John Kerry for President? You Must Be Joking

This picture was not Photoshopped. It was taken directly from the Associated Press. Look at how cute Kerry looks with the flower zipper pull-up. Awwww.



Via Power Line

Read this post from Everything I Know Is Wrong. The solution to every "problem" in the country? "Roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy."

From Mickey Kaus:

Kerry reappears, ending rise in polls

This is the man that the Democrats actually think will beat President Bush. Here's John Kerry, who recently discovered that he must attend church every Sunday, had this to say yesterday.

"Today we are told that, after three million lost jobs and so many lost hopes, America is now turning a corner. But those who say that, they're not standing on the corner of Highland Street, where two 15-year-old teenagers were hit in a drive-by shooting last week."

And Liberals have the nerve to call Bush dumb?

How Fast Should We Connect Those Dots?

The Left continues their hypocritical attacks on the Bush administration, some of the American people continue to take them seriously, and rational people continue to have trouble understanding why. One one hand, President Bush is under attack for not "connecting the dots" quickly enough to prevent 9/11. On the other, he's being attacked for connecting the dots too quickly regarding Iraq. Which is it?

Read the whole thing:

From Joe's Blog:

The love-fest with John Kerry continues. Get this, from an article in the New York Times:

Kerry Will Undergo Surgery for Tendon Tear in Shoulder

Ok, that's fine. I don't want the guy to be in pain or anything, I just don't want him as my President. But read this part:

KANSAS CITY, Mo., March 27 — Senator John Kerry plans to take about four days off the campaign trail next week to have minor surgery on his right shoulder. He aggravated a years-old injury while battling for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa in January.

What was he doing? Mud wrestling with Howard Dean? Re-enacting the old Frankie Goes to Hollywood video "Two Tribes?" You have to read a few paragraphs down to find out what "really" happened. He was injured while schlepping with the hoi polloi:

The tear apparently occurred aboard his campaign bus as it rattled through Iowa but is related to a shoulder injury he suffered while bicycling several years ago, Mr. Kerry said.

(chuckling...smirking...muted laughter)

The shoulder strain did not stop Mr. Kerry from a weeklong skiing and snowboarding vacation at his retreat in Ketchum, Idaho, that ended Wednesday, or from riding his racing bike in Boston a few weeks before.

It couldn't have happened while he was snowboarding now, could it? After all, "he doesn't fall." Just ask him.

John Kerry's favorites, via Bidinotto Blog.

Visit our friends at Kerry Haters sometime. They would like to have their blog die on November 2nd. We hope to suffer the same fate.

John Hawkins is his usual top-notch self:

...that at last night's DUD, the biggest response from the Democrats in attendance came not for John Kerry, but for Howard Dean?

Kerry said at the rally that he had ``respect and, more importantly, admiration for the conversation with America that Howard Dean began and we will now continue.''

"We indeed looked for the differences, but I tell you something, that we had to look hard for the differences,'' Kerry said.

They write this for us. We don't even have to work to make the case that Kerry is a Socialist. he does it for us. Please, keep reminding people that you and Howard Dean are exactly alike.

Funny that John Kerry has a new ad showing himself in Vietnam. Where are all the people complaining that Kerry is using 58,000 dead for political purposes? The ad sucks, by the way.

Note to Kerry: Keeping talking about rolling back tax cuts.

I received this e-mail from a fine United States Marine. I am withholding his name just in case. Semper Fidelis.

Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, policeman, salesman, doctor, lawyer, etc.

David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father.

"My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little David aside to ask him,

"Is that really true about your father?"

"No," said David, "He works for the Kerry campaign, but I really was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids."

Via The Cracker Barrel Philosopher

Judd Patrick has the new, simplified tax form that we would receive during a Kerry Presidency.

If you have a post you want cross-posted here, just e-mail to me and it will be done. We would prefer it if you would send the raw post with HTML links contained within, along with the link, rather than just the link itself, if possible. (Saves us time)

JOHN KERRY 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." (John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

I like the money that I earn, I work hard for it and my goal come tax time is to legally have the least amount of it end up in Washington D.C. Senator John Kerry in his nineteen years in the Senate voted to raise taxes three hundred and fifty times. Let's do the math and break it down so we can see how often under a Kerry Presidency we can expect a tax increase, or at least how often he'll ask Congress for one.

Senator Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times divided by his 19 years in the Senate.

That works out to and average of 18.42 votes by Senator Kerry to raise taxes a year.

Divide that by 365 days and we can expect a President Kerry to attempt to raise our taxes every Nineteen Days Nineteen Hours and Thirty-two Minutes.

(Visit Paul's blog at It's All Downhill from Here) He will be joining as a regular contributor this week.

With a record like that I can't afford a Kerry Presidency, can you?

I like the money that I earn, I work hard for it and my goal come tax time is to legally have the least amount of it end up in Washington D.C. Senator John Kerry in his nineteen years in the Senate voted to raise taxes three hundred and fifty times. Let's do the math and break it down so we can see how often under a Kerry Presidency we can expect a tax increase, or at least how often he'll ask Congress for one.

Senator Kerry voted to raise taxes 350 times divided by his 19 years in the Senate.

That works out to and average of 18.42 votes by Senator Kerry to raise taxes a year.

Divide that by 365 days and we can expect a President Kerry to attempt to raise our taxes every Nineteen Days Nineteen Hours and Thirty-two Minutes.

With a record like that I can't afford a Kerry Presidency, can you?

Joe Wilson, Rand Beers, and Richard Clarke. Mark Kilmer has the story.

From Curmudgeonly & Skeptical

I watched John Kerry's appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1971 and I was repulsed. In his first few sentences, Kerry's hypocrisy and BS (much like what we see today) was on full display. He said something close to this, "I'm sorry, I didn't get much sleep last night because of the injunction." He was referring to a Supreme Court ruling that stopped people from camping out on the Mall in Washington. What a piece of work!! He wasn't sleeping in the Mall with his fellow protesters, he was staying in a Georgetown mansion!

