Thursday, September 30, 2004

OK, That's Just.... Wrong

Sometimes I swear they must have restarted the "Candid Camera" show because I witness events simply too ludicrous to be a non-staged event. You think someone yakking it up on a cell phone while driving is too much? Have I got one for you.

As I am drying my hands off on my way out of the men's room at the office building where I work, a man comes in the door having a rather loud yet cheerful conversation on his cell phone. While never pausing once, the man enters one of the stalls, closes the door, and makes preparation to do his business in there. By which I mean the business that requires a man to actually sit down on the sit down toilet. And, from the immediate sounds that emanated from the stall, got right to work.

Yes, I mean those sounds.

And the guy maintains his running conversation on the bloody cell phone the whole time!

As I said. That's just wrong. On soooooooooo many levels. Open note to anyone who makes phone calls to me: I do not want to be on the other end of the phone when that happens. Please. I'm begging you...

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

An open letter to WTOP News, Washington DC.

Greetings,

After the disgraceful behavior by CBS News over the past month, I feel it necessary to suggest that WTOP explore the possibility of getting out of the CBS News Network and aligning with someone else. Dan Rather's "Memogate" was bad enough. For a group alleging to be news journalists, Mr. Rather has proven himself not worthy of trust with regard to reporting the facts. The use of obviously forged documents - and the continued defense of them to this day - would never be permitted by professionals who sought to simply report the facts.

Last night's CBS News spectacle, however, is the last straw. Richard Schlesinger's use of thoroughly debunked internet e-mails and an interview with a hugely biased individual to spread the latest Democratic Party charges is beneath your profession. His story purports to expose a danger of the draft returning should President Bush be re-elected. The e-mails he cites are hoaxes and have been proven so. The woman he interviews as the centerpiece of the story is reported as a Republican and portrayed as largely apolitical. Ms. Cocco is, however, a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft. This fact is not relayed to the viewers. Nor is the group's leadership noted in the story as being critics of the current administration. Finally, and this is inexcusable, Schlesinger goes on to make a big point of the fact that there are 2 bills in Congress trying to revive the draft while conveniently failing to mention that both of them have been submitted by Democrats. (Senate bill S.89 by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), and House bill H.R. 163 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). ) He simply mentions them without such context allowing the obvious implication that it's the Bush Administration that wants them to pass.

I've been a loyal listener to WTOP for years. Your station is the only one I listen to on my morning commute and I check your web site several times a day to stay informed. I have never had an issue with how your reporters do their jobs and you are all to be commended for your professionalism. People are, however, known by the company they keep. CBS has shown in drastic detail they can no longer be rightfully titled a "news organization". They are, instead, a media outlet for their special interests. I don't want to see WTOP associated with that kind of reputation and I hope you don't either.

Please, folks, consider leaving a dismally biased outfit behind and get on board with people who are still news reporters.

Regards,

Monday, September 27, 2004

Take all the notes you like...

My message to the Euros who are coming to "monitor" the election here in the United States is simple: take as many notes as you like and feel free to observe. You are not part of our democratic process, however, and you will not interfere in the elections in the smallest way or I will take every action available to me to see that you and yours get permanently booted out of this country back to where you came from.

There were definitely voting irregularities in Y2K and Florida was ground zero of the problem. A horribly designed ballot, a bad set of processes to see to it that the people on the ineligible voter list were actually people that belonged there, and the disenfranchisement of hundreds of absentee ballots cast by American servicemen and women stationed overseas combined to make what should be straightforward into a nightmare. The legal maneuvering, miscalls by the media, and a profound lack of understanding by a large chunk of our populace as to how a president is elected only makes things worse. But whose idea was it that we Americans are so clueless that we need Europeans - who have no standing in the elections but clearly defined desires as to the outcome - to pat our little heads and make sure everything comes out "OK"? (I'm thinking Michael Moore, personally, considering his previous remarks on the subject of American intelligence.) And how am I to trust these people over my own fellow citizens when they've been nearly screaming at the tops of their lungs who they'd prefer to see win the elections? Should not the people we invite as monitors be people who are neutral in this regard? If we can't find any such people, then I'm for trusting in my own nation's processes and citizens over anyone else.

I'm not ready to say that we, as Americans, have done what we can do to correct the problems ourselves. Our media has been long and loud in telling us the problems. Are they saying no one has tried to fix them? What are the possible fixes? Have any been tried? Here in Virginia we had no such difficulties and, frankly, fixing Florida's problems are outside of our zone of control. Are the folks wanting to invite in Europeans to guarantee our democracy suggesting federalizing the elections process completely?

