Sunday, October 31, 2004


Tuesday is election day. Here are 50 reasons why you should vote for Bush.

And then there's the other 12 minutes of the Bin Laden tape...

The New York Post reports that the media have only released 6 of the full 18 minutes of the recent Osama Bin Laden videotape. What can we glean from the other 12 minutes?

"Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda...

"...bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

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

As Charles at LGF states:

"This is outrageous. After three years unseen, Osama bin Laden releases a video acknowledging the Bush administration’s record of success in Afghanistan, and in hunting down the Al Qaeda network, and showing his particular hatred for the man who brought this ruin upon him—but the media doesn’t think we should see it? Instead we get a whitewashed, edited version that seems to be equally critical of Bush and Kerry, and wire stories extolling Bin Laden’s confidence and health?"

It's to be expected from the MSM (mainstream media). Hat-tip to Capt. Ed and LFG.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Of Integrity and Al Qaqaa (or is that "all caca"?)

The Washington Times has broken two great stories this week.

1) Kerry's claim that he met with all 15 members of the UN Security Council just before the vote for Resolution 1441... it didn't happen. Redstate also has a great analysis.

2) So what happened to the 380 tons (that's three quarters of a million pounds, people) of explosives/weapons in Al Qaqaa? Maybe over the Syrian border (with the help of the Russians)?

I urge all of you to read the entire week's worth of posts at the following places. In fact, read every post in these places from October 25th through to Election Day!:

Hugh Hewitt

Captain's Quarters



Belmont Club

Little Green Footballs

Kerry Spot

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Weekend Odds & Ends

Little Green Footballs has Kerry's list of Senate accomplishments.

The NY Post has info on Tereza's taxes.

Victor David Hanson gives six reasons why people have a problem with Kerry as a presidential candidate.

Lawrence O'Donnell blows a gasket (following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Chris Matthews, Terry McAuliff, Michael Moore, and Al Franken).

The AP has a news report on the FBI's dogged determination to track down anybody with any information about potential terrorist attacks before the election.

And there's word out (via PowerLine) that come Monday morning one of the major newspapers will break a big story regarding Kerry (possibly uncovering a discrepancy about a specific foreign policy stance or statement of his). Should be interesting, I'm sure.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Sports Talk with Kerry

This just cracks me up. Go read.

How I think it'll break down on Nov. 2nd

As I had stated way back in July when I first started this blog, there is only one true “national” election every four years. And, going back to the earliest presidential election that records popular votes (1824), you will always find a minimum of approximately 40% of the population that will always vote for the losing candidate no matter what. There are a couple rare exceptions to this rule, but even that secures 35% to the loser.

What does this mean? It means that any given election will have 40% of the population on either side of the electoral divide, leaving the remaining “middle” 20% for the candidates to fight over. In some elections, this “middle” group of citizens will make up less than 20% of the electorate (such as in 2000), in other cases you find them so disenfranchised (I hate that word, but you get my drift) that they take their vote elsewhere (see the 19% Perot got in 1992). They may just stay at home and not even bother to vote.

But, in the end, there’s always… ALWAYS… a 10-20% middle group that determines which way the election will go.

Now, this middle 10-20% is a feckless bunch. They don’t take politics too seriously. They make up their minds in the last few weeks of the campaign. They sway in the breeze on issues that the majority of the voters take very seriously. Sometimes they may include the odd mix of the pro-life or fiscal-conservative democrat, or the pro-abortion or social liberal republican, thereby never fully happy with the choices at hand. They complain about being in the minority and not being given any attention to. Yet, this group is exactly who gets the most attention in each election. And they have more power than they even realize. This group drives the other 80% of the population (and the politicians) absolutely crazy.

This is NOT a monolithic bunch that can be swayed as a whole. Each tiny segment of this small group of the electorate is made up of a multitude of views with varying positions, differing emotions, shifting priorities. But, each individual will be ultimately affected by that one key issue (whatever that is for that individual) that will determine whether he or she votes D or R, something else, or not at all.

Of this year’s 10-20% (my best guess is that this year there’s approx. 15%... less than in 1992 but more than in 2000), who has Kerry lost?