Watching him talk about all of the atrocities committed by American soldiers was disgusting. While I am sure they happened, just not on the scale he alleged, his open and shameless back-stabbing and anti-Americanism should outrage everyone. He droned on about how blacks were discriminated against, of course, never mentioning how his organization, VVAW, were ideological bedfellows of the Black Panthers.

2 things bothered me most: Him saying that it did not matter to the peasants of South Vietnam whether or not they live under the control of Communists, and his complaining about how Vietnam veterans were treated awfully upon their return, their high unemployment rates, etc. What the hell did he expect? When people like HIM were all over the place trashing Vietnam Vets for all kinds of atrocities, did he actually think that they would return to a ticker-tape parade?

Think of the hypocrisy of Kerry's statements like this: It would be like someone being pissed off at their wife for not inviting his brother to their son's 5th birthday party after he told her his brother was a pedophile.

After what this man has done throughout his career, I refuse to believe that the majority of this country will find him worthy of the Presidency. His blame-America first for everything was astonishing, nothing different than what he does today. He had no hatred for Communism then, and has no hatred for terrorism now.

This man is not worthy of the Presidency. I hope a lot of people saw that speech tonight, for either a reminder or for a history lesson. (I was born about 3 months after he gave that speech)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, right, makes a joke about a rumor that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry had a plastic surgery, holding photos of Kerry, left, and pop star Michael Jackson during the annual St. Patrick's Day breakfast in Boston, Sunday, March 21, 2004. The breakfast, which gave President Bush and Kerry the opportunity to engage in some lighthearted, long-distance one-upmanship, has been a tradition for more than 50 years, and is a prelude to the annual South Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is seen laughing in the foreground. (AP Photo/Chitose Suzuki)

(Hat tip: Aaron Margolis (Matt's brother?) at Pardon My English)

..what kind of back-stabbing scumbag opportunist John Kerry was right after he returned from Vietnam. Tonight, at 6:30 PM and 9:30 PM, C-SPAN will play the video of Kerry's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Read this post from Tasty Manatees (great blog name) about Kerry's defense record. The evidence is right there for you to see.

According to the Viking Pundit, upon viewing this, "[he] nearly spit out about fifty-cents of Sam Adams Cherry Wheat when I saw this on Right Wing News."

It seems that after a long and seriosu deliberation, Noam Chomsky has decided to endorse Kerry.

Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

I'd like to see Kerry tout that endorsement.

Yesterday, I was enjoying the 95 degree day in Phoenix, and I heard a clip on the Rusty Humphries Show of Richard Nixon calling John Kerry a "phony" and an "opportunist." Here's the transcript:

April 28, 1971, 4:33 p.m. President Richard M. Nixon takes a call from his counsel, Charles Colson.

"This fellow Kerry that they had on last week," Colson tells the president, referring to a television appearance by John F. Kerry, a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"Yeah," Nixon responds.

"He turns out to be really quite a phony," Colson says.

"Well, he is sort of a phony, isn't he?" Nixon says.

Yes, Colson says in a gossiping vein, telling the president that Kerry stayed at the home of a Georgetown socialite while other protesters slept on the mall.

"He was in Vietnam a total of four months," Colson says "He's politically ambitious and just looking for an issue."

"Yeah."

"He came back a hawk and became a dove when he saw the political opportunities," Colson says.

"Sure," Nixon responds. "Well, anyway, keep the faith."

There was more to this. Nixon talked about he Kerry was eating at the best restaurants too.

Does anyone have this audio clip or know a link where it can be found? It is hilarious to hear Nixon talk about the Kerry of 30 years ago, because it sounds just like the Kerry of today. That clip needs to be available here. Please e-mail or leave a comment on where it can be found.

"If all the tax cuts John Kerry supported over his career were enacted into law, the tax burden on the middle class would be significantly lower than it is today," the campaign said

It must be because no one else shares Kerry's wisdom. The fact that he has passed ZERO legislation of any signifigance in his 19 years in the Senate can't be the reason, can it? Gotta love this guy: He wants credit for things he supported, but were never actually enacted.

Check out the contrast on how Bush treats his protectors with that of John, "I never fall, that son of a bitch knocked me over" Kerry.

...has lost it. Why doesn't he just come out and support Kerry? After all, he is an openly-gay, HIV-positive commentator. If he isn't afraid to hide that, then why is he hiding his hope that John Kerry wins?

I used to read Sullivan every day. I read him once a week at best now, because Sullivan has become what a despise: Someone who is so worried about "gay rights," nothing else matters to him. Not terrorism, not taxes, nothing. It is all about homosexual politics to him. I used to read him daily because I actually believed he wasn't like every other homosexual out there, who only care about the promotion of their lifestyle.. I was wrong. Read this post to understand what I mean:

MCCAIN ON KERRY: Here's a question worth asking: whatever John Kerry's record, could he afford in office to be weak on terror? Wouldn't he be obliged to continue Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even, as he has already promised, actually increase troop levels in those countries? I don't think it's out of the question. John McCain knows Kerry and says he doesn't believe he'd be "weak on defense." Sometimes, a Democrat has to be tougher than a Republican in this area - if only to credentialize himself. I can certainly conceive of Richard Holbrooke being a tougher secretary of state than Colin Powell. I'm not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I'm persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support.

As you read that, you come to realize that Sullivan is no different than any other liberal trying to convince himself to support Kerry. What in Kerry's history makes Sullivan think that Kerry, once in office, would be any different than he has been in the last 30 years, a one-world socialist who will never put America's interests first if it means having Europe or the liberal interests groups not like him? And, Richard Holbrooke is just another internationalist who would show nothing more than fealty to the United Nations. What exactly in Holbrooke's history suggests that he would be otherwise?

Andrew Sullivan is a left-wing militant homosexual. I realize that now. And I feel like I've been had.

Zapatero Rejects Kerry Call on Iraq Troops

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero tonight rejected US Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry’s call for him to reconsider plans to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.

Zapatero, the Socialist who won Sunday’s general election, noted that he had campaigned on a pledge to withdraw those 1,300 troops unless the United Nations takes charge in Iraq, and did not devise the plan simply because of last week’s terrorist bombings in Madrid.