So sure, Monitors, come on in. Pull up a chair and scribble some notes down. Write up your commentary to be published the morning of the 3rd as to who won and whether that's a good thing for the European Union. But keep your mouths shut during the election. Say nothing that might influence anyone in any way whatsoever. If that's too much to ask, then don't bother to come.

Friday, September 24, 2004

No Surprise: Michael Moore was in on the CBS forgeries

As noted over at LGF, seems that liberal propagandist Michael Moore knew about the CBS fake memos and their intention to run the story the day before it aired. From his own blog:

Space HereLater today (Wed.), the Boston Globe, the A.P. and Dan Rather all present new and damning information about how George W. Bush got moved to the front of the line to get in the Texas Air National Guard, and how he then went AWOL. I am putting every ounce of trust I have in my fellow Americans that a majority of them get this, get the injustice of it all, and get the sad, sick twisted irony of how it relates very, very much to our precious Election 2004.Space Here

Fascinating. He knew about the story and, it is very strongly implied he knew the details of what CBS was going to say. We know full well the extent to which the Kerry Campaign and the Democratic National Committee are in bed with Moore. Seems CBS was in bed with him too. Mr. Moore's penchant for doing whatever's necessary to further the DNC's causes and to smear the President are equally well-known. I wonder how far we'd have to stretch to think that Moore might have access to a PC with MS Word on it? It's no stretch at all to believe he's honorless and cheating enough to put up whatever forgeries he might have to do to make such a story come to life.

Oh, I'm just thinking out loud. Really.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

One more into the breach

Greyhawk has left to go to war. Between him and Sgt. Hook, I find myself so surprised that these men I've never met can stir such pride and concern in me. To you both, gentlemen:

Be sharp your eyes,
Be true your aim,
Be strong your arms,
Be steadfast your faith.

May your strikes be bold, swift, sure, and devastating. May you and your mates show the innocents you go to free and those you leave behind yet under your aegis the best that is American and show those who would do us all harm the worst.

And may you be victorious and return home in safety soon. Our thoughts and prayers go with you...

Update: - Sean, that goes for you, too. Stay safe.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

This is the enemy

They're past justifying. Their actions are inhuman and their "reasons" are just excuses to kill as many Americans and their allies as they can. Al-Qaeda aligned terrorists in Iraq have killed another hostage, sawing his head off with a knife while the man screamed for mercy. This man, who had no ability to effect any change they claim is all they're after, was simply butchered. The event was taped, not only for their perverse enjoyment of seeing it aired throughout the Islamic world but also to be shown to their new recruits as an example to follow. Their ridiculous excuse for a demand this time was to secure the release of all Muslim women held by the Coalition.

Funny how they're so concerned about the welfare of their women now. Seems they only care about them when they're not being held under the Sharia's heel and being hung for speaking out of turn. Further reports say:

Space HereThe speaker then threatened to kill at least one more hostage in 24 hours unless all Muslim women are released from U.S. custody in Iraq. The group still claims to be holding American Jack Hensley (search) and Briton Kenneth Bigley (search), construction contractors abducted along with Armstrong from their Baghdad home last week.

The U.S. military says the only two women in its custody in Iraq are two female security prisoners: Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha (search), a scientist who became known as "Dr. Germ" for helping Iraq make weapons out of anthrax, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash (search), a biotech researcher known as "Mrs. Anthrax."

The speaker, whose voice resembled al-Zarqawi's, said Tawhid and Jihad was taking revenge for women Iraqi prisoners and called President Bush "a dog."
Space Here

Go take a browse with Google and find the file. (I'll try to put a link up here as soon as I'm able.) See the face and actions of the enemy and get used to calling them that. There's this oh-so-modern-and-PC revulsion in using the term "enemy" but that's what they are. The immediate, knee-jerk reaction is that anything bad said about the enemy is merely propaganda. Well, this time it's their propaganda, folks. They don't want to live peacefully alongside us. They want us all coverted to their form of Islam or dead. Frankly, I suspect that even if we did all convert, it'd never be enough because we're not Arab.

Well, that's not going to be an issue. I don't want to convert. Since, if you feel the same, that immediately makes us worth only killing to them, they are the enemy. Let's get into the mindset, into the fight, and do what's necessary to remove the threat.

