Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Calling it as it is.

Finally, Micheal Moore is getting titled as he should be. At last night's RNC speech by John McCain:

Space HereBut what brought the house down was McCain's reference to film director Michael Moore — who wrote and produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," an excoriating look at the Bush administration, and has been one of Tinseltown’s most vocal Bush critics.

"Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

"And certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls."

As McCain made reference to Moore, the audience turned toward the director who was in the convention hall and loudly booed him and chanted "four more years." In reponse, Moore chuckled, clapped and said "two more months." At one stage he made the "L" sign with his thumb and forefinger, meaning "loser."
Space Here

Actually, Mike, I think it stands for "Liar" which is a perfect lapel pin for you. As in: "Hello, my name is: Liar." Now that's truth in advertising.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Clinton as character witness?

Former President Bill Clinton stepped up to the microphone for John Kerry today saying the ads against John Kerry are bearing "false witness". In his own words:

Space Here"There has been too much controversy or discussion about the politics of it and little about its merits," Clinton told FOX News' Geraldo Rivera. "The ad was paid for by a big supporter of the president and the campaign's lawyer and one of the military advisers participate accurately in it and it was wrong. It was false witness."Space Here

That's good. Complain that there's been too much made of the politics of the accusations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but not enough about the merits of those claims, then in the same breath point out the source of funding as opposed to actually discussing those merits. Very nice. Note to Bill: the source of the funding does not make an argument right or wrong. It's the premises of the argument that make the argument right or wrong.

So, for Bill's sake, let's review about the claim being made: Kerry claims he was ordered on a mission into Cambodia over Christmas, 1968. While there, he heard President Nixon telling the nation we had no troops there. John takes this event in and it breaks any faith he had in his government and in a significant portion of America at the time. The President was lying to the American people. Never happened, Bill. Eyewitness testimony (Steve Gardner) says they weren't there. No one - no one - is claiming Steve was wrong. After 30 years of spouting that story off to anyone who would listen (and using it in a speech on the floor of the Senate in an effort to influence legislation and, thereby, the actions of this nation), Kerry's "people" revised their story. Suddenly, he wasn't in Cambodia, he was near it. Not near enough for the Battleship Iowa to put ordnance on it, but hey. What's 50 miles between us buds, eh? And do we even need to tell you, Mr. Former-President that President Nixon wasn't the President in December, 1968?

Mr. Clinton, the claims made by the Swifts are not wrong. They are, in fact, correct. Mr. Kerry knows they are correct which is why he changed his story. This is the textbook definition of not bearing false witness. Doing that requires your claims to be false. They aren't. Do the math. There's going to be plenty of harsh light shone on Mr. Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home so we won't go into those here. Not yet, anyway. My guess is your man's not going to be happy with the new attention.

(As a side note to this evening's addition to the Left's "response" to the Swiftees - and in no way connected to the correctness of the claims made by the former President - how desperate do you have to be to be looking for Bill Clinton to speak up for your character and the likelihood of your lying about anything? Sure, Bill. We know how trustworthy and honest you've been, so we can be sure of this guy's honesty, too.)

Should be interesting.

Saturday, August 28, 2004

It's official: Russian aircraft downed by terrorism

Several reports are up this morning that explosives have been found in the wreckage of the 2nd of the two Russian airliners that crashed this week. This makes it official that the aircraft were brought down as a result of terrorist action. Representatives of the so-called Religion of Peace have claimed responsibility and are promising more. From the BBC article:

Space HereAn Islamic group has claimed responsibility for the crashes in a website statement.

A previously unknown group called the Islambouli Brigades said it had five people on board each aircraft. It warned this act would be followed by others "until the killings of our Muslim brothers in Chechnya cease".

Russian officials have repeatedly contended that the rebels, who have been fighting Russian forces in Chechnya for nearly five years, receive help from foreign terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda.
Space Here

I would say that this shows very clearly that the gripes being put forth by various people as justifications for the actions of these Islamic extremists aren't the real reasons. "US Foreign Policy" and the fact that there are American soldiers on the ground in Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with these Russian aircraft or the Russian souls aboard. They kill indiscriminately because they want to and they have no intention of stopping of their own accord. Forward defense is the only thing they're going to get through their skulls. When more of our international neighbors see fit to stop caving in to their actions and stand up beside us, we'll all be better off.

Friday, August 27, 2004

John O'Neill Answers...