• The segment of that 15% who are veterans who have total disdain of his anti-war activities when he returned from Vietnam. Nothing Kerry can do will sway this group. He sealed his fate in 1971, and saluting at the July convention didn’t help. The SwiftVets remind them in case they should forget.

• The segment of that 15% who classify themselves as “reasonable” on the issue of abortion. They are against partial-birth abortion, and they are for parental notification for minors. With abortion as a whole they may have varying views, but on these two points they all agree. Kerry made it clear in the last two debates that he’s against these two positions.

• The segment of that 15% who want the institution of marriage to remain as between a man and a woman. They may not have a strong position on homosexuality as a whole, but on this issue they feel reasonable to place a line in the sand when it comes to defining marriage. This segment takes their marriages and their children seriously. They see and hear Bush speak about his wife and kids and they see genuineness. They look and hear Kerry, and they do NOT see genuineness. They are also disgusted with Kerry’s tactless mention of the VP’s daughter in the last debate, done for obvious political purposes.

• A significant portion of the segment of that 15% who are under 30. They’re sharper than people think they are. They’re informed (thanks to the internet). They see through BS. And Kerry BS’ed them with the false claim that Bush will re-institute the draft. They also are the most concerned about Social Security, and they are the most vocal about wanting to be able to invest that money (their money) as they see fit – to get a better rate of return over the long haul. In debate #3, Kerry just shut them out completely by denying them that issue.

• The so-called “Security Mom’s.” Actually, they’re moms AND dads. Similar (but not the same as) the “Reagan Democrats” of the 80s, I call these people the “9/11 Democrats & Independents.” They GET 9/11. They don’t forget 9/11. They may not like parts of the Iraq situation, but overall they “get it” – “it” being the global war on terror. Kerry keeps stating he “has a plan” (ad infinitem), yet he never explains the plan. What details he does eventually give ends up being nothing different from what Bush is already doing (except wanting to get the approval or support of France & Germany). This group hears “global test” and they wretch.

• The segment of that 15% who own their own businesses. Especially those who lost their jobs after 9/11 and started up their own business when they couldn’t find work anywhere else. They’ve finally gotten a leg up on their finances. Kerry lost them with his tax plan. They know if his plan goes through, their taxes go up significantly.

• The segment of that 15% who never thought they’d ever be able to own a home, and now they do. It wasn’t Kerry’s policies that helped them in this regard.

• The segment of that 15% who just want someone to take a position on an issue and stick with it. Doesn’t matter whether they agree with the stance, just be resolute. And Kerry’s consistent and persistent flip-flopping just rubs them the wrong way.

• The segment of that 15% that never knew of Kerry’s 20 year senate record. And now that they know, aren’t too happy with it (or the lack thereof).

• The segment of that 15% that will vote for a change for change’s sack, but only if the opposing candidate offers something clearly different. And they look at Kerry and the can’t see him clearly at all.

Who has Bush lost?

• The segment of that 15% that lost their job during the last three years, and are not happy with their current financial or career situation. They don’t care about how 9/11 or the recession or the tech bubble affected things. They don’t care how things got the way they are, they just want to be in a better place and are frustrated.

• The segment of that 15% that does not like the Iraq war. They consider it a distraction. They buy into the “Bush Lied, People Died” rhetoric. They prefer focusing on OBL and Al Quaida only.

• The segment of that 15% that feels uncomfortable with his outspokenness about faith and religion.

What does all of this mean come November 2nd? I said it before, and I’ll say it again:

BUSH – 55-56% (35-38 States)
KERRY – 42-43% (12-15 States)
NADER – 1-2%

Another thing of note... I was at the local Blockbuster a couple times this past week (in southern California). “The Passion of the Christ” has been out for seven weeks now, yet there seemed to be about as many copies of that film rented out as there was “Fahrenheit 911” which was just released this passed Wednesday. The handful of copies of the counter-documentary “Fahren-Hype 9/11” were completely rented out.