Monday, September 20, 2004

CBS to Announce the Obvious

CBS is said to be preparing to announce, possibly today, that they were mislead as regards the authenticity of the memos used in the 60 Minutes II report aired 2 weeks ago. Hoodathunk?! To anyone reading the blogs these days, this is not news. To anyone with a set of eyes and even a teensy bit of objectivity on the matter, this announcement is one of the largest "No Duh!" moments of the year. Seeing the horrific damage these guys have done to the reputation of CBS news, it's not coming as a surprise that they're coming clean - at least this far - as regards the memos being fake.

However, that's not going to be enough. When I accuse someone of doing something underhanded and it turns out I can't back up the claim, common courtesy demands I apologize. It's gonna suck if I feel that the person is really, really guilty of what I'm accusing him of, but it's something ethics and honor require of me. They require I apologize for the accusation and that I then keep my mouth shut on the matter until I do have something to back it up. I've mentioned before that an apology doesn't go like, "I'm sorry, but here's all the reasons I'm justified for accusing this jerk of (insert regurgitation of my accusations again)." CBS should explain how this happened with special detail to what parts of their process either didn't cover the situation in question or how/who simply failed to follow those procedures. They should then apologize to the President for the allegations and admit that they relied on faulty information for the accusation. End of apology. End of story. Go to commercial.

Having Dan Rather and Andrew Heyward resign as a way of trying to set things right for the hundreds of CBS News employees who have had eyes blackened over this through no fault of their own would also be good form. Those 2 should offer apologies of their own on their way out the door.

I'm not holding my breath, of course. But with honorable parties, this is what should happen.

CBS to Announce the Obvious

CBS is said to be preparing to announce, possibly today, that they were mislead as regards the authenticity of the memos used in the 60 Minutes II report aired 2 weeks ago. Hoodathunk?! To anyone reading the blogs these days, this is not news. To anyone with a set of eyes and even a teensy bit of objectivity on the matter, this announcement is one of the largest "No Duh!" moments of the year. Seeing the horrific damage these guys have done to the reputation of CBS news, it's not coming as a surprise that they're coming clean - at least this far - as regards the memos being fake.

However, that's not going to be enough. When I accuse someone of doing something underhanded and it turns out I can't back up the claim, common courtesy demands I apologize. It's gonna suck if I feel that the person is really, really guilty of what I'm accusing him of, but it's something ethics and honor require of me. They require I apologize for the accusation and that I then keep my mouth shut on the matter until I do have something to back it up. I've mentioned before that an apology doesn't go like, "I'm sorry, but here's all the reasons I'm justified for accusing this jerk of (insert regurgitation of my accusations again)." CBS should explain how this happened with special detail to what parts of their process either didn't cover the situation in question or how/who simply failed to follow those procedures. They should then apologize to the President for the allegations and admit that they relied on faulty information for the accusation. End of apology. End of story. Go to commercial.

Having Dan Rather and Andrew Heyward resign as a way of trying to set things right for the hundreds of CBS News employees who have had eyes blackened over this through no fault of their own would also be good form. Those 2 should offer apologies of their own on their way out the door.

I'm not holding my breath, of course. But with honorable parties, this is what should happen.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Fake but Accurate

This seems to be the new mantra of those who want desperately to believe the CBS forgeries were real. Since the documents themselves have been proven to be absolute forgeries, they're now alleging the content of those memos are what's real and important.

Hello? The memos were fakes. They can't be used as proof that the content was anything, accurate or otherwise. The 30-year-old recollections of an octogenarian who has clear bias against President Bush can hardly be pointed to as conclusive proof, either. As CNN reports:

Space HereCBS News reported that the documents it first broadcast last week on "60 Minutes II" appear to be forgeries to the woman who would have typed the original memos in 1972 and 1973.

But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

"I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.
Space Here

(Emphasis mine.) I've read Mrs. Knox's comments from a number of sources and I don't recall anyone reporting her as saying she had typed "similar" documents before. (Unless that means she had typed other memos, in general, for Killian. If that's what everyone thinks that statement means, please sound off and let me know I'm just being jumpy about the topic.) Regardless, the thrust of this new round of reporting is that even though CBS attempted to foist forgeries off onto the public in an attempt to influence the course of a presidential election it's OK. After all, the information in them was correct, so it's no big deal to fabricate documentation dealing with the issue.

