Archive for April, 2004
« Previous Entries Next Entries »It’s Your Record, Stupid!
Saturday, April 17th, 2004Eager for a soundbyte, John Kerry has once again turn on his political waterworks and cried foul over his record being targeted by the Bush campaign:
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry, lashing out at the White House’s “twisted sense of ethics and morality,” accused Republicans on Friday of distorting his record and attacking his patriotism.
Kerry, at an outdoor rally on the University of Pittsburgh campus, used an American flag and the national anthem to fire back at Republicans who charge he is weak on defense for voting against some weapons systems and an $87 billion bill to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, pointed out Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove did not serve in the military.
“I’m tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance,” the Massachusetts senator said. “I’m not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism.”
Again and again, Kerry is putting words in the mouths of his opposition. What did Cheney say that has Kerry crying about his “patriotism” being attacked? Let’s take a look:
“Whatever the explanation, whatever the nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to be commander in chief in this time of testing for our country,” Cheney said during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.
As Cheney struck at Kerry, White House political guru Karl Rove reportedly boasted to a group of conservative activists that Kerry already is feeling the sting of the GOP campaign machine.
Cheney tore away at Kerry’s Senate votes on military, defense and foreign policy, charging that the senator opposed several vital weapons systems for U.S. forces.
“The president always casts the deciding vote and the senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security,” Cheney charged.
Doesn’t say anything about patriotism does it?
What Kerry is trying to say is that he is above criticism for having served in Vietnam. John Kerry, the self proclaimed “fighter” has chosen to whimper when his record is put to scrutiny.
Further, it sounds as if John Kerry is trying to establish a standard for presidential candidates. Kerry has been constantly shoving his military service down our throats and (at every opportunity) regurgitates what he considers the inferior military service or lack of military service by those who choose to criticize his lack of support for the military with his vote. So is military service the standard by which all presidential candidates should be judged? Is John Kerry trying to tell us that he is better then everyone who has not served in the military?
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign has also restated the obvious that it is Kerry’s voting record on defense and security that are in question, not his patriotism. “The fundamental difference in this election will be between President Bush’s steady leadership in the war on terror and John Kerry’s consistent political opportunism on the war on terror.”
We can always count on Kerry’s consistent political opportunism on the Vietnam War:
“They don’t think twice about trying to pretend to America that I somehow don’t care about the defense of our nation,” Kerry said, paraphrasing wording in the Star Spangled Banner.
He recalled his service under the U.S. flag and seeing flag-draped coffins of friends returning from Vietnam.
“When I look up, that flag is still there and it belongs to all Americans,” he said, pointing to a flag near the stage. “Not to them, not to a party. It belongs to us.”
John Kerry just doesn’t get it. While taking every opportunity to accuse Bush and Republicans of draping themselves in the flag, he sees it fit to shield himself and his record with the flag.
The truth is, we don’t need to pretend that John Kerry’s record implies he doesn’t care about the defense of our country - it speaks for itself. But his patriotism has never been the issue.
_________________
Cross posted on Blogs For Bush
Osama bin Kerry
Friday, April 16th, 2004John Kerry has released a banner ad on Salon.com with the following babble:
For the 1st time in history a corporation was allowed to invade a nation.
No wonder the UN wasn’t involved. It’s time to UNSEAT George W. Bush
Perhaps this sounds familar to you.
You may have heard something just like this from one Osama bin Laden:
This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies…
It must be nice to run for President and sound just like the terrorist responsible for 9-11.
There’s been some talk in the media about Kerry’s upcoming campaign ad blitz which will seek to “define” who John Kerry is. Well, what I want to know is who does John Kerry think he is? The fact that there is a blurry line between the politically motivated banner ad of Kerry and the Jihad motivated ramblings of the most wanted terrorist in the world right now should not sit well with any American.
Osama must be thinking “Who needs friends when you can have enemies like John Kerry?”
Air America Deflating
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004It feels so good to be right:
After just two weeks on the air, Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, appears to have encountered serious cash-flow problems.
The CHICAGO TRIBUNE is developing a story, insiders tell DRUDGE, on how the network was pulled off the air this morning in Chicago and Los Angeles, the network’s second- and third-largest markets, because, the owner of both stations said, the network bounced a check and owes him more than $1 million! A charge the network strongly denies.
A Chicago source familiar with the situation said a Multicultural representative showed up at WNTD’s offices Wednesday morning, kicked out Air America’s lone staffer overseeing the network’s feed to the station from New York, switched over to a Spanish-language feed, and changed the locks on the doors…
Air America filed a complaint Wednesday in New York state Supreme Court charging Multicultural with breaching their contract and seeking an injunction to force Multicultural to restore the Air America broadcast on both stations.
