Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
My own Governor has gone off the deep end & joined the moonbats......
PA Gov. Ed Rendell suffers psychotic delusions on Fox News
BELDAR BLOG
This is a perfect example of the foolish argument that was the subject of my post yesterday entitled "An argument with which I have no patience, from fools I will not suffer gladly: 'We're making more terrorists!'" — except it's worse, because it takes the argument one step further to assert that it's specifically George W. Bush who's responsible for terrorism:
A new videotape message from terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was meant to help President Bush win re-election, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday.
"It's obvious to me that bin Laden is trying to help George Bush, because George Bush is the best recruiter that al-Qaida has," Rendell told "Fox News Sunday."
"George Bush is so disliked in the Arab world that we're creating terrorists every single day — more terrorists than we can even come close to killing," the Democrat said.
"More terrorists than we can even come close to killing"? The last I heard, despite Sen. Kerry's vote against the $87 billion appropriation, our troops haven't run short of ammunition.
Governor Rendell, your worldview may be divided into two portions — pro-Bush and anti-Bush — but that ain't what's motivating the radical Islamic extremists. They're genuinely omnipartisan in their hatred of all things American.
Fox News host Chris Wallace should have whipped out a Nerf bat and whacked Gov. Rendell in the ear. But of course, he couldn't do that. Mr. Wallace had to pretend that Gov. Rendell isn't a barking-mad moonbat; Mr. Wallace's job requires him to suffer fools graciously, if not gladly. Gov. Rendell, after all, is a respected leader of the Democratic Party and a key advisor to its presidential nominee.
Can anyone imagine a prominent Republican governor and Dewey adviser saying on Halloween 1944, with utter seriousness, "Franklin Roosevelt is the best recruiter that the Nazis have"? I can't. That would have been political suicide; such a hypothetical governor in 1944 would have been run out of office within hours, his political career ended.
But I'm delighted to see from Google News that Gov. Rendell's statement, as quoted above by AP, is being picked up and widely republished in Pennsylvania's newspaper and TV station websites. American voters — in Pennsylvania and elsewhere — aren't obliged to suffer fools gladly, or at all.
My own Governor has gone off the deep end & joined the moonbats......
PA Gov. Ed Rendell suffers psychotic delusions on Fox News
BELDAR BLOG
This is a perfect example of the foolish argument that was the subject of my post yesterday entitled "An argument with which I have no patience, from fools I will not suffer gladly: 'We're making more terrorists!'" — except it's worse, because it takes the argument one step further to assert that it's specifically George W. Bush who's responsible for terrorism:
A new videotape message from terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was meant to help President Bush win re-election, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday.
"It's obvious to me that bin Laden is trying to help George Bush, because George Bush is the best recruiter that al-Qaida has," Rendell told "Fox News Sunday."
"George Bush is so disliked in the Arab world that we're creating terrorists every single day — more terrorists than we can even come close to killing," the Democrat said.
"More terrorists than we can even come close to killing"? The last I heard, despite Sen. Kerry's vote against the $87 billion appropriation, our troops haven't run short of ammunition.
Governor Rendell, your worldview may be divided into two portions — pro-Bush and anti-Bush — but that ain't what's motivating the radical Islamic extremists. They're genuinely omnipartisan in their hatred of all things American.
Fox News host Chris Wallace should have whipped out a Nerf bat and whacked Gov. Rendell in the ear. But of course, he couldn't do that. Mr. Wallace had to pretend that Gov. Rendell isn't a barking-mad moonbat; Mr. Wallace's job requires him to suffer fools graciously, if not gladly. Gov. Rendell, after all, is a respected leader of the Democratic Party and a key advisor to its presidential nominee.
Can anyone imagine a prominent Republican governor and Dewey adviser saying on Halloween 1944, with utter seriousness, "Franklin Roosevelt is the best recruiter that the Nazis have"? I can't. That would have been political suicide; such a hypothetical governor in 1944 would have been run out of office within hours, his political career ended.
But I'm delighted to see from Google News that Gov. Rendell's statement, as quoted above by AP, is being picked up and widely republished in Pennsylvania's newspaper and TV station websites. American voters — in Pennsylvania and elsewhere — aren't obliged to suffer fools gladly, or at all.
The "October Surprise." Osama speaks.
http://www.imao.us/sound/Osama.mp3
I've already shot down all of those Michael Moore/Team Kerry
Talking Points.
Why do you insist on regurgitating the same discredited lies
over & over?
President Bush's honorable service
POWERLINE
During the Democratic national convention, John Edwards asked America to judge John Kerry by the statements of those who served with him in Vietnam. The only problem was that the MSM was doing its best to hide most of these statements from the American public. Once that problem was overcome, the Democrats lost interest in the views of Kerry's "brothers" and, in fact, chose to slander many of these brave men.
President Bush asks to be judged by his record as president. However, the views of his military brothers are available here at at WingmenForBush. The Wingmen have issued a press release expressing their outrage at John Kerry's claim, on the Today show, that George Bush did not put his life on the line for his country. Consider, for example, the statement of Silver Star recipient Col. Tom Lockhart (Ret.). Col. Lockhart spent 24 months serving in the Vietnam War as a fighter pilot. In 1969, he trained then-Lt. Bush to fly jet aircraft at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia. He says:
<<<
John Kerry, your statement on national television, which implied that George W. Bush did not put his life on the line indicated that you simply don't know what it means to fly fighter aircraft. This has historically been the most dangerous assignment that any military officer could choose, and that danger exists in training for combat as well as in combat. Mr. Kerry, your comments disparage the National Guard and are a disgrace, especially in light of the current commitment of Guard troops to Iraqi Freedom. I flew with George W. Bush, and I can attest to his skill as a fighter pilot. All fighter pilots put our lives on the line every time we strap on a jet fighter. Bush stepped up and volunteered for this very risky service to his country in a time of crises.
The Mission of WingmenForBush.com:
This web site is dedicated to telling the true story of President George W. Bush's military career from the perspective of the airmen who served with him during his USAF training and in the Air National Guard.
WingmenForBush.com reveals the President's honorable military career. Here, the President's Wingmen share their memories of then-Lt. Bush, and also outline the top ten distortions used by political sources to impugn the President's military record and sets the record straight, with the truth from those who were there. The commanders who trained President Bush, his classmates of pilot training class 70-04, and the National Guard pilots who flew with him affirm the President’s honorable military service. They stand shoulder to shoulder as his Wingmen.
http://www.wingmenforbush.com/
President Bush's honorable service
POWERLINE
During the Democratic national convention, John Edwards asked America to judge John Kerry by the statements of those who served with him in Vietnam. The only problem was that the MSM was doing its best to hide most of these statements from the American public. Once that problem was overcome, the Democrats lost interest in the views of Kerry's "brothers" and, in fact, chose to slander many of these brave men.
President Bush asks to be judged by his record as president. However, the views of his military brothers are available here at at WingmenForBush. The Wingmen have issued a press release expressing their outrage at John Kerry's claim, on the Today show, that George Bush did not put his life on the line for his country. Consider, for example, the statement of Silver Star recipient Col. Tom Lockhart (Ret.). Col. Lockhart spent 24 months serving in the Vietnam War as a fighter pilot. In 1969, he trained then-Lt. Bush to fly jet aircraft at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia. He says:
<<<
John Kerry, your statement on national television, which implied that George W. Bush did not put his life on the line indicated that you simply don't know what it means to fly fighter aircraft. This has historically been the most dangerous assignment that any military officer could choose, and that danger exists in training for combat as well as in combat. Mr. Kerry, your comments disparage the National Guard and are a disgrace, especially in light of the current commitment of Guard troops to Iraqi Freedom. I flew with George W. Bush, and I can attest to his skill as a fighter pilot. All fighter pilots put our lives on the line every time we strap on a jet fighter. Bush stepped up and volunteered for this very risky service to his country in a time of crises.
The Mission of WingmenForBush.com:
This web site is dedicated to telling the true story of President George W. Bush's military career from the perspective of the airmen who served with him during his USAF training and in the Air National Guard.
