Sunday, February 29, 2004
Friday, February 27, 2004
It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001.
Bush was only Governor of the second largest State in the country. A one-term Senator who has spent nearly half his term campaigning for something else, missing vote after vote, has as much experience? Please.
Mr. Kerry, one of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority. What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy.
That is pure comedy. I love their use of "life is not simple" and my most-hated word, "nuance," to excuse the fact that Kerry stands for nothing. In other words, we are too stupid to figure out that his lack of positions are a mark of Kerry's brilliance. Stop it.
This is the best part:
If Mr. Kerry wins the nomination, the Bush administration will undoubtedly attempt to paint Mr. Kerry as a typical Massachusetts liberal, but his thinking defies such easy categorization. His positions come from mainstream American thought, centrism of the old school. He has always worried over budget deficits. His record on the environment is extremely strong. He is a gun owner and hunter who supports effective gun control laws, a combat veteran who, having seen a great deal of death, opposes capital punishment.
That is hilarious. Kerry is mainstream. Who knew? The National Journal has named him the most liberal member of the Senate. (see previous post from Tim) To the far-left New York Times, however, he is a centrist.
The New York Times is becoming more like Scrappleface everyday. There is justice in the world, as advertising at the Times is falling and investors are downgrading the stock. I wonder why that is happening.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
A huge hat tip to DANEgerus for pointing this out, especially since I read the Village Voice only rarely.
Anyway, if you have some time, lookit all this: Kerry's Voting Record.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides
If John Kerry is elected President (yeah right), this is what we'll return to. Read the article and see for yourself. There are two parts I found striking:
In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.
Keep a skeptical Janet Reno on board? Why didn't Clinton fire her immediately? She serves at his pleasure. She spent most of her tenure covering his ass anyway. Part of the answer is contained in that paragraph: impeachment. You think the whole thing was "just about sex?" Think again.
And, this part is yet another part of a long line of massaging Clinton's legacy:
[Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy"] Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."
Perhaps in this instance he is correct. But, it doesn't change the fact the Clinton's entire Presidency was a law enforcement approach. Nice try, Sandy. It took impeachment for him to get tough.
'The times they are a-changin' -- again - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Then click on over to Captain's Quarters and share it with his massive readership.
[Update: I entered as a caption, "Nader's to the left of me, Edwards to the right, and here I am, stuck in the middle with nothing new."-Brian]
Kerry wants to control the narrative of his years months in Vietnam
From the Sunday Times: Book reopens Kerry war wounds
VIETNAM has been the defining issue for John Kerry. His status as a decorated war hero has helped to propel him to the front of the pack of Democrat candidates seeking to evict George W.Bush from the White House. Conservative critics believe he has been given a free ride for too long on his war record, however, and are planning a fightback.
Support for their case is expected to come from a book to be published next month by reporters from The Boston Globe in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. The book, JF Kerry, the Complete Biography, will question the extent of his injuries in Vietnam and whether he was entitled to an early release from the war.
Vietnam, The Washington Post opined at the weekend, "is a double-edged issue" for the 60-year-old Democratic frontrunner. Kerry has not authorised the release of his war records - a strange omission, say his political foes, given the ferocity with which his supporters have demanded to see every last document of Bush's military service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Kerry will of course simply dismiss the Boston Globe as part of the “right wing” media conspiracy against him.
As usual, the Viking Pundit is short and to the point, and right on the money. A question I have is this: Why does it seem that the British and Australian press are ahead of the game when it comes to criticizng Kerry? Think about that for a moment.
Kerry vows to name salmon czar
Sen. John Kerry would appoint a salmon czar who would answer directly to him and his vice president if he´s elected president.
Once again, I ask: This guy is really a serious candidate for President?
(Hat tip to my man Lee at Right Thinking From The Left Coast)
That's Emily, less than two minutes after she arrived. I dare anyone to try and tell me that only a few minutes before this picture was taken, her life was worthless. Now, read this:
The House this week will set up an election-year showdown over fetal-homicide legislation targeting Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry and a handful of Texas Democrats who have opposed such bills in the past.
The bill, called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would legally recognize two victims when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are harmed or killed.
How in the hell could anyone act like the murder of a pregnant woman results in only one victim? Because they fear it might affect abortion rights? Oh, please. STOP IT!! Take a look at Laci Peterson, whose family is pushing this legislation. Remember all the pictures of her on TV, with that beautiful smile of hers? You could just tell she was overjoyed with her pregnancy. Plus, she already knew she was having a boy, and had his name (Conner) picked out. She made her choice, and it was to have her baby. Her husband allegedly killed them. (I'll wait for the trial to pronounce him guilty, although I suspect he is) Ask yourself: How many victims here? Your answer will define you.
Yes, bringing this up is a calculated political move, designed to force John Kerry and other Democrats to go on the record. (Don't hold your breath. Kerry hasn't voted once this year and missed the vote on the partial birth abortion ban) Also, it is good politics. The only troublesome thing to me is that this is NOT ALREADY LAW. Kerry denounces special interests, but what other than his fealty to them explains this?
The bill would explicitly exempt legal abortion, but in an e-mail response to a constituent in June, Mr. Kerry disagreed, saying it would "clearly impact" abortion rights.
"I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Therefore, I do not support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," he said in his e-mail.
You have what? What a crock!! Laci Peterson's mother has more sense than Kerry:
Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, wrote to Mr. Kerry in July to convince him otherwise. She argued that California's fetal-homicide law has been around since 1970 and hasn't affected abortion rights there at all.
"What I find difficult to understand is why groups and senators who champion the pro-choice cause are blind to the fact that these two-victim crimes are the ultimate violation of choice," Mrs. Rocha said.
I cannot believe this legislation is even under dispute in a civilized society.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."
