Kerry's Iraq plan

Kerry's big plan for Iraq is to get more international involvement. According to Financial Times the French and Germans have made it clear there will be no shift in their policy toward Iraq even if Kerry wins.

The appropriate American response to this should be:

1. Hand Bush a landslide in November.

2. Make it clear to France and Germany we will not forget or forgive.

After 9/11 our allies owed us their assistance in reforming the Middle East and fighting terrorism. It should never have been about how we asked or how hard we tried. We should have had to do nothing more than ask. If Europe needed American help after a crisis of this magnitude, they would only have had to ask. This is unforgivable.

Kerry is a waffling baffoon and shouldn't be in charge of a car wash, much less the entire nation. Bush tried to get more of Europe involved. He went to the UN and tried for a second resolution after Secretary of State Powell had been assured by the French that they would go along with another resolution if Saddam violated the unanimously passed 1441. When he violated it, they reneged. Untrustworthy bastards. Then when some French journalists are taken hostage in Iraq, every terrorist leader in the world goes to bat for them. Not hard to see which side of the war on terror France is on, but I digress. Kerry's great plan to get more European help is a dream, and a slogan, and nothing more. Kerry is doing everything he can to alienate the new Iraqi government (he mocked Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi when he came to America to thank us) and just can't be trusted with the war on terror at this sensitive point.

What's wrong with Muslims?

What seems to be the problem in Iraq? The knee-jerk reaction is to blame America for getting rid of Saddam, and failing to be able to reign in the Iraqi population. The real problem, though, is Islam. I long to hear our mainstream Democrat and Republican leaders turn away from saying "Islam is a religion of peace" and start saying, "Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace? Prove it!" Islam is not a religion of peace. Perhaps at its heart it could be, but when thousands upon thousands are committing the worst atrocities and killing thousands upon thousands (many of whom are also Muslims) I think you have to say that it isn't a religion of peace.

What seems to be the problem in Iraq? It's that Muslims can't gain control of themselves. I, for one, will remain wholly unconvinced that Islam is a religion of peace until I see Muslims fighting harder than non-Muslims to battle those who supposedly "pervert" Islam to their murderous ways. If this were true, and this were a perversion, why would Muslims stand for it? Why would they allow the intolerant Wahhabi madrassas to continue teaching hate, or at the very least a strict form of funadmentalist Islam? You can't treat women and Muslims too often do and call it a religion of peace. This is widespread in the Middle East, and it is spilling beyond the borders of the Muslim countries.

You can't call those fighting America in Iraq freedom fighters. The Americans earned that title by doing WHAT NO MUSLIMS WOULD DO in removing Saddam Hussein. Elections are scheduled for Iraqis to select their own leaders. Is this unacceptable to Muslims? The elections are now in doubt, and why? People like to say it is because America can't stabilize Iraq. That's the blame-America-first response. Let's say what it really is. It is because Muslims are murderers and can't get themselves under control. Muslims don't want their fellow Muslims to be in charge of themselves via democracy. When America toppled Saddam, the first thought that entered the minds of THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of Muslims was, "Let's go to Iraq and kill everyone, Americans, Iraqis, and anyone in the way." And so they did. And it is high time our leaders recognize that and take the Muslims of the world to task.

For an interesting read about Muslim hate, check out this article.

It isn't too late for Islam, for proof of that one need only look at the history of Christianity, but those who deplore the violence must take the fight to those who worship it. Christianity today is a religion of peace. Christians do FAR more than Muslims to help the world become a better place for everyone. Muslims should take note and devote their energies to providing aid to Africa and building their own nations into places to be proud of; places that aren't 100% dependent economically upon a non-renewable resource (of course, I mean oil).

Told ya so

Democrats are doing their dead-level best to undermine our national security. I've heard some of the fools say we should have gone after North Korea instead of Iraq, etc. Well here is why we didn't go after North Korea (as I've mentioned before), and it also serves as precisely why Saddam had to be removed whether he had stockpiles of WMD or not, so long as he sought WMDs. The headline tells all:

Attack us, we nuke Japan: N Korea to US

Just imagine, after the sanctions were lifted on Iraq for few years, the headline:

Attack us, we nuke Israel: Iraq to US

So, to the Democrats, I ask: please stay out of the way of the adults while they try to do what is best for America.