WingmenForBush.com reveals the President's honorable military career. Here, the President's Wingmen share their memories of then-Lt. Bush, and also outline the top ten distortions used by political sources to impugn the President's military record and sets the record straight, with the truth from those who were there. The commanders who trained President Bush, his classmates of pilot training class 70-04, and the National Guard pilots who flew with him affirm the President’s honorable military service. They stand shoulder to shoulder as his Wingmen.
http://www.wingmenforbush.com/
They are not even trying to hide it anymore......
Lesli Stahl told Howie Kurtz on "Reliable Sources" this morning, when asked about CBS bias, that it was the press's job to "tell truth to power."
From: LindyBill
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20710335
They are not even trying to hide it anymore......
Lesli Stahl told Howie Kurtz on "Reliable Sources" this morning, when asked about CBS bias, that it was the press's job to "tell truth to power."
From: LindyBill
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20710335
Subject: Letter from an Army Chaplain in Iraq:
Dear Friends and Family:
I am addressing this letter to you to express a frustration that I
know has been voiced time and again, yet is met with little change. It
concerns the media coverage of this war and the effect of that coverage
on the morale of our troops. As a battalion chaplain I hear the comments
and complaints of soldiers who, while performing an incredibly difficult
job under hostile and stressful conditions, constantly see their efforts
portrayed as futile. NBC's coverage this morning (your Thursday
evening, 16 September 2004) is a prime example that I believe shows the
gulf that exists between the truth of what is happening here and the deceitful
agenda of the mainstream media at home and abroad.
Only 24 hours ago the NBC media crew arrived here and filmed hours of
footage with our unit. They were told of numerous projects in which our
unit is involved, not only in the area of force protection and Troop
Medical Clinic support, but also in humanitarian aide to a local village
here in Baghdad. Here is an example of some of the projects to which
they were introduced:
1. The reconstruction and furnishing of a clinic
2. Miscellaneous enhancements for a local elementary school and a
local day care center
3. Reconstruction of the decimated electrical, sewer and water
systems
4. Reparation of exterior walls and gates surrounding the village
5. Rubble and garbage removal projects to clean up the entire
village
6. Construction of a protective chain link fence around the local
Shi'a Mosque
7. Studies to examine the development of agricultural systems and a
garment industry to help the locals provide for themselves
8. The ever-growing clothing and school supplies drive for the
children of the village
In the roughly one minute clip that they drew from their day of
filming, what did they show? The First Lieutenant who is the primary
driver of these projects was shown with one quote about never believing he
would be in Iraq, being a National Guard soldier. This was followed by their
interview of another soldier's wife, saying her husband was supposed to
have retired this summer, that his responsibility to the military should be
over and that he should be home. They showed NOTHING of the great
humanitarian efforts that are going on here!
It is coverage like this that is convincing more and more soldiers that
the consistent media agenda is to show you, the American people, the
futility of our current efforts and how everything is going wrong. There is no
apparent attempt to show all the good that is happening that, for those
of us who are here, far outweighs the very weak, though spectacular,
moments of insurgency. And we see it via satellite, just as you do.
In a day of great violence across the country, last Sunday, where the
insurgency failed to take one American life, what one film clip was shown
over and over.
They showed the lone burning Bradley fighting vehicle, with Iraqis
dancing on and around it, waving flags of the insurgency. Out of the
thousands of troops who made it safely around Baghdad and the country
that day, the media focused on one piece of impressive footage and
repeated it over and over until the viewer receives the message that this
is all that went on in Iraq today - an insurgent victory. I also remember
how the body count, for two days thereafter, was printed in ever-increasing
increments, never mentioning who the casualties were - giving the
impression that they were American casualties.
The despair and depression, as well as the thankfully limited anti-war
sentiment, over our country's efforts in Iraq are not based upon all of
the facts. They are rather based on what the media has chosen to
show - and what they have chosen NOT to show. The media knows
that they can always find those willing to complain, grouse, protest
and disagree. And they splash those voices all over their screens and
pages, drowning out the voices that will tell you, as I am, that there
is good going on here.
There are things going on here you would be proud of, things that would
bring tears to your eyes; like the looks of parents whose children are
going to school for the first time in years, equipped with pencils, pens and
paper and clothed with clean new clothes. There are essential services
being provided to people to whom they were denied under the oppressive
regime of Saddam Hussein. There is a trial going on for that man and at least
eleven of his evil cronies who, let us remember, killed over 300,000 people
under the watchful eye of the United Nations (pun intended) during the 12
years they had responsibility for the health and welfare of this nation (yes,
the> same, inept organization that is currently ignoring the Darfur, Sudan
slaughter of Christians by Islamic fundamentalists). This was the same
time that the oil-for-food program monies were being used to line the pockets
of Saddam and his friends and build luxurious palaces like the ones our
forces now occupy as he had quarters all over this nation. And Saddam all the
while complained that it was "American Sanctions" that were killing his
people. I don't remember a sanction that required a mass grave.
Please know that the media is NOT giving you the right picture, much
less the WHOLE picture. They have an agenda, it is clear, and that agenda
does not include the current administration claiming success in this
endeavor.
It is unclear if their sensationalist "reporting" will change if the
administration changes. The one thing I know as I watch the morale of
the men who are here doing the job is that every time the enemy's paltry
attacks are made out by the media to be marker events in Iraq, it becomes a
little harder for soldiers to see value in even the greatest things we are
doing. Your care packages, your letters and your constant prayers are the only
things that remind us that the majority of thoughtful Americans are
truly behind this effort and that what we are doing has great value. Don't
let that go. Keep supporting your troops, not just in word, but in action.
Remember this: You cannot support the troops AND denigrate the war
effort. It is a logical and a practical inconsistency. While the soldier fights
the enemy, he needs those behind him to offer support to his back, not
daggers. The news media is one of the greatest threats to this war. Just
ask a terrorist. Every time he can do something desperate and spectacular
and have the effect with one man blowing himself up in a crowd that an
entire U.S. Brigade has in securing a city, the media has thrown terror the
victory. It is not the side that wins the most ground anymore that is
victorious, but the one that can satiate the blood-hungry media. We
have given them the stories they need to show how much we are truly doing.
The question then must turn to why they have a fascination with making the
villain the victor. If we win this war, it may not be much of a story
for them, but if we lose it...
Your troops are doing amazing things here - things many of them are not
even trained to do, like a medical platoon leader doing public works
projects! I hope that either the media start showing the REAL stories
here or that you will show your contempt of their deceitfulness with your
complaints and, ultimately, with your vote. Don't watch the news media
that thrives on the death of American soldiers to bump their ratings! And
remember your troops. Support of victory is support of your troops.
Sincerely, CH (CPT) Chris Bassett Baghdad, Iraq,
Subject: Letter from an Army Chaplain in Iraq:
Dear Friends and Family:
I am addressing this letter to you to express a frustration that I
know has been voiced time and again, yet is met with little change. It
concerns the media coverage of this war and the effect of that coverage
on the morale of our troops. As a battalion chaplain I hear the comments
and complaints of soldiers who, while performing an incredibly difficult
job under hostile and stressful conditions, constantly see their efforts
portrayed as futile. NBC's coverage this morning (your Thursday
evening, 16 September 2004) is a prime example that I believe shows the
gulf that exists between the truth of what is happening here and the deceitful
agenda of the mainstream media at home and abroad.
Only 24 hours ago the NBC media crew arrived here and filmed hours of
footage with our unit. They were told of numerous projects in which our
unit is involved, not only in the area of force protection and Troop
Medical Clinic support, but also in humanitarian aide to a local village
here in Baghdad. Here is an example of some of the projects to which
they were introduced:
1. The reconstruction and furnishing of a clinic
2. Miscellaneous enhancements for a local elementary school and a
local day care center
3. Reconstruction of the decimated electrical, sewer and water
systems
4. Reparation of exterior walls and gates surrounding the village
5. Rubble and garbage removal projects to clean up the entire
village
6. Construction of a protective chain link fence around the local
Shi'a Mosque
7. Studies to examine the development of agricultural systems and a
garment industry to help the locals provide for themselves
8. The ever-growing clothing and school supplies drive for the
children of the village
In the roughly one minute clip that they drew from their day of
filming, what did they show? The First Lieutenant who is the primary
driver of these projects was shown with one quote about never believing he
would be in Iraq, being a National Guard soldier. This was followed by their
interview of another soldier's wife, saying her husband was supposed to
have retired this summer, that his responsibility to the military should be
over and that he should be home. They showed NOTHING of the great
humanitarian efforts that are going on here!