“My commitment is my commitment,” Zapatero said in a television interview.

He added that he wanted “the best relations with the United States”.

Kerry yesterday joined other politicians in the US in expressing alarm over Zapatero’s insistence on bringing home the troops by June 30 when their mandate runs out unless the UN steps in.

Some Americans said Spain would be appeasing terrorists if it went ahead with the plan.

“Maybe John Kerry does not know – but I am happy to explain it to him – that my commitment to withdraw the troops goes back before the tragic, dramatic terrorist attack,” Zapatero said.

You must watch this new RNC video. Hilarious!!!

John Kerry - International Man of Mystery

You gotta admit it is great watching Kerry's surrogates are trying to distance themselves from Kerry's "foreign leaders want me to win" faux pas.

American under John Kerry is the eagle on the left. America under Bush is the eagle to the right. That is exactly why foreign leaders want Kerry to win. They love a weak America.



And, here is John Kerry looking in the mirror:



And in conclusion, here is Monsieur Jean-Francois Kerry as he is:



Hat tip: Confessions of a Political Junkie

Does anyone actually believe that John Kerry would get this kind of reception from our troops?

Huh?

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."--John Kerry on funding the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, quoted in the Boston Globe, March 17

Do you understand Kerry's statement? If not I'll simplify the verbal slight of hand that the Senator was attempting to pull.

"I didn't vote for body armor for our troops. I did not vote for higher combat pay for our troops. I did not vote to increase health benefits for our reservists who are serving in Iraq and their families. I refused to support our troops and their families in the time of war but I want to confuse you into thinking that I did"

So John Kerry does not back our troops when they are in harms way but he's like you to think he does.

[Original Paul Drabek post can be found here]

Some supporters of Senator John F. Kerry are seizing on Zapatero’s words as proof that John Kerry was not mistaken when he boasted that many world leaders preferred him to George Bush. (See for example Richard Holbrooke’s piece on this morning’s Wall Street Journal oped page – not yet available online.)

But those of us who objected to Sen. Kerry’s words were not claiming that they were mistaken. Who doubts that there are many world leaders who would prefer Kerry to Bush? Kerry’s words were objectionable because they invited and legitimated Europe’s ambitions to intrude itself into America’s internal governance.

Those ambitions can never be fulfilled. If Sen. Kerry were to be elected president, he too would repudiate those ambitions. But by suggesting that those ambitions deserved respect and attention, he was not only disparaging his own country’s democratic processes and its sovereignty: He was enflaming trans-Atlantic ill-feeling for selfish personal and political advantage.

Zapatero’s remarks indicate how ready Europeans are to cast votes to which they are not entitled. Senator Kerry should not be out there distributing additional phony ballots to Europeans who are brave only against their friends.

Link here.

Before Kerry was a candidate (a semantical difference really, it was January of last year, so surely he knew he was running), Kerry "demanded that Interior Department inspector general Earl Devaney investigate Rove's alleged role in the Klamath decision. (to pick famers over environmentalists)

Well, the investigation is complete, and as expected, Bush and Rove were cleared. York's conclusion:

In the end, "Klamath Salmon-Gate" amounted to nothing at all. Kerry's accusations were flimsy, and the controversy was not a major campaign issue (except in those areas directly affected by the Klamath River decision).

But the episode says something about the dozens — no, hundreds — of accusations Democrats have leveled against the president. And what it says is: Be very skeptical.

Keep that in mind as the campaign goes on.

Read the whole thing.

Please get Kerry to be specific about this charge:

"And we were misled in very specific terms about the evidence that we were showed within those briefings to the Congress of the United States. "
- Kerry today at GWU [emphasis added; DA]

The CIA briefs Congress, and Tenet swore under oath before Congress that the briefings were truthful.
Who is lying, Kerry or Tenet? ONE OF THEM MUST BE LYING.

Dan Aronstein
NY, NY

(quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/politics/campaign/17CND-KERRY.html?hp )

[Added by Brian: I think your answer is here. John Kerry met with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, and according to John Kerry's unique logic, President Bush misled him because Kerry never thought that Bush would actually go to war despite being authorized to.]

I started this blog because I wanted to expose John Kerry for what he is, a one-world Socialist tax-raiser who has not only thrown his fellow American soldiers under the bus after he returned from Vietnam, but has been on the wrong side of history his entire political career. After I got this blog up, I was asked by Tim from the 4 Right Wing Wackos, someone I have never met, if he could join in and post from time to time, and I immediately agreed.

If you have something you want added here about Kerry, by all means e-mail it to me and I will post it. I will copy and paste your e-mail (if you have links, please format them properly) and post it immediately. All I ask is that you include your name (first name only will do if you so desire) and your hometown. You can add a story we missed, a cartoon, whatever you want, or a long opinion you want heard. Also, if you have your own blog, make sure we have the link.

And, if you are a Kerry supporter, and you want to refute what you read here, I will post those too. Unlike liberals, I believe in free speech, even when it does not agree with me.

The goal of this blog is to be the ultimate resource for the voters to know exactly who John Kerry is, and why he cannot be our next President. Help us reach it.

Foreign Leaders for John Kerry

(Boy, that was quick)

Via DANEgerus

From GWB's site:

In October, John Kerry was one of only twelve Senators to vote against funding for our troops in Iraq, including money for body armor, higher combat pay and better health care for reservists and their families. Here's Kerry yesterday, backpedaling furiously from that vote:

Mr. Kerry added, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," referring to an amendment he supported that would have rescinded some tax cuts to finance the war.

I voted for Dennis Kucinich (hahahaha) in the Arizona primary. According to John Kerry's logic, when I vote for Bush in November, I'll have actually voted for Kucinich.

Brilliant. See Joe's entire blog here.

Thanks to Jim Rofkar of Port Clinton, Ohio, an important swing state, for pointing out my mistake on the link for the 4 Right Wing Wackos blog.

Have you checked out wintersoldier.com? Also take look at www.vetsagainstkerry.org/forum; we’re

getting organized. I’ve been trying to get the word out that people need to read his 1971 Winter

Soldier testimony to see how badly he dishonored his comrades; see below. Maybe you can post it –

I am blogless!

