Saturday, October 02, 2004


Captain Ed is reporting on suspicions that recently freed Japanese and Italian hostages in Iraq were actually cooperating with the terrorists willingly to scam their governments out of the ransom money. After Rachel Corrie why am I not surprised?

If this is true it should land the individuals in question in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Anyone cooperating with the "insurgents" in Iraq is an accessory to mass-murder; the blood of all of the innocent people killed in suicide attacks on public gatherings and police stations is on their hands too.

The news media needs to get off its collective lazy ass and get in the middle of stories like these. The MSM relentlessly gives publicity to the terrorists to get their message out around the globe as they attempt to blackmail governments and influence public opinion - the least they can do is give us an accurate picture of the facts on the ground.

Do a little investigative reporting for a change - hey, this is one story where no one would mind if CBS fabricated a few documents to round out a hatchet-piece on Zarqawi! Go Dan...GO!

Friday, October 01, 2004


Guess which cranky old cracker wrote this:

"Kerry is a very good public speaker as long as you don't actually THINK about the shit flying out of his neck. That technique plays well with the True Believers and the Kool-Ade drinkers, but it won't change many minds, not with Kerry's track record of lies and fence-straddling."

Wouldn't want to spoil the surprise.


There is good news in the Gallup poll after debate numbers:

Viewers leaned toward Bush on which candidate agreed with them on issues, who was more believable, and who was more likable. And by 54% to 37%, viewers said Bush better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

These results are based on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted Thursday night immediately after the end of the presidential debate, which ended at 10:30 p.m. Eastern time. Respondents in the sample were first interviewed Sept. 28-29, when they indicated they expected to watch the debate and that they were willing to be called when the debate finished.

In that pre-debate survey, 52% of the viewers who were included in Thursday night's sample said they supported Bush and 44% supported Kerry, similar to the vote preference measured among likely voters in the Sept. 24-26 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Thirty-six percent of Thursday night's viewers identified themselves as Republicans, 32% as independents, and 32% as Democrats.

And the respondents were equally split, at 41% each, on which candidate had a better grasp of the issues.

The bottom line is that honest viewers recognized that Kerry performed better as a public speaker but at the same time recognized that his positions were inconsistent with the ones they hold. And the poll also shows that people were not swayed by the senator's claims that he is every bit as tough on the war as the president.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than they are generally given credit for.


Kerry's make-up artists get an A+ - did they bleach his face to get all of that orange shit off of it? Ooompa loompa loompa-de-de, if you are smart you'll listen to ME!


And Hugh Hewitt does make me feel a little better. Maybe I'm being too critical...hearing all of the weaknesses in Kerry's arguments I was just disappointed that the president didn't hammer them all home as I'd hoped. But the arguments were still weak and obviously so.

Thursday, September 30, 2004


But then again, Kerry did step on his Treblinka. Heh, heh.


What I wish Bush would have said:

On Bunker Busting Nukes: "I'm not surprised that my opponent wants to kill a program that would enable us to attack underground sites of the type that hide our enemies' WMD research facilities. He has opposed weapons system after weapons system during his tenure in the Senate that would have assisted our armed forces in their mission to protect the country. I will never, as your Commander-in-Chief, renounce a weapon that would help deter our enemies and make our nation more secure."

On the "character" question: "I'm actually offended that you would ask me that question, as if I assigned evil motives or charcter flaws to people who disagree with me on policy issues. The issues in this campaign do not revolve around the character of my opponent but rather on his mistaken ideas about how best to lead our country in the wake of 9/11." And then what the president said about his respect for Kerry which was gracious. It was a bullshit question for a "serious" journalist.

And although he wasn't asked about it I think Bush should have elaborated on the PATRIOT Act - at least pointing out that Kerry and his supporters want to weaken it (even though many of them voted for it) because they are concerned about the rights of potential terrorists.

Oh well...it wasn't a disaster...and remember that Mondale was perceived to have won the first debate against Reagan in 84 only to have been flattened in the General Election.


Bush was less than average tonight. Kerry wins.

Bush missed a number of opportunities to hammer Kerry during the debate.

I would have hit him on these:

Kerry criticized the president about not providing body armor for the troops that some of them got the equipment they needed as "birthday presents". My response would have been something like this - "I find it astonishing that my opponent could criticize me for not proviing proper equipment for the troops when he, in his capacity as a United States senator, voted against 87 billion dollars for the war effort, a part of which was devoted to the purchase of body armor. I've heard him try to explain this vote but to me, I guess I'm to simple, I can't understand the nuance. I can only tell you this - there is no excuse for playing politics with the safety of our sons and daughters in uniform during a time of war."

Kerry criticized Bush on the negotiations with North Korea and Bush was better on this issue but he still missed a weakness:

"I listened in disbelief while my opponent suggested that we provide nuclear fuel to Iran to "test their intentions" - that is exactly what the Clinton adminstration did with North Korea. That policy failed and while we supplied North Korea with nuclear reactors and heating fuel they pursued a nuclear weapons program under the noses of the IAEA. We can't repeat the mistakes of the past with the North Koreans - the stakes are too high. The North Koreans don't want the Chinese, Japanese, Russians and South Koreans involved in the negotiations - but why shouldn't we insist on it, after all those countries are the ones actually at risk of North Korean aggression, not the United States. At least we aren't at risk yet. But eventually the North Koreans and others will develop missle systems that can reach our shores and pair them with nuclear warheads which is why it is vitally important that we pursue an anti-missile defense system which the senator, inexpicably, opposes."