Friday, October 15, 2004


Watch the new two-part mini-series, FARSCAPE: THE PEACEKEEPER WARS, airing this Sunday and Monday (October 17th & 18th) at 9:00 PM --- on the Sci-Fi Network.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Aren't Liberals Lovely???

Michelle Malkin has a long compendium of various news reports, noting a disturbing trend of campaign vandalism throughout the country. Check out her postings here, and here, and here.

Key Findings of the Duelfer Report

(Hat-tip to LGF) Here are the key findings directly from the Duelfer report:

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Crunching Kerry's Tax #s

B4B has a follow-up to their commentary about who Kerry's tax plan (as per his website) would affect. Read the original report here. The follow-up report is here.

Bottom line... your taxes will go up under Kerry's plan if you make as little as $81,000 (not $200,000). As many as 1.3 million small businesses will also be affected.

Rudy has some words for John

Rudy Guiliani has some choice words in response to John Kerry's comment about this terrorists "nuisance" of ours:

"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.

"I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.

"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Counting the # of times Kerry said "I have a plan"

A reader of Redstate went through last night's debate transcript and counted how many times Kerry referred to his "plans" (you know... the ones he keeps telling us he has, but then never gives us any substantive details - even when repeated prompted for details.)

The number? 29! (And that's just in the second debate! Anyone know the number times in the first debate?)

So, how did it play in Beverly Hills?

The Canyon News (which serves areas such as Beverly Hills/Bel Air/Brentwood, Malibu & the Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica/Westwood/Hollywood Hills) posted this interesting bit of a survey:

"Beverly Hills - Canyon News staff went out into the streets of Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Westwood to see what readers had to say of tonight’s debate between John Kerry and George Bush in Missouri.

"Three staff members talked to 30 people who (1) saw or knew of the debates… (2) but did not watch the after-debate analysis by the media and (3) wanted to talk to us. Out of 30 people, 21 people said Bush won tonight’s debate. 6 people said Kerry won. 3 people thought it was a tie."

(Hat-tip to Betsy)

The economic numbers...

The Heritage Foundation (back on Oct 7) published this worthwhile analysis of the state of the economy. Keep in mind that this was before yesterday's revised (and improved) unemployment figures.

Bremer sets the record straight!

Thanks to both PowerLine and LGF. They point out to a New York Times OpEd piece by Paul Bremer:

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush’s Iraq policy.

This effort won’t succeed. Let me explain why.

It’s no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition’s top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq’s security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

Kerry still lags behind in campaign finance disclosure!

According to the independent, John Kerry's financial disclosure rate for his presidential campaign is still at a horrible 78% (second only to Wesley Clarke's 70.8%). President Bush's disclosure rate is at almost 93%.

And Kerry still has yet to release his medical records, his military Standard Form 180, or his billionaire wife's financial/tax records.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

A question of Deterrence

(Hat-tip to Hugh)

This 2-part commentary by EjectEjectEject on "Deterrence" is required reading!

Part One

Part Two

Get the FULL picture about the 1000 page report on Saddam, WMDs, and the corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program

Don't just take the biased media's spun headlines on the report. Read the full, 1000 page report here!

Then, the BBC breaks down the key points of the report. Below are the key findings of the report:


* Saddam Hussein's goal was evading and ultimately ending UN sanctions that severely restricted what he could import into Iraq. The UN oil-for-food programme gave the Iraqi economy a much-needed boost, but not enough to let him re-start a weapons of mass destruction programme.

* Once he could restart those programmes, his intention was to focus on chemical weapons for use on the battlefield, long-range missiles, and nuclear weapons.

* His motivation for developing these weapons was his enmity with Iran, with which Iraq fought an eight-year war in the 1980s. His secondary goals were to oppose Israel and raise his status in the Arab world. The report does not suggest he sought the weapons to oppose the US or to give weapons to terrorists.

* Saddam Hussein's belief in the value of WMD was shaped from his experiences in the 1980s and early 1990s. He believed that during the 1991 Gulf War, WMD had deterred US-led forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait.