Al Franken, the Resident Idiot of Liberal Talk Radio must be soiling his pants now. I said before that Air America would be at it’s strongest in the first two weeks. Well, it looks like it wasn’t strong enough to keep a few checks from bouncing. Perhaps a Soros bail out will occur, but that won’t prevent the inevitable failure of Franken’s radio wet dream.
Oh…
… and not to gloat (too much)… to all the liberals who didn’t believe me: “I told you so.”
Thoughts on the 9-11 Commission
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004The so-called “9/11 Commission” is supposedly trying to find out what happened, or failed to happen, that allowed the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 to succeed. But there is a big difference between trying to unearth facts about September 11, 2001 and trying to collect political ammunition for November 2, 2004 — election day.
It has become painfully obvious from some Commission members’ grandstanding, especially during their questioning of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, that they are more interested in scoring political points during an election year than in finding out what happened before the terrorist attacks in 2001.
Sowell hit the nail right on the head here. It’s quite clear to me that the same people who have accused the White House of wanting to “stonewall” the commission for political purposes are themselves wanting the commission to be going on during the election year for political purposes. An exhausting exercise in finger pointing, and so-called “Gotchyas” the only thing that goes through my mind right now is “What must the terrorists think about us now?”
Are we resolved in fighting terror anymore? I don’t think so. We’ve gone from going after the terrorists to going after eachother, wondering who in our government is to blame, rather that keeping our sights on who’s really responsible: the terrorists.
This commission weakens us in the eyes of the world, and strengthens the will of terrorists who know a country divided will fall apart when it is attacked again. Another attack against our country will divide us further, and the 9-11 Commission gives the terrorists ample proof of this.
Our country will be at its weakest within the last two months before the election. With the 9-11 Commission and heated battle for the White House, the polarization of partisans will be at its greatest, and the ideological differences of American citizens will be even inflammed.
If the 9-11 Commission was really about finding the facts, it would be entirely behind closed doors. Being in the public eye, it just acts as a badge of weakness for all our enemies to see and become determined to exploit.
We’re not focused on the future, we’re consumed with the past. If 9-11 should have taught us anything about how to be be prepared for this enemy, its that we should quickly learn from our mistakes and do everything possible to prevent another 9-11 in the future. Dwelling on the past, we cannot prepare for the future.
As the Democrats continue to (ab)use the 9-11 Commission as a means to capture the White House in November, there is still a war on terror going on, and I believe it suffers daily because of the 9-11 Commission.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt’s latest on the 9-11 Commission
It’s Wictory Wednesday
Wednesday, April 14th, 2004We’re in a global War on Terror and Democrats are determined to lose it.
That’s the harsh truth. In this global war, Democrats like Ted Kennedy relentlessly attack our president, while John Kerry calls Muqtada Sadr’s terrorist militia “legitimate.”
We cannot afford to lose this war. President Bush will prosecute it vigorously and guarantee victory. John Kerry would surrender, like the Spaniards did, giving terrorists victories that will embolden them to murder tens of thousands more innocent civilians all over the world.
We face a stark choice in the 2004 elections: Victory or Defeat.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, dozens of bloggers ask their readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.
If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And then e-mail wictory@blogsforbush.com so that you’ll be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
_______________
Content courtesy of Blogs For Bush.
There’s No “Gotchya!” For Newsday’s Pinkerton
Sunday, April 11th, 2004James Pinkteron wrote a piece for Newsday where he leads with the following question:
If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, “Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific,” and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?
This question frames the rest of his column with the idea that this is a very damning comparison. Now, FDR didn’t receive any memo, but the implication Pinkerton is trying make is not equal.
From the made up title of the hypotheticla FDR PDB, “Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific,” one would only come to the conclusion, based our knowledge of the history of WWII, that such a memo would be implying Pearl Harbor specifically, or at the very least, imply a more specific threat than the August 6, 2001 PDB had suggested.
As Captain Ed at Blogs For Bush describes the Augst 6, 2001 PDB:
…no planes flying into buildings, just a suggestion that bin Laden may have planned a hijacking to free Omar abd al-Rahman, who currently resides in a federal prison for the first World Trade Center bombing. It describes 70 “ongoing” FBI investigations related to bin Laden.
What in God’s name in this report gave any specific warning that coordinated hijackings would turn planes into guided missiles? Nothing. There is absolutely nothing in this PDB that could have prevented 9/11, and Ben-Veniste and Kerrey knew it — because they had already read it. Why did Ben-Veniste and Kerrey demand its declassification? Because they thought they wouldn’t get it, and wanted to suggest that the Bush administration was covering up something.
9-11 has been referred to as our generations Pearl Harbor. Knowing this, Pinkerton is obviously trying to suggest that the memo’s contents imply a threat with the same specificity as is implied in the hypothetical FDR PDB, “Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific.”