FYI to all you Vets - What many Vietnam vets are upset about is NOT john Kerry's protests; it was his testimony before the Congressional committee in 1971 where he portrayed us as monsters, committing horrible atrocities on an everyday basis, with the full knowledge of all levels of command. He also stated that 200,000 South Vietnamese were being murdered every year, so whatever happened to them after North Vietnam wouldn't be so bad - ask the boat people how bad it was. Please don't take my (paraphrasing) word as gospel on this; go to www.wintersoldier.com for the whole story The complete 32 page testimony is available, as are many other quotes and a great deal of evidence. After reviewing how he dishonored all Vietnam vets and stated that he had gone to Paris to talk with the PRC and NVN, it is beyond any bounds of credibility to believe this man is suitable to now command our armed forces, especially at this time. I BEG everyone out there, PLEASE read what he said. This is not a political attack - you can read his words yourself, but now - knowing what I know – I believe that if I vote for him I would be dishonoring my country, myself and all veterans.

Thank you - Walt Jones (USMC, in RVN '66-'68)

Hmmm....interesting.

Speaking of Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party chairman read our limerick yesterday on Sen. John Kerry's diverse family roots. Now the very-Irish chairman of the RNC has sent Inside the Beltway his own limerick in tribute to Mr. Kerry in honor of St. Patrick's Day:

There once was a man from Nantucket
Whose misstatements could fill up a bucket.
Oft the truth he has bent,
Like his "Irish descent."
Of his record he says, "I'll just duck it."

The brilliant and beautiful Michelle Malkin has more on Kerry playing defense. (And pandering to firefighters too)

Money quote:

Kerry's big proposal to fight the global war on terrorism (borrowed from Bill and Hillary Clinton) is to add 100,000 "first responders" to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel in cities and towns across the United States. In other words: Wait until the terrorists strike us again and then do a really, really good job of cleaning up the mess afterward.

I never blog on polls, because they are a waste of time, and are nothing more than manufactured news. But, when the liberal media hides the results they don't like, I'll bring it to your attention. Get this headline in the New York "Once Upon A" Times:

Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds

Well, no shit, that is why I started this blog, and why I am voting for Bush hands down. "The nation's direction" is the basis for every Presidential election. But, the Times uses this headline because the results of the poll aren't want they want. (Notice how far down you have to read to see them. If it were Kerry ahead, it would be in the first sentence) If this were an honest report, the headline and the first paragraph would have read:

New Poll Shows Bush beats Kerry; Nader a Non-Factor

George W. Bush would be re-elected if the election were held today, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Mr. Bush would be re-elected whether or not Ralph Nader's third-party candidacy is factored in.

But, no. This is how it starts:

George W. Bush and John Kerry enter the general election at a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. Mr. Bush faces unrest over his management of the economy, while the public has doubts about Mr. Kerry's political convictions.

You have to read until the 8th paragraph to find the results of the poll, which are, of course, prefaced by the Times' favorite trick, quoting a Republican who sounds as if he is against Bush. (And, as a bonus, the guy is from Texas)

"Our priorities need to be reshuffled," Darrell Griffin, 64, a Republican retired engineer from Hemphill, Tex., said in a follow-up interview. "The protection of the homeland and our allies from terrorism is important, but our economy in our own country and Social Security and things like that here at home are pretty important, too. "

The Times/CBS News poll offered the latest evidence that the race for president was as tight as has long been predicted. Even after two weeks in which Mr. Bush has run televised advertisements promoting himself and attacking Mr. Kerry, and in which Mr. Kerry has enjoyed the glow of favorable coverage that greeted his near-sweep of Democratic primaries, the two men are effectively tied, with 46 percent of voters saying they supported Mr. Bush and 43 percent backing Mr. Kerry.

The candidacy of Ralph Nader looms as a potentially lethal threat to Democratic hopes of regaining the White House: With Mr. Nader in the race, Mr. Bush leads Mr. Kerry by 46 percent to 38 percent, with Mr. Nader drawing 7 percent of the votes. In a sign of the polarized electorate Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are facing, three-quarters of supporters of each candidate asserted they would not change their mind before the election.

Oh, that liberal media. When the next poll showing Kerry beats Bush is out, I'll blog about it and we'll compare how different the Times treats those results.

Even Slate is all over Kerry. Read this piece:

Whopper: John Kerry, Stop lying about your record!

Read this post from HobbsOnline titled, John Kerry: Let's Play Defense.

This is the money quote:

Do you hear it? It's the language of disengaging from the terrorists, and preparing for when they hit us again. It's the language of switching from offense to defense.

Kerry goes on to promise big new spending for equipping firefighters and other "first responders" - so they'll be better able to respond to the next attack. He wants to spend more money screening ship cargo at our ports. We'll let the terrorists bring a dirty bomb all the way into the harbor at Baltimore, or New Orleans, or Seattle, but no further. He wants to spend more money screening airplane passengers. We'll let the terrorists into our country and into our airports, and try to snag them at the last possible check point. Kerry promises to enhance "intelligence sharing" among police and local officials across multiple jurisdictions. We'll let the terrorists into our country, and try to find them before they blow up a commuter train.

This terrific analysis of Kerry's policies. You must read it.

This is a post blatantly copied from Mark A. Kilmer's Politcal Annotation:

Kerry gives Bush Green Light……to use 9-11 at will

Without saying it explicitly, candidate Kerry has destroyed his opportunity to meaningfully criticize President Bush if the latter opts to use extensive footage from his actions in the aftermath of September 11 in his campaign. This extends to delivering his GOP nomination acceptance speech live from Ground Zero.

Said Kerry to the International Association of Fire Fighters' legislative conference in Washington today [UPI]:
" ... After September 11th, President Bush went to New York, stood at Ground Zero, stood with our firefighters. I wish the president would go back now and ask whether he has stood with you since that day."
Kerry first invoked the President's leadership after the attacks, and now President Bush can stress it without fear of possibly valid complaint. Kerry has stripped that away from himself.

"You brought it up, John."