It is coverage like this that is convincing more and more soldiers that
the consistent media agenda is to show you, the American people, the
futility of our current efforts and how everything is going wrong. There is no
apparent attempt to show all the good that is happening that, for those
of us who are here, far outweighs the very weak, though spectacular,
moments of insurgency. And we see it via satellite, just as you do.
In a day of great violence across the country, last Sunday, where the
insurgency failed to take one American life, what one film clip was shown
over and over.
They showed the lone burning Bradley fighting vehicle, with Iraqis
dancing on and around it, waving flags of the insurgency. Out of the
thousands of troops who made it safely around Baghdad and the country
that day, the media focused on one piece of impressive footage and
repeated it over and over until the viewer receives the message that this
is all that went on in Iraq today - an insurgent victory. I also remember
how the body count, for two days thereafter, was printed in ever-increasing
increments, never mentioning who the casualties were - giving the
impression that they were American casualties.
The despair and depression, as well as the thankfully limited anti-war
sentiment, over our country's efforts in Iraq are not based upon all of
the facts. They are rather based on what the media has chosen to
show - and what they have chosen NOT to show. The media knows
that they can always find those willing to complain, grouse, protest
and disagree. And they splash those voices all over their screens and
pages, drowning out the voices that will tell you, as I am, that there
is good going on here.
There are things going on here you would be proud of, things that would
bring tears to your eyes; like the looks of parents whose children are
going to school for the first time in years, equipped with pencils, pens and
paper and clothed with clean new clothes. There are essential services
being provided to people to whom they were denied under the oppressive
regime of Saddam Hussein. There is a trial going on for that man and at least
eleven of his evil cronies who, let us remember, killed over 300,000 people
under the watchful eye of the United Nations (pun intended) during the 12
years they had responsibility for the health and welfare of this nation (yes,
the> same, inept organization that is currently ignoring the Darfur, Sudan
slaughter of Christians by Islamic fundamentalists). This was the same
time that the oil-for-food program monies were being used to line the pockets
of Saddam and his friends and build luxurious palaces like the ones our
forces now occupy as he had quarters all over this nation. And Saddam all the
while complained that it was "American Sanctions" that were killing his
people. I don't remember a sanction that required a mass grave.
Please know that the media is NOT giving you the right picture, much
less the WHOLE picture. They have an agenda, it is clear, and that agenda
does not include the current administration claiming success in this
endeavor.
It is unclear if their sensationalist "reporting" will change if the
administration changes. The one thing I know as I watch the morale of
the men who are here doing the job is that every time the enemy's paltry
attacks are made out by the media to be marker events in Iraq, it becomes a
little harder for soldiers to see value in even the greatest things we are
doing. Your care packages, your letters and your constant prayers are the only
things that remind us that the majority of thoughtful Americans are
truly behind this effort and that what we are doing has great value. Don't
let that go. Keep supporting your troops, not just in word, but in action.
Remember this: You cannot support the troops AND denigrate the war
effort. It is a logical and a practical inconsistency. While the soldier fights
the enemy, he needs those behind him to offer support to his back, not
daggers. The news media is one of the greatest threats to this war. Just
ask a terrorist. Every time he can do something desperate and spectacular
and have the effect with one man blowing himself up in a crowd that an
entire U.S. Brigade has in securing a city, the media has thrown terror the
victory. It is not the side that wins the most ground anymore that is
victorious, but the one that can satiate the blood-hungry media. We
have given them the stories they need to show how much we are truly doing.
The question then must turn to why they have a fascination with making the
villain the victor. If we win this war, it may not be much of a story
for them, but if we lose it...
Your troops are doing amazing things here - things many of them are not
even trained to do, like a medical platoon leader doing public works
projects! I hope that either the media start showing the REAL stories
here or that you will show your contempt of their deceitfulness with your
complaints and, ultimately, with your vote. Don't watch the news media
that thrives on the death of American soldiers to bump their ratings! And
remember your troops. Support of victory is support of your troops.
Sincerely, CH (CPT) Chris Bassett Baghdad, Iraq,
A reflection on the election
IDEOBLOG
I have been avoiding politics lately -- partly because I don't think I can add constructively to the billions of words that have been circulating about this election, and partly because I find this election so disturbing. But two days before the event, I'm going to try once more to articulate what I find so disturbing.
Briefly, it's the "Bush-bashing." Not opposition to Bush, but hatred of the man that spills over into denigration of those who dare to support him.
My most recent post sums up this phenomenon by quoting Leon Wieseltier's NYT review of Nicholson Baker's "scummy little book," Checkpoint. Wieseltier observes:
<<<
For the virulence that calls itself critical thinking, the merry diabolization of other opinions and the other people who hold them, the confusion of rightness with righteousness, the preference for aspersion to argument, the view that the strongest statement is the truest statement -- these deformations of political discourse now thrive in the houses of liberalism too. The radicalism of the right has hectored into being a radicalism of the left.
Yes, as the lefties age, folks who used to pride themselves on tolerance now turn to virulent and destructive hatred. They justify their attitude by speaking of the intolerance of those they hate -- of gays, of the poor, of African-Americans, etc. They also claim being disturbed by Bush's inflexibility and insularity. But hatred distorts their vision. They ignore, for example, the irony that these supposed lovers of all the world's people should scorn Bush's idealism, denigrate the Iraqis' impulse for freedom, and despair about the economic rise of third world countries at the expense of our own jobs. And in any event such hatred cannot be justified by the supposed errors of its target.
What causes this attitude is not Bush, the man, but something he represents. I believe that this is Bush's faith-based reasoning. The "thinking" class -- journalists, novelists, pundits -- finds this posture disturbing because it resists their own supposedly nuanced, perceptive, educated appeals. Give us back one of our own, who speaks French, and probably reads books.
Bush-hatred does not spring from the left's revulsion over the war in Iraq. At most, that provided convenient fuel. After all, the left rejected the man who would have ended that war, nominating instead the "war hero" who has endorsed it, while of course appropriately holding his nose. No, Bush-hatred antedated Iraq.
Consider the following excerpts from an email Michael Moore broadcast on 9/12/2001. {It's worth reading now, a couple of days before the election (and a couple of days after OBL has officially taken credit for 9/11).}
<<<
Well, the pundits are in full diarrhea mode, gushing on about the “terrorist threat” and today’s scariest dude on planet earth -- Osama bin Laden. Hey, who knows, maybe he did it. But, something just doesn’t add up. Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these three targets without anyone wondering why these planes were so far off path? Or am I being asked to believe that there were four religious/political fanatics who JUST HAPPENED to be skilled airline pilots who JUST HAPPENED to want to kill themselves today? Maybe you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for the cause -- but FOUR? Ok, maybe you can -- I don’t know. . . . .
[O]ur recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been conducted by a guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple of ex-military guys who hated the federal government.
From the first minutes of today’s events, I never heard that possibility suggested. Why is that?
Maybe it’s because the A-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the all-important race card. It’s much easier to get us to hate when the object of our hatred doesn’t look like us. . . .
In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race -- you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .
Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.
Reflect on what this initial reaction to 9/11 says about the attitudes of Moore, and of those in his wide and enthusiastic audience. A day after 9/11, Moore's impulse was to blame Bush and his policies. As the identity and nature of our attackers became apparent, Moore and his friends had to devise more elaborate explanations of how Bush was at fault. Not surprisingly, OBL noted in his recent message that Bush cost lives by continuing to read to the school children after he learned of the attack. OBL must have read Michael Moore's email -- if they'll believe that, they'll believe anything. And the worst injustice of the attack? Killing Democrats!
I only hope that, if Bush wins on 11/2 (or sometime thereafter) as expected, our supposedly best and brightest can get past blind hatred and back to thinking, and the tolerance of different ways of thinking that used to characterize liberalism.
http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/10/a_reflection_on.html
LOL! So that's how you invalidate the Gulf War Cease Fire
Agreement?