John O'Neill, author of Unfit for Command and a leading member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth answers questions put to him in the Washington Post. Of course, most of the media won't post his on-target replies in the main sections of their papers or web sites so I offer the link to the story here.

Thursday, August 26, 2004

In the end, it's not about medals. It's about earning the respect

This posted on another blog's comments, that blog being Sondra K. I repost it here because this is the word that needs to be getting airtime.

Space Here There is a reason that some of those veterans turned their backs to Kerry and that many others sat with arms folded, refusing even polite applause. A reason that non veterans can, perhaps, know intellectually but not feel in their guts.

Like all veterans of all wars, regardless of branch of service or duty stations, we all lost friends there. Some of those we lost were closer than brothers. Unlike other wars in our history we didn't go over together and come home together, our individual wars ended individually.

Unlike other wars we came home branded by a large segment of our society as war criminals, by another segment as losers. Then, as most of us were already home, one of our own officers branded us all, including the dead that we were just beginning to mourn, as war criminals, murderers and rapists.

We later discovered that many of those that he was quoting as witnesses to our 'crimes' had not spent one day in uniform. Others had never served in Viet Nam. None of them, not a single one, would testify under oath, even if granted immunity. Yet our 'crimes' became part of the common knowlege. Our children were given that testimony as fact in their history classes. We all knew soldiers, sailors,airmen and Marines that had died, leaving children behind, we know that those children were taught those same lies as fact. Who sat with those children as we did with ours, explaining that those were lies told for political gain?

It's bad enough that we couldn't mourn our dead then. Now we see the same man that stood over the open graves of our brothers and pissed on their bodies is back. This time he's dug up those bodies and is standing on them to give himself the stature for high office.

I am no famous war hero, just one of the two and a half million guys who wore Uncle's suit for awhile in a place where the same truck would splash red mud on your trousers and throw a cloud of dust on your face at the same time. My service was entirely undistinguished but I stood shoulder to shoulder with some genuine heros. Those heros came home in shiney aluminum caskets, they cannot speak for themselves. I hope someone more famous and more eloquent will speak for them soon. Until they do I can only say that not only is John Kerry not fit to command the young men and women that inherited the uniforms but he is not fit to speak of my comrades, much less speak for them. I shall say this as long as I have a breath left in my body.

This isn't about George Bush or who has a Senate majority for me. It isn't about politics. It's about a bunch of young men who never grew old. It's about the families of some 58,000 men who cannot answer the slander that this War Hee-row has never retracted.
I tried to answer that slander in 1971, I had no one to hear my voice. No way to reach anyone but my family. I have that way now, if only commenting on other people's forums.

It isn't about me. It isn't even about politics. It's about restoring the honor to the 58,000 names carved in black granite.

Posted by Peter at August 24, 2004 03:06 PM
Space Here

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Sadr wants to negotiate - again

Yeah, yeah. Faced with another threat of a raid, Sadr is asking to negotiate a cease-fire. Again. What's this now? Four times? How many more times are we (or rather, the Iraqi government) going to fall for this joke? Every time he's wanted to negotiate, he uses the time to resupply and re-arm before getting a "flip-the-bird" attitude and announcing he's ready to fight to the death.

The time for negotiations is done. He's clearly not trying to act in good faith and he's owed nothing now. Apologize in advance for the impending bullet holes in the shrine and lay in the firepower.

Russian airliners down, 2 within minutes

In an event certain to sound famiiar to Americans, 2 Russian airliners have crashed within minutes of each other. While the specifics aren't out yet - and I wouldn't expect there to be investigative results for several days - it certainly smells like a terrorist attack.

My sympathies to the families of the passengers and crew. This is not a good day for the Russian people. I hope we can help if they should want or need it.

Saturday, August 21, 2004

More misdirection attempts by the Kerry Camp

Finally forced to report on the issue they were hoping they could ignore, the Washington Post had to put a story on page 1 today about the latest Swift Boat Vets ad and the response to it by the Kerry Campaign. The new ad highlights comments made by Kerry in 1971 in front of Congress where he accused fellow soliders of being war criminals and committing attrocities. Kerry's comments are a matter of Congressional record and yet, as with the "Christmas in Cambodia" meltdown, his campaign is seeking to re-write the history of what he said:

Space HereYesterday, Kerry did not respond to the new allegations, although aides said his testimony was directed at military leadership, not the soldiers fighting in Vietnam. The Kerry campaign filed a legal challenge against the veterans group, alleging it is illegally colluding with the Bush campaign. Aides denounced the president and his aides for what they called a smear campaign.Space Here

