Saturday, November 01, 2003


So, is the economy a "miserable failure" like Gephardt and the Dems have been screaming or has the Bush tax cut stimulated the economy to it's best quarterly perfomance since 1984?

The Democrats have staked all of their hopes on mounting casualties in Iraq and a continuing recession. None of the candidates for President have presented a positive platform - they are all running against everything that Bush has done. So, economic growth is particularly bad news for Dean, et. al.

Just as the recession was not Bush's doing, my feeling is that the recovery, while probably somewhat accelerated by the tax cut, was for the most part going to happen anyway barring some really idiotic monetary or tax policy. Presidents just don't have that much control over the world's largest economy. But, the Democrats wanted to make this the "Bush recession" so, in the minds of the public, it won't be too hard to spin this as the "Bush recovery" going into next years elections. And that's just fine with me.

I'm haven't always been the greatest fan of Bush's spending agenda but having Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld to engineer the war against the IslamFascists is miles better than having some weak-kneed, butt-kisser like Dean or Kerry (or God help us Hillary) running things.

Viva la Bush Recovery!

Monday, October 27, 2003


John Kerry spews more asshattery over at his campaign website:


I disagree with the Bush approach because it simply doesn't share the burden with other countries- it doesn't show the humility necessary to build our friendships and bring people to us.

I guess we should pucker up and kiss some French ass so that we "build our friendships", huh. How about this, how about the French quit trying to kneecap us all the time in the security council. I think liberating the French from their new buddies, the Germans, in two world wars and then paying for the reconstruction of their economy and, in large part, for their defense for the last sixty years should have built up a little friendship. But NOOO...John Kerry thinks we should let the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese run our foreign policy.

It doesn't do all that we can do to protect our troops. The question here is not whether or not the president MIGHT be able to succeed at all that he is doing, over a long period of time, the question is are we doing the most we can do, to MOST effectively protect our troops and most rapidly secure our goals. I believe that by having more countries share the burden and share our risks, by willing to move to get the international community more involved, we will fastest reduce the sense of American occupation, reduce the targeting of American troops, and advance our capacity to be successful.

The UN pulled out and won't come back until the risk is reduced. Exactly how will having a small contingent of multinational forces (or shall I say more nations than the one's currently stationed there like the Poles, British, Australians, and others) speed up the elimination of the fedayeen? It won't. Just more bullshit from a guy with no ideas.


I think we win the peace in Iraq by internationalizing this effort. We have to have the UN be responsible for the civil transformation, the governance, and the infrastructure and humanitarian. And we have to be prepared to transfer authority to the UN to bring other people to us and get them invested in this. I believe that it is critical to the US to end the sense of American occupation as fast as possible, and to transfer authority to the Iraqis as fast as possible, and that can only happen when we begin to bring the international community in to a greater degree.

See any common thread here? International is better! Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, El Salvador, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua are all sending or have troops in Iraq. Does it need to be unaninimous? How many international troops does Kerry think it will take until Saddam and his thugs say "uncle"?

Why does Kerry think that the UN will be more effective than it was for the previous 12 years in Iraq or in Kosovo or in Somalia?


I believe the best way to support the troops is to make sure we take the target off them as fast as possible. The best way to support the troops, is get the international community in to help us, so we can have other troops on the ground share the burden and share the risks, and begin to bring them home as fast as we possibly can.

What a brilliant plan! Let's get the troops home as fast as we possibly can! Why didn't Bush think of that before? Oh, because obviously he wants to have more Americans killed in Iraq.

Will Kerry ever actually propose ANYTHING other than making friends with the French as a plan of action?


I'm prepared to spend money; I'm prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don't want to spend 87 billion when it comes from the average American, when it ought to come from the wealthiest Americans instead of President Bush's tax cut, which is unfair and unaffordable. Senator Biden and I tried to reduce that tax cut from $690 billion over the next ten years; we wanted to reduce it to $600 billion over the ten years. That's not bad, for the wealthiest people 600 billion dollars. But the Republicans voted against even that. I think that's wrong. Particularly when we need to be investing in education, in health care, in our communities at home, in housing and children. And instead this administration wants to put all of the money in the hands of the wealthiest people, and ask the American people to spend 87 billion dollars in Iraq.

Look, cleaning up another 9/11 or worse will be a hell of a lot more expensive than 87 billion dollars. We are fighting a war here - we don't have the choice of spending the money on something else unless we want to LOSE. So, is that your plan Kerry...stick your head in the sand, raise taxes and pay off Democrat constituencies and wait for the day that the Islamofacists figure out how to deliver a nuke to an American city? Brilliant...just brilliant, Senator.


You'd have thought they'd have started with the plan before talking about why it was better than spending 87 billion, but I think we're about to find out why they didn't.

I know there's a better plan for how we deal with Iraq, and here it is, very simply:

Send Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston as Middle East envoys?

Number 1: You've got to go the UN completely, not in this phony way that the President's getting them to sign off just because of the games they play, but in a real transfers of authority to the UN for the civil development, for the governance, and for the humanitarian programs. Then it's possible to have a broader, multination force come onto the ground, relieve the pressure from the American force, reduce the sense of American occupation and take the target off of American soldiers. Once you do both of those things, you can train the Iraqi military and police faster, and you can set a date for the transfer of full authority for Iraq back to the Iraqis. If all of that were done simultaneously, you'd have a much faster transition of authority in Iraq and you'd make the ground much safer for American forces, and you begin to reduce the number of American forces who are overcommitted and overextended, and you could bring them back to the United States much more rapidly."

Translation: I have no plan. If I were in office I'd go to the UN and beg the French to help me. Since the French will only help if we withdraw "within a matter of months" then I'd commit to that. Then we'll leave Iraq in a big mess but hey, I'll say anything to get elected.....and did I mention that I was a WAR HERO?

Kerry, like other Democrat candidates, is having a hard time staking out his position on Iraq. He voted to give the president authority to use force...but he now votes against the appropriations bill to fund the troops and reconstruction - even after 10 billion dollars of it was changed to a loan in the Senate version. He calls on Bush to "share the burden with other countries" but calls a unanimous UN Security council vote "phony". And when he asks himself what his plan is, on his own website he can't give a coherent answer.

The war against the Islamofacists isn't going to go away because we play patty-cake with the French. If Kerry believes the nonsense that he's spouting about Iraq he's a fool; if he doesn't he's the lowest form of opportunistic scum.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=