John Kerry is an unfit nominee.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration, casting doubts on John Kerry (news - web sites)'s credibility, strongly suggested on Monday that the presumptive Democratic nominee lied when he said some foreign leaders privately backed his presidential bid.

"Either he is straightforward and states who they are, or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

As expected, Kerry wasted no time in directly answering his critics:

In response, the Kerry campaign issued a list of statements made by Bush administration officials that proved false, including the claim about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the prediction that tax cuts would create jobs. The campaign also questioned why the White House press secretary would be doing the work of the re-election campaign.

"The White House would be better off spending its time repairing our alliances around the world so we can collectively fight the war on terrorism and better protect the United States, rather than using the White House press room as a place to carry out political attacks," the campaign said.

Too funny. This is from the same guy who has been running for President on the taxpayers' dime, without actually showing up for the job he is paid to do, Senator from Massachusetts.

Read this and decipher the logic:

Kerry Criticizes Bush Record on Terrorism

WASHINGTON, March 15 — Senator John F. Kerry attacked President Bush on national security issues today, asserting that Mr. Bush has played politics with the battle against terrorism and that the bombings in Spain show how ineffective his policies have been.

"When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and they're short on action," Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said. "But as we saw again last week in Spain, real action is what we need. The Bush administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking. And we really don't have a moment of time to waste."

So, Bush failed to protect America because of what happened in Spain? I thought the train bombings were in Madrid, Spain, not Madrid, Iowa or Madrid, Nebraska. Silly me. Next thing you know, he'll tell you that because 15,000 died in France because it got hot, Bush's health care policied are obviously a failure.

Note to Kerry: Keep up with this line of blaming America for the real of the world's shortcomings. It is a sure loser.

It was reported last night that Steven Gardner, a gunner’s mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Kerry in the Mekong Delta, contradicts accounts of the senator’s military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts, which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush.

He personally killed a Viet Cong fighter in one action and was wounded three times, though not seriously.

However, in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate, Gardner claimed:

[Kerry] did not want to engage the enemy


"He [Kerry] absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him.

"He wouldn’t go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.

"His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it."

Gardner also claimed that in an incident in 1968 in which he was slightly wounded, causing Kerry to abort the boat’s mission, he said: "Lt Kerry, I’m fine, nothing’s wrong. I got a little flesh wound here.

"But Kerry was already backing out of the canal, getting ready to run for it."


Scotsman.com News - Politics - Kerry rejects claims that he was a coward

Colin Powell challenged Kerry to name the foreign leaders who want him to win:

"If he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names," Mr. Powell told "Fox News Sunday." "If he can't list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about. I don't know what foreign leaders Senator Kerry is talking about. It's an easy charge, an easy assertion to make."

The one-world, U.N.-worshipping socialist responded:

"The point is that all across the world, America is meeting with a new level of hostility," he said. "I have heard from foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."

I pray that Kerry says this when he debates Bush and when everyone is really paying attention.

Pardon My English has compiled the motley crew of world scumbags who want Kerry to win.

(He forgot Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin:



and Kofi Annan:

On how many issues has Kerry run some variance of that out on people? Get this latest nonsense from Kerry on Fidel Castro:

''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

Using his logic, Kerry should say after he loses in November, "I won the primaries, so therefore I am President. Just because I lost to Bush doesn't really mean I lost."

Seems that some fine Pennsylvanian took Kerry to task about his statement that foreign leaders want him to win. (Disclosure: For what's it is worth: I used to work for the 2 radio stations that were in the same building as the TV station website I linked to) I don't know if this is a wire story or a station story, but let's just say I am not one bit surprised, knowing what I know about that station, that this incident is buried in the article.

The town meeting was contentious at times, with 52-year-old Cedric Brown repeatedly pressing the candidate to name the foreign leaders whom Kerry has said are backing his campaign.

"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said. As the crowd of several hundred people began to mutter and boo, Kerry said, "That's none of your business."

Typical Kerry attitude. I'm sure the media will run with this story. Yeah, sure they will. And they sure won't let facts get in the way of writing this crap:

In his remarks, Kerry said Pennsylvania has lost 154,000 manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. And he passed the microphone to hear from those who've suffered economic setbacks Kerry sought to blame on Bush.

Jerry Green, president of a United Steelworkers Union local, said he lost pension and health benefits when Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt. "We desperately need help here," he said.

Funny, when Bush was protecting the steel industry with tariffs he was getting criticized for it everday. What the media neglects to tell you that Bethlehem Steel was the 25th steel company to file for bankrutpcy, and the steel industry has been in decline for a long, long time. And, they won't tell you that Bethlehem Steel's financial woes started long before Bush was President and these same people out of work (their unions anyway) would not make any type of concessions to keep the business up and running.

One more interesting note in the article:

Kerry opened his day by attending Mass at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Church, just a few blocks from the decaying Bethlehem Steel factory.

Wow. Who knew Kerry was the religious type? I'm sure even he didn't until recently.

In light of the Socialist Party victories in the Spanish elections, I am now more concerned than ever about what we face between now and our election on November 2nd. While I am normally skeptical about anything the AP reports, I actually believe there is truth to this:

Many voters said they were furious with the government for backing the U.S.-led war in Iraq and making Spain a target for al-Qaida, which claimed responsibility for the bombings.

"I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq," said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona.

Whether or not the murders in Madrid caused this outcome is a matter for pundits to argue. (I'd agree that it was.) However, there is no doubt in my mind that al-Qaeda will interpret this outcome as a victory for thir cause. And, that will be reinforced if the new government of Spain pulls all of its support in Iraq. This will embolden them to pull out all the stops here on American soil in order to have President Bush defeated.

al-Qaeda may be a murderous terrorist organization, but they are surely not dumb. Unlike liberals, they are full believers of realpolitik, and have no illusions on the workings of our political systems and how it will affect them. They know that a Kerry presidency will allow them to replenish their losses. All they will have to do is lay low for a while. Kerry will convey false comfort in ways that al-Qaeda could themselves never dream of. A Bush second-term, especially since Bush will not be facing re-election, means the end of al-Qaeda. They know they'll continue to be on the run, and soon enough, they will not be able to hide anymore. Bush's legacy will be terrorism, and you can bet Bush will want history to record that he demolished it.