Well, that's not OK, not by a longshot. They tried to sneak one past the public, and they weren't very sneaky about doing it, either. They counted on Americans being the "dumbest people on the planet", as one of America's most caustic critics put it. Turns out we aren't. We caught it. The right thing to do would have been to admit it, come clean, and tell the whole story about how these docs got put onto a prestigious news program. Who gave them to CBS and what was his motive in doing so. If they'd like to pursue the dead-horse issue of President Bush's service record, fine. But this attempted fraud on the basis of our democracy is a huge story and should be followed with equal vigor.

The Missing Component in the AWOL Story

The CBS meltdown over the past week has gotten me thinking quite a bit about the concept of proof. It's an axiom that fake/forged documents do not constitute proof of anything they allege. (They prove nothing except that someone wanted to make a point badly enough that they'd cheat to do it.) CBS's assertions to the contrary, simply thinking that something is "accurate" is also not proof. Faith is a fine thing but it's not going to persuade someone who doesn't already hold your beliefs. With the LA Times making baldly unsupported claims that President Bush's being AWOL is true to the point where it "doesn't take new documents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties" one has to ask: where's the proof? The immediate follow-on to that should be: what would constitute proof?

You see, the media, the left-wing 527's, and the Kerry Campaign all rely on the "I didn't see him so he must not have been there" proof. Specifically, that's called "eyewitness testimony". Let's look at that for a moment. Imagine you and 5 of your buddies all get into a 10-person elevator and ride from the lobby of the building (where, specifically, isn't important) up to the 10th floor and get off. Later, someone tells you I am claiming I was in the elevator with all of you and asks you if that's true. You and your friends can answer "no" with confidence because you didn't see me in there. Can the person who has asked you accept that as proof?

Sure. That's because it's reasonable to accept the premise that 6 people in an elevator of that size can reliably see everywhere in that elevator that a person of my size might be. They didn't see me. Ergo, I wasn't there. That's proof. Now apply the same conditions to an area the size of the Mall in Washington, DC. That person has now asked you about my claim that I was on the Mall at the same time you and your 5 buds were. Now, you can make the claim that I wasn't there because none of you saw me, but this time that's not sufficient. It's not reasonable to accept that the 6 of you could keep every spot where a single person might be under surveillance at the same time. The fact that you didn't see me is insufficient to prove I wasn't there. So if your goal was to prove I wasn't there, how would you do it? The only way to pull that off is to prove I was somewhere else. In that argument, we assume the truth of the premise that I couldn't be in 2 places at the same time. Therefore, if I can be proven to have been somewhere other than the Mall at the time I claim I was at the Mall, then you have proven I wasn't there.

So if President Bush was supposed to be AWOL from the Guard, where was he?

The base he was stationed at was huge. There were supposed to be something like 900 people there at the time. Last year I was in an office that had 100 people in it and there were people I didn't see for days. And that was in 1 building. 900 people on a sprawling base with several buildings - oh, and that was 30 years ago - and we're supposed to accept that a handful of people who didn't see him constitutes proof he wasn't there? Nope. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

Show me that he was supposed to be on base on xx (insert month here), 1972 and yet he was over here slacking off at the time and that would be proof. So far, nothing. Accusations that he wasn't there because no one saw him, that's all. That's fine for the faithful, but it's just not persuasive.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Pitkin story finally makes it to air

As I mentioned earlier, one of the people at the now-infamous "Winter Soldier" event in Detroit has said he was coerced into testifying to atrocities he had no knowledge of.

Space HereWASHINGTON — A veteran who testified to John Kerry (search) about atrocities he committed in the Vietnam War (search) is now claiming that the Democratic presidential candidate coerced him to tell tales.

Steven Pitkin, an Army combat veteran, told FOX News that Kerry coached him and others to say they had witnessed war crimes, even after Pitkin told Kerry that he had not.

"Before they started the camera, they told me, 'We need you to speak about the atrocities that happened over there.' The whole company line that I initially came out and said, I was coached to say that over and over again," Pitkin said.
Space Here

I reported on this a week ago but the CBS document fraud issue was just hitting the air then.

