Monday, April 19, 2004
ATTACKING KERRY'S PATRIOTISM
Two points to be brought up today regarding John sKerry ... the
not-yet-crowned Democratic presidential candidate.
First, Kerry is whining that George Bush and Republicans are attacking his
patriotism. In the mind of John Kerry asking about his vote against
continued funding for our troops, his designation of our troops in Vietnam as
"murderers," his call for American troops to be put under UN control
when deployed internationally, and his incredible string of votes against the
very weapons systems that are being used to defend and protect our country today
are attacks on his patriotism. They're not, of course. They're
really attacks on his judgment. Kerry is hiding behind the patriotism
facade because there's really no other place for him to hide.
This is the same tactic that was tried by Georgia Senator Max Cleland.
During his freshman term Cleland quickly fell under the spell of then Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Democrats sought to make political gains with
the formation of a cabinet-level department of homeland security. In the
process of creating the homeland security department Democrats wanted to erase
some of the leverage the president had in dealing with government union
employees. In effect, the Democrats wanted to make the very people we
would be depending on to defend us on our own soil from the threat of Islamic
terrorism immune from being fired. Cleland was all-too-easily talked into
joining Daschle in this effort, and it cost him. Georgia is not
particularly pro-union, and when the voters of Georgia saw that Cleland was
putting strengthening government employee union power above the security needs
of this nation they reacted ... and threw him out of office. Today those
who assailed Cleland for his government union protectionism, and I was one of
them, are accused of attacking his patriotism.
The Kerry-Cleland "you're attacking my patriotism" argument might
wash with the marginally cogent voters who are prone to vote Democrat, but not
with anyone who applies an ounce of rational thought to the issue. Instead
of defending his patriotism, Kerry needs to defend his positions. Too bad
they're so indefensible.
Secondly, John Kerry is professing to be amazed that George Bush is
highlighting the terror threat to the U.S. in this year's election.
Actually, I suspect that Kerry is more upset than surprised. Kerry knows
for a certainty that if, between now and November, the American people suddenly
wake up and recognize the grave threat posed to this country by Islamic
fanatics, he will be toast on November 2nd. Voters overwhelmingly give
Bush a huge edge when the question is defending America from terrorists.
It's no wonder Kerry would rather Bush not bring the issue up at all.
I just can't believe that the people of America have become so enamored of
government, so in need of government-provided security, and so blasé about
freedom and the threat that this country faces from Islamic terrorism, that they
would take the most liberal, big-government loving member of the U.S. Senate, a
man who would certainly weaken the sovereignty of our nation, and make him
not only the president of the United States, but the Commander in Chief of our
armed forces.
ISRAEL'S WAR ON TERROR CONTINUES
Well, the second consecutive leader of the terrorist group Hamas has been
dispatched to the great desert sand nap by the Israeli military. Abdel
Aziz Rantisi, along with two of his bodyguards, bought the farm on
Saturday after missiles were fired at his car. No big loss. It
should come as no surprise that Hamas is keeping the identity of their new
leader a secret. It should also not come as a surprise to learn that Israel
already knows the name of the new Hamas leader, and has posted it in
newspapers.
As with before, there is an important lesson here for the United States in
the war on terror. The only effective response to Islamic terrorism is to
destroy the terrorists, plain and simple. These people see negotiations as
a sign of weakness and an opportunity to fortify their positions. Israel
does this better than anybody. They don't care as much about what the
world thinks as they do about the security of their people. Their priority is to
find the terrorists and kill them before they kill someone else. Terrorists are
like cockroaches...anything less than their total destruction is
unacceptable.
The outcry over this event is typical...and the double standard is
ridiculous. If a terrorist organization were sending suicide bombers into the
population centers of a major city and killing innocent women and children,
would it not be proper for that government to destroy the leader of that
organization? Not if you're Israel, because after all, we don't want to
make the terrorists mad. On top of that, the linguini-spined liberal
losers in the media always take the anti-Israel position.
SPANISH GAZPACHO-EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS CUT AND RUN
The government of Spain fulfilled the terms of their surrender to Al-Qaeda
yesterday and said it will withdraw all 1,400 of its troops from Iraq.