I find it intersting Pinkerton didn’t use the title “Japanese Determined to Attack the United States” to make his point. The recently declassified PDB was not titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike The United States in New York and Washington D.C.” or some other variation of equivalent specificity.
Pinkerton, has framed the content of the PDB memo with his own biases, and immediate gives the readers an unequal hypothetical scenario in order to imply to readers that Pearl Harbor couldn’t have been prevented, but 9-11 could have, solely from the content of the August 6, 2001 PDB memo.
Of course, reading the memo by itself paints a very different picture than the one Pinkerton gives his readers.
Not that I’m suggesting Pinkerton is biased or anything…
John Kerry: Idiot
Saturday, April 10th, 2004John Kerry loves to talk himself up as some wonderful alternative to the end of the world - atleast, what he’s been painting as the end of the world.
This morning before breakfast, I read an article in the Boston Globe showing a laughable John Kerry pretending to be Mr. Experience with foreign policy.
John Kerry restated his belief was can’t pull out of Iraq:
“The other option, you pull out altogether,” Kerry said. “Unacceptable. You can’t leave a vacuum. You can’t leave a failed Iraq. You can’t have the United States walking away from now-present Al Qaeda and other insurgents and pretend you’re going to advance the war on terror.”
Wow, that’s original.
Kerry, who has come under pressure in recent days to specify how his approach to Iraq would differ from President Bush’s, advocated turning over control of Iraq to an international body that would make decisions about governing and rebuilding Iraq. He also called for imploring Arab and European allies to realize they are at risk for terrorism emanating from an unstable Iraq.
Now, John Kerry has been all about his own version of “mulitlateralism” and accusing Bush of dividing us from other nations… Yet he’s been constantly bitching about there not being a “true coalition” in Iraq, and we need to have an “international body” in control. Could he be slapping the faces of the countries that are helping in Iraq today? Is Britain not a true ally? Is suggesting Britain and our other allies in Iraq are not a “true coalition” supposed to help our realations with these countries???
Next came John Kerry’s “Covering My Ass If I Get Elected” line:
“If you have a global sense of purpose, the capacity of an insurgency to take hold becomes much harder,” Kerry said. “It’s not just focused on the Americans, it’s not the `infidels’ that they’re killing. It’s a broader approach. Now, maybe it doesn’t work, but I’ll tell you this, if it doesn’t work, it’s because this administration has gone too far down the road the other way and they have locked us into a much more complicated outcome. But it didn’t have to be this way.”
Now that’s a cop out if I’ve ever seen one. What he’s doing here essentially admitting that he can’t do anything better that George W. Bush and that electing him isn’t going to magically make things better in Iraq nor is it going to make your ketchup come out of the bottle any easier.
Perhaps the most ridiculous and stupid comment of the article:
Later, when asked by a reporter whether Americans might be worried about changing presidents in the middle of an international conflict, Kerry said: “I’m not untested in that kind of leadership role. I think you measure leadership by the lifetime of experience. And I bring more experience in military affairs, foreign policy, and national affairs than George Bush even has today.”
Not untested? Kerry may have been given a test, but he’s been leaving questions blank and going back to the teacher after he passed it in to change his answers. His votes in the Senate mean nothing, because not only do they conflict with eachother, but he doesn’t want his record to be an issue (I can’t blame him, I wouldn’t want that record.) - So what’s this so-called experience of his?
I’d like to know how a Senator who can’t vote without changing his mind has more (and/or better) experience than a President who has liberated two countries, and lead our country through our biggest national tragedy? Kerry spends 4 months in Vietnam and gets discharged after a few paper cuts got him enough Purple Hearts to qualify to go home and then testify before congress about war crimes he and other soldiers committed in VIetnam?
John Kerry knows nothing about foreign policy. His experience military affairs obviously is lacking if he feels voting against $87 billion to support our troops is a reflection of good policy.
Plain and simple, regarding military affairs, foreign policy, and national affairs, John Kerry is an idiot. I wouldn’t trust him to protect our country. We have George W. Bush for that - and we’ll have him protecting us for another 4 years.
The Reason Why Clinton Testified Behind Closed Doors
Friday, April 9th, 2004According to NewsMax, former President Bill Clinton, during his private interview with the 9-11 commission denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he had turned down an offer for Osama bin Laden’s extraditition to the United States:
“Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote,” Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.
A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton’s bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.
After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: “But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I’ve heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that.”
“Really?” said a perplexed Kerrey. “Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn’t have a recollection of that.”
Hmmm… Looks like Clinton is telling lies again… Caught on tape, I can’t imagine how he could get away with this one…
I’m sure the Left will give him a pass though.
Here is a transcript of Clinton’s admission:
We’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
And here is the audio obtained by NewsMax.
« Previous Entries Next Entries »