Democrats have been vocal in their belief that there will be an "October surprise," and bin Laden will be caught right before the election. Put me on the record right now for saying that the capture of bin Laden will hurt Bush. That's right. There are two types of people in this country, those who think we are at war, and those who think we aren't. If bin Laden is caught, many people who know believe we are in war will believe the war is over, because they want it to be. The attitude then, which will be conveyed by the Democrats and their parrots in the liberal media, will be "OK. The war is over, we caught bin Laden and eliminated Saddam's threat. Now it is time to get back to domestic issues that Bush has neglected, and Kerry is the better person to get us back to life before 9/11." And you know what, that strategy might just work.

As the election comes near, I expect several things to happen, more so because of Spain's message of appeasement. First, the terror alert will be raised to orange, and possibly even red. The Democrats will respond just as you would expect them to. They'll say, "Bush is promoting fear to help his re-election chances." If an attack is thwarted before people are killed, the Democrats will respond, "Set up by the Bush administration to scare people before the election." The press will run fawning stories about the innocent family men (who will be called Pete or Jimmy instead of their real Arabic names) wrongly scapegoated for political gain. (You know that is true. How many times have you seen this already, i.e. Maher "Mike" Hawash) And, if there is a terrorist attack similar to what happened in Madrid here on American soil right before the election, Democrats will respond, "Bush has had 4 years to keep us safe and he has been an utter failure." No matter what, Bush cannot win in this area.

Make no mistake, an attack will be attempted. I know this, you know this, and surely, the Bush administration knows this. Take a look at what he has been, and will continue to be, up against. While he is cracking down on terror groups and their money, Democrats are busy screaming about so-called violations of civil liberties. While he is reminding people about what we are up against, and what happened on 9/11, he is being blasted for "expoltation." While he is showing the face of terrorism on his ads, he is being ripped as if he made up the fact that it is Arab terrorists we are fighting.

John Kerry says this is "a law enforcement operation." In other words, we'll arrest those responsible after they kill us. His vitriol towards the Patriot Act clearly shows he would do nothing before an attack, let we violate the civil liberites of terrorists. Read this response to a question by John Kerry, in his own words, so you can't accuse me of being Maureen Dowd:

Q: Under what future conditions would you support a pre-emptive military strike against another nation without wide international approval?

KERRY: Only when the US is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal. Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon's own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.

Nice to know they he will let our country get to the brink of destruction, or if someone needs our military to act as social workers, before he defies the U.N. (or in the case of Aristide, he'll use our force to prop up a dictator who is popular with those racists in the Congressional Black Caucus.)

I reiterate my point: An attack will be attempted. Bush will be villified if he stops it, and villified worse if he doesn't. Ask yourself this question: Do you believe that there is a segment of this country that would trade 200 lives (or even more) 3 days before the election if it meant Kerry would win? I surely do. Moreover, I am convinced there are a lot of people secretly hoping for it. What's a few hundred lives when gay marriage and socialized health-care are at stake? And, there is a faction in this country that believes that terrorism and other problems will go away if "Bush just stopped picking on them." They are delusional.

Ask yourself this question: Where does prestige come from? You know the answer. It comes from taking on the top dog and coming out on top. Who would you want to beat at chess? Me or the world's best, Garry Kasparov? In golf, who would you rather beat, your old college buddy or Tiger Woods? In boxing, Lennox Lewis or some tomato can? Prestige comes from knocking off the top dog. The United States of America is the undisputed top dog. Taking it to anyone else is meaningless. No matter who is President, we will always be a target. Who is President only determines how we will respond. We know how Bush will, and we know how Kerry will, which is why Bush must be re-elected.

The French want Kerry to win. Read this op-ed, tranlsated into English by the Wall Street Journal, titled, "Are We Still 'All American'? If you want sympathy from France, just elect John Kerry."

Read it and laugh. It is full of the usual left-wing canards, "Bush lied," "Iraq was a distraction from al-Qaeda," any my favorite:

"Everyone clearly sees, and now admits, that this link did not exist. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq today is in fact a consequence of the war, and not the opposite."

And, get this:

But beyond that which separated us when Colin Powell and Dominique de Villepin were clashing at the U.N., and beyond what will likely draw us together again--the urgent need to prevent the situation from deteriorating in Iraq--we must realize the need for Europe and the U.S. to rebuild their relationship.

Why let the facts get in the way? It was de Villepin who stabbed Powell in the back, causing Powell's anger towards him.

The conclusion:

Today, "containment" has given way to "pre-emptive" war; and the logic of development and free-trade threatens to be replaced by a return of protectionism. In our interdependent and already multipolar world, the two main axes being wielded by Mr. Bush (as opposed to his father) are therefore a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe. This is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy. He personifies the promise of an America that will get back on track--more just, more cohesive, more generous. In brief, less "unilateral." So that we can still all remain "American" in years to come.

Small problem there. It is Kerry spouting protectionism-type policies, not Bush. France can go scratch.

This is hilarious. Pure, unadulterated, you-can't-make-this-up liberal tomfoolery. NBC fisks its own poll.

I never mention polls because I know polls, and I don't trust them. I spent an entire semester at Arizona State as part of a team conducting a campus-wide poll as part of my getting a B.S. in Political Science, and I know quite a bit about how they are conducted. First, take a good look at this B.C. cartoon, which sums up everything you need to know about polls very succinctly.



There is no doubt in my mind that both parts of this poll were conducted at the same time, using the same exact respondents. The first part is about the economy, and this screaming headline is used:

Public’s faith in economy plummets

Americans have sharply lost confidence in the economy in recent weeks, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, which showed that the presumed Democratic nominee for president, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, had pulled into a statistical tie with President Bush.

They love the first part, so it gets the bold headline. The second part of the poll does not fit with their editorial stance. It says:

The NBC/Journal poll found Bush and Kerry in a dead heat eight months before the general election. Bush was favored by 47 percent of respondents, while 45 percent backed Kerry, a difference that was within the poll’s reported margin of sampling error of 3.1 percentage points.