Monday, September 13, 2004

CNN misleading the masses about assault weapon ban

CNN's front page headline reads "AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s legal again after today", showing either a fine lack of understanding about the ban in the first place or a no-longer-surprising policy of editorial misdirection diguised as "news reporting". The image they want to portray is that suddenly machine guns are going to be available at the 7-11 and you're going to be faced with some teenage Rambo on the way home tonite.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The ban was never about full-auto machine guns, which have been restricted for decades. This, of course, doesn't matter to CNN, who clearly feels it's their responsibility to inflame reactions rather than report the facts and allow their viewers to decide the issue. Pathetic. Read up on what the ban really is and try to square that with CNN's deliberately misleading headline. Find the facts for yourself and truly decide on your own.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

The meaning of support

Three years ago as I write this, American Airlines flight 11 out of Boston was in the air and a struggle for the controls of the plane was underway. It would be less than 20 minutes from that point that it would slam into the World Trade Center becoming the latest of the series of attacks on America. As I sat at my controls in the network operations center I was assigned to, I would start to become aware that something was amiss almost immediately. The thought that an aircraft had been used as a missile wasn't something that crossed my in those first moments, but I'd get educated quickly. All of us who lived through that day knows how it turned out. Three aircraft were crashed into buildings resulting in over 2000 deaths. It would have been 4 planes but for the Americans who rose up on board to deny the terrorists their target. The effort cost them all their lives but bought the lives of those the terrorists were aiming at.

Since that day, America has been truly engaged in the war that was being waged on us for nearly a decade. As they had in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Americans set aside their specific differences and rose to the occasion. Those that could help, did. Those not in a position to help directly found other ways, from donations of money to donating blood. When the President sent American forces into Afghanistan to hunt down, capture or kill those who had planned the attacks on 9/11, America again united in support of the troops. Ask anyone today and they'll immediately say they support them to this day.

Ah, but do they?

This has been bothering me for over a year and I've just not had the words to convey what it was that bugged me until now. It hit me as I listened to yet another person villifying President Bush and the war and then, in the same breath, say "But I support our troops." I've found that when they say this, they generally get that tone in their voice and that look in their eyes that just dares you to say otherwise. How dare you question their patriotism, after all. Well, this morning, I am questioning it and here's why.

Picture a father standing on the side of some kind of athletic field - soccer, football, lacrosse or whatever - proudly telling his kid to play their best and saying "I support you!" As the kid lines up on the field, however, they're treated to the site of dear old Dad complaining to the coach that this match is a mistake. He can't believe the coach brought the team here to stand against this other team. They can't possibly win. They shouldn't even be trying. Instead of all this wasteful activity, they should be bending their efforts at other tasks at home. The coach should just call them back right now. And if Dad were coach, he'd do just that, immediately.

Does that sound like support? Support, in the context that any of us who aren't there in the battlefield can provide, mean wishing someone success in their endeavors. You can't say you support the troops and then turn around and say they should retreat in the face of the enemy. The troops don't want that and they don't need it. If you're going to say you support the troops then say you want them to succeed. You want them to secure Iraq and Afghanistan so the people living there can enjoy freedoms similar to those we've held for over 200 years. Surely that's something we can all get behind,

If you have a problem with their mission, take it up with the President not the troops. While you're doing that, how about coming up with a positive alternative? To just say we should pull all the troops back doesn't address the problem of dealing with people who want us dead and our nation in ashes. The proof of this was shown in the sharpest detail on September 11, 2001.

I will not forget.

Update: - Stop by David Kaspar's site for his rememberance of 9/11. There were Germans lost that day, too.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

CBS Memos are forgeries

This is a story that has taken off with such speed it's re-defining what "breaking news" means. First mentioned on Free Republic and carried up by Power Line, the story of the memos supposedly discovered in the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian (Bush's CO at the Air National Guard) went from CBS's crushing expose' to a crashing indictment of CBS's bias and/or incompetence. Power Line's coverage of this nasty affair is looking like the scene in The Matrix where Neo opens up the film's climactic can o' whoopass on Agent Smith, leaving the formerly-feared agent looking like he's a slow-motion punching bag being pummeled at warp speed. CBS is looking every bit as dazed in their response - and they'd better pull it together. When the likes of Hugh Hewitt, the above-mentioned Power Line, Captain's Quarters, Little Green Footballs, Citizen Smash, BlackFive, and dozens of others are pulling in the attention, it ain't gonna get any prettier for the Tiffany Network.

Either CBS was just stupid or they were so biased they jumped at the chance to post some Bush-bashing into the air. Either way, they're making themselves irrelevant.