* Saddam Hussein ended his nuclear programme in 1991, after the Gulf War, and there was no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart it. Senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam would restart a nuclear programme if UN sanctions imposed after the end of the Gulf War were halted.

* Baghdad undertook a variety of measures to conceal key elements of its nuclear programme from successive UN inspectors, including specific directions from Saddam Hussein to hide and preserve documents.

* There were at least two instances in which scientists involved in uranium enrichment kept documents and technology. Although apparently acting alone, they did so with the belief and anticipation of resuming uranium enrichment efforts in the future.

* The regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear programme from either leaving their jobs or Iraq. In the late 1990s key personnel were given significant pay rises in a bid to retain them. The regime also undertook new investments in university research to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.


* Baghdad abandoned its biological weapons programme in late 1995 out of fear it would be discovered. Such a discovery would have made it harder for Iraq to free itself of UN sanctions.

* There was no evidence of any biological weapons work after 1996, and Saddam expressed no interest in biological weapons after that time.

* Iraq appears to have destroyed its hidden biological weapons stocks in 1991 and 1992. However, it kept a few samples that would have been useful in starting a biological weapons programme, and it had a group of scientists knowledgeable about such weapons.

* No evidence was uncovered that Iraq had biological weapons production systems mounted on trucks or rail cars.


* Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there is no credible evidence that Iraq ever resumed producing such weapons.

* However, Saddam Hussein never abandoned his intentions to resume efforts in chemical weapons when UN sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favourable.

* The regime organised its chemical industry after the mid-1990s to allow it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to re-start a chemical weapons programme.

* One of Saddam's sons, Uday, tried to obtain chemical weapons for use during the US-led invasion in 2003, but there is no evidence he came into possession of any.

The author of the 1000 page report SUPPORTS the President's actions against Saddam!

But giving evidence to the Senate armed services committee, he supported the military campaign. "The world is better off," he said.

He said Saddam had made "a lot of progress" in eroding sanctions to the point at which he could begin building such weapons again - in fact it was the terror attacks of September 11 that undermined his plans.

Had they not taken place, "things would have taken a very different course for the regime".

"I hope others will have the honesty to accept the report also shows sanctions were not working. On the contrary, Saddam was doing his best to get round those sanctions".

More details in the Washington Times. Then there's the "French Connection" (can forget that). Reuters reports about the bribes that Saddam was engaged in. So does CNN here. The New York Times (registration required) looks into the nukes situation and how close Saddam was to acquiring them. And Fox News looks into the corrupt United Nations Oil-for-Food program.

Capt. Ed and PowerLine have some great analyses. BFB also has a great set of bullet points. And WND has in interesting report about a sanitized mobile weapons lab.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Rocky & Bullwinkle

After watching the first two debates, am I the only one who likens Edwards & Kerry to the cartoon characters Rocky & Bullwinkle?

"John Boy" Edwards looked and acted like a runny nosed child; from the tearing of papers while Cheney was speaking, to the Britney Spears-like "Whoops, I did it again" gaffs, to his wiping his nose with the back of his hand.

I suspect that, post-9/11, the American electorate will be factoring into their decision the weight of the Vice Presidential running mates quite a bit more seriously than they have in the past.

Monday, October 04, 2004

So, what's the deal with Kerry's stance on nukes & Iran?

Three top financial backers of the Kerry/Edwards ticket may account for the unusual notion of giving fissile materials to the largest backers of Islamofascist terror groups.

Read the whole thing here at Captain's Quarters.

Saddam and WMDs

CNS News has a report detailing more potential information about Saddam Hussein's WMD program. (Hat-tip to PowerLine and Capt Ed)

The Latest Democrat Politicians to Endorse Bush

Youngstown, OH, Mayor George M. McKelvey (D) backs President Bush.

Massachusetts State Representative Brian Paul Golden (D) endorses President Bush.

Santa Fe, NM, City Councilman David Pfeffer (D) backs President Bush.

St. Paul, MN, Mayor Randy Kelly (D) endorses President Bush.

And we already know about Georgia Senator Zell Miller (D) and former NYC Mayor Ed Koch (D).