Really? Hasn't Kerry reminded everyone every chance he got that he served in Vietnam? He brought it up, and now blames Bush for having the nerve to bring up Kerry's post-war hi-jinks. (Funny, I really don't remember Bush bringing up Vietnam yet. Do you? Leave it in the comments. A link would be nice too)
This part is hilarious:
"Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said in Georgia, one of 10 states choosing electoral delegates on March 2.
Bush's henchmen? Wow. I guess Terry McAuliffe, a ton of other Democrats, and the lapdog media weren't acting as Kerry's henchmen when they pushed the "Bush was AWOL" lie even after the facts were put right in their faces. If Chambliss criticizing Kerry on his record upsets him now, wait until Kerry gets the full workover.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Thursday, February 19, 2004
WASHINGTON — Sen. John F. Kerry sent 28 letters in behalf of a San Diego defense contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions to the Massachusetts senator and four other congressmen.
Members of Congress often write letters supporting constituent businesses and favored projects. But as the Democratic presidential front-runner, Kerry has promoted himself as a candidate who has never been beholden to campaign contributors and special interests.
And, look who wrote it. The Los Angeles Times, which no one would ever say was anything but a left-wing outfit. I was surprised that they wrote this, and even more surprised that they added this:
The Majumder case isn't the first time that Kerry received tainted campaign money.
In September 1996, Taiwanese American entrepreneur Johnny Chung held a fundraiser for Kerry in Beverly Hills. He later pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions, including $8,000 raised at the Beverly Hills event.
Kerry's Senate office arranged a high-level meeting for Chung at the Securities and Exchange Commission within a few days of the fundraiser.
Perhaps they learned something from the Arnold fiasco.
IT TOOK A LOT OF DIGGING, but my producer Duane was able to find the audio from John Kerry's 1971 appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I played the entire 19 minutes for my radio audience on February 17, and the reaction via the phones and email was uniform: Disliking John Kerry for his actions and words of 33 years ago is not a rare thing, especially among Vietnam veterans and active duty military.FrontPage magazine.com
[Update: This is the transcript of the hearing that Tim is referring to here.]
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Europe wants him to win? Even more reason to vote for Bush.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
"Over the last 2000 years, four words have fueled anti-Semitism: 'The Jews killed Christ.' We are concerned about this message wrapped up in a popular film that's couched as gospel truth and produced by a popular, creative genius." -- Abraham H. Foxman
Somebody needs to smack Foxman in the face and remind him of this undeniable fact: The Jews have no better friend than the Christians. While Muslims are all over the world preaching "Death to the Jews" and "Death to Israel," Foxman has nothing better to do than gripe about this movie? Of course, because the media doesn't care one whit about Muslim hatred towards Jews, not even Pinch Sulzberger at the New York Times, who is Jewish himself. Perhaps Foxman should be complaining about the New York Times' bias in favor of the Palestinians, and how this overt anti-Israel stance in the world's most influential newspaper actually fuels the fires of anti-Semitism and reinforces them. (In his ABC interview, Mel Gibson mockingly called The Times that "beacon of journalistic integrity." It was terrific.)
If I had the chance to tell Foxman one thing it would be this: Christians know who killed Jesus, and it surely wasn't the Jews. We are all culpable.
The real issue here is the liberal media DOES NOT WANT THIS MOVIE TO SUCCEED. Luckily, they are too arrogant to realize that the constant degredation of this movie only assures its success. What the liberal media is afraid of is that people, after seeing this movie, will rediscover their spirituality. I'm not predicting a new revival or another Great Awakening here, only a new awareness of the greatness that was and is Jesus Christ. And, in this election year, they surely know that any rediscovering of what Jesus stood for only favors Bush. Think I am stretching here? Then consider this: Over the last month, Stephanie and I have taken Emily from here in Albuquerque to visit Philadelphia, Maryland, and Phoenix, to have her meet friends and family. My aunt, a devout Methodist, loves President Bush. Her friend, a Baptist who is very active in her church, loves Bush. And, her aunt, a Mormon, "prays that Bush is re-elected every night." Polls, schmolls. I never listen to them. And even though they agree that Christians favor Bush, I am convinced from my own experiences that those who are religious and attend church regularly will vote for Bush 10-1, maybe even 100-1. The liberal media already knows this.
Contrast the negative attention given to the Passion of the Christ with the more positive attention given to the ridiculous Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar, and that piece of crap pawned off as art "Piss Christ." And, let's not forget that waste of a book, The Da Vinci Code, which just recently received huge (positive) press coverage and an hour-long ABC special. To them, bashing, blaspheming, and mocking Jesus=Good, celebrating or sympathetically portraying Jesus=bad.
I look forward to seeing this movie and reviewing it here. I expect it to be tough to take, very emotional. As in an informal poll, I'd like to ask you this: What is your interest level in this movie? On a scale from 1-10, please leave a comment and let me know. For the record, mine is a 9.5, Chris is a 9, and Kent is an 8.5.
Lileks offers his usual fine work. Read the whole thing. His conclusion is sharp and to the point:
At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Jake Tapper, in the New York Times of all places, reminds everyone that "The Medals Don't Matter."
-- War on Terror: You say that George Bush hasn't been effective in leading the war on terror and has diverted too many of our resources to Iraq. Do you base your claim on the fact that we routed the Taliban in short order despite your party's predictions of quagmire, that we've captured or killed some two-thirds of known al Qaeda members, or that we haven't been attacked again since Sept. 11, 2001? Or is it that you just have no confidence in our military and intelligence services?
-- Tax Populism: George Bush's tax cuts, despite your rhetoric, were skewed against the rich -- that is, the rich got a lesser percentage reduction. Why, then, do you mischaracterize them as "tax cuts for the wealthy"?
We've reached a point where a Party's likely presidential candidate has actually fulfilled satire. Is that funny or frightening?
Read the whole thing.
There are links to two Scrappleface takes, and I just had to add this picture from one of them:
[Picture temporarily removed until I upload it to my server..too lazy to do at the moment...click the Scrapple face link to see it in the meantime.]