You liberals are so liberal with facts & reality it's scary.
Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;
1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.
2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).
3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.
4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.
Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.
Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?
A reflection on the election
IDEOBLOG
I have been avoiding politics lately -- partly because I don't think I can add constructively to the billions of words that have been circulating about this election, and partly because I find this election so disturbing. But two days before the event, I'm going to try once more to articulate what I find so disturbing.
Briefly, it's the "Bush-bashing." Not opposition to Bush, but hatred of the man that spills over into denigration of those who dare to support him.
My most recent post sums up this phenomenon by quoting Leon Wieseltier's NYT review of Nicholson Baker's "scummy little book," Checkpoint. Wieseltier observes:
<<<
For the virulence that calls itself critical thinking, the merry diabolization of other opinions and the other people who hold them, the confusion of rightness with righteousness, the preference for aspersion to argument, the view that the strongest statement is the truest statement -- these deformations of political discourse now thrive in the houses of liberalism too. The radicalism of the right has hectored into being a radicalism of the left.
Yes, as the lefties age, folks who used to pride themselves on tolerance now turn to virulent and destructive hatred. They justify their attitude by speaking of the intolerance of those they hate -- of gays, of the poor, of African-Americans, etc. They also claim being disturbed by Bush's inflexibility and insularity. But hatred distorts their vision. They ignore, for example, the irony that these supposed lovers of all the world's people should scorn Bush's idealism, denigrate the Iraqis' impulse for freedom, and despair about the economic rise of third world countries at the expense of our own jobs. And in any event such hatred cannot be justified by the supposed errors of its target.
What causes this attitude is not Bush, the man, but something he represents. I believe that this is Bush's faith-based reasoning. The "thinking" class -- journalists, novelists, pundits -- finds this posture disturbing because it resists their own supposedly nuanced, perceptive, educated appeals. Give us back one of our own, who speaks French, and probably reads books.
Bush-hatred does not spring from the left's revulsion over the war in Iraq. At most, that provided convenient fuel. After all, the left rejected the man who would have ended that war, nominating instead the "war hero" who has endorsed it, while of course appropriately holding his nose. No, Bush-hatred antedated Iraq.
Consider the following excerpts from an email Michael Moore broadcast on 9/12/2001. {It's worth reading now, a couple of days before the election (and a couple of days after OBL has officially taken credit for 9/11).}
<<<
Well, the pundits are in full diarrhea mode, gushing on about the “terrorist threat” and today’s scariest dude on planet earth -- Osama bin Laden. Hey, who knows, maybe he did it. But, something just doesn’t add up. Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these three targets without anyone wondering why these planes were so far off path? Or am I being asked to believe that there were four religious/political fanatics who JUST HAPPENED to be skilled airline pilots who JUST HAPPENED to want to kill themselves today? Maybe you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for the cause -- but FOUR? Ok, maybe you can -- I don’t know. . . . .
[O]ur recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been conducted by a guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple of ex-military guys who hated the federal government.
From the first minutes of today’s events, I never heard that possibility suggested. Why is that?
Maybe it’s because the A-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the all-important race card. It’s much easier to get us to hate when the object of our hatred doesn’t look like us. . . .
In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race -- you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all. . . . .
Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush! Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.
>>>
Reflect on what this initial reaction to 9/11 says about the attitudes of Moore, and of those in his wide and enthusiastic audience. A day after 9/11, Moore's impulse was to blame Bush and his policies. As the identity and nature of our attackers became apparent, Moore and his friends had to devise more elaborate explanations of how Bush was at fault. Not surprisingly, OBL noted in his recent message that Bush cost lives by continuing to read to the school children after he learned of the attack. OBL must have read Michael Moore's email -- if they'll believe that, they'll believe anything. And the worst injustice of the attack? Killing Democrats!
>>>
I only hope that, if Bush wins on 11/2 (or sometime thereafter) as expected, our supposedly best and brightest can get past blind hatred and back to thinking, and the tolerance of different ways of thinking that used to characterize liberalism.
http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/10/a_reflection_on.html
Subject: Kerry's 11 bills that became law - quite a record!
In the debates, President Bush said that John Kerry
had written only five bills that became law.
Senator Kerry said that 56 laws he had written
(or co-written) had passed.
President Bush was apparently wrong -
there seem to be 11 that became law.
Mr. Bush should correct the record and point out Kerry's willingness to tackle the difficult issues facing the Senate and America.
In fact, there were 56 that passed in the Senate,
but only 11 of them were actually passed by both
houses of Congress and signed by a President.
Here are the 11 bills ever passed with
John Kerry's name on them:
99th Congress:
A concurrent resolution expressing solidarity with the Sakharov family
100th Congress:
None
101st Congress:
A joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1989 as
"World Population Awareness week"
102nd Congress:
Another joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1991
as "World Population Awareness week"
A joint resolution designating Nov 13, 1992 as
"Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day"
A Joint resolution designating September 18, 1992
as "National POW/MIA recognition day"
A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out
the National Sea Grant College Program Act
103rd Congress:
A bill to re-designate a federal Building as the
"Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center"
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine
Mammal Protection act
104th Congress:
None
105th Congress:
None
106th Congress:
A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect
to the Women's Business center program
107th Congress:
A bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology
Transfer program
108th Congress:
A bill to award a congressional gold medal to
Jackie Robinson.
This is Senator Kerry's total record of achievement
in his 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
Subject: Kerry's 11 bills that became law - quite a record!
In the debates, President Bush said that John Kerry
had written only five bills that became law.
Senator Kerry said that 56 laws he had written
(or co-written) had passed.
President Bush was apparently wrong -
there seem to be 11 that became law.
Mr. Bush should correct the record and point out Kerry's willingness to tackle the difficult issues facing the Senate and America.
In fact, there were 56 that passed in the Senate,
but only 11 of them were actually passed by both
houses of Congress and signed by a President.
Here are the 11 bills ever passed with
John Kerry's name on them:
99th Congress:
A concurrent resolution expressing solidarity with the Sakharov family
100th Congress:
None
101st Congress:
A joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1989 as
"World Population Awareness week"
102nd Congress:
Another joint resolution designating a week in Oct 1991
as "World Population Awareness week"
A joint resolution designating Nov 13, 1992 as
"Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day"
A Joint resolution designating September 18, 1992
as "National POW/MIA recognition day"
A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out
the National Sea Grant College Program Act
103rd Congress:
A bill to re-designate a federal Building as the
"Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center"
A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine
Mammal Protection act
104th Congress:
None
105th Congress:
None
106th Congress:
A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect
to the Women's Business center program
107th Congress:
A bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology
Transfer program
108th Congress:
A bill to award a congressional gold medal to
Jackie Robinson.
This is Senator Kerry's total record of achievement
in his 20 years in the U.S. Senate.
GEORGE WILL:
Reasonable people can question the feasibility of Bush's nation-building and democracy-spreading ambitions. But, having taken up that burden, America cannot prudently, or decently, put it down. The question is: Which candidate will most tenaciously and single-mindedly pursue victory? The answer is: Not John Kerry, who is multiple-minded about most matters.
Tuesday's winner will not start from scratch but from where we are now, standing with the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Back in Washington recently, Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said those women were warned that Taliban remnants would attack polling places during the Oct. 9 elections. So the women performed the ritual bathing and said the prayers of those facing death. Then, rising at 3 a.m., they trekked an hour to wait in line for the polls to open at 7 a.m. In the province of Kunar an explosion 100 meters from a long line of waiting voters did not cause anyone to leave the line.
Which candidate can be trusted to keep faith with these people? Surely not the man whose party is increasingly influenced by its Michael Moore faction.
http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31403.htm
"GWB mislead (some say lied to) this country."
OK, prove it. Give me Bush's verbatim quotes & the evidence
that he lied or misled this country.
Until then, it's you who are lying just like John Kerry lies
when he says it.
"Which of GWB's excuses to pre-emptively invade Iraq did you buy into?"
I guess that UN Resolution 687 means nothing to you? Are you
just a Kool Aid drinking Michael Moore wannabe?