Meanwhile, Kerry's hometown newspaper (Lowell Sun) endorses Bush in it's editorial. Remember, Bush's hometown paper (Lone Star Iconoclast) endorsed Kerry. The difference? The paper in Crawford, TX, has a circulation of 450 - and it's owned and run by a partisan (and failed) Democrat politician. The paper in Lowell, MA, has a circulation of over 50,000.

Get Inoculated From Moore's Disease

Get inoculated from Moore's Disease:

FahrenHype 911
Celcius 41.11
Michael Moore Hates America

Also, check out Stolen Honor.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Bush Campaign Computers Stolen From Seattle Offices

From USA Today:

Three laptop computers containing campaign plans were stolen overnight from the Bush-Cheney state headquarters office, Republican officials said Friday.

Between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m., after the last campaign worker had gone home from the office in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue, someone threw a rock through the office window of Jon Seaton, executive director for President Bush's state campaign, said Chris Vance, state GOP chairman.

Vance said two of the stolen laptops belonged to Seaton and Chris Taylor, head of the office's get-out-the-vote campaign. A third had been slated for a field office.

The computers contained much of the Bush-Cheney campaign strategy for the state and advertising schedules, Vance said.

"This looks like it was politically motivated," Vance said in an interview from the Republican party offices in Tukwila.

Bellevue police confirmed the burglary Friday afternoon but offered no support for Vance's claims about motive.

"No evidence at the scene indicated this was politically motivated," police spokeswoman Jessamyn Poling said.

State Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said Democrats knew nothing about the break-in. "We think it's awful and we definitely condemn the actions of those who stole these computers" she said.

London Times on the UN Oil-for-Fraud Program

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it.

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

Read it all here.

Let's look closely at what Kerry said in the 1st debate, shall we?

• Kerry said he’s never wilted or wavered. (oh, really?)

• Curiosity: This debate was supposed to be solely about Foreign Policy & Homeland Security, yet Kerry talked about prescription drugs, global warming and stem cell research. (???) So much for following the debate rules.

• Kerry floats the old, discredited story about armed forces family members buying body armor via the internet/web. This bogus claim was floated during the Democratic primary, and was quickly denounced by the media as completely unfounded. Yet, Kerry voted against the $87 billion for troops. Said in the debate that he misspoke. No, it’s not his words that’s the problem, it was his vote that’s what mattered. Only four Senators vote for the war but against the $87 billion. Two of those Senators are Kerry & Edwards.

• Kerry claimed that we’ve spent $200 billion for the war in Iraq. Wrong. The actual amount is only $120 billion. Earlier in the debate Kerry claimed that we’ve spent too much money for Iraq war, yet later in the debate he stated that he wants to spend more money.

• Kerry wanted a broader United Nations/multi-national support for the war in Iraq (ignoring the unanimous 15-0 UN Security Council vote, and the 30+ nations who’ve supplied troops, training, security, equipment, intelligence, money, humanitarian aid, etc.).

• Let's talk about the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud program (France, Russia, Germany):

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

The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food "strictly as a humanitarian program."

Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who chairs the subcommittee, said in an interview that there was no doubt that the abuses were systemic and that blame for the widespread corruption must be shared by Security Council members, the United Nations office that administered the program, and the contractors hired by the United Nations to inspect Iraq's oil exports and aid purchases.

Then there's this:

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

Further on-going, in-depth investigation by journalist Claudia Rossett on this whole story (see previous posts in my blog).

• After squawking about wanting a multi-lateral approach regarding Iraq, Kerry then goes on to want bi-lateral (one-on-one only) talks between the USA and North Korea.

• Kerry claimed that North Korea got nuclear weapons during Bush’s years in office. But the facts are that North Korea had nukes before Bush came into office (they developed them in the 90s, thanks to President Clinton and his former Sec. of State Madeline Albright – the once-vaunted agreement which North Korea then quickly ignored).

• Then, after complaining about North Korea having nukes, Kerry then went on to state that he wants to give Iran nuclear materials and technology “if they promise to not use it for weapons.” (Do we really want to trust the radical leadership of Iran to keep their promise?)