From Some Democrats, Caution on Bush Allegations
Now read the opening paragraph.
When Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe went on television two weeks ago to accuse President Bush as a young man of being "AWOL" in his National Guard duty, party officials quickly heard complaints from the staff of presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).
Funny, isn't it? Those "Some Democrats" were Kerry's people.
Oh, that liberal media.
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - President Bush (news - web sites) throttled up his re-election campaign Sunday by donning a racing jacket and opening the Daytona 500, NASCAR (news - web sites)'s most prestigious event and one that draws a prized voter profile.
Gentlemen, start your engines!" Bush said, squinting up from pit road to the grandstands, where some 180,000 fans roared. They were promptly drowned out by the scream of stock car engines roaring to life.
Bush seemed to relish a chance to see what he called "one of America's great sporting spectacles."
Then, their usual anti-Bush bias shined through:
The race provided an irresistible opportunity for Bush to woo tens of millions of NASCAR fans — the sport claims a fan base of 75 million — watching the televised event 8 1/2 months before the election. The crowd in the stands was almost exclusively white and heavily male. The phrase "NASCAR dads" has become political shorthand for voters who like Bush but who could be persuaded to vote Democratic if the issues and candidates were right.
It was also a plum chance to make a 19th visit to Florida, the state that decided the 2000 election.
According to Power Line;
UPDATE: The AP may have decided that their story wasn't sufficiently anti-Bush; a more recent version adds the observation, near the beginning of the article, that "The crowd in the stands was almost exclusively white and heavily male," thus, apparently, explaining the warm reception the President received.
Gotta love the AP. Made sure to remind everyone that this is an election year, and that's what his visit was all about. And they were sure to get this dig in:
He spent an unusually long time at the race — more than 2 1/2 hours, compared to the 55 minutes he planned at a Monday event on the economy across Florida in Tampa.
Read that sentence again. They impugned him already for something he hadn't even done yet.
And, as expected, Kerry was pissed about the President looking good, and the AP made sure to do their part to drag down Bush for his highly successful visit to the Daytona 500, placing this at the top of their wire all day.
Kerry Blasts Bush's Daytona 'Photo Op'
Oh the humanity!!! This is an election year, and how dare Bush do anything to help his re-election chances!! Get this:
Kerry, who has a commanding lead in the race to oppose Bush this fall, chided the president for taking time out Sunday to attend the Daytona 500, saying the country was bleeding jobs while he posed for a "photo opportunity."
And, this part belongs in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today's "Great Orators of the Democratic Party" section:
"We don't need a president who just says, `Gentlemen start your engines,'" Kerry said. "We need a president who says, `America, let's start our economy and put people back to work.'"
What brilliance!! And this is the guy who the Democrats think is the "most electable." Kerry is jealous, pure and simple.
Think about what happened yesterday. Does anyone really think that Kerry, even if he were President, could have pulled off at Daytona what Bush did yesterday? And, come to think of it, name me one place simialr where Kerry could go and get a rousing reception from 180,000 people. You can't. Think back to Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving. He got a huge reception. If you noticed, most of the networks cut out that part and only showed his speech, because they didn't want you to remember the greeting he received. Now, if Bush showed up unannounced and got booed by the troops, (or at the Daytona 500) we would still be seeing that clip in continuous loop.
Think about Hillary Clinton's appearance at Madsion Square Garden after 9/11. She got booed, and VH-1 later edited that out and added cheers. Kerry would get the same greeting if he showed up unannounced at an event not heavily controlled and prepared in advance. Kerry feels confident blasting Bush to the TV cameras and in small groups because he knows they are on his side. I dare him to show up at a huge event like a race or sporting event and risk the reaction he'd get. Bush has the confidence to do it. Kerry surely doesn't.
As Patsy Cline might sing: “Who’s AWOL Now?” The Senate convened for only two days last week, casting six floor votes in the process. Last week, Kerry had been off the campaign trail to “rest” in Washington and for a moment I thought he might actually do his job. No luck.
Votes cast this session: 0
Voting percentage: 0/14 = 0%
Days worked in the Senate: 0
In both 1971 and 1972, the President received top-notch evaluations, with most of his ratings in the highest category possible. Here is the narrative portion of the 1971 evaluation:
Lt Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot. After completing the F102 all weather interceptor school in November 1969, he came to this unit as a highly qualified fighter interceptor pilot. Lt Bush possesses sound judgement and is mature beyond his age and experience level. During the last weapons firing deployment, he delivered both primary and secondary weapons from the F102. Lt Bush performed in an outstanding manner, following the test projects requirement set forth. He also participated in a practice element deployment during annual field training. He was easily able to handle intercepts with varying geometries and tactics selection. He continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency further. Lt Bush is a natural leader but he is also a good follower of military discipline. Lt Bush has outstanding growth potential and should be promoted well ahead of his contemporaries.
And this is the narrative portion for 1972:
Lt Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer. He eagerly participates in scheduled unit activities. During the past year he participated in several target force deployments and an F-102 aircraft element deployment in Canada. His conduct and professional approach to the mission were clearly exemplary and apparent to observers. His skills as an interceptor pilot enabled him to complete all his ADC intercept missions during the Canadian deployment with ease.
OTHER COMMENTS: Lt Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted a position as a campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and the Air National Guard in the business world. His abilities and anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset. He is a member of the National Guard Association of the United States and Texas.
Those last comments look pretty prescient.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Kerry should be wary of dredging up past
THE beauty said to have had a fling with presidential hopeful John Kerry has recorded a bombshell tell-all interview.
Journalist Alex Polier taped a talk with a US TV network at Christmas.
The former Washington intern, 27, told all about an alleged fling with the 60-year-old super-rich senator in spring 2001.
This is my favorite part:
The channel is sitting on the tape until it has enough evidence to back her story.