New Tape from Al-Qaeda

In case anyone's been listening to Kerry & Co. going on about how little we're threatened by Al Qaeda these days, there's a new tape out. While the threat is very real, I'm not putting a whole lot of stock in what the man said, especially regarding our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sgt. Hook is over in the 'Stan and certainly hasn't been shy about saying that the terrorists are not in control over there. Hook's not bee blogging over the past few days while out away from convenient Net connection.

Hook, if you get the chance to stop by, we're pulling for you. Let us know how things are as soon as you can.

Sunset for the "Assault Weapon" ban

On Monday, the 10-year ban on the sale, transfer, etc. of so-called "assault weapons" will expire. Attempts to date by gun-control lobbies to make the ban permanent or extend the life of it have failed. Good, I say. Let it die.

If you've heard and/or accepted as fact the media's picture of maniacal hoodlums mugging people and engaging in all manner of crime with a machine-gun in either hand, spraying depleted-uranium bullets hither and yon, I direct you to a site that will tell you exactly what the ban is and what it is not. The fact of the matter is, ladies & gentlemen, that not a single unbiased study has been able to link the ban with a reduction in crime anywhere. The CDC's study released in October 2003 concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that such a ban did anything to reduce crime. Common sense will tell you this is true when you listen to the ban's supporters' complaint shortly after the ban was introduced. They were upset that gun manufacturers were getting around the ban by making cosmetic changes to the guns' designs.

If a cosmetic change is all that's needed for a gun to get off the banned list, then the ban is concerned with cosmetic issues, not safety issues.

This was a bad law. It was a feel-good kind of thing that was never intended to make anyone safer. All it was trying to accomplish was to create an inroad for more restrictive gun-control legislation. It should be allowed to sunset and fade away.

BlogLag

Seems Blogger had some issues over the last couple of days that kept the postings from being seen. We're up again so I've got more to post. See you soon!

Kerry finally surfaces to answer a question...

Sort of. Of course, it's a "reporter" for MTV. Nothing personal against the guy holding the microphone, but let's get a little real here. Kerry has hidden from the media for over a month, refusing to meet with reporters to answer the legitimate questions raised about his activities upon returning home from Vietnam and during his Senate career. Does he meet with Fox News, CNN, or even his pet media outlets such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times? No. He offers the question shot to MTV.

However... The answer he gave to a simple, direct question is leaving everyone going "Huh?" Note:

Space HereYago: "Your exit strategy for Iraq is based on the idea that if you're elected, you'll be able to bring our traditional allies back to the table to help our cause, but what if they say no to you?"

Kerry: "Well, I have a lot of tools available to me. This president has not done the statesmanship and has not shown the leadership to bring other countries to us. Their resistance to [helping in] Iraq is not only based on Iraq: It's based on the fact that the United States is now pursuing new nuclear weapons, even as we talk about other countries not having them. It's based on the fact that we walked away from the global warming treaty and we dissed 160 nations that worked 10 years to try to build a cooperative attitude. Only the U.S. said "no" and walked away. We haven't paid attention to North Korea, nuclear weapons there. We've ignored AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in the world. So we need to show global, moral, responsible leadership, and if we do that we're going to be far more inviting to other nations to come to our side. In addition, the president has done almost nothing to reduce the increasing clash of radical Islam with moderate Islam and the rest of the world's religions. We need to reach out to people and isolate the fundamentalist extremists and not have them isolate us. That's a big difference. I'll conduct a foreign policy that lives up to America's values, I'll conduct a war that makes America safer, and I will win friends and allies to our side."
Space Here

Hey, don't take my word for it. Go watch it yourself.

Note the obvious: Kerry evaded the question completely. Asked what he'd do if he went to France and Germany, asked them to assist in a military operation and they told him to take a hike, Senator Kerry starts talking about nukes and the Kyoto treaty. He says President Bush hasn't done the statemanship. Wrong. President Bush spoke to the UN personally and asked them to lay down an ultimatum on Iraq. (Unanimous resolution, but no backup for it.) He then says we're developing new nuclear weapons. Says who? And even if so, what does that have to do with the question? He says the US has ignored AIDS in Africa. How does he explain the funding of millions of dollars for AIDS research and assistance to African nations? The US is the single largest source of funds Africa has in their struggle with AIDS. If we're ignoring it, what does he call what Europe's doing?

As for Kyoto, shall we remind the Senator that when the issue came before the Senate, he voted along with the rest (95-0) to pass a non-binding resolution that serves to make it more difficult to ratify Kyoto?