P.S. stop trying to put an end to the missile defense system for god's sake! Japan may thank you for it one day.

Don't believe in media bias?

Then tell me why Kitty Kelley has found it easy to peddle her book in the mainstream media (full of wholly unsubstantiated charges), yet the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are shunned (the NY Times will talk about them, but only to criticize them and blast them). Tell me why forged documents making Bush look bad get on the air pretty easily even though CBS knew they were questionable, yet no one seems to care to do a real investigation into allegations against Kerry.

I still have hope that criminal charges of some kind or other will be forthcoming on the CBS document scandal. Whoever provided CBS with the docs should be prosecuted, and Rather and Mapes should both be canned.

Don't be a victim

Okay, I'm not one to blame the victims of crimes, but from this point on can we just maybe say if you are a civilian in Iraq, "GET THE HELL OUT FOR GOD'S SAKE!" Offer me a million bucks a year to work in Iraq and watch me turn it down. It isn't worth having your damn head cut off. Put me in with a group of soldiers. Give me a uniform. Give me a rifle. But bet your ass I'm not going to be there as a civilian. I'm terribly sorry for the great Americans who have died, and my sympathies go out to their families. But at this point, any civilian in Iraq has to know the risks, and I have to assume that by choosing to stay there they accept that risk. A British civilian being held now is pleading with PM Blair to give the terrorists what they want to save his life. I'm terribly sorry for this but no dice. Of course you can ask, but don't expect your government to compromise itself when you know the risks involved in what you do.

Besides, the terrorists are asking us to release women being held captive. Apparently the only two women we are holding are both WMD experts, so the terrorists are just showing again that they are murderers. Anyone who would not condemn the murderous acts of decapitation we are seeing is a terrorist by default and worthy of prosecution and/or execution. If this means we bomb some Imam in Jordan, so be it. We should demand the arrest and extradition of religious leaders worldwide that promote violence towards America/Americans. Any nation that refuses extradition should lose all ties with America and be subject to sanctions.

The Kerry claim that he voted for us to go to the UN, but not for the President to go to war is bogus. Kerry is a lying sack.

Here are the pertinent parts of the war authorization in question:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As you can clearly see, in Section 2 the congress affirms their support for diplomatic efforts in the UN, and Section 3 authorizes the use of force as the President sees fit to deal with Iraq, regardless of what happens in the UN or anywhere else. Maybe this is just another "I voted for it before I voted against it" bullshit maneuver. Anyway, Kerry's piling it on deep and lacks conviction and backbone to be president in tumultuous times.

He voted to authorize war

If you believe that John Kerry didn't realize his vote would authorize the President to go to war in Iraq then you are stupid. He knew well what he was voting for. He's taken every conceivable position on Iraq, and we need leadership. John Kerry is a weasel.

The price we pay

So basically the Kerry campaign is telling Australia to stop being such a good ally to the US. They are also saying that Australia is paying a price for supporting Bush. According to The Australian:

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

This is what I would expect from these people. Australia is indeed paying a price, but not for supporting America or Bush. They are paying a price for doing the right thing. Ms. Kerry, doing the right thing is not always safe or easy. I hope the American people will pound this message into the Democrats in November, because they do not seem to get it. They DO NOT care to do the right thing, they care only to win in November. The Euros who opposed our war in Iraq and are tepid toward the war on terror in general DO NOT care to do the right thing, they care only to placate muslims and stick it to America. If we are going to do the right thing in the world and try to make the world a better place we are going to pay a price. So will our allies who do the same.

Insight from Mark Steyn

In his recent column, the always brilliant Mark Steyntackles critics of the Iraq war and presses on the need to gain a foothold of American-style freedom in the Muslim world. He ends with:

And, in the end, the reality is this. A few weeks ago, Prof Bernard Lewis, the great historian of the Muslim world, told Die Welt that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century". That seems demographically unavoidable.

Given that much of what we now know as the civilised world will be Muslim, it seems prudent to ensure that what is already the Muslim world is civilised. And, for those who say that Islam is incompatible with democracy, we might as well try to buck that in Iraq today than in France, Scandinavia and Britain the day after tomorrow.

Are members of the CBS News staff stupid, or just blindly biased?