Emphasis mine. Of course he didn't respond. SOP for Kerry is to avoid answering the actual questions and, instead, blame President Bush for everything. Feel free to listen to the comments Kerry made and then try to square that with the concept that he wasn't directing his comments at the soldiers in the field. He was accusing them of being war criminals. How can that not be directed at them? And just when I thought they couldn't come up with a more lame excuse... Then again:

Space HereIn defense of Kerry, aides distributed a copy of the candidate's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this year, when he conceded the language was sometimes excessive. "I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them," Kerry said on the April 18 program. "But the words were honest, but on the other hand they were a little bit over the top."Space Here

If the words are honest, they cannot be "over the top." Kerry said exactly what he meant to say to get the results he wanted. That those words now come back to haunt him is his own fault, no one else's. Considering that he's lost 18 points in polls of vets and independents since the 1st Swiftees ad came out, I think it safe to say that there's more than "some" soldiers that are angry with him over his actions on returning home. Also considering Kerry was still an active-duty officer in the US Navy at the time he made those comments, he should be glad he wasn't hauled off to the brig. Getting in front of Congress was his protection against that.

As they've done with every other embarrassing revelation to come along, they trot out the old "7-minute" issue and make references to President Bush's service.

Space HereDavid Wade, a Kerry spokesman, responded in kind: "Maybe if George Bush had seen combat up close his hired-gun mouthpiece wouldn't be so flip." Not to be outdone, Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said, "Mr. McClellan needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack." On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained in a Florida classroom for several minutes after learning that planes had flown into the World Trade Center.Space Here

Again with the 7-minute comment. In spite of revelations that Senator Kerry has said publicly that he sat stunned, "unable to think" for a full 40 minutes between the 2nd strike on the WTC and the impact at the Pentagon. And what's with the "hired-gun mouthpiece" comment? David Wade's working for free? Maybe he is but it's a useless distinction and just another example of attempts to misdirect the point.

If anyone needed any further proof that the allegations in the Swifts ad are on target, witness Kerry's actions in response. Does he call a press conference to answer those allegations directly? Release his service records to prove his claims? Nope. He files a complaint with the FEC. So who's looking to have the government supress speech now? Yeah, we need this guy as President, don't we?

Friday, August 20, 2004

Bad call by the Vatican

You should absolutely bring your child up in the Catholic Faith. And if she's got a medical condition that precludes her ingesting the Official Catholic Communion Wafer&trade, well then you've got a decision to make. Threaten the health of your daughter or simply get used to the fact that while we'll hold her (and you) responsible for following all the Church's commands on everything, she will never be allowed to partake in the Faith's highest ritual and sacrament.

That sound OK to you? This isn't fiction, by the way. The story is about a girl who suffers from a medical condition known as celiac sprue disease. The disorder occurs in people with a genetic intolerance of gluten, a food protein contained in wheat and other grains. These people can suffer escalating damage every time they ingest gluten. Seems that when her parents tried to be good parents and good Catholics at the same time, they had the local parrish use a rice wafer instead of a wheat one. The Catholic Church is taking the stance that it's not valid and will not make the exception for this girl and her parents.

This is ridiculous. To push away a family of the faithful over the inclusion of wheat versus rice is nuts. Would Jesus really have wanted this? Would God be sitting there saying, "I really want you to get to know me and include me in your life, but about that wheat thing..."? To say that the Catholic hierarchy, specifically Bishop John M. Smith who speaks on their behalf, has allowed itself to miss the forest for the trees is putting it lightly. We already know that the little round wafer is very much not the bread Christ used at the last supper. Clearly form isn't an inviolable concept for the Church. Why can we not allow this girl access to the sacrament so long as her heart is in the right place?

This is an extremely bad call on the part of the Church and, this time, it deserves every letter of bad press is garners.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

WAPO once again avoiding the story and attacking the messengers

The continued press self-blackout with regard to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's revelations on Kerry's Vietnam record and on Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" comment is bad enough. That they only mention either in attacking the messengers is worse. Staff writer Jefferson Morley manages to get the dig in there:

Space HereArlington, Va.: Are the international press doing any better job than the American press in covering the emerging inconsistencies in Kerry's Vietnam record?