Don't you just know if it was a tell all about Bush, they'd have run it already, or only hold it until it hurt Bush most?
"John Kerry is nothing like Bush when it comes to getting money from special interests. In the 4th quarter of 2003, Bush took in 45 times more money than Kerry did."
Gee, he seemed to forget that Kerry's campaign was so broke and in the the toilet that he needed take out a $6 million dollar loan. I wonder if they'll update us when Bush only takes in 15 times more money than Kerry.
(I'll have more to add to this idea after some research)
If character is the issue, Bush can relax. And, if doing your bit for national security is the issue, then John Kerry's been Awol for two decades.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Tom Brokaw greeted Kerry's attacks by stating blandly that the Democrats are "anxious to show they will play hardball" on national security. Great. They won't play hardball with Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il, or France, or Germany, or Russia, or for that matter, anyone opposing the U.S. on national security. But they will play hardball with the Republicans. That ought to help Americans sleep at night.
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase ``special interest''? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?
Is the National Rifle Association a ``special interest''? Is ``special'' a synonym for ``conservative''?
When you denounce ``lobbyists'' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is ``liberal lobbyist'' an oxymoron?
You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?
On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning ``the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, ``I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote ``I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, ``I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?
VIETNAM SPECIAL FORCES/ SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND OTHER VIETNAM VETERANS EX-POWS-KIA/MIA FAMILIES AND FRIENDS AND THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY AGAINST KERRY
Their mission statement:
This site is not against the Democrats, it is against John Kerry, it does not look at any other issue other than his military service, the anti-war movement and how he has dealt with Vietnam's Human Rights. If Kerry was running as a Republican or Independent, this site would still exist in opposition.
Gee, that didn't seem the stop the media from hyping "Bush was AWOL" now, did it?
'This won't go away. What happened is much nastier than is being reported'
Friday, February 13, 2004
"If people want to go back and find a photograph of her years ago, that's fine by me," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.
"I disagreed, like everyone else in America, with the choice she made at that point in time. I thought it was terrible," Kerry said on Imus' program. "We just move on, Don. We're 30 years beyond that. I think people are interested in the future."
Move on, huh? How typical. Now, if he would only have the same attitude about "Bush was AWOL" nonsense.
The money quote:
Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband’s presidential campaign now – as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband’s impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor.
via American RealPolitik
"We are being tested here," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Let's tell the American people we are not going to cover up and we're not going to have a double standard."
Oops! That’s his position on Republican sex scandals. Nevermind...nothing to report here.
Read the entire fisking here.
In the 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view.
His name is John Kerry.
Here's what the U.K. Sun has so far.
I also heard that maybe it's not her. Does it matter anyway? Either way, Kerry beats this.
When questioned on defense funding, he said: "I have voted for almost all weapon systems that we have today with few exceptions. Unfortunately, these are people who've never met a system they didn't like. I have." Kerry voted against the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, Patriot missile system, the F-15, F-14A, F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, and the Trident missile system. He also said he would make sure there were cutbacks to the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet. If these are the "unimportant" items he voted against, what on earth were the important ones he did vote for? Even non-military-minded folks easily recognize most of these vital pieces of American technology that helped us to win the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom with swiftness that shocked the world. It's unimaginable that our armed forces wouldn't have these weapons and weapon systems at their disposal. What new weapons would President Kerry block?Renew America
"After being approached by a top news producer, the woman fled to Africa, where she remains, the Drudge Report can reveal," the Web site breathlessly reported...
But there's one huge problem with the story, which raced through newsrooms across the country like a computer virus: Nobody has been able to confirm that it was true.
So now allegations have to be true to be important. Won't the "Deserter in Chief" be pleased!!!
Oh, and Matt Drudge is termed a "conservative gossipmeister".
Kerry sex scandal lurking?
Thursday, February 12, 2004
The campaign of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, faced its first media storm last night after a Right-wing website alleged that he had asked a woman to leave the country for personal reasons.
Mr Kerry's campaign did not respond to the allegation on the Drudge Report, a news tipster, most famous for disclosing that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. When contacted, the Kerry campaign had no immediate comment.
Notice the slick wording? These are the same teabags that consider someone not remembering seeing Bush 30 years ago a legitimate news story, and give Kerry, the one-world Socialist liberal, a huge break.
Thanks to: Max On The World
The National Enquirer: Now on the Newsstand
[Brian added: Funny that the National Enquirer was a legit news source when they were bashing Rush, and the media ran to quote them. Now, they are back to their old status I see)
Military Dentist Doesn't Recall Bush
The White House released dental records intended to support President Bush's account of his Air National Guard service in Alabama, while several members of the Guard unit said in interviews they don't remember ever seeing Bush at their Montgomery base.
Nor does the dentist specifically recall treating Bush. But all of them told The Associated Press that doesn't mean he wasn't there, serving alongside hundreds of others in the Guard unit.
That's news? A few people don't remember Bush, so the implication is that he wasn't there? Stop it. The entire reason this isn't a viable news story is right in the article:
"I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, who was a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time. The AP contacted more than a dozen former members of the unit on Wednesday, and none could recall ever running into Bush.
However, all were quick to point out that it was a large unit with up to 800 members and Bush was not a celebrity then.
Funny that this nonsensical story just appeared on the AP wire, yet still nothing about the Kerry allegations. The "Bush was AWOL" thing has been proven again and again to be crap, yet they are still pushing it. And, the Kerry allegations, which have not been proven to be unfounded yet, are not mentioned at all.
Oh, that liberal media.
CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN
Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT....
A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked...
Maybe Howard Dean isn't so dumb after all. Maybe we'll just have to start "Howard Dean (or John Edwards) for President? You Must Be Joking" soon.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Kerry on Paying Taxes?
"I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding taxes, about cheating on their 1040, about sheltering income, about contributing to charity. Those are choices people make."
Kerry on Bill Clinton?