The Houston Chronicle has an article about the man, Bill Burkett, considered a possible source of the Bush TexANG documents. They describe a man with an axe to grind. A man who has made false allegations against Bush and the TexANG before and has had to retract them. A man who:

In earlier interviews, he described years of fruitless searching [for documents against Bush].

One month ago, in an essay posted on a progressive Web site, Burkett theorized that Killian would have been a likely person to know more about Bush's service. But, he conceded, "I have found no documentation from LTC Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush ... " Burkett went on to say, "On the contrary, LTC Killian's remarks are rare."

For its part, CBS is still trying to get the President to answer allegations in the fake documents. This is getting pretty sad. Seriously I'm starting to feel sorry for CBS. They're the prisoner who maintains his innocence even when they're caught on tape. The man caught cheating on his wife who says, "It's not what you think!" And if Burkett really is the source, it would show gross negligence on the part of CBS for going forward. This is truly "Jayson Blair" journalism at its finest.

Saddam wanted WMDs, and still imported banned materials

That headline is what the war supporters should focus on because it is key. It is not an imagined war justification, but a real one, and a stated one (before, during, and after the war).

According to the head of the US weapons inspection team Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD. The enemies of the Iraq War, namely the terrorists, tyrants, French, and Democrats will likely see this as a vindication of their view (though many Democrats supported the war, if you can judge them by their vote, which in the case of Kerry you can't...or you can...or you can't...you get the picture) that the Iraq war was unnecessary, and unjustified.

But if you don't fit into one of the previously mentioned categories, you may actually care about the truth and you will notice that (according to this article:

Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.

Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned

Folks, this is exactly what President Bush meant when he said:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

That quote is from the 2003 State of the Union. I would recommend reading it again. You will find that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant and stopping Saddam from building WMDs now and in the future were all a part of our reasoning for war. Saddam couldn't be contained. Those who argued against the war were the very people and nations seeking to lift the sanctions (thereby ending containment). Then when we threaten force suddenly they tell us containment was a brilliant idea that would really work. Getting rid of Saddam was right. Many of the problems today could have and would have been avoided if the world would have gone along. They didn't, and once again it is up to America our better friends to try to tackle serious world problems.

Kofi Annan wishes for genocide and mass graves

Kofi Annan gave tacit support to human rights abusers operating unchecked throughout the world.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," Annan told the BBC.

So for you homicidal maniacs out there, if Kofi Annan gets his way, let the good times (and heads and limbs) roll.

The UN has only what credibility we choose to give it. It earns none and deserves even less. If stopping Saddam Hussein was illegal and illegitimate, then that is tantamount to approval of the Saddam Hussein regime, and Annan would give them the green light to continue their abuses. The UN, as a massive bureaucracy, is a failure. In the areas where the UN actually does work well should be put in place smaller, specialized organizations.

Annan needs to be sent packing back to Africa. Under his tenure Africa has hardly seen such strife. Annan has no business deciding the war in Iraq was illegitimate. UN member nations grant the UN legitimacy, not vice versa. Where there is widespread disagreement within the UN (as when 40+ nations supported removing Saddam), the UN has no authority. Where there is near unanimity there is authority. America is the single largest monetary supporter of the UN. Americans are getting a pretty poor return on our investment.

Rather is a Kerry surrogate at this point

"With respect: answer the questions," said Dan Rather. "We've heard what you have to say about the documents and what you've said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions."

You you try to pass of forged documents, and then have the audacity to tell the President of the United States to listen to you and and give you an answer? I think Dick Cheney's advice to Sen. Leahy is appropriate for Mr. Rather also. Dan Rather is a fine journalist in the tradition of Jayson Blair.

Ouch...Kerry the war hero

I'll make no judgment. Judge for yourself.

They were fake

Little doubt is left that Document Dan Rather had some fakies. Questions are not just being raised by "partisan political operatives" as Rather has suggested. Here is a decidedly non-conservative source calling the documents into doubt. The linked article has a laundry list of evidence that these documents are fakes, and Rather is an idiot. Looks very much like someone tried to pass off forgeries to swing the election and Danny boy and CBS fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Rather and CBS seem to be trying to validate them by proving that back in the 70s, if Jupiter aligned with Mars just right on a summer solstice with a steady wind and the right ambient temperature at sea level, maybe they could have possibly had written these documents. Come on, guys, that's silly. Too many people have called the docs into question for too many reasons.