All in all, however, it's the general tone of the answer that's troubling. Here's a man who can't seem to 1) stay on topic and 2) organize his thoughts. Not a man I want in the White House.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

NASA spacecraft goes SPLAT!

Kerry suborning perjury?

If true, this could be the next big bomb-drop for Team Kerry. Seems Kerry and his VVAW band of brothers elicited false testimony:

Space HereI apologize for the offtopic. Kerry solicited others to lie at the Winter Soldier investigation. Hat tip: Henry Mark Holzer's FakeWarriors newsletter.

AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN J. PITKIN

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Steven J. Pitkin, known, to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument, who, after first being duly sworn by me, upon oath stated:

1. My name is Steven J. Pitkin. I am over the age of twenty-one years, and I am fully competent and able to make this affidavit. I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge.

2. I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, having served with the Ninth Division of the U.S. Army beginning 25 May 1969. A mortar explosion wounded me, my wounds gradually became infected, and I was treated in an Army hospital in Okinawa. I contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions I received during that time. I was
honorably discharged from the Army on 28 August 1969.

3. Medals received for my Army service include: Combat Infantry Badge, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, RVN Cross of Gallantry, Air Medal, Purple Heart.

4. During my service in Vietnam, I neither witnessed nor participated in any American war crimes or atrocities against civilians, nor was I ever aware of any
such actions. I did witness the results of Vietcong atrocities against Vietnamese civilians, including the murder of tribal leaders.

5. Upon my return to the United States I encountered anti-war protestors who, at various times, threw feces, spit, and screamed obscenities.

6. I met Scott Camil, an organizer of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), at Catonsville Community College in Baltimore in 1970, and joined that organization.

7. In January of 1971, I rode in a van with Scott Camil, John Kerry, a national leader of the VVAW, and others from Washington D.C. to Detroit to attend the Winter
Soldier Investigation, a conference intended to publicize alleged American war crimes in Vietnam. Having no knowledge of such war crimes, I did not intend to speak
at the event.

8. During the Winter Soldier Investigation, John Kerry and other leaders of that event pressured me to testify about American war crimes, despite my repeated
statements that I could not honestly do so. One event leader strongly implied that I would not be provided transportation back to my home in Baltimore, Maryland, if I failed to comply. Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism,
knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue.

9. In April 1971, I attended a VVAW protest in Washington D.C. known as “Dewey Canyon III.” During this event I was present when protestors, including John Kerry, threw medals and ribbons over a fence outside the U.S. Capitol. I witnessed a man holding a bag of ribbons and medals and handing them out to other protestors. I saw that many of the ribbons and medals were not those that would be received by veterans of combat in Vietnam.

10. During the “Dewey Canyon III” protest, others and I confronted protestors who were wearing or carrying Vietcong flags.

11. After the “Dewey Canyon III” protest, I was no longer invited to meetings of the VVAW in Baltimore, and ended my association with the organization.

12. I joined the 5/20th Special Forces Group of the Maryland National Guard in 1974, was graduated from paratrooper “jump school” with honors in 1976, joined the Coast Guard in 1978 and served there until my retirement in May 1997.

(signed) Steven J. Pitkin

Further affiant saith not.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of August, 2004.

Jonathan Feldman
Commission # DD235268
My commission expires July 28, 2007
Space Here


This item was reported in a blog, so feel free to remain skeptical for a bit. We'll see if this surfaces.

Saturday, September 04, 2004

On the road again...

...And in dial-up hell. Although that may change tomorrow if my plans work out. Let you know then.

Friday, September 03, 2004

"All Hat, No Cattle"

John Kerry came out last night for a midnight rally in Ohio. He would have done it earlier in the night if he though he could get away with it, but fortunately his campaign knows how it would come across with Kerry holding such a thing while the RNC was still in session. Bad form and they know it. So Kerry waited until midnight so he can truthfully say he didn't do it on the same day as the President's acceptance speech.

The content of his rally speech, however, was just more of the same. More complaining about how those mean, nasty, eeevil Republicans were doing nothing but smearing his name and throwing hateful insults.