The header for this part of the poll they don't like as much:

Results at odds with other recent polls

Now look at how they fisk themselves:

It was difficult to gauge the importance of the result, which was notably at odds with those of other polls in the past week, which have found Kerry with a statistically significant lead in a head-to-head matchup. Kerry led Bush by 9 points in the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey and by 8 points in the latest USA Today/CNN poll.

After reading this, the question becomes obvious: If the results of the second half of the poll are in question, why isn't the first part also in question? Like I said, one fits what they want to say, and one doesn't.

Take another look at the comic strip I posted above.........finished?...good. Here is life imitating art:

The NBC/Journal question also did not account for independent Ralph Nader, even though he had announced his intention to run almost three weeks previously. Other polls have indicated that Nader could draw enough support — as high as 6 percent in some surveys — to swing the election either way, with most of his strength being drained from Kerry.

Is that comic strip not dead-on balls accurate? They obviously wanted the Kerry-beats-Bush result, so they ignore Nader, who they clearly know hurts Kerry's numbers. So, like the pollster in the cartoon, they decided which results they want first before designing the questions. And some say there is no liberal media.

Eric Alterman works for MSNBC. I'd like him to explain that one away too. Yeah, that liberal media.

From www.dailynewsbrief.com, amateur cartoonist Joe Shockley has penned his first political cartoon. See his other work at www.modernguy.com. Help support an up-and-comer.

Hmm...link after link that is embarrassing to John Kerry just keep disappearing. Amazon has up a page where Kerry calls Arafat a "statesman," and now it is gone. The U.K. Guardian ran an article (I saw it nowhere else) where Kerry said:

"The obligation of the United States government is to rapidly internationalize the effort in Iraq, get the target off of American troops, bring other people, particularly Muslim-speaking and Arab-speaking Muslim troops, into the region,'' Kerry said.

Muslim-speaking? I never heard of the Muslim language. The link was here, but it magically disappeared.

Of course, Free Republic has it. If Bush had said this, how often would we be forced to hear about his "insensitivity" to Muslims?

This is a great column about Kerry, the man who has "established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind."

A brilliant column. I'm surprised the New York Times allowed it to be run. (Then again, it is Saturday, the least read newspaper of the week)

After what happened in Spain yesterday (you know, according to Kerry, that country that either didn't actually help us in Iraq because we were there "unilaterally," or one of the "fraudulent coalition"), I thought it would be a good idea to re-post this cartoon from last month:

Via Because I Say So, read this post about John Kerry and his history towards guns.

Courtesy of Barb at Living on Purpose blog, read this e-mail about John Kerry from a former Green Beret.

This picture might be a fake, I'm not sure. You'll have to decide for yourself:

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

As part of a nationwide team covering the presidential race for kid-oriented Scholastic News, 11-year-old Mitchel Hochberg of Northbrook queried John Kerry at an Evanston senior center this week.
Hochberg, a fifth-grader, noted that President Bush and Kerry have exchanged unusually aggressive barbs for so early in a presidential contest. Does that help Kerry or hurt him? Hochberg wondered.
Kerry responded by talking about prescription drugs.
"It was an interesting experience,'' Hochberg said after the event. But, he lamented, Kerry's response "wasn't a full answer.''
Welcome to the club, kid.

...then The Battle of the Biographies in The Weekly Standard needs to be it. Money quote:

Lives do not always proceed in predictable patterns, and we may have a choice between a classic late bloomer who has just reached his powers, and a morning glory, who hit his peak early and has not matched it since. In the late 1960s, John Kerry was the better man, as well as the far more mature one. In 2004, in terms of political maturity and courage, the far better man is George W. Bush.

This is actually a cool drawing of Kerry. The artist has quite a vision.

Bear with us as we reconstruct this blog to bring new, exciting improvements. Thanks for your patience.

What Did Kerry Know and When Did He Know It?

Presidential hopeful John Kerry has more guts than most people gave him credit for, after all. It takes unbelievable audacity to attack President Bush for "stonewalling" the 9/11 terrorist attack investigation, when Kerry was personally warned by an FAA agent about the possibility of a terrorist hijacking at Boston's Logan International Airport only months before... and did nothing.

In a letter to Senator John Kerry on 7 May 2001, retired FAA Special Agent Brian Sullivan wrote that the FAA needed to change its focus from hijackings for hostages (the usual purpose until 9/11) to encompass the possibility of terrorists taking over airliners for other, more deadly purposes. "While the FAA has focused on screening for handguns, new threats have emerged, such as chemical and biological weapons," Sullivan wrote. "Do you really think a screener could detect a bottle of liquid explosive, a small battery and a detonator in your carry-on baggage?" Sullivan continued, "And with the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers? The answers to these questions are obvious."

Read the whole thing.

Take a look at this picture, courtesy of Erick at Confessions of a Political Junkie.

This is a great article by former Senator Jeremiah Denton. The money quote:

To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Republican Party.

If Kerry is speaking to Jews, he is for the wall that Israel is building. If he is speaking to Arabs, he is against it. I wonder how he really feels. My guess, he is against the wall. After all, he has pandered hard for that Arab support. Who does he think he is kidding?

Kerry hurts troop morale, according to perhaps the most respected military figure in the nation.

The world wants Kerry to win, which is more than enough reason why he should lose. Get this:

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.

Of course they want him to beat Bush. They know his is a gutless, ass-kisser who will never do anything that might upset France, Germany, or some lowlife despot.

Any sensible person sees Yassar Arafat as a murderer and a thief. But not John Kerry. To him, Arafat is a "statesman."

Read page 112 of Kerry's book for proof.

Imagine if Bush made this error:

"Let me tell you something, when Matthew Shepard gets crucified on a fence in Wyoming because, because, only because he was gay," Kerry said, "and Mr. King gets dragged behind a truck down Texas by chains and his body is mutilated only because he's gay, I think that's a matter of rights in the United States of America."

Uh, that would be James Byrd, and he was dragged by a bunch of racists. The people of Texas rightly expressed their outrage by sentencing the scum responsible to the death penalty.