Newly sworn in socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says he is
pulling out the troops because the U.N. has not taken control of security
arrangements. The U.N., you will remember, ran when the first bomb fell last
year. Now those are the people we want in charge of security, right?
Imagine, for just a minute, if they had it their way. That the U.N. was
in control in Iraq. First of all, who is the U.N.? Where do those
troops come from? By and large, the United States. Do people really
think that the Iraqi insurgency is going to end just because the U.N. is in
charge of the same troops? I think not. And worse, why would anyone
with half a brain want the United States Army under the command and control of
the United Nations? It would be a disaster.
The real reason Spain is pulling out their troops is because they don't have
the guts to fight the war on terrorism. They would rather just fold up and
go home. Al Qaeda defeated that entire country with about 15 bombs placed
on trains. Apparently nothing is worth fighting for, as their
actions after the Madrid bombings show. Appeasement is now their stated
policy. Typical Euro-weenies.
sKERRY ON MEET THE PRESS
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry was on 'Meet
the Press' yesterday, and it was quite a show. sKerry set a record for the
highest number of idiotic statements made inside of an hour. This guy
hasn't changed a bit.
Continuing his trend of attacking the Commander in Chief during a time of
war, Kerry lashed out at President Bush over the Iraq issue. He accused Bush of
having a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and worst of all, he
said that the war on terrorism wasn't primarily a military struggle.
That's right...Kerry still believes that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement
problem. This is almost frightening...apparently he believes that Osama
Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda can be fought with lawyers and subpoenas, much the way
the Clinton administration did for 8 years, and we all know where that got
us. Is he not paying attention to the 9/11 Commission hearings in
Washington? Time and time again we are hearing from the FBI and the CIA
that they were hamstrung by legal red tape when it came to hunting down
terrorists and protecting this nation. What Kerry is saying is that he
wants to turn the United States back to sitting ducks, with somehow our safety
and security provided by the United Nations. I don't think so.
"Our diplomacy has been about as arrogant and ineffective as anything
I've ever seen," Kerry said. "I will not only personally go to the
U.N., I will go to other capitals." I guess Kerry forgot that all of
that was tried. The United Nations had 12 years, and could not contain
Saddam Hussein.
The stakes have never been higher in a presidential election. The
safety and security of the United States hangs in the balance during a global
war on terror, and this is the best the Democrats can do. How
pathetic.
BIG DEAL OVER BOB WOODWARD'S BOOK
 Plan
of Attack. It's out today ... the story of the Bush's administration's
plans to rid the world of mass-murderer Saddam Hussein and the threat he
posed. Woodward was on CBS's 60 Minutes last night pushing the book,
which, by the way, is published by the same company that owns CBS. In the
book Woodward delivers an almost verbatim narrative of the events leading up to
the invasion of Iraq. The problem is that, with the exception of President
Bush and Vice President Cheney, none of those quotes are attributed. In
other words ... you make a choice on whether to believe Bob Woodward, or
not to believe him.
That brings us to Woodward's revelation that George Bush ordered plans to
attack Iraq drawn up three months after the 9/11 attacks. This would have
been three months earlier than the date the Bush administration previously
cited. Condoleezza Rice quickly issued a statement stating that Woodward's
account was not accurate .. that it was "simply not, not right."
Well, I guess that's what happens when you write a book containing accounts of
hundreds of conversations without naming sources for your information.
One point should be remembered when considering Woodward's charges. It
was under the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, when the
decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was made; in 1998, to be
more precise. That's when the United States adopted the official position
that regime change in Iraq was our national goal. What, then, is so
surprising about a president developing a plan to achieve a national goal?
Woodward also has much to say about Bush's reliance on Vice President Cheney
and other senior advisors. The crime here seems to be that George Bush
surrounded himself with bright, intelligent and capable people; people who's
advice he actually considered and followed. I guess Bush should have know
that he was supposed to surround himself with pathetic yes-men with no
compelling ideas of independent thought processes.
I'M JUST A SIMPLE-MINDED KIND OF GUY
Yup, I admit it. I'm a simple-minded American ... so simple minded that
the whole Iraqi situation can be summed up rather easily.
- Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq used
them to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.
- Saddam Hussein refused to abide by multiple UN Resolutions concerning
those weapons.