What credible evidence exists that the removal of Saddam
was "pre-emptive"?
I can tell you right now. There is none anywhere. It's one of
the Big Lies from Team Kerry, the DNC & the Michale Moore
crowd.
Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;
1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.
2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).
3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.
4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.
Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.
Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?
Hi Gary,
I couldn't agree more. I have experienced it everywhere I go
too. It's amazing that in an election that is so important,
millions of Americans are so thoroughly uninformed, yet these
same folks authoritatively spout BS as fact.
It's hard to blame everyone though. The liberal MSM, the DNC,
Team Kerry & the Michael Moore types have foisted one of the
largest propaganda campaigns in American history.
One key thing you didn't mention is those times when you
disagree with a Kerry fan & you dispute their POV with known
facts that destroy the DNC Talking Point they were parroting.
They have no facts to counter with, so rather than concede
they could be wrong, they attack you personally. Or they
attack Bush with more known lies.
Tim
Thanks for the kind welcome.
Nice graphics!
"Problem is, once GW & co. took their decision to "go get 'em" public, instead of building a strong coalition through standard diplomatic channels while the weapons inspectors continued to moniter activity on the ground, they went headlong into it like cowboys with guns blazing to the consternation of most of the international community
You people & your revisionist history. And to think you will
vote based on a false perception of reality. That's not very
smart IMO.
The inspectors hit the ground & immediately began to document
evidence of "Material Breaches". As time passed the number
of "Material Breaches" grew in number & seriousness.
UN Resolution 1441 made it clear what the consequences were
for even one "Material Breach". Saddam was required to
unconditionally & immediately comply fully to every aspect of
UN Resolution 1441. He chose utter defiance.
As for your DNC Talking Point about this so-called "strong
coalition", it was a strong coalition. We weren't able to
convince governments that were in bed with Saddam. They took
bribes from & sold illegal weapons to Saddam, ET AL & got
quite rich in the process.
There was nothing Bush or anyone could do to bring these
corrupt governments on board.
Perhaps you have ignored all news about the Oil-for-Food
scandal. Perhaps you have ignored the evidence from the Iraq
Survey Group.
It's obvious you listen to the lies & disinformation Michael
Moore types, Team Kerry & the DNC.
Your POV is dead wrong. Your source of these known lies are
those you plan to vote for.
Pretty scary, 'eh?
You keep using the false premise of " pre-emptive invasion".
I guess that facts & reality mean nothing to you. That is a
lie told by the DNC & parroted by the MSM.
What credible evidence do you have that this was a" pre-
emptive invasion"?
I've already linked you to irrefutable evidence that the
removal of Saddam was for the repeated, egregious violations
of UN Resolutions (which included the Gulf War Cease Fire
Agreement).
Do you always continue to spout known lies long after they
have been discredited. If yes, why?
Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;
1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.
2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).
3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.
4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.
Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.
Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?
Subject: Vietnam Veterans against the War turn on Kerry.
This is a tough "open letter to John Kerry" that is circulating around the web at a rapid pace. It is written by a Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. Johnson is a combat vet who joined VVAW (Vietnam Veterans against the War) and disliked the position "Kerry was dragging" the organization toward. He has asked this letter be widely circulated. Johnson also supports the efforts by SwiftVets and POWs. Johnson is an accomplished writer; his website is http://www.solvinglight.com
An Open Letter to Senator John F. Kerry
From Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
October 19, 2004
Dear Senator Kerry,
I never met my uncle Will. He was a lieutenant in the Navy during WWII. He was killed in action on his PT boat in the Pacific. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously.
The first-captain of my West Point class took a bullet through the heart while leading a South Vietnamese airborne battalion into combat. For this fatal wound, he was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously.
My senior year roommate at West Point became a tunnel rat. A booby trap explosion killed him in the tunnels of Duc Pho. The army awarded him the Purple Heart posthumously. My plebe year roommate lost an eye and became permanently crippled. For his extensive wounds, he received the Purple Heart.
My battalion commander in Viet Nam was one of the bravest men I ever knew. He went out ahead of the troops in his light observation helicopter to find and kill enemy before they had a chance to fire on his men. That's how he died. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously.
My words pale in their import compared to the terse comment of a high school classmate of mine. We played lacrosse together in Baltimore. He went to the Naval Academy and upon graduation became a marine. This past July at our annual lacrosse crab feast, I asked him what he thought of your Purple Hearts. He said, "Bob, nine of us lieutenants went over there together, and only three of us came back. All three of us who survived spent at least a month in the hospital recovering from wounds we suffered in combat."
You didn't need any recovery time from your three alleged "wounds." How does one get "wounded" and yet not need to recover from those "wounds"? With wounds comes suffering. Where was your suffering? How could you merit a Purple Heart when you weren't even a casualty? You did not earn your Purple Hearts; you wrangled them from the system through deception so you could go home early and get out of eight months of combat. That is despicable and shameless. During the democratic convention, your flagrant boastful show of your "heroism" gave the impression that you had been a man in the thick of combat, when in fact, you had been a man on the very edge of it, all the while slyly conniving your way out of it. Instead of "Reporting for duty," you should have said, "Derelict in my duty." I marvel at your pomposity, and at the astonishing facility with which you present your phony war record as fact to the American people.
Let's compare your wounds with those of a West Point classmate of mine and his men. As my classmate directed artillery fire onto suspected enemy positions, shrapnel from an enemy mortar ripped into his leg. A medivac chopper took him to the Americal Division field hospital. When he returned to his company two weeks later, many new faces met him: the lieutenant who had taken over had marched the company into a u-shaped ambush resulting in two-thirds of the men being killed or wounded. Those wounded in that battle didn't have to put themselves in for the Purple Heart, Senator Kerry.
You exhibit the characteristics of a Narcissist. Narcissus, for whom this malignant character defect is named, fell in love with his image in a pool of water. As with Narcissus, your image has become the focus of your life. This image of yourself with which you are enamored, so greedy for recognition and praise, is only two dimensional: it has breadth and width, but no depth. And while your image may appear grand and heroic on the surface, there is no substance to it. My high school marine friend and my West Point classmate, true heroes, didn't take movie cameras with them to Viet Nam, but you did-with the express purpose of recording your imaginary exploits and feeding your grandiose image of yourself.
The truth is you faked combat wounds in Viet Nam, and your actions were devious and self-serving. You were a "Purple Heart hunter," just as the Swift Boat Vets say. Narcissus was an actor, and so are you.
I don't understand how any veteran, or any member of a veteran's family, or any sane-thinking American could even consider voting for you-a man who faked Purple Hearts in wartime. A man who will fake Purple Hearts for the sake of glorifying his image has no integrity and misdefines truth as whatever enhances the power and prestige of that image. A man without depth and substance stands for anything and everything-so long as his image is glorified. Narcissists such as you cannot be trusted; and they can be very dangerous, especially when they become paranoid about protecting their image, especially when they occupy positions of great authority and consequence. The issues in this election are truthfulness and character, and you lack both.
In 1971, I became a regional coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) for a short time. I and many other vets were very angry at our government. We had experienced horror, terror, trauma, and grief in a no-win war and couldn't see the reason for it. We felt betrayed by our government and our military leaders. You stepped in and became our spokesman.
What enabled you to rise to the leadership of VVAW? What caused us, back then, to respect a four-month mini-veteran of the war? The answer is your medals: your phony medals for valor and your three phony Purple Hearts. Your congressional testimony about the war began with your own assertions that you had received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. What better spokesman than an heroic, thrice- wounded veteran! Our mistake was that we all assumed you were an honest and good man. But well before your antiwar days, you had decided to trade your integrity for the spotlight, and to barter your loyalty for vain political ambitions.
Most of us in VVAW expressed our outrage with government war policies through speeches, marches, and protests. We told the truth about what we saw and did in Viet Nam and we demanded from our leaders acknowledgment and change. You usurped the leadership of VVAW under false pretenses and dragged it in the direction of Jane Fonda and collaboration with the enemy. If, God forbid, you are elected president, in what awful direction will you and your foreign-born-and- raised wife drag our country?