It was John Kerry who said this. If it were Bush, the media outrage would be explosive, "Bush is racially insensitive," etc, you name it. But, of course, that liberal media will give him a pass.

Memo to Kerry: Keep it up with the gay marriage = fight for civil rights. It is a loser.

[Update: Like we've said, the liberal media will protect their boy. Read this.

Planning on visiting another blog today? Let it be DANEgerus. The dude is AFLAME with KerryFisks!

Gold Digger!

With a hat tip to Right-Wing & Right-Minded, read this Jack Kelly column that discusses what Kerry will be doing with our military should he win in November. I think you'll find it as despressing as Jack Kelly did.

From today's Boston Globe:

They also are repositioning Kerry to the political center in spite of 19 years of Senate votes that, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan National Journal magazine, puts him among the top 10 most liberal senators in recent years.

Gee, I guess being the #1 liberal is in the top 10.

Oh, that liberal media.

Shamelessly lifted from one our my favorite blogs, the Viking Pundit:

From today's Boston Globe story: "Kerry looks to neutralize 'Massachusetts Liberal' tag" - "Kerry and his advisers say that by emphasizing core values, while fighting back against political labeling, Kerry can solidify the Democratic base and bring swing voters into his camp."

Why does everybody criticize Senator Splunge's lack of core values? He's been standing up for his beliefs ever since he was a member of the Yale Young Republicans.

This is a brilliant Kerry vs. Kerry boxing interactive feature. Check it out.

Flip Flopper Extraordinaire!

Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

Does anyone actually think that the media won't go deaf, dumb, and blind on this story?

John Kerry has iron balls to make this statement:

“I will never send our troops into harm’s way without enough firepower and support.”

This from the same guy who voted against funding the troops because his presidential aspirations depended on it. But, why shouldn't Kerry be a two-faced sneak? The liberal media is carrying his water:

That drew an immediate response from Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel, who said Kerry's charge was "the latest example of his astonishing ability to say one thing and do another." He accused Kerry of voting against money to pay for the troops.

What liberal media? A clear FACT is worded like it was just another political accusation without basis. Oh, that liberal media.

Victor Davis Hanson is a man of brilliance. Read this terrific piece about the successes of the Bush Presidency in foreign policy. Here's the money quotes on Kerry:

Just as a presidency of earlier ossified liberals like Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale probably would have led to support of a utopian nuclear freeze and subsequent Russian intimidation of Europe, unilateral cuts in military preparedness, and acquiescence to the Soviet Union, so too the election of John Kerry may well undo much of what has been achieved these last three years as we return to the old, normal way of doing business.

More likely, if President Bush loses, the war against terror will return, as promised, to the status of a police matter — subpoenas and court trials the more appropriate response to the mass murder of 3,000 at the "crime scene" of the crater in New York. Europe will be assured that our troops will stay while we apologize for the usual litany of purported unilateral sins. North Korea will get more blackmail cash, while pampered South Korean leftists resume their "sunshine" mirage. Iraq will be turned over to the U.N. as we abruptly leave, and could dissolve into something like the Balkans between 1991 and 1998. Iran and Syria will let out a big sigh of relief — as American diplomats once more sit out on the tarmac in vain hopes of an "audience" with despots. The Saudis will smile that smile. Arafat will be assured that he is now once again a legitimate interlocutor. And strangest of all, the American Left will feel that the United States has just barely begun to return to its "moral" bearings — even as its laxity and relativism encourage some pretty immoral things to come.

As a side note, I placed in bold somethine else to consider. What Hanson surely is referring to here is the time that Clinton's Secretary of State was sitting in his plane at the Damascus airport, and the Syrian dictator Assad stiffed him!! Of course, those gutless liberals made all kinds of excuses for the dictator, even our State Department!!

I mention this because I wanted you to consider this: Does anyone actually think Assad would have the balls to snub Colin Powell, James Baker, or anyone that President Bush sent? Of course not!! He would run to meet Powell at the airport.

Here's a parallel:

- Southwest Airlines promised me that if I showed up the flight tonight from Phoenix to Albuquerque would leave at 7:20. Since every time I took America West on the same route, it was late, I figured the Southwest flight would be late. I showed up, and Southwest misled me by having the flight leave at 7:20. I'm outraged.

Now, read Kerry's logic on his vote for the Iraq war. It follows the same pattern.

If you want to see Kerry's voting record for the last year or so, click here. You'll see a lot of one thing: Not Voting. Too busy with other things I guess. I'm sure you'll hear him say again and again how he supported something he never showed up to vote for. Here's some of what he did when he actually showed up for work:

- Voted against immunity from liability for gun manufacturers

- Yes on some Ted Kennedy amendment to a bill (same day as the last one..Kerry missed every vote from 11/24/03 until this week)

- Then missed every vote between 10/30/03 - 11/24/03. He was kind enough to vote for this crap:

Lieberman Amdt. No. 2028; To provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances. (Kyoto lite? or Kyoto like?)

- NO on $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq reconstruction

Read it. It's pure comedy.

Kim Jong Il calls John Kerry.

We here at this blog have reminded you many times that America's enemies are all hoping that John Kerry defeats Bush in November. North Korea, led by that murderous thug brillo-pad head Kim Jong-Il, gives Kerry this ringing endorsement:

In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.

No matter how those teabags at The Financial Times tries to spin this down, North Korea wants Kerry to win because they know he'll just pay them off, no matter how tough he talks. A Bush re-election means an even harder-line stance, which isexactly what they deserve. Kim Jong-Il has one thing in common with Kerry: all talk and no real balls.

[Hat tip to Mark A. Kilmer's Political Annotation]

Was Kerry really a hero? Or was he a buffoon who was lucky not to get everyone around him killed? Or a little of both?

VodkaPundit - Chill Before Serving

This picture of that French dope just seems appropriate, doesn't it?

I'd have prefered to use "Tangled up in Nuance" but here's lgf: Kerry: Tied Up In Nuances.

Good grief. The American Spectator

M. Kaus lists ten things that are wrong with Kerry.

This link leads to good stuff.

Kerry Campaign Slogan: The Late Entries

Althouse