"I would defend the president's choice with respect to getting a little head," Kerry says. "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about cheating on one’s wife, about going to a motel, being an unconscionable philanderer, or honoring marital commitments. Those are choices people make."
Read the whole thing.
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials.
And when Kerry opposed federal legislation in 1996 that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he compared the law to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriages and accused his supporters of engaging in the "politics of division."
"This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill," Kerry declared then even as 85 senators and President Clinton supported the measure.
One other thing: See the liberal bias in the first sentence? The AP says right up front that Kerry opposes gay marriage, yet the rest of the article is about the times Kerry has either shown support for it or voted against legislation designed to stop it. Oh, that liberal media.
The Democrats must read the same memo about everything. Tonight, while watching Hannity and Colmes, in different segments I saw former Senator Gary Hart and former Congressman, former Ambassador to the U.N., and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson respond to a question about John Kerry's voting record in the Senate with nearly the same exact response:
"If you went through my voting record, or anyone else's, you'll find instances which can both be labeled 'strong on defense' and 'weak on defense,' so that's not an issue," or something close to that.
The Junkyard blog has expressed his disgust with the same type of response, that the Senator's voting record is trying to be placed "out of bounds." Only this time, he heard it from Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford. The money quote:
Ford's response was uncharasterically elliptical. Rather than deal with the substance of the question, Ford tried to argue that senators cast thousands of votes and that Kerry's votes shouldn't be held against him without examining what Bush was doing during the period in which Kerry cast those votes. In other words, Ford tried to put Kerry's record as a senator out of bounds--don't look there, it's not fair to judge Kerry by his performance in the job he has held for nearly 20 years!
Get used to hearing the same talking points over and over again. And, we'll put them through reality checks here.
Events in Washington over the past month changed that perception. The conservatives seem to have decided that Bush could be vulnerable. As a result, they decided to renegotiate their agreement with Khatami, since they believe Iran can afford to get away with presenting a less enlightened image to the world. The result is the current crisis. Supreme leader Khamenei, the leader of the conservative faction, which is between the reactionaries and the reformists, but on the whole tends to side mostly with the former, will not take any decisive step until he has to, meaning until he and his advisors decide what Bush’s chances are. If they decide that his defeat is not a sure thing, the compromise he will arrange will favor the reformists, at least somewhat. If he decides that Iran can take the risk of assuming that Bush will not be reelected, the compromise will, in effect be an ultimatum to the reformists to surrender or else. If he decides to wait and see, he will go along with the reformists’ demand to postpone the election, without necessarily acting to get the Guardians to reinstate the disqualified reformist candidates.How cute!
Presidential hopeful Howard Dean on Wednesday said front-runner John Kerry was part of "the corrupt political culture in Washington" and accused supporters of his rivals of trying to derail his campaign by funding a group that ran ads criticizing him."Presidential hopeful", eh? More like "Presidential wishful".
Labor unions and former Democratic Sen. Bob Torricelli, who now raises money for Kerry, were among big givers to Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values as it raised $663,000 last year and spent $626,840 of it, a finance report showed. The group ran at least three ads in December against Dean, at the time the leader in the race for the Democratic nomination.Ole Torch is back in politics and spooning with John Kerry. The world amazes...
Yahoo! News - Dean Links Kerry to Washington Culture
Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”
Out of the mouths of babes....
The Harvard Crimson Online :: News
For future reference Jean, you use two words to order a cheesesteak, the first word is the type of cheese (use only steak if you don't want cheese) and the second word is either with or without, meaning if you want onions or not. Simply put, order like I do: American Without. The only 3 types of cheese offered are Whiz, American, and Provolone. (South Philly is an Italina neighborhood after all) Got it? Good.
Demonstrators confronted Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry last night to warn he cannot be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion.
At a campaign event at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., near Washington, the pro-life American Life League rallied sign-waving protesters in an attempt to convince Kerry to "mend his ways," said the group's spokesman, Joseph R. Giganti.
Kerry has zero respect for the Pope. He chastised the Pope a few months back for asking legislators to block gay marriage:
Bluntly telling the Vatican to stay out of American politics, U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday said Pope John Paul II "crossed the line'' by instructing pols to block legalization of gay marriage.
A fuming Kerry, taking on his own Catholic Church in the midst of a campaign for president, said Rome should have more respect for America's long-held separation of church and state.
"It is important not to have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in this country,'' Kerry said. "President Kennedy drew that line very clearly in 1960 and I believe we need to stand up for that line today.''
The Democrat said political concerns are secondary to his moral outrage over Thursday's Vatican statement on gay marriage.
"Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation,'' he said. "It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I'm going to fight to do that.''
Nice job John. You'll regret this one for sure.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
At McClellen's press conference, a disappointed journalist said, ''Is there anybody who can corroborate these pay records, or are we supposed to just believe these documents?''
Clearly, NOTHING will be enough for the press.... On the radio a reporter said: "But as you know, a pay stub doesn't prove anything, only that he got paid" and "the microfiche is fuzzy but apparently shows the dates."
The making of JFK the second - Senator John F Kerry's rise as the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner has sent governments around the world scrambling to find out who this second JFK from Massachusetts really is.
Now get this:
That he had an instinct for shrewdness was also shown when he was with a group of veterans who threw their medals onto the steps of the Capitol.
In fact, Kerry threw only his ribbons and kept his medals.
Uh, wrong He threw someone else's medals.
And get this too:
And if his voting record on domestic issue is liberal (he is in favour of abortion and gay rights and is solid on the environment) he is no bleeding heart.
No bleeding heart liberal? Now that's funny.
Kerry tried to erase the possibility that prisoners of war were still alive in captivity in Vietnam. I spoke Monday evening with Mike Benge, a POW/MIA activist. Benge was a civilian POW held from 1968 until 1973 by the North Vietnamese Army; he spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a "black box," and one year in a cage in Cambodia. Benge accuses Sen. Kerry of shredding key papers documenting "live sightings of POWs in Vietnam and Laos" during the POW/MIA hearings. According to Benge, Kerry attempted to shred all copies to prevent leaks and future declassification of the materials.