- Saddam Hussein refused to abide by the agreements of the cease-fire he
asked for in 1991
- Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a former president of the United
States
- Saddam Hussein was clearly in contact with Al Qaeda, even offering medical
care for Al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad
- Saddam Hussein was clearly supportive of terrorist efforts against Israel
- There was no reason NOT to believe that sooner, rather than later, Saddam
Hussein would make some of his WMDs available to terrorist elements.
- Saddam Hussein was pursuing a war of terror, rape, pillage and murder
against his own people
Now ... just tell me why the United States shouldn't have removed this
monster from power?
FROM YESTERDAY'S AJC
"VENT"
"So much for the Bush tax cuts that only benefit
the rich. My 2003 taxes for a retired senior went from $3,400 to $1,100.
"
INTEMPERATE THOUGHTS
Who would have thought that Janet Jackson's stupid stunt at the Super Bowl
would lead to delayed broadcasting on C-SPAN?
Iraqi insurgents have some U.S. hostages. Who is coming to the
rescue? You got it! Jesse Jackson rides again! Is Jesse going
to tell us that the hostage-takers called him!
Condi Rice says that the US is bracing for another terror attack ... possibly
before the election. If it happens watch for Demcorats to say that Bush
was in on the planning.
Besides ... who really cares about a terror attack while gas prices are so
high.
C-SPAN is considering putting delays on its telecasts. The Federal
Censorship Commission keeps rolling right along.
They had a riot at Iowa State University over the weekend. Students
objected to police busting up a loud party. Even though some students will
certainly be identified ... you can bet that none will be expelled from
school. It's not like they actually expressed a conservative thought or
something similarly horrible.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
The
Russians are doing all they can to make sure the truth about corruption in
the United Nation's Oil for Food program is never fully revealed.
As we begin this week here is something you can absolutely count on,
something you can take to the bank. Our
Islamic jihad terrorist, murdering enemies absolutely love all of the
bickering going on in this country over Iraq and the war on terror. Well,
as long as they're happy.
Here's
someone who thinks that liberals have no place in talk radio. It's
really too bad that libs are doing so much to prove him right.
At
UNC-Wilmington students recently learned two things: (a) Their tuition
is being increased. (b) the recent coronation of the new chancellor (who
had already been serving for nine months) will cost about $100,000. This
hugely expensive party is happening at the same time that they can't afford to
buy toner for computer labs.
Higher interest rates are on the way. Here's
why.
An excellent article by Peggy Noonan. A
hostile press is swinging the public to Bush.
The new socialist prime minister of Spain has ordered
all Spanish troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. The terrorist
victory in Spain is almost complete.
Former
National Security Adviser Tony Lake is calling the 9/11 Commission hearings
a "sad spectacle." Truer words have never been spoken.
George
Will looks at the realistic situation in the Middle East between the
Israelis and the Palestinians.
Cragg
Haines talks about the realities that the Palestinians don't want to face.
Good piece, especially for those that don't know much about the current
situation.
For the less informed, here's
a guide to the myths and facts of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Cynthia
McKinney is now claiming that the 9/11 Commission is justifying her
ridiculous comments about George Bush knowing about the attacks ahead of time.
The more she talks, the worse it gets.
Despite everything you may hear in the media, a
Democratic Iraq is still on track, according to Joel Mowbray.
Diana
West states a simple fact that you and every intelligent voter in this
country needs to understand. The mainstream media players in this country,
and that includes Bob Woodward, don't want George Bush to win re-election,
and it shows.
Paul
Greenberg talks about recognizing reality, even in the Middle East.
Robert
Novak writes about the interesting cast of characters that are supporting
Republican Senator Arlen Specter for re-election.
John
Leo wonders why the White House press corps, after waiting months to ask the
president questions, decided to all ask him the same thing.
The media denies they are biased, but Chris
Field examines the evidence.
The former acting FBI Director raised
the conflict of interest issue about Jamie Gorelick serving on the 9/11
Commission early on. Gorelick defends herself in
this op-ed piece.
A mother who lost her son in a drunk driving accident is
suing the Coors Brewing Co, claiming that the beer made him do it. A sad
story, but a frivolous lawsuit. | 
Search Boortz.com