Space Here"For four days in New York ... we heard almost nothing but anger and insults from the Republicans, and I'll tell you why," he said. "It's because they can't talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can't talk about their record because it's a record of failure."Space Here

I'm not sure what channel the Senator was watching, but there was a ton more said at the RNC than "anger and insults". Speeches in support of our troops in the field, rememberances of 9/11, praise for America as still the land of opportunity, and more were clearly spoken. How those translate into insults, I don't know. Unless, of course, you choose to accept them as such. Oh, yes, there was anger and there were barbs thrown in the Senator's direction. The single most devastating speech to the Sentor came from one of his own, Senator Zell Miller whose speech focused on Senator Kerry's voting record as opposed to his service record. Those aren't insults, Mr. Kerry, those are statements of recorded fact. The voting record isn't open to interpretation or spin. The votes Kerry cast were yea's or nay's - when he wasn't absent, of course - and are recorded diligently by the Senate. He can gripe all he likes but it's not hateful to report the fact of how a man votes in the Senate.

And just to make sure you don't forget that he served in Vietnam:

Space Here"We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican convention," Kerry said. "For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander-in-chief.

"Well, here's my answer: I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."
Space Here

OK, 2 things with this comment. First, no one attacked his patriotism. Vice President Cheney said explicitly that he was to be honored for his service and he left it at that. Again, Senator Kerry makes the claim that unless you served in Vietnam, you aren't qualified to judge his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. Well, I didn't serve in Vietnam and I'm damn sure qualified to judge his fitness. The arrogance that the American people can't speak out in opposition to Senator Kerry based on their appraisal of his fitness to command is nearly unbelieveable, but it's right there. As for "misleading" the country into Iraq, that's his opinion and far from a statement of fact. That's called "unconvincing".

In an effort to muddy the waters further, he makes the canned Democratic reference to Halliburton. To be honest, I don't know if Dick Cheney was Vice President and "still on the payroll" at Halliburton when they were awarded contracts, but I tend to doubt it. Some research is in order, and I'll let you know about that one. If he wasn't, then this was an example of some serious misleading on his part. Kerry's advice to us all was pretty simple.

Space HereKerry said the next 60 days leading up to the November 2 election are key and give Americans a simple choice -- "If you believe this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush, but if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, join with us."Space Here

Well, no duh. It's an interesting comment, however, for it shows just where Kerry's putting all his faith. He again offers no detail about what he's going to do if elected but offers to America that they need to vote for him "if you believe America needs to move in a new direction". What he's saying is, vote for me if you hate George Bush. He is counting on the "Anybody But Bush" crowd and that, my friends, is not a stable foundation to build the leadership of our country upon. I'll listen for him to start telling us what his plans are for his term, if elected, but if all he's going to do is try to incite more frothing about Bush being the President in order to get himself elected, I'll pass. Thanks.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Sen. Zell Miller comes out blazing.

Senator Zell Miller's speech at the RNC (UPDATE: See the speech video here) had me literally sitting in stunned silence. In an age of PC correct-speak and politicians saying as much as they can without really telling you anything, Zell Miller firmly planted his stance on the issue of who best to lead this country right in everyone's lap.

Space HereAnd like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.
Space Here

This isn't the dissembling we've come to expect from our politicians. This isn't the standard evasion when asked where they stand on something. The speech was a blasting indictment of the leadership of the Democratic Party and with Miller being a Dem himself, it was an inside job. He's been a Democrat for 20 years so he's in a position to know. Miller went after Kerry's record in particular, and by that I mean his voting record as a Senator. Kerry has obviously never met a weapons system he didn't want to cut but the list of those systems he voted against are a literal "who's who" of military tech that have been the edge America has rode to victory upon.

Space HereListing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Space Here

Indeed. The F-14 is likely the most recognizable aircraft in the military arsenal. It's the bird featured in the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun and the aircraft of choice when the news wants a "beauty shot" of a plane being launched off a carrier. The F-15 is the world's premiere air superiority fighter, the undisputed master of air-to-air combat and the decisive force that grants America the lattitude in her use of air power. These weapons systems have been combat-proven to provide the technological superiority America's Armed Forces use to conduct the most precise warfare in the history of mankind. If John Kerry had had his way, none of them would be available today, nor would they have been available when our troops needed them the most. But Miller's most valuable insight was about where we should be focusing our attention in this race:

Space HereTwenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Space Here

Kerry's voting record of attempts to castrate our military, blind our intel assets, and place the authority over when America uses military power into the hands of foreign leaders is what should be scaring people. Sure there are other issues. But these are the priorities right now. That's why I'm voting for George Bush for President.