Read the whole thing here.
The presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday dumped a firm it hired to make automated phone calls to Wisconsin voters - after it learned the calls were routed through Canada.
The action came quickly, following criticism earlier in the day that the Kerry calling effort was exporting American jobs.
"We just didn't want any part of it," said Bill Burton, Kerry's Wisconsin campaign spokesman. Kerry dumped Sound Media Group, Inc., a firm based in Irvine, Calif., which originated the calls but sent them to Wisconsin through a "Canadian switchboard," Burton said
(Hat tip: Instapundit)
Well, it looks like the fat lady has sung: Kerry will be the Democrats nominee. Which, much as I loathe him, is OK with me because I’m sure he’ll lose to Bush. The anchorless Democrats have picked a candidate solely because of his “electability” and Kerry is enjoying the popularity of a blank slate since nobody knows what he stands for.
Example: tonight in a victory speech Kerry was waving the bloody shirt of American military action in Iraq and swearing that he will never send an American soldier into action because of dependence on foreign oil. [I’m doing this from memory but that was the gist.] Kerry monotoned that he had a plan to reduce American dependence on foreign oil so this would never happen again.
Fine. I went to Kerry’s web site and clicked on the link reading “Reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” After some generalized statements, here’s Kerry’s plan:
We can, however, develop and deploy clean energy technologies that will make us more efficient and allow us to capitalize on domestic and renewable sources of energy. John Kerry’s plan for a renewable energy trust fund to invest in the development of renewable energy will reduce our oil dependence by more than 2 million barrels of oil a day – about the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf.
That’s the answer: we’re going to invent our way out of the problem. And what’s this nonsense about “renewable energy will reduce our oil dependence?” Nearly half the petroleum we use is refined and used for gasoline (the remainder is used in petrochemicals and heating oil). What “renewable” energy sources will replace the internal combustion engine? Also, we’ve been developing renewable energy (solar, wind) since the first oil crunch in 1973 and non-hydroelectric renewables still account for less than 1% of all energy generation in America.
For all its (perceived) faults, at least the Bush plan to inconvenience some caribou and open up ANWR is a genuine step in the right direction. As a minimum, it’s an honest answer. Kerry’s plan is pure fantasy, based on the hope that scientists will find a way to save us from the grips of OPEC. And if the scientists and engineers fail, then what will we do?
As I’ve said many times before: these are times that require clarity. On this issue and many others, John Kerry has chosen the path of moral ambiguity and vapid grandstanding.
Even the liberals know what kind of scum Kerry is.
Kerry Campaign Caught Telemarketing From Canada
The John Kerry campaign unleashed a barrage of telemarketing calls against the good citizens of Milwaukee last night, a week before the Wisconsin primary. Unfortunately for him, even us backwards folks from America's Dairyland DO have Caller ID, and noticed the calls were coming from Ontario, Canada. Looks like Kerry is just another rich guy taking away jobs from hard-working Americans and moving them out of the country.
(Hat tips: Discount Blogger and The Lopsided Poopdeck)
Or, if you would like to add a guest post, send that along as well. I am discussing how to pool resources with the great guys at the Four Right Wing Wackos, so keep coming back. And, see their blog, Kerry Watch as well.
My favorite part:
"Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"
Which is precisely what President Bush has been saying all along.
Clearly, John Kerry was convinced - indeed, his 2002 speech makes a compelling case for why military action against Saddam Hussein was necessary.
Now he's running for president, and seeking the support of the leftward-leaning Democratic primary electorate.
So anything goes.
But he would do well to re-read the speech before leveling additional charges against Bush. And making himself look even sillier than he already does.
From the Boston Globe this morning: “Bush credited for Guard drills”
President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe.
While driving home yesterday, I heard an interview with John Kerry on NPR and he was asked about his allegations about Bush’s service. Kerry completely backed off and said something like “this is not what my campaign is about.” Hmmmm….advance knowledge of the Globe article, or was the baseless allegation hurting his campaign?
Kerry Funds Raise Questions - Donations From Tech Firm Spark Controversy for Candidate
On issues foreign and domestic, inaction is the message.
The money quote:
Whether John Kerry is talking national security or Social Security the words may be different but the pattern remains the same: attack the president, equivocate and obfuscate your own record, and on the most important economic and national-security issues facing the nation put your head in the sand and pretend problems do not exist. We live in serious times and we need serious leadership. Senator Kerry, however, if taken seriously, prescribes a "do-nothing" presidency. This, however, is a time for action.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Senator Kerry has done a good job of enlarging himself but the reality is simple: George W Bush's America has won two swift wars and overthrown two enemy regimes; John Kerry was heroic in a war that America lost and whose loss he celebrated. Since then he's been a model lack-of-conviction politician. The question for anyone who thinks Kerry has "credibility" on national security is a simple one: who do you think Iran, North Korea, Syria, al-Qa'eda's Saudi paymasters and the rogue elements in Pakistan's ISI would prefer to see elected this November?
In addition to noting Kerry's flip-flops, the president should roll out an even more powerful political weapon. He should invite to visit America some Iraqi men, women and children who could publicly thank this country for its commitment and sacrifice on their behalf. They would tell their stories of life under Saddam and how things have improved since his ouster. These personal stories of murdered relatives, rape, torture and imprisonment would touch many hearts. Then the president could ask, "Do any of those who want my job wish to tell these people they would have been better off if America and our allies had chosen to stay home?"
Kerry would look like the dope that he is if Bush pulled something like this off.
WASHINGTON (Mehr News Agency) -- The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election.
If you think Kerry isn't a left-wing radical blame-America first internationalist who will never properly defend America if we are attacked again, then read these excerpts from the e-mail his office sent:
- It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.