Jefferson Morley: The international press has not shown much interest in the story. This may have something to do with the partisan motivation of the people making the charges. Kerry's Vietnam record is usually regarded as praiseworthy.
Space Here

Notice how he managed to pass off as an undisputed fact that the "people making the charge" have a partisan motivation? That's not been proven, not by a longshot, Mr. Morley. Those "people", who are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, by the way, have stated explicitly that their motivation is not to advance any candidate as the choice to vote for, it's to set the record straight on Mr. Kerry's service record. It takes less brainpower and work to just assume they're part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy &trade, I realize, but is it too much to ask of our so-called "reporters" that they actually do some investigative reporting? Address the points one by one. Go ahead.

Not that Senator Kerry's been doing that, either. He's been more busy trotting out threatening letters to TV station managers in an effort to muscle the Swiftee's message off the air. No hue and cry about that, either, from the media, I notice.

WAPO and the rest of the so-called mainstream media had better get their heads back into the game or they're going to find themselves becoming very irrelevant in the information age.

Saturday, August 14, 2004


Couldn't have said it better myself:

Cox & Forkum are real talents. Spend some time in their archives and you'll see what I mean.

Friday, August 13, 2004

(Again) Where's the outrage?

Imagine for a moment that a particularly aggressive sect of the Catholic Church got it into their heads to start demanding all non-Catholics out of Boston. To illustrate their points (and prove God was on their side) they hijack a bus-load of non-Catholics, fill up what space was left with black powder, and drove it into the offices of the ACLU and the Muslim Association of America. (Just so happened that the local Riggs Bank was in the same building. Coincidence.) Then, after triumphantly laying claim to the carnage and promising more to come, they set up shop in Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross, bring in stacks of weapons and ammo, and use the various windows and towers to fire on the law enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who are called in to respond to their attacks.

Do you think the Catholics of America would be screaming about those bloodthirsty, bastard cops? How dare they point a gun at the Cathedral?!?!?

Guess again. I'm one of those Catholics of America and I can tell you with certainty that we'd be asking those Guardmen why they weren't laying in fire with Howitzers. We'd be showing up in droves in support of those law enforcement teams and we'd be loudly, publicly denouncing those people who'd turned one of our churches into an arms depot. We sure as hell wouldn't be staying quiet, or worse: voicing support for those inside.

So where's the outrage in the Muslim community when a militia turns what they say is the holiest of shrines in the Shiite sect of Islam into an armed camp? They're OK with someone leaning out the window of the shrine and plinking a fellow Iraqi Muslim, but Allah forbid that anyone shoot back? That's just nuts. And I think we're nuts to keep playing to their illogic on the matter. Sadr is the enemy, folks. He's trying to kill anyone that won't bow down to his way of thought. He's got arrest warrants out for him by the Iraqi authorities, mind you, and one of those is for suspicion of murder. He's managed to defile one of the holiest sites in Islam, although why I should care about that when clearly the Muslims don't is beyond me. I think they should let everyone in the Arab world know that this situation will not be allowed to stand and start a countdown. If Sadr's militia doesn't disarm and quit the shrine before the clock winds down, then the shrine gets leveled. If the shrine is so important to the Muslim community, they can help us save it by getting Sadr out of there. It just doesn't make sense to leave this vipers' nest there, again, to fester.

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Addressing the military records from an operational perspective.

Just found this over at Aerospaceweb.org talking about the F-102 Delta Dagger fighter aircraft. Nice analysis!

Monday, August 09, 2004

Contact Established

After hooking up the rest of my network tonight, I decided to hook up the DSL modem and leave it plugged in and attempting to connect. When the Verizon folks got around to hooking up my circuit, I figured, my trusty DSL modem would be there to answer the call. With luck, I'd have it by the time I got home tomorrow instead of the Wednesday order date they'd given. Imagine my surprise after turning around to find the link light glowing a very pretty shade of green and solidly connected. I fired up the systems, verified that we're all back on line, and immediately started downloading all the virus sigs and security updates.

Hey, I was off line for 10 days. Turns out Microsoft's almost released a whole new O/S in that time! Anyway, it's damn good to be back on the wire(less) again.

Swiftees return fire

After the release of their ad in which members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth call Senator Kerry out on the specifics of his military record, the Democratic National Committee sent threatening letters to TV station managers all over the country suggesting legal action would be taken against them if they sold air time to the Swiftees. The same day, Senator John McCain referred to the ad as "dishonest and dishonorable." Well, the Swiftees fired back. As regards Senator McCain:

Space Here Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 members, many of whom were wounded or highly decorated in Vietnam.

We purchased with our blood and service the right to be heard, to set the record straight about our unit, and to tell the truth about John Kerry's military service record.