Your deceit is an explicit slur upon my uncle Will's Purple Heart award, and you mock all other veterans who made the supreme sacrifice or suffered genuine wounds in combat throughout our nation's history. Your rise to prominence is based upon your abominably perverse desecration of our ideals; you have trivialized and demeaned the sacred and the solemn, and no amount of fluent sophistry or braggart pretense can cover it up.
Your conduct goes far beyond dereliction of duty. You betrayed your comrades in Viet Nam; you betrayed the trust of antiwar veterans, and now your self-fabricated credentials and continued lies contaminate the political process.
Remember the professor a few years ago who lied about being a Viet Nam veteran? His college reprimanded and suspended him for foisting such an abominable sham upon a few hundred students. I ask you in closing, Senator Kerry, what punishment is fitting for a man who fabricates medals as sacrosanct as the Purple Heart, and who continues to lie about his Viet Nam service to the entire world?
Yours truly,
Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
RBowieJ@comcast.net
Mr. Johnson is an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam and an author. His latest book is "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble."
-----------------------
UW, Lifted verbatim from an email received from a fellow Marine USNA grad with the note: "This is forwarded by a Korea-vintage USMC (Ret) colonel."...jj
Good summation.
"..if a story might hurt President Bush, play it up big; if
it might help Mr. Bush, bury it; and if might hurt Mr. Kerry,
ignore it altogether."
Guided by hidden hands?
The Washington Times
By Linda Chavez
Published October 30, 2004
- Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The media are too busy repackaging old Iraq news in an October offensive against President Bush's re-election to investigate truly startling evidence unearthed this week that the Communist Party may have been directing John Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 1970s.
The evidence, contained in captured communist records on file at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University, shows a well-coordinated effort by the Communist Party to recruit U.S. servicemen to become part of the American anti-war movement. The objective was to organize high-profile activities to undermine support for the Vietnam War, including holding hearings on alleged war crimes, lobbying Congress to oppose the war, exploiting the families of American POWs and urging servicemen to return their service medals.
Not only did John Kerry and his group Vietnam Veterans Against the War follow this game plan, but Mr. Kerry went to Paris to meet with the communist official designated as the point of contact for guiding these activities. In June 1970, Mr. Kerry met with Mme. Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong) of South Vietnam and a delegate to the Paris peace talks. The documents discovered last weekend -- one titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the U.S." -- was disseminated in Vietnam in the spring of 1971, and the other titled "Directive" was captured by U.S. forces in April 1971 -- are available for viewing at www.wintersoldier.com. They reveal a detailed plan to use anti-war activists in the United States as propagandists for the communist cause in Vietnam.
So why isn't the mainstream media all over this story? If Mr. Kerry -- wittingly or not -- was carrying out directives from Hanoi, or perhaps even Moscow, the American people have the right to know before they decide whether to elect him president on Tuesday. But the networks and major dailies were too busy covering a hysterical report that 380 tons of explosives went missing from an Iraqi depot in the early days of the U.S. invasion to inquire into Mr. Kerry's dubious activities in the anti-war movement.
On Monday, the New York Times broke the story of the purported looting of weapons from an Iraqi arms depot. "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq" screamed the front-page Times headline, which was picked up by all the major networks and newspapers, not to mention the Kerry campaign. CBS' "60 Minutes" was also set to air a story tomorrow -- two days before the election -- aimed at convincing viewers that the administration had carelessly let the depot be looted of its powerful explosives, the kind that might even be used to detonate a nuclear device. "Our plan was to run the story on Oct. 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold," CBS executive producer Jeff Fager said in a statement.
In fact, the "missing explosives" story was more media campaign ploy than real news. There is substantial evidence that most of the explosives were either destroyed by U.S. bombing prior to the invasion or were already gone by the time U.S. troops arrived at the site on April 10, 2003, according to NBC, which had a reporter embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne Division at the time. Furthermore, the United States has already destroyed or is in the process of destroying more than 400,000 tons of similar material in Iraq, a fact conveniently ignored by much of the media.
The media rule seems to be if a story might hurt President Bush, play it up big; if it might help Mr. Bush, bury it; and if might hurt Mr. Kerry, ignore it altogether. In an election as close as this one, the media's role could be decisive. We used to expect the candidates to unleash their own October surprise in an effort to sway the voters at the last minute. Now it's the media that plays that game. Come Halloween, it's media tricks for Mr. Bush and treats for Mr. Kerry.
Kerry's October surprise
Friday, October 29, 2004
How's this for an October surprise?
While John Kerry is running around claiming President George Bush and our troops overseas failed the American people by not guarding an explosives dump without explosives in it, documents have been uncovered at Texas Tech University that show Kerry was following Vietnam War protest guidelines from North Vietnamese communists in the early 1970s.
"Wait! Why am I not seeing any of this in the national news media, Mr. Gaylon?" you might be asking. "This cannot be true. Our Democrat candidate for president surely wasn't on the side of the communists and carrying out their requests when he got home from valiantly fighting for his country and winning all those medals, was he?"
Yes, he was.
The documents -- which actually LOOK like they came from the 1970s and not from a Microsoft Word program -- were found at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and reproduced from captured communist records. These documents have been PROVEN 100 percent authentic BEFORE their release, unlike those 60 Minutes National Guard documents that CBS refuses to investigate.
They show that Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Viet Cong provisional governor of South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Talks, delivered a plan from Le Duc Tho -- Ho Chi Minh's second in command -- for American anti-war activities that anti-war protesters followed to the letter.
These documents are available at www.worldnetdaily.com or www.wintersoldier.com and show anti-war protesters not only received approval from the communists in North Vietnam, but also their direction. One of the documents states, "The spontaneous antiwar movements in the U.S. have received assistance and guidance from the friendly (i.e. communist Vietnamese) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks."
Another article at www.nysun.com/article/3756 also reflects on the North Vietnamese anti-war coordination with protest groups.
By the way, Madame Binh subsequently became the Minister of Information for the People's Republic of Vietnam after Saigon fell. You know what "Minister of Information" means in communist countries, right?
Of these organizations, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the communist organizations Peoples Committee for Peace and Justice and National Peace Action Committee were represented at the talks. Some representatives of these groups had their airfare covered by the United States Communist Party.
Shortly after Kerry returned from the talks he delivered Madame Binh's peace proposal through a press conference on July 22, 1971. He did so with veterans' families around him, a tactic that was suggested by the communists.
However, he said he only attended the peace talks because he was on his honeymoon in Paris.
There are two problems, Hanoi John Kerry met twice, and possibly thrice, with communist officials in Paris. Also, his honeymoon was spent at the Jamaica home of the Pershing family with then (other) heiress wife, Julia Thorne, in 1970. I suppose Paris was a second honeymoon.
Kerry had also met illegally with Binh in 1970 while he was still a Naval officer on inactive reserve status, and in fact, all his meetings were under the six-year window of the term of his enlistment. This precludes him from even running for elective office, much less president, but nobody is mentioning it for some reason. Amendment 14, Section 3 states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Other documents show the Hanoi plan for war protests, which was basically accepted and carried out by PCPJ, NPAC and VVAW and other protest groups, which eventually forced a vastly superior military force to capitulate to a sniveling gang of thugs because of propaganda and lies.
It was John Kerry's finest hour.
So Kerry's earnest presidential campaign begins and ends the same place it started: Vietnam. And the whole way, the national liberal news media have ignored his crimes. They are overlooking this new evidence while inflating a bogus charge from the United Nations against the president during a time of war. Kerry is helping spread the lie, again, working against his government for his own purposes.
Those who think this man is even an American -- much less are willing to vote for him -- ought to have their heads examined. But then again, so few people on the left even know what it means to BE American anymore that I doubt Kerry's activities alarm, surprise or offend them. There is a growing body in the Democrat Party that sees nothing wrong with subservience to the United Nations on any and all issues. For them, Kerry must be a revelation.
But for Americans who do not trust an organization so guilty of greed, glorification of communism, thuggery, deception, virulent anti-Semitism and corruption, Kerry is anathema. His pursuit of the presidency should never have been allowed, but for all the left-wing propagandists in the media. They've refused to do their jobs and we're paying the price with a lousy Democrat candidate.
John Kerry took the direction of a foreign government in protesting one war and now he's doing it again. This time, as with the last, he is a willing puppet of people opposed to American strength.
