Thursday, September 23, 2004


I watched Kerry's weak-kneed, desperately hoarse response to Allawi's address to congress this morning. Too tired to write an article of my own (just got in from the west coast), I offer this from Ralph Peters (via Instapundit):

"September 23, 2004 -- IMAGINE if, in the presiden tial election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.
We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?"


"Imagine the encouragement the terrorists, insurgents and global extremists draw from Kerry's declarations of defeat, from his insistence that our efforts in Iraq and in the War on Terror have failed.

As he always does, Kerry slips in qualifiers. Of course, Iraq's important. And he'll fight terror, too. It's just that the Bush administration doesn't know how to do anything. A Kerry presidency would let us withdraw our troops, collect more allies, succeed where others have "failed" and win the hearts and minds of the whole, wide world.

Earlier this week, Kerry made a much-ballyhooed speech offering four generalizations about how he would fix Iraq. But there was no detail, not a single nut or a lonely bolt. And the current administration is already doing most of what Kerry suggested.

As for involving the French and Germans, the truth is that they'd do more harm than good. These are the corrupt cynics who made billions from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program while the Iraqi people suffered. The French kiss up to every dictator willing to wink in their direction. The German military barely exists — it's just an employment agency for uniformed bureaucrats — and the French military's sole competence lies in slaughtering unarmed black Africans.

As for the United Nations, any day now we'll see a huge banner hanging from its Manhattan headquarters: Dictators For Kerry.

Even if I detested everything about President Bush, I'd vote for him just to rub it in the faces of the Germans, the French and all of the tyrants rooting for the Iraqi people to slip back into despotism. We Americans choose our own presidents, and we don't take orders from Europeans or from any of Kerry's other Swiss boarding-school pals.

I think it's great that Kerry speaks fluent French. I wish he'd go to France where he could speak it all the time.

In an election year, our engagement in Iraq is a legitimate topic for sober debate. But Kerry isn't serious. All he does is to declare defeat. He certainly doesn't want to be al Qaeda's candidate, but he's made himself into their man through his irresponsibility."

Spot on.

Monday, September 20, 2004


Too tired for linking...just a few thoughts about the latest RatherGate revelations:

Tonight's events were much anticipated but created a lot more questions than they answered. The appearance of Clinton axe-man Joe Lockhart in the story, coming as it does only a couple of days after we learned of Max Cleland's role, suggests a deeper involvement by the Kerry campaign that was only hinted at before.

If you will Gunga Dan, "with respect", just answer the questions:

1. Tonight you personally said you were sorry but exactly what are you apologizing for and to whom? To your viewers for misleading them with obviously false documentation? To Laura Bush who you questioned as having no proof of her claim that the memos were probably forgeries? To President Bush whose reputation you attempted to smear with a cheap, partisan attack?

2. Why did you accept the memos as genuine when your own experts told you that they had serious concerns about their authenticity?

3. Why did you not listen to Killian's son and widow when they told you that these documents did not square with what they knew about his feelings towards George Bush?

4. Why did you continue on the offensive against the president asking him to "respectfully, answer the questions" raised by the fraudulent documents and by implying to your viewers that because the administration did not deny the unsubstantiated claims it was some kind of admission of their veracity?

5. Why did you accept the word of a wing-nut like Bill Burkett about the authenticity of documents that he was passing on from someone else who remains unnamed?

6. Who are you really protecting? It isn't CBS or Bill Burkett or Mary Mapes - is it Joe Lockhart? Max Cleland? or someone else in the Kerry campaign.

Bad, bad news for Hurricane Dan. Heh, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=