• Kerry mentioned WMDs “coming back & forth across the Iraqi borders.” (Thanks you, Mr. Kerry, for finally noticing that!)

From NewsMax: Retired Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (USMC) had formally been the number two man in command of the Iraq War. DeLong reported to Brig. Gen. Tommy Franks. According to DeLong - U.S. Military Intelligence had been able to determine that WMDs were smuggled out of the country as U.S. military forces were preparing to liberate Iraq. DeLong made the remarks to New York talk radio listeners:

"I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon, and Iran."

"Two days before the war, on March 17th, we saw through multiple intelligence channels - both human intelligence and technical (satellite, eavesdrop) intelligence - large caravans of people and things, including some of the top 55 Iraqis, going to Syria."

We also know that before then, they buried some of the weapons of mass destruction. There are also some in Lebanon and probably a small amount in Iran."

"To smuggle the weapons would not require large vehicles."

"In order to transport their biological weapons, they would take their entire experimental weapons system in one or two suitcases - pretty easy to hide."

"Saddam's deputies could have fit the chemical weapon's cache into one or two vans, which they could then bury or drive across on of the borders."

"Human intelligence also indicated that Saddam's deputies also took billions of dollars with them when they went into Syria."

"It's no surprise that the weapons buried in Iraq have yet to be uncovered. Seven eighths of the country is arid desert and the size of California. You could probably bury 100 Empire State buildings and not find them."

• Kerry stated over and over again that he wants “summits” rather than decisive and preemptive action. Talk is cheap. Talk in the face of radical and murderous terrorists throughout the world is downright dangerous.

• Kerry wanted a larger coalition for this current Iraq war Iraq. Yet, we had an even bigger and stronger coalition for the first Gulf War – and Kerry voted against that war.

• Kerry made a WWII reference, stating that our “invading” Iraq after 9/11 is like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor(???). A much a better correlation is FDR going after Nazi Germany after Pearl Harbor. The US lost almost 300,000 troops over 4 years (6,000 on D-Day alone against Germany). In comparison, the Afghanistan & Iraq War has been over the course of 3 years, and we’ve lost less than 1500 troops. And he calls that a quagmire???

Curious that Jim Lehrer never brought up Kerry’s 20 year Senate record. He’s voted against scores of weapons and defense systems both before and after the Cold War.

Kerry often touts his eight years on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a prime qualification for office. Kerry promised to "immediately reform the intelligence system," [but] as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the committee's public hearings. Kerry is listed as present at only 11 of the 49 public meetings of the committee while he was a member (from 1993 through January of 2001, when Kerry left the committee). examined the official, published records of those hearings. And indeed, Kerry is listed as attending only 11 of those hearings. Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.

And, acording to Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his book "Reckless Disregard":

During the 1980s and 90s "At a time when his country was enduring terrorist attack upon terrorist attack overseas, Kerry voted to cut funding for the FBI by 60%, to reduce funding for the CIA by 80%, and to slash funding for the National Security Agency by 80%. He did vote, however, to increase funding to the United Nations by 800%." In 1997 he asked a colleague "Now that [the cold war] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?"

• Kerry claimed that we’ve “outsourced” the battle against Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. No – it’s a different war which needed different tactics (we learned from the Soviet’s mistakes of the 80s). It’s hazardous, mountainous terrain. We needed some of the Afghans for guidance in area, and we used special forces (smaller, specialized, and more precise). We’ve caught or killed 75% of Al Qaida leadership that was in Afghanistan.

• Afghanistan will be holding free and democratic elections next month!

• Remember the Iraqi Top-50 Most Wanted deck of cards? We’ve caught or killed 75% of those Iraqis, including capturing Saddam himself, and killing his two sadistic and murderous sons.

• Iraq has only been self-governing post-war for only four months (we turned over sovereignty in June). They will be holding elections for the first time in decades in January.

• A crucial website for accurate information about the truth in Iraq (by a website called, of all things, The Truth About Iraq)!

• What is Kerry’s “plan” for Iraq? On at least three separate occasions he was asked for specifics from Jim Lehrer, yet Kerry never gave specifics.