John Kerry is on the wrong side again, folks. I hope on Nov. 2 you're on the right one.
http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/109904493874180.xml
Protect America First
Is Kerry’s foreign policy his undoing?
JOnah Goldberg - NRO
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 has been at such pains to keep this basic point as fuzzy as possible because an honestly antiwar candidate couldn't win the presidency in 2004. Sometimes he offers arcane explanations containing paragraphs like Rube Goldberg contraptions. Sometimes he speaks in a unique Kerry grammar one could call the future-past perfect. When asked if we were right to invade Iraq, he has responded that it depends on what happens in the future. And other times he's said we were right. And other times he's said we were wrong.
But my favorite response was when he was asked if we'd have gone to war with Iraq if he'd been president, and he shot back confidently, "You bet we might have."
Kerry cannot be honest about the most elemental issue of the election because he will lose the election if he does, and rightly so.
I don't mean to say that a supermajority of Americans think the Iraq war was the right decision in retrospect, or that they think Bush has done a wonderful job since Saddam's downfall. But I do think that a supermajority of Americans really do want a president who will err on the side of protecting the American people first and worry about what the New York Times, the French, or the United Nations think second. Americans have rarely punished presidents for prosecuting wars too aggressively; they've often punished them for the reverse.
That's the central explanation for Bush's huge advantage over Kerry on the issue of fighting the war on terrorism. It's amazing when you think about it. The media, the United Nations, the French, and the Democrats have thrown everything imaginable, fair and unfair, at Bush, and he still leads by double digits on the issue of who's better at fighting the war on terrorism and winning in Iraq.
All of these pro-war pundits and bloggers who've defected to Kerry because of Bush's alleged "incompetence" need to explain why the candidate they now prefer is not the undisputed preference of the American people when it comes to national security. Surely all of these people can't be morons.
The answer, I think, lies in the lessons of 9/11. If you live in a house infested by rats, you may think it's okay to tolerate them for a while. They're just a "nuisance," as John Kerry might say. You might, if you're Bill Clinton, tolerate a series of "minor" rat attacks. But when one of your children dies from a bite, you do everything you can to kill the rats and plug up all the rat holes to protect your family. You don't care which specific rat was responsible for the death. You simply do everything necessary to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. Post-9/11, George Bush faced a world with a lot of rat holes. The most obvious, urgent, and "doable" rat hole was in Baghdad.
Those who opposed the war insisted there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. There probably wasn't in the sense they meant. But there was an ironclad link in the minds of many of us. In the world ushered in by 9/11, in a world where threats need to be taken seriously and terrorism cannot be seen as a mere nuisance, letting Saddam Hussein — the only world leader to praise the 9/11 attacks — stay in Baghdad simply made no sense.
It would be silly to reargue the whole war again. But the salient point is that Kerry is the candidate of those who disagree with all that. He's the candidate for those who think America was wrong in Iraq and too gung-ho on the war on terror. Indeed, in a recent New York Times profile, Kerry admitted that 9/11 hadn't changed his thinking about foreign policy "much at all." And that his aim was to return to the way it was in the 1990s, when terrorism was a "nuisance." The problem is that many Americans believe that treating terrorism like a nuisance is precisely why 9/11 happened. For all the talk about Bush's denial, a vote for Kerry is a vote for an even deadlier denial.
Some of this analysis is probably unfair to millions of Americans who have other reasons for voting for Kerry. But who can doubt that if Kerry wins, it will be seen at home and abroad, by friend and foe alike, as a negative referendum on the war on terror in general and on Iraq in particular?
Whatever Bush's faults, the one thing a majority of Americans are confident of is that he wants to win the war on terror in Iraq and around the world, no matter what. About John Kerry they just can't be too sure. That's why I think Bush will win, and why I think he should.
— (c) 2004 Tribune Media Services.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200410291046.asp
"Who do you think creates the disinformation?"
Hi NovoMira. I can only speculate about that based on
personal observation. So take this with a grain of salt.
"The first casualty of War is Truth"
Sadly for the liberal left, winning this election is their
war, not the global WOT. Considering how they have butchered
the truth in the last year, it is a critical war for them.
I'd bet that the DNC is the main source of the disinformation
only because they have the most at stake & they have a large
number of highly paid experts at spin. And from the stories
where they actually cite a source, it is McAuliffe, someone
inside or connected to the DNC &/or from inside Team Kerry.
Even if they are not the original source, look at how quickly
they latch on to it & spread it as fact.
But in the end, irregardless of the source, the spin that
appears to be the most plausible & has the most impact is
generally the one that will be accepted & spread around as if
it were fact.
That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
A 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' FAN
BY JOHN PODHORETZ
October 30, 2004 -- CONGRATULATIONS, Michael Moore — America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours.
The most startling moment on the Osama bin Laden videotape shown yesterday was his description of the morning of 9/11, which is certainly derived — albeit in garbled form — from a viewing of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said.
Just think. If the reprehensible Moore wins an Oscar for his disgusting piece of propaganda, Hollywood will be seconding the favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden.
I want to caution my friends on the Right about claiming that the Osama tape somehow is an endorsement of John Kerry. No doubt bin Laden would like to claim credit for changing the American president. Thankfully, the American people know better than to believe bin Laden will somehow go easier on us if John Kerry wins on Tuesday.
They know this monster attacked America when Bill Clinton was president and that he and his minions will continue to plot the mass murder of Americans no matter who is in the White House.
But something does jump out at you when you consider the message bin Laden was delivering to the United States. It was remarkably defensive, with bin Laden offering some kind of bizarre truce to the American people: "To the U.S. people," he said, "my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster."
How thoughtful of him.
He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands."
In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe.
"Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said.
This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security."
Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood."
Now bin Laden is talking truce.
What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness.
Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight."
Maybe they're buckling.
"You are like a broken record. Stuck on the Swift Boat muckraking."
One serious problem with that statement. The Swift Boat Vets
have successfully exposed Kerry's horrific past with
independently verifiable documents & sources. And that
includes using John Kerry's own words proving his horrific
lies.
You cannot provide any credible evidence that discredits
anything about the Swift Vets. You simply parrot the lies
from John Kerry, the DNC & the liberal media.
That's why you never link me to any credible evidence. It's
pure BS & even you know it.
And that's why I link you to credible evidence. It can be
independently verified & I know it.
So cling to your false perception of Kerry & the Swift Vets.
You will vote for a man who committed treason, who lied about
war crimes under oath & who betrayed his country purely for
political gain. And much, much more.
I see, The truth hurts. And since the Swift Vets proved Kerry
was a despicable liar who committed treason & lied under oath
about war crimes, ET AL, you have to lie about them to cling
to your inflexible political ideology.
"Post a credible link - not from the swifties - to prove your claim"
I see you didn't bother to read the articles.
I'm serious as a heart attack.
Answer the question with reality based facts & real world
evidence, not DNC Talking Points.
"GWB floated 15-20 excuses to pre-emptively invade Iraq, and when he landed on WMD and realized how much that scared most people that's the one he ran with."
WOW! So much disinformation in one sentence.
Perhaps you can explain how one "pre-emptively" invades a
country where you already are enforcing No Fly Zones & this
country is still obligated by a Cease Fire Agreement that is
regularly being violated? Is a time machine involved?
I'm really interested in your fact based, credible answer
that doesn't revise history & doesn't ignore the Cease Fire
Agreement.
Here are a few real facts.
Bush insisted that Iraq unconditionally comply with existing
UN Resolutions. He "floated" no "excuses". He cited the
specific requirements of UN Resolution 687.
The liberal media, Team Kerry, the DNC & the Michale Moore
crowd "landed" on "stockpiles" of WMD's after deceitfully,
albeit intentionally forgetting the other requirements Bush
cited that could be proven to be true. Then they falsely
asserted it was always about "stockpiles" of WMD's.
And Kool Aid drinking liberal left herded like sheep &
repeated the disinformation over & over so often, they
actually revised history in their minds, but not in the real
world.
And, oh bye the way, this Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
canard is just another left wing lie created for the Kool Aid
crowd.
