to that.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

And just when, exactly, were terrorists a nuisance?

So, John Kerry would like to return us to a time when terrorists were just a "nuisance". Exactly when was that, Mr. Kerry? I assume that he might be referring to the "Golden Age" of terrorism under the Democratic mother/father/god/icon Bill Clinton. As I recall it was on his watch that two terrorists detonated a van full of explosives in the garage of the WTC. Were they a nuisance? Are you a nuisance if you kill 5 people, a pain in the ass if you kill 50 and a true threat to America if you kill 100? Is John Kerry's a tiered nuisance system? It is interesting to note that the original WTC bombers were trying to immediately collapse the tower, with the bomb being placed to maximize the probability that the collapsing tower would take out the other tower as it fell. Had these two "nuisances" been only slightly more competent, they would have succeeded in killing oh what, maybe 25,000 to 50,000 people? Airplanes hitting the upper floors allowed an hour or so of evacuation, saving thousands of lives. The original plot, if successful, would have allowed no time for evacuations and would probably have immediately killed everyone in one or both towers.

It is possible that the immediate death toll would have exceeded the total number of American lives lost in the Vietnam war. Is this the "nuisance" time that Mr. Kerry would return us to?

Q. Why does Europe hate us? A. It's not because of Bush

Carol Gould's report on an American in London shows the extent of hatred for the US and Israel in Europe. And guess predates the Republicans and Bush by decades.

Monday, October 11, 2004

The usual media bias obscures the Duelfer report

David Brooks is a beacon of hope in the hopeless morass that the New York Times has become. Here he dissects the absurd partisan politics and liberal bias that has obscured the facts of the Duelfer report.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

I just can't feel sorry for this person

On the last page of the Sunday New York Sunday Times magazine is a column called "Lives". Today's was about a 59 year old man that has had multiple sex partners continuously over the years and refers to "partying" the entire time (which in the context of this article I took to mean unprotected sex).

He was diagnosed with HIV after one of his partners died of AIDS. Seven years later he got a call to say that the positive diagnosis was incorrect. He returned for another test and he was in fact negative, having never been positive in the first place.

While he thought he was HIV positive he was ostracized by many "friends that I had sexual relations with". His family, which had never been supportive, gave him a hard time and life generally sucked.

Well, now he's "mad as hell". And he's suing the doctor. Because he doesn't have AIDS.

Is it me? or is there something desperately wrong with this picture? We're asked to accept the concept of suing a doctor that made a mistake, while simultaneously feeling sorry for someone that spent decades having multiple sex partners and unprotected sex. I have a very, very tough time relating to the anger of someone whose behavior is so awful and so reckless.

The "protagonist" of this story happens to be gay, but my revulsion with the story would be the same if he was straight.

Kerry's free ride with the media continues

Has there ever been a free ride like this in the history of American politics? Not a single reporter asks Kerry the obvious, tough questions that cry out for answers. The free ride continues. He keeps talking about rebuilding our partnerships with our allies (i.e. France and Germany), and rebuilding a coalition (one assumes of the non-coerced and non-bribed). But not a single interviewer or reporter ever asks him how he intends to do this. The fact is he can't and he won't. On most things he hasn't thought through he at least says he "has a plan". But he doesn't even have to say that on this topic because no one asks him to elaborate. Germany and France are somehow going to embrace the US again because, because....because John Kerry is John Kerry. There you have it.

For that matter, no one asks him to explain exactly why having France and Germany cozy with us is a good thing. They have not been our allies for decades, if you measure the worth of an ally by what they do, not what they say.