- The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.
Kyoto? Will this lie ever stop? Read the reality check about Kyoto. I cannot believe Kerry is blaming Bush for it. Like the Patriot Act and Iraq War Resolution, Kerry rips Kyoto yet voted against it in a "sense of the Senate" resolution.
And, "squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11." Give me a break. A huge chunk of the world thinks we deserved 9/11, and would have only been happy if Bush took it like a pussy Democrat like Kerry would have.
Nothing would make those tea-drinking Mullahs in Iran happier than if Kerry wins, so they can go about their business unobstructed.
The economic reports were probably "prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq."
This nonsense on the economy comes straight out of the Clinton 1992 playbook. I am only surprised he didn't find room to mention Herbert Hoover. What makes me laugh most is the Democrat talking point about jobs, "Many people have become discouraged and have stopped looking." What a pathetic excuse. If they stopped looking for a job, what are they doing for income? And, how is that Bush's fault?
This sums up the liberal attitude towards Bush:
Democratic Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, reacting to Bush's visit, said the state had gained more than 27,000 jobs in 2003, but "we have done this in spite of President Bush, not because of him."
Expect Kerry to run this same spin about any good report on employment, unless he starts to enjoy hearing himself run that ridiculous laugh line "prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq" over and over again.
When Clifford stonewalled, claiming he was unable to remember crucial names and dates, Kerry backed off. "He's an old man," he told his incredulous aides, who pleaded with him to move in for the kill. "He couldn't remember. I'm not going to humiliate an old man."
And Kerry, at a time when all of Washington was pressuring him to do otherwise, clearly chose to do the right thing--first seeing to it that justice would be served, then refusing to heap unnecessary humiliation on a man who was, by then, broken in body and spirit. Kerry may or may not be the right Democrat to nominate for president. But he clearly does have it within him to do the right thing.
Is this the best that liberal rag could come up with in Kerry's defense? Talk about damning him with faint praise.
This is the best the Democrats have to offer: An honorable war hero who threw it all away when he came back, pissing all over America.
No candidate has more relevant personal experience or better policies than John Kerry, the man who'll beat Bush .
Better policies than Bush? Sure, for gutless, anti-war, pro-Saddam, terrorist apologists like this dope.
How Seriously Should We Take Current Polling? (Answer: Not Very)
(Surprisingly, the liberal rags are running these columns. Who'd have thunk it?)
He was more palatable to the media than the hard core radicals and yet, was not considered a "leader" by anyone within the organization. We all recognized John for what he was; someone who had calculated that he could go farther in politics as a liberal, anti-war vet, and who used the organization to further that ambition.
More palatable to the media, and someone who realized he could go further being anti-war. Sounds just like the John Kerry of today, the same guy who co-opted a lot of the Dean platform and VOTED AGAINST funded our troops in Iraq.
February 9, 2004 -- ON Wednesday, we re ported that John Kerry's younger brother, Cam eron, is such a longtime loyal supporter of his brother's political career that he was arrested in 1973, while Kerry was running for Congress, for breaking into a po litical opponent's headquarters. Appar ently loyalty abounds among the Kerry sib lings. During the Clinton/Gore ad ministration, says a source, the senator procured a political pa tronage job for his sister, Peggy Kerry. When George W. Bush took office, Kerry "frantically finagled" for Peggy to be given a civil service title so that she could stay employed. She now works in the public af fairs office of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and actively supports her brother's bid for the presidency in her time off — she could be seen standing behind him on television as he swept the New Hampshire primary. In other words, she defends Bush's foreign policy by day and campaigns against it by night. And isn't this the same John Kerry who's vowed to "end the era of special interests"?
Back when federal lawmakers legally could be paid for speaking to outside groups, John Kerry collected more than $120,000 in fees from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions, records show.
In the case of North Korea, don't expect any progress on the threat posed by that regime as it waits to see whether voters will supply it with a new American president, who like the one before Bush, is willing to throw money their way in exchange for promises of good behavior that are easily broken when the funds run low again.
It is beyond belief that Kerry opposes missile shield technology in Alaska and California. I guess he doesn't want to antagonize anyone who is upset that we have the temerity to defend ourselves.
Read the entire article.
"We know how to beat standard-issue national Democrats," Mr. Norquist told the New York Times. "We do it regularly. When you stand up and say here's a Massachusetts liberal whose voting record is nearly identical to Ted Kennedy's, you just lost 45 percent of the electorate — and that's the starting point."
from the Washington Times.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
RICHMOND, Va. - John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated Vietnam veteran and Democratic presidential front-runner, questioned Sunday whether President Bush (news - web sites) had fulfilled his Vietnam-era commitment to the National Guard.
"Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question," the Massachusetts senator said.
Wow. This has got to make miltary people all over the country really warm and fuzzy for Kerry. An honorable discharge is not enough for Kerry? Perhaps Bush should have gone to Vietnam, came home, thrown someone else's medals away, then slandered American troops in front of Congress, just like Kerry did. This part is astonishing:
Kerry insisted he was not making a political issue of Bush's Vietnam-era service, saying he had no trouble with the "many people" like Bush who served in the Guard to reduce the odds of seeing combat in Vietnam.
Not making an issue of Bush's service? What a lying sack of shit. If he is not making as issue of it, then why is he saying that "an honorable discharge does not answer the question?" This is a real jerkoff move by Kerry.
But he responded sharply to Bush's claim in a nationally televised interview that his honorable discharge from the National Guard should answer lingering questions about his service.
"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was suppose to be? I don't have the answer to that question," said Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, one Bronze star and one Silver star in Vietnam.
As Kerry has heard it raised. Just look at Kerry, trying to act as if others, not him, are making an issue of it. I hope Kerry is enjoying himself right now, because, soon enough, he will be answering for his past, and the things he will be in the defensive about sure won't be like the blatant lies that the Democrats are putting out about Bush.