Some folks are in for a rude wake up call when reality sets
in & you realize you have been had.
Why does 9/11 have everything to do with Iraq? Please cite
the specific reasons.
Are you saying that we should have just pulled out & let
Saddam go scott free? We were, after all, fighting a global
war on terror, which bye the way, included any country that
harbored, supported financed or trained any terrorists. It
also included rouge nations that could pass on WMD's or the
ability to make WMD's to terrorists. And we had tens of
thousands of troops in Iraq enforcing the No Fly Zones.
Have you read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report?
Have you read the Senate Intelligence memos?
Have you read the Duelfer Report?
Have you read David Kay's ISG reports?
Have you read the Butler report?
Do you gave a clue what type of threat Saddam actually posed
or do you get all your disinformation from Michael Moore,
Team Kerry & the DNC?
What kind of signal would we send to rouge dictators who have
terrorist ties & intentions of obtaining WMD's if UN
Resolution 687 was not enforced?
What kind of organization would the UN be by failing to
enforce 687?
Where would Kerry turn over our national security if the UN
was a toothless body?
Where would Kerry submit our request to pass the "Global
Test" if the UN was no longer viable?
"I'll try one more time...yes or no: Do you think Iraq had anything to do with 911?"
What does that have to do with Iraq's obligations under UN
Resolution 687?
Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;
1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.
2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).
3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.
4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.
Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.
Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?
SwiftVets Announce FREE Access to "Stolen Honor" Documentary and New Mini-Documentaries with Swift Boat Veterans at:
http://www.swiftvets.com/news.php?article=52
Our goal since the beginning of our campaign has been to ensure the American people had a chance to hear the truth about Sen. John Kerry's time in Vietnam and his anti-war activities. With your help, we have raised millions of dollars to spread this message as far as we can.
Today we are taking another historic step. The documentary film "Stolen Honor" vividly portrays the impact of John Kerry's false testimony and statements about the Vietnam War. As of today, every American can see this film for free, in its entirety, at http://www.swiftvets.com/news.php?article=52.
We encourage you to view this powerful work, but more than that, we need your help. Please take a few minutes today to tell your friends, family or others about this opportunity. Our goal is for every person on this list to convince 10 more people to watch the documentary and see and hear the truth about Kerry for themselves.
At the same time, we are releasing a new set of mini-documentaries filmed with Swift Boat Veterans, also available at www.stolenhonor.com. These three-to-five-minute movies discuss the controversies surrounding many of Kerry's wartime medals and his alleged secret mission into Cambodia -- a mission even his official biographer now says never happened. The short films take on:
John Kerry's First Purple Heart -- How did John Kerry get his first purple heart when all three officers required to approve it rejected his application?
Christmas in Cambodia -- John Kerry has repeatedly told of being in Cambodia on a secret mission, with it being seared in his memory. See what everyone else has to say.
The Sampan Cover Up -- An example of where we believe John Kerry simply filed a false action report to cover up his conduct.
No Man Left Behind -- You heard John Kerry tell America one story about his Vietnam service at the Democratic National Convention. Here's the true story of John Kerry's Bronze Star.
Third Purple Heart -- How we believe John Kerry faked a third purple heart in order to flee from Vietnam...not as a hero but in shame.
We urge you to take the time to view these important works and thank you again for helping us tell the truth about John Kerry.
"that would have taken the ability to connect the dots and I know he can;t do that"
Hmmmm. Then why vote for Kerry if he's even dumber?
(Hat tip to SBHX)
This piece of gem added with the NYT article that shows KERRY's IQ is a good 5 point lower than Bush would shatter two of the most dearly held ideals of the (ahem) Educated Left.
No wonder the Left is Angry, their ranks these days have been swelled by the great unwashed they've always had great disdain for.
Arrrgh! Feeling unclean? Sure does make you want to take a bath doesn't it?
______________________________________________________________
POLITICAL POINTS
Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY - NYT
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.
That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.
Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.
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.
Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.
You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.
Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
A Nader Nibble From the Right
The commercial made its national debut on Thursday on the Fox News Channel, aimed directly at Mr. Bush's Republican base. It starts with a middle-aged man disgustedly dropping his Wall Street Journal on the kitchen table. "What kind of conservative runs half-trillion-a-year deficits? Gets us into an unwinnable war?" he asks his wife, but adds helplessly, "I can't vote for Kerry."
"Then don't," she says, cheerily suggesting an alternative who is not quite yet a household name: Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant from Austin, Tex.
Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which says he could "Naderize" Mr. Bush. A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.
"If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania, Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing independent and Republican votes from Bush," said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which has been tracking third-party candidates.
Mr. Badnarik, reached by telephone on Thursday while campaigning in Michigan, said that polls commissioned by his campaign showed him at 2 percent in Wisconsin, 3 percent in Nevada and 5 percent in New Mexico.
He dispatched quickly with most of the major campaign issues. Foreign policy? "I would be bringing our troops home from Iraq and 135 other countries." Taxes? "I would eliminate the I.R.S. completely." Health care? "Of all the things I want the government out of, health care is probably the first thing."
The only issue he ducked was abortion. Although the Libertarian platform supports abortion rights, he said, the party is almost evenly divided on the question. "It's not a religious issue," Mr. Badnarik explained. "It's a property-rights issue: at what point does the baby take ownership of its own body? I do not have a clear-cut answer."
Vote Your Way to a Fat Wallet
The most widely advertised lie this election is probably the one coming from the earnest campaigns imploring you to turn out on Election Day. Your vote matters, they keep saying, but it doesn't. No matter what state you live in, you have a much better chance of being struck by lightning on the way to the polls than of casting a decisive ballot in the presidential election.
Then why will Americans spend millions of valuable hours casting individually meaningless votes? Are these commercials deluding them into violating the basic economic principle of self-interest?
Not at all, says Robert Frank, a Cornell economist who analyzes such supposedly irrational behavior in his book, "What Price the Moral High Ground?" Most people vote, Professor Frank says, not because they fail to grasp the logic of self-interest, but rather because they consider it their civic duty to do so, and that is a profitable instinct.
It may seem odd that the people most likely to vote are the most affluent and most educated, presumably the ones whose time is most valuable and who understand most clearly how little their vote means. But their enthusiasm for voting is one reason they are affluent, Professor Frank says. People who like to engage in civic-minded activities tend to do better in business because they are perceived as trustworthy, he says.
"We're pretty good judges of character," Professor Frank said, "and none of us would ever want to hire the homo-economicus stereotype that populates most economic models." So even if your vote doesn't matter in the election, it could pay off in other ways.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html
"Liar!! You will not find a dishonorable dischare"
Perhaps you can explain the obvious discrepancies in the
records Kerry has made public. And you might want to explain
why many critical records are missing even though he has
falsely stated he has produced tham all.
Here is some evidence to get you started.
Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20634836
Was Kerry's original discharge less than honorable?
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20637687
The Truth Behind Kerry's Military Discharge. What's Kerry Hiding?
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20705088
Rumor mill buzzing on Kerry's discharge status
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20706040
Yup. He's even more dishonest than Kerry.
"100,000 Iraqis killed by war: study"
Seems your study is severely flawed.
Bogus Lancet Study
Via The Command Post comes this study published in Lancet (free reg) which purports that 100,000 Iraqi have died from violence, most of it caused by Coalition air strikes, since the invasion of Iraq. Needless to say, this study will become an article of faith in certain circles but the study is obviously bogus on its face.
First, even without reading the study, alarm bells should go off. The study purports to show civilian casualties 5 to 6 times higher than any other reputable source. Most other sources put total combined civilian and military deaths from all causes at between 15,000 to 20,000. The Lancet study is a degree of magnitude higher. Why the difference?
Moreover, just rough calculations should call the figure into doubt. 100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day. Seen anything like that on the news? With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died. Heard of anything like that? In fact, heard of any air strikes at all where more than a couple of dozen people died total?
Where did this suspicious number come from? Bad methodology.
From the summary:
(read the rest at the link)
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
Good night to you too!
“Most people nurture the facts that confirm their world view
and ignore or marginalize the ones that don't, unable to
achieve enough emotional detachment from their own political
passions to see the world as it really is.” - David Brooks