Cambodia Kerry, on the other hand, has been forced into some retractions by his critics. Let's talk about that some more Dan.

They must all be Republican operatives

The Kerry campaign and their media cronies have dismissed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as being Republican operatives.

Thousands of Vietnam veterans and their families and friends applauded, yelled support and waved signs and flags for more than two hours yesterday at an anti-John Kerry rally outside the U.S. Capitol.

"John Kerry is not fit to tie the shoes of the heroes we have here at this rally," said John O'Neill of Houston, a member of the Swift Boat crews who have disclaimed the Democratic presidential candidate's statements about his military service.

"Leave John Kerry to command the largest vessel he's ever competently handled — his surfboard," said another speaker, B.G. Burkett, 60, another veteran and author of "Stolen Valor," which is about the legacy of the Vietnam generation.

The comments drew hearty approval from a crowd that organizers estimated at between 8,000 and 10,000.
--

Other speakers included Jim Warner of Rohrersville, Md., who said he was a prisoner of war when Mr. Kerry returned to the United States and criticized the conduct of American troops in Vietnam.

The Viet Cong interrogated Mr. Warner and used Mr. Kerry's quotes in an effort to persuade Mr. Warner to sign a statement about U.S. military cruelties.

Read more here.

"Forged as hell"

"Forged as hell" were the words used by Earl Lively, the director of the Texas Air National Guard during the '70s, to describe the Bush ANG documents CBS has brought to light. The Wall Street Journal has a fine opinion piece that can be found here.

If fake, it is obvious that CBS ran with these documents without checking closely enough (people on the web called these docs into question within hours of CBS airing them) and should have scrutinized them more closely. When the documents were called into question CBS defended them and Rather even suggested that those questioning the docs were partisan operatives. For putting forth material that could swing the election (doubt it would, but you never know) and for making rash accusations about those questioning the veracity of the documents, Rather should resign if they turn out to indeed be forgeries.

General mislead by CBS...believes docs fake

Update to the ongoing story as related in previous posts:

ABC reports:

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."


Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".

Killian, of course, is the deceased man who supposedly typed and signed some of the documents in question. Along with General Hodges, Killian's wife and son both believe these docs are fake.

The previous posts are here:Post 1 Post 2

They needn't have died for nothing...remember those scarred by 9/11

Our thoughts today are with the victims of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, and their loved ones still mourning. We must remember that beyond the innate good of overthrowing oppressive regimes is that dark day of evil. Nineteen evil men killed 3000 Americans, and for what? Supporting Israel's right to exist? Having non-muslims in Saudi Arabia? Women who don't cover their heads like a good slave? This is why we must overthrow the tyrants in the Middle East. Establishing a Democracy for people of good will is the first step. With luck, Iraq can be stablized and allowed to prosper, and the shockwaves of peace and tolerance and democracy could spread throughout the region. If this happens, then the 3000 who died on 9/11 will not have died for nothing.

Rather holds firm, despite further evidence...

Dan Rather held his ground about the veracity of the Bush ANG documents despite further evidence that it is all BS. Now it turns out that the officer, Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt, who according to one of the memos was exerting pressure on other officers to "sugar coat" Bush's records, had retired a year and a half before the memo was written. Of course that means he had zero power and authority to exert pressure on anyone in the military.

Now that Mr. Rather has stood by the documents, it will really spell trouble if they turn out to be false. If they do turn out to be false, in my opinion Dan Rather should resign.

It should be easy to clear up. Find some documents typed by these same people during the same time period that are known to be legit and do a comparison. If they are real then so be it, black eye for Bush. If not, heads should roll.

A muslim apology

I would like people to read this apology from a muslim group. They are apologizing for 9/11, and the various other terrorist attacks carried out in their name.

Another reason to suppor the Swiftvets

This kind of garbage is precisely why I now fully support the Swiftvets. Bush has tried his best not to tangle with Kerry's dishonorable time in Vietnam, and the Republicans went so far as to applaud Kerry's service more than once at their convention. Lacking any clear message, or any positives to run on, the Democrats have reciprocated Republican respect with lies and attacks, and now it is time for Republicans to fight back. Republicans shouldn't avoid the Swifties, but should embrace them. Let these hundred plus people have their say about John Kerry. Let the media investigate Kerry further. These vets don't necessarily like Bush, they just dislike John Kerry passionately.