Kerry Exaggerates Role in Some Key Legislative Battles - He says he "led the fight" on several fronts, but few bills bear his name.
For a guy who has spent 19 years in the Senate, this is all he has to show for it:
Kerry has been the lead sponsor of eight bills that have become law. Two are related to his work on the Senate panel on oceans and fisheries - a 1994 law to protect marine mammals from being taken during commercial fishing and a 1991 measure for the National Sea Grant College Program Act, which finances marine research.
In 1999, President Clinton signed his bill providing grants to support small businesses owned by women.
The rest of the laws he saw passed were ceremonial - renaming a federal building, designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day and World Population Awareness Week in two separate years.
If he is elected President, I'm sure he'll "lead the fight" to win the forgiveness of France and "lead the fight" to take back the government's money that Bush foolishly gave away in tax cuts.
Russert: This is what John Kerry had to say last year. He said that his colleagues are appalled at the quote "President's lack of knowledge. They've managed him the same way they've managed Ronald Reagan. They send him out to the press for one event a day. They put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him to move some hay or move a truck, and all of a sudden he's the Marlboro Man. I know this guy. He was two years behind me at Yale. I knew him, and he's still the same guy.”
Did you know him at Yale?
President Bush: No.
Russert: How do you respond to that?
President Bush: Politics. I mean, this is—you know, if you close your eyes and listen carefully to what you just said, it sounds like the year 2000 all over again.
You know what I would like to see? Kerry come down and have a wood chopping contest with Bush in Crawford during one of those 100 degree days. That would be hilarious, because the "average Harley riding guy" John Kerry would wilt faster than a popsicle.
Some choice quotes:
He’s a war hero who became an anti-war activist, when it looked politically advantageous. He’s a man with a common touch -- who married two rich women. One he dumped, when she was suffering from depression, after she bore him two kids.
He’s a moderate with a voting record more liberal than either Ted Kennedy or Dennis The Red Kucinich. Kennedy’s lifetime congressional rating from the if-it-moves-tax-it Americans for Democratic Action is 88 percent – compared to 93 percent for Mr. Middle of the Road. Kucinich’s lifetime score from the American Conservative Union is 15 percent. Kerry’s is 6 percent.
Actually, there is a stark consistency that runs through Kerry’s career – He’s an opportunistic, back-stabber who never met a commie he didn’t like. He also has chutzpah to spare.
I’m waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.
I’m waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election? Who do you think will make Syria relax? Who do you think Hezbollah worries about more? Who would Iran want to deal with when it comes to its nuclear program – Cowboy Bush or “Send in the bribed French inspectors” Kerry? Which candidate would our enemies prefer?
O the shrieking that would result should such an ad run. You can’t even ask those questions, even though they’re the most relevant questions of the election.
Oh, more thing. Let’s say President Kerry would be forced to act against North Korea, because we caught them shipping nukes to a terrorist organization, and once we got there we uncovered all the torture camps and poison-gas human experiment labs. Let’s say his administration had several retreads from the Clinton era. Do you think we’d see this image below on Democratic Underground message boards?
-Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) on FNC's "Hannity & Colmes" 2/3/04
Wow!! What luck for Kerry. Gephardt will send over to Kerry all that union support that drove him to victory in Iowa...in 1988. Gee, I'm sure Gephardt and the unions that own him lock, stock, and barrel were torn between supporting Kerry or Bush. Any day now, I predict that Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle will stun us all in the same manner when they endorse Kerry.
In his Virginia remarks, Kerry said Democrats represent the mainstream, Republicans the "extreme," on a number of issues, including tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, health care, violence against women, the federal judiciary, civil liberties and national security."
That is too funny. Cutting your taxes is extreme, he says. I guess to him, it is the Government's money, and Bush lets us keep too much of it. I can't even find the energy to fisk the other crap. Extreme when it comes to "violence again women." Huh? What? How can anyone take thi guy seriously?
Saturday, February 07, 2004
John Kerry, to someone: "I voted to protect the security of our country, based on the notion that the only way to get inspectors back in was to have a legitimate threat of force and the potential of using it," he told Rolling Stone. "They took that legitimacy and bastardized it. If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today — we would not be at war. This president abused the process."
Abused the process? So, let me get this right. Congress voted to authorize Bush to:
use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So, Bush abused the process by having the arrogance to believe that the law meant what it said? I guess he should have asked "authorized to use the Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"really meant. To Kerry, Bush just isn't nuanced enough to understand that the law really doesn't mean what it says, and he has the temerity to see its plain black-and-white meaning. Bush must be a dope to think that he actually has the powers that the Constitution says he has.
So, Kerry would have turned this entire problem over to the United Nations, a group of outlaws who won't enforce their own resolutions. Nice to know that when Kerry talks tough, he surely doesn't mean it. Kerry, by trying to match Dean in anti-war tomfoolery, has made himself look like a windbag wimp. He need not worry about making those trips to Berlin and Paris to grovel for the affection of "old Europe." He'll never win once the American public takes a good, hard look at him.
Kerry's words on October 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security" and on January 23, 2003, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." So, which is it? Did Kerry not mean any of this at the time, or did it not mean it when it became politically expedient for him not to mean it? Click on this link and scroll down. Then, click on the links below Kerry's quotes. You will learn that Kerry has hired Winston Smith as his website administrator, and these quotes have disappeared from his site. And, most conveniently forgotten is a letter to President Clinton dated October 9, 1998, of which Kerry was a signatory, which said:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Isn't that exactly what President Bush did?
One other point to ponder: Why do Democrats fall all over each other to be the biggest wuss? To prove that they really would not do anything they said? To show the world that they can be pushed around at will?JFK must be turning over in his grave at this band of appeasers and gutless worms.
By the way, Kerry like to keep this as private and secret as possible, but he served in Vietnam.