We respect Senator McCain's right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Senator McCain did not.

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (ret.), Founder and Chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Space Here

Well put. I asked the question about whether or not Senator McCain would know what he's talking about, given that he was flying off carriers and not riding in the brown water but I think Admiral Hoffman made the point better.

Better still was the response to the DNC's extortion attempt with a point-by-point rebuttal and clarification.

Space Here Dear Station Manager:

The purpose of this letter is to present some of the factual support for the advertisement "Any Questions?" produced and used by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ("Swiftvets"), an organization properly registered under Internal Revenue Code § 527, and which has filed all required reports. Swiftvets is an organization led by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), Commander of all Swift boats in Vietnam during the period of John Kerry's four-month abbreviated tour in Swift boats between late November 1968 and mid-March 1969. A list of the 254 members may be found on www.swiftvets.com. A large majority of those who served with John Kerry in Swift boats in Vietnam and whose location is known have joined the organization. Thus, for example, sixteen of the twenty-three surviving officers who served in Coastal Division 11 with Kerry (the place where Kerry spent most of his time) have joined the organization, together with most of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from Vice-Admirals to Seamen.

The purpose of Swiftvets is to present the truth about John Kerry's post-Vietnam charges of war crimes and John Kerry's own Vietnam record. Swiftvets is uniquely positioned to do so since it includes most of the locatable sailors and officers who served with John Kerry in Vietnam.

John Kerry has made his Vietnam record the central focus of his presidential candidacy, depicting purported Vietnam events in nearly $100 million in advertising. Copies of ads such as "Lifetime" and "No Man Left Behind" may be found on Kerry's website. Kerry's authorized campaign biography, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, by Douglas Brinkley (New York: HarperCollins, 2004) ("Tour"), centers on his short Vietnam tour and contains Kerry's account of these events. Additional accounts by Kerry of his Vietnam experience may be found on his website.
Space Here

Read the rest if you're interested in hearing more than the DNC and their media colleagues want you to know. I'm not saying everyone should vote for George Bush this November. Just don't let the "Anbody but Bush" crowd get you to vote for someone who doesn't deserve your support.

Friday, August 06, 2004

Oh, but it's not censorship now? Updated

So it's just fine and dandy to have a bunch of vets stand up there on stage with John Kerry in a show of support, but when a group of men who served with him in Vietnam go on the record in opposition, the Democratic National Committee sends in the lawyers to threaten any TV stations with legal action if they choose to carry the ad.

Space HereThe letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).

As their first piece of evidence of the ad's supposed lies, the DNC/Kerry lawyers claim that the veterans in the ad "purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam" but, "in fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's." The problem is that none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat. They simply said they "served with John Kerry" -- and they did. The letter goes on to make several more misleading statements about the advertisement, in an attempt to protect Kerry's "war hero" record.
Space Here

So it's censorship when conservatives voice their disagreement with the Left's viewpoints, but there's no censorship here? Where are all those free-speech advocates now?

The letter from the DNC goes on to claim that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a sham organization, stating that the group is spearheaded by a Texas media consultant (now, why would the consultant's State of residence matter here? Hmmmm...) and "financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder." So? And, so? Note that they carefully do not address the only contention with regard to this being a sham organization: are the members of Swift Boat Vets actually veterans who served in Vietnam with John Kerry? If they weren't, the DNC would have said so, emphatically. Instead, they narrow the point to the ridiculous by pointing out that none of the men were actually assigned to either of Senator Kerry's boats. No one claimed they were, but to imply that because they weren't on the same boat then they can't possibly know what was going on in the unit is misleading and untrue.

Another point they bring up is with regard to the doctor in the ad who claimed to have been the one to have treated Senator Kerry's injury that resulted in his 1st Purple Heart. They claim that the doctor was also not one of Kerry's crewmates (he never claimed to have been) and that he wasn't the one who "actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet." This is yet another example of misdirection and a failure to address the point head-on. The doctor said he treated Kerry's injury, not that he did the paperwork. If Senator Kerry wants to say explicitly that this man did not treat him for his injury, then say so. Why, instead, does he hold up a paper that has someone else's name on it? And if the paperwork is to be so trusted on this matter, why are we to doubt the discharge paperwork on President Bush's service with the National Guard?