Ben Stein

Ben Stein, a fine conservative and sometime actor(Ferris Bueller's Day Off), wrote a column for E! Online for some years.


Ben Stein

Please give his final column from last December a quick read. He had some fine things to say.

Poll finds Europeans and Democrats think alike

This poll is no big shocker. All that is wrong with the world is America. I understand that is the view of Europeans and Democrats. If only America wouldn't try to make the world a better place. Then it could just magically happen on its own. Maybe we could also get rid of those pesky Jews. Euroskanks and Democrats agree on that, too. Read my message at the top of the blog if you want my feelings on this matter.

To what lengths...

Just how far will Democrats go to unseat Bush? Evidently they will go so far as to use forged documentation. The verdict is not yet in on these documents regarding Bush's Air National Guard service, but it doesn't look good for CBS. Does anyone really think these documents wouldn't have been more closely scrutinized if they worked against John Kerry? The Swiftvets get trashed by much of the media, without much bother to check the veracity of their reports, but when the media get documents that make Bush look bad they can't wait to get them on the air. Big oops on this one. The Democrats have put some stock in these documents. If they turn out to be a fraud then it could be bad for the donkeys. This is sad, and should serve as a warning to others who blindly hate Mr. Bush.

Even the wife and son of the man who supposedly wrote the documents has said they are fake. The wife says her husband liked Bush and thought he was a fine aviator. Nice one, guys.

Scrutinize the President's service? Check out Kerry, too.

Democrats are attacking the President's National Guard service. Republicans have been careful to be, at least publicly, respectful of Kerry's service despite accounts detailing that Kerry was a big fraud and a coward who fled the scene at the first sign of trouble. The media seems only too happy to oblige the Democrat demand for attacking Bush's record. I think it is time for Republicans to demand real media scrutiny of Kerry's exploits (exploit being the key word) in Vietnam.

Democrat Mara Liasson mentioned on Fox News that the time to have this debate was four years ago when it may have mattered. What she means by that is that the President's National Guard service has little bearing on how he will act as President when compared with the past four years of actually seeing him act as President. This is significant when contrasted to Kerry who wants to say that his service in Vietnam demonstrates how he will be as commander-in-chief, yet he wants no independent analysis of his service to be performed. And if you do it is questioning his patriotism. If the media is going to dig into one man's service, let's know the truth about both men.

EDIT: Please give this article a read. The article outlines Bush's entire Guard service record.

The only nation that counts

So it seems most of the world would vote for Kerry if given a chance to vote. No wonder Democrats are pushing to allow non-citizens to vote. Hopefully Americans will once again show that they are smarter than everyone else. When America stood up to the Soviets, the US was right and the Euroskanks were wrong. They said Reagan was an idiot. They were wrong. They said he'd destroy the world, they were wrong. So it is with Bush and America's (it should be the global) war on terrorism. Evil will be defeated and Europe will again be kept safe by a nation they neither like no appreciate, most likely because we are better, braver, and smarter and they know it. If I were a craven Frenchman, I'd probably resent the braver and better nations (which would describe just about every nation out there), too.

More media bias

According to Drudge Report the big media (read the left-wing media who have been trying their best to get Kerry elected) are going to go back to the Bush National Guard story. Funny when you have Kerry saying he should be President because he was in Vietnam, those who have something negative to say about Kerry's service can't get the media to pay any real attention to them other than to drag them through the mud and try to present their claims as baseless (they aren't, Kerry fudged his service). But then when it comes to Bush, who can be fairly judged by his performance as President (for good or bad), the media actively seeks out the critics. If you don't believe there is a left-wing bias in the majority of major media you are nuts. But fine, let's look at Bush's Air National Guard service (again). Evidently the media thinks it has some bearing on his performance in a second term as President. And let's examine Kerry's Vietnam service as well since Kerry seems to think it is the only thing that bears on his potential Presidency (it certainly isn't the last 20 years in the Senate, that would be absurd).