• What is Kerry’s “plan” according to his website?

1) Train Iraqi Forces (already doing that)
2) Proceed Iraq Reconstruction (already doing that)
3) Hold Iraqi Elections (already scheduled to do that)
4) Bring in more Allies with a Global Summit (he’s denigrated the allies, calling them “coerced and bribed” – Germany & France have already stated publicly that even if Kerry is elected, they still will not add any troops to Iraq)

• President of Poland wasn’t happy at all with Kerry dismissing his country’s vital contributions toward the war. I’m search for this incredible quote. As soon as I find it, I’ll post it here.

UPDATE: Thanks to PowerLine, I found the quote:

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski on the debate:

It's sad that a Senator with twenty years of experience does not appreciate Polish sacrifice...I don't think it's a question of ignorance. One thing has to be said very clearly: this Coalition is not just the United States, Great Britain and Australia, but there's also contribution of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish soldiers who died in Iraq. It's immoral to not see this involvement we undertook because we believe that we have to fight terrorism together, that we need to show international solidarity, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the world.

From such a perspective, you can say we are disappointed that our stance and the sacrifice of our soldiers is so marginalised. I blame it on electioneering -- and a message, indirectly expressed by Senator Kerry - that he thinks more of a coalition that would put the United States together with France and Germany, that is those who in the matter of Iraq said "no."

President Bush is behaving like a true Texan gentleman -- he's fighting for the recognition of other countries' contribution in the Coalition.

• According to this report, 9 out of 10 French people want Kerry to win. (Sorry… I don’t vote for French Party Candidates.)

• What does Kerry consider our worst threat? “Nuclear proliferation.”(???) Umm… Terrorists proved they don’t need nukes to be effective: Madrid (trains), Moscow (subway), Moscow (theater), Russia (two planes), Beslan (school), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bali, North Africa (two US embassies), USS Cole, Israel (countless suicide bombers), the World Trade Center (’93), and of course 9/11 showed that all they needed was 19 willing men, some box cutters and four commercial airplanes. Our worst threat is radical Islamic terrorists.

Kerry wants a “Global Test”??? Is he out of his frelling mind?! Has he ever heard of national sovereignty?

• From Citizen Smash (at InstaPundit):

THERE WAS A MOMENT in last night’s Presidential Debate that got me angry – and it probably wasn’t the same moment you’re thinking about right now.

KERRY: It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before. And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility.

Kerry is promoting a fallacy here. You can’t completely separate the war from the warriors, because we’re the ones that plan and execute the war. Kerry would have you believe that the President has a sand table in the White House War Room, where he gathers his generals around him and commands them on how to fight the war. He’s telling us that he could do a better job directing those generals than Bush has.


This is not a military dictatorship. The President makes the decision to go to war, after consulting with Congress. He may even approve or veto specific military strategies. But he does not write the war plan – the Pentagon does that. Our war planners are some of the most brilliant, thoughtful, and well-educated warriors on the planet. They’ve studied Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Mahan. They’ve dissected and analyzed all the major battles in history, from Thermopylae to Desert Storm. They know about logistics, intelligence, artillery, air support, guerilla tactics, and psychological warfare. They are professionals – the best of the best.

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who fight these battles are not automatons. We teach our warfighters to think and react. We train them to adapt to the situation on the ground, and learn from their mistakes. And we are proud of what we have accomplished. When Kerry calls Iraq “a grand diversion,” and “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he insults all of us, and denigrates our efforts.

Read all of it here.

Kerry Top-10 Flip-Flops from 1st Debate.

• According to Hugh Hewitt, these are the six big Kerry blunders from Debate One.

Kerry may get a tiny bump on "style points," but he'll lose big time due to the lack of serious substance. We don't need an arrogant & verbose legislative debator for president, we need a tested & proven executive leader who will act decisively for the protection of the country he serves.

Like I said way back on July 7th:

BUSH ---- 56% (35-38 states)
KERRY -- 42% (12-15 states, max)
NADER -- 2%

And Republican gains in both the House & Senate