The DNC letter repeats the charge of Swift Boat Vets being a "phony organization" and the men appearing in the ad as being "fake witnesses." Hey, we can clear that up real quick. Records of these mens' service in Vietnam will be readily available and they know that. These men are standing up on camera to make those claims about Senator Kerry and they're not hiding behind aliases to do so. If they're lying about their service, it'll be a piece of cake to prove that. If they lied about that, then they clearly are lying about the other points since those depend on having been in the service to begin with. Note that the DNC didn't go after that proof, however. They went after the TV stations. The don't want to go to court after people they claim are libelous, they just want to intimidate the TV stations into not giving air to the ad. I suspect that's because they know the truth's not in their corner on this one. They aren't going to intimidate men who were combat vets into sitting down and shutting up. They know that and they're going after the softer targets.

Let Senator Kerry answer the ad with the facts. Let him call on those men in the ad to prove it. Let him explain why scores of vets who were over there in Vietnam serving in the same unit as himself, put their names to a letter saying he was unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. Go ahead, Senator. We're listening.

Update: - I just read where Senator John McCain is calling on President Bush to condemn the ad, calling it "dishonest and dishonorable." First, Mr. McCain, how about you cite specifically what's dishonest about the ad. You're saying they're lying: who and about what, specifically? Considering you weren't present, how do you know? Or do you have some information that these men weren't present either?

Second, I'm happy you're all for wanting the President to condemn an ad that attacks Mr. Kerry's record. Where were you when the ads were flying about the President's service? Where were you when MoveOn.org was equating the President with German Furher Hilter? The President would like all the ads - from all these "527" organizations - to stop. How about you make the same request of Mr. Kerry that you have of the President? Ask him to condemn those ads I've mentioned and call for them to halt?

Better still, how about you get back onto the Senate floor and fix your so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" Act?

It's all relative...

One of the favored mantras of the Left is that things are all relative. I noted on the Net this morning:

Space Here
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following ...

  • FDR...
    led us into World War II.
    Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
    From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

  • Truman...
    finished that war and started one in Korea.
    North Korea never attacked us.
    From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

  • John F. Kennedy...
    started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
    Vietnam never attacked us.

  • Johnson...
    turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
    From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

  • Clinton...
    went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
    Bosnia never attacked us.
    He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
    Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

  • In the two years since terrorists attacked us
    President Bush has ...
    liberated two countries,
    crushed the Taliban,
    crippled al-Qaida,
    put nuclear inspectors in Libya,
    Iran and North Korea
    without firing a shot,
    and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
    300,000 of his own people.

  • The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
    It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
    That was a 51 day operation.

  • We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

  • It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

  • It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

  • The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize
    the facts.
Space Here

(Hat tip: Ed Moore)

I'd also like to add that no one in WWI or WWII was using the term "exit strategy." When you're at war, you go until you win or admit defeat. After WWII the US maintained absolute control over the government and citizens of Japan during the reconstruction. That effort took 4 years.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Thanks for the list

The Washington Post reports there's a number of musicians gearing up to perform concerts in an effort to defeat President Bush in November. Thanks for listing yourselves, boys & girls. Now I know whose music to never buy again.

The Real Story on John Kerry

You should definitely take the advice handed out by John Edwards at the DNC last week and spend a moment with the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. They've got the straight story for you: they were there as it happened.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Hi Grace!

This just in from Blackfive:

Space HereI have said before that I'm the luckiest SOB that you ever met. Lucky? Sure. To this day, I still don't know why I'm around, but, after many years, I have learned to accept each day a gift - an extraordinary gift by the Grace of God.Space Here

Welcome , Grace!

Alerts and Decisions

I'm still waiting for my DSL to get installed at the house which is why I've been quiet lately. I can only justify so much blogging while at work leeching off my employer's broadband!

I'm here in the DC area under an Orange Alert level and while the signs are all around me of the increased security, it's pretty livable. I note that the news reports are already looking for an angle as to how this raise in the Alert level was Bush's fault. The intel, they say, was old and didn't warrant the change, ergo it was a political thing. It's a true "damned-if-you-do" situation - had the alert level not been changed and the reports had leaked to the press, there'd be screaming from the Left about how the Administration isn't doing anything to protect us. Hell, John Kerry was making that claim yesterday even as the street closures and checkpoints went up here in the Capital. (Still looking for the link on that one. Will advise.)

To those that are quick to say this intel is 3 years old, I'd remind them that Al-Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attacks for nearly a decade. We're trying to be proactive in this and the change in Alert level is part of that. Inconvenient? You betcha. Barring more definitive evidence that this isn't an ongoing plot, it's necessary.