More lies and cries from Kerry

Perhaps instead of Kerry, his name should be Kerrigan. Then he could hug himself and cry, "Why me?" Of course, the difference is that Nancy Kerrigan was actually crying about something done to her. Kerry is creating lies and then crying about them. So the nasty Republicans said Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief. Where? Where did Zell Miller say that in so many words? Where did Dick Cheney say that in so many words? They questioned whether you'd be a good commander-in-chief, but not whether he was fit to be. Perhaps the distinction is lost on Kerry, but more likely he just wants to whine like a little bitch.

1. No one on the Bush team ever questioned Kerry's patriotism, despite his many claims. He's a liar. But Kerry's silly wife has questioned that of Kerry's opponents. As did Wes Clark.

2. No one on the Bush team called Kerry unfit to be commander-in-chief, despite his claims. He is a liar. Kerry has said that Bush is unfit to be commander-in-chief.

3. Kerry claims that Bush misled the nation about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. Well...

"Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?"

Those words were spoken by (cue sinister music) John F. Kerry. Be clear about this quote. He's not talking about what Bush told him to justify war. No, Kerry's justifying the war by citing exactly the same intelligence sources from which President Bush got his information. Kerry is agreeing with Bush that the intelligence info at the time justified taking action. If Kerry is calling Bush a liar (which Bush isn't), then Kerry is calling himself a liar (which Kerry is).

Now, Dick Cheney is being attacked for not serving in Vietnam. This seals the deal for me. Kerry wants Vietnam to be an issue, front and center? Fine. I was hesitant before, but I now support SBVT. Tell your story and let's know the truth about Kerry's Vietnam service record. Was he able to rescue Rassman because his boat was closer due to the fact that he fled the scene at the first sign of trouble? Did he get a Purple Heart for rice in his ass? Did he get a Purple Heart for having a tiny metal splinter stuck a millimeter or two into his arm that was treated with a band-aid? If he will talk smack on Dick Cheney for not serving in Vietnam, then let's know what Vietnam service means to Kerry. Does it mean four months of fudging your way to medals (and re-enacting your own battles for future publicity) and then getting outta there? Does it mean coming home and being a propagandist for the enemy (Kerry lied here, too). Answer the questions, Senator. Something to hide, perhaps?

The circumstances of the world today are such that I can't stand to have a liar and a cry baby in charge of protecting my loved ones from terrorists. Vote Bush in 2004.

Why is Bush hated?

A consequential presidency is always "polarizing." So sayeth the Wall Street Journal. This is why there are protesters at the RNC. This is why when it comes to President Bush you tend to love him or you hate him. This is why idiot protesters (to call them idiots is to underestimate their stupidity) try to storm the RNC and make trouble. I'd almost pay money to debate these types in a civil setting, but I'm not sure they could handle a civil setting, much less a logical debate.

"Bush lied" is simple to believe if you are a simple person. There are no shortages of such people. To some, the mass graves, torture chambers, and rape rooms don't justify the war in Iraq. But as for WMD, the only way you can negate that justification is if Saddam had forsworn any desire for WMDs now, 5 years from now when the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese (and the fools who stand with them over Iraq) had convinced the UN to lift sanctions, and 20 years from now when his sons were in charge. If Saddam maintained a desire for WMDs, whether he had them or not, he had to be removed. This is what John McCain was saying when he spoke about the choice not being between war or peace, but war or something worse. Most people don't get it. They don't get it because they are ignorant and believe whatever stupid conspiracy theory the likes of Michael Moore spit out.

Apparently liberals don't like to be called liberal. They prefer progressive. Well guess what, spreading Democracy to Iraq is progressive. Bush is hated and the nation is divided because the presidency of George W. Bush is consequential. It is consequential, and made moreso by the fact that the last administration wasn't consequential, but should have been and needed to be.

Terror in Russia

Russia has seen a spate of terrorist attacks. A suicide bomber yesterday outside a subway, the two passenger planes brought down nearly simultaneously, and now bomb-wearing terrorist assholes have stormed a school and are threatening to blow it up. America and Europe should make it clear that the age of tyrants is over, and the civilized world should refuse to do business with non-democracies. Nations that allow Wahhabi schools should no longer be tolerated. We can either be a world that allows tyrants, or one that stops them. Right now, we (the US included) are one that allows them (Saudi Arabia for example). In which of the worlds do our children deserve to grow up?