On Kyoto:

"I've been criticized about walking away from the Kyoto accords. Well my opponent is a member of the United States Senate - a body that voted 95-0 against Kyoto during the Clinton administrateion. The last time I checked, our Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate. It seems to me that oppostion to Kyoto was one of the few things that the Senate was able to agree upon in a bi-partisan manner and I don't feel that the president should try to circumvent the will of the people as expressed so forcefully by their elected representatives. So I simply informed the world of the will of the representatives of the American people...and whether other countries like it or they don't it's my duty to covey that message."

On our lack of allies: "Apparently the Senator does not recognize the following countries as our allies - Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, and Poland. These countries along with more than 20 others supported our decision to take action and deployed forces there."

On the UN: "My opponent suggests that we did not invite the United Nations into Iraq to help when they offered help. In fact they were in Iraq. Unfortunately the United Nations decided that it would be undesireable to have US forces provide protection for them because it woule make them a target. They were a target even without Americans around. Tragically the UN has not learned the lessons of 9/11 that our opponents are opponents of liberty, human rights and democracy and those concepts are not exclusively American; they never recognized that the Islamic facsists are opposed to us BECAUSE we support liberty, religious freedom, and women's rights. Then the UN did the worst thing possible - they caved in to terrorism. What kind of lesson do we teach the terrorists when we respond to their bloody assassinations and mass murders by abandoning the mission? All we do when we recoil from their attacks is encourage future attacks. We must be steadfast and we must be strong."

Bush stumbled too much. I was surprised at how tentative and halting he was. He was too focused on hammering the theme home - mixed messages, flip-flops, in it to win it, etc. He let Kerry slide too much on his claim that he will be just as strong but smarter.

That said, I'm not too sure how many undecideds will be swayed by this. Kerry avoided being knocked out tonight but that was about the best he could hope for. The electorate will not be turned around on the issue of security - that is Bush's strength and it remains so. And I think the election will hinge on security and there won't be much movement on domestic issues.

I'm not happy tonight but I still think Bush wins by 5 to 6 points with a comfortable electoral margin. If you want a chance at a limited war and not an all out war against Islam, you'd better pray that Bush wins.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004


If, after watching Kerry in the debates attack the president on the PATRIOT Act and de facto take the side of the terrorists against America, you feel the need to vent your spleen "send a message" to George Soros. Oh....pleeeeaaase send a message to George Soros.

While I was writing this brief aside, I heard Chris Matthews say this while interviewing (expecting brainchild) Bill Maher':

"It's as if FDR after Pearl Harbor had said "Let's attack Australia"...what the hell let's kick their butt."

Uhh...not quite Chrissy. It would be more like FDR deciding to attack, ummmm like maybeee... Germany after the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. Do ya think??? Idiot?!!! Germany had an alliance with Japan before the attack but they didn't participate in it. America could easily have made peace with Germany even though they were terrorizing Britain and had conquered France because...hey, they weren't an immediate threat to US!

Analize this - to Chrissy Matthews the following is true: al-Qaeda is to Japan as Iraq is to Australia????? How the fuck does that compute? Matthews has become a disgrace. I can't understand how anyone who has a high-school education could make that analogy. But we have to give him some slack, he was interviewing that intellectual giant, Bill Maher...must have been overcome by the star power.

I know that I'm becoming more vitriolic now but I can't understand how people that I (previously) thought were serious could make statements like that.

John Kerry and the Democrats would be an abject disaster for the our country. We will be subject to MORE attempts at intimidation if that weenie becomes president because al-Qaeda will feel that they were able to influence our elections by the intimidation tactics of suicide bombings and beheading. Kerry had a chance to position himself as tougher than Bush but he's lost that now. No one believes him when he claims that he will keep us safer now; that's why he is losing the female vote now.

And besides, he, like Chris Matthews, is an a-hole. And if I'm going to elect an A-hole for president, I want a president that is going to be an ASSHOLE TO OUR ENEMIES not one who promises only to be an a-hole to his political opponents.


Kerry's comments regarding Prime Minister Allawi's address to Congress last week should have convinced even the most diehard Bush-hater of the Senator's complete lack of character and class. Not to mention seriousness. While his campaign is whining incessantly about "negative" campaigning by the Bushies, Kerry and his henchmen play to the terrorists by castigating Allawi as a "puppet" and lackey of the Administration. Another brilliant tactic to win allies and deter enemies!

Let's be clear about something that apparently Senator Kerry (and Senator's Biden and Kennedy) does not understand - the conflict we are engaged in is more political than military. Islamic facsists do not behead foreign aid workers in Iraq and blow up UN missions in order to defeat us militarily; they use these tactics to turn US public opinion against the war. One beheaded truck driver makes a greater impact than ten dead soldiers, so they continue with their barbaric kidnappings and hope that idiotic US Senators will hysterically react by advocating US troop withdrawals. Once we are gone how many volunteers do you think there will be to fight the Baathist/Islamofacsists?

So what does Kerry do? He could have made a strong statement indicating that he supports Prime Minister Allawi and that he, JFK, would be a better ally because once elected he would clean out the terrorist nests in Falluja and Najaf, increase security forces in the country and accelerate the expenditure of reconstruction funds. That message would have criticized the president while sending a message to our enemies that they will get no relief from the US Military during a Kerry adminsitration. Instead, Kerry carried on with a petulant tirade against the president and implied that Allawi was lying to put a good face on the situation. His remark to a reporter at his press conference immediately following the Allawi speech (reminiscent of the midnight rally that he and Edwards held a few minutes after the end of the Republican National Convention) gave off the strong scent of desperation (among other less pleasant odors).

In case you had any doubt about what Kerry meant in his remarks, Joe Lockhart (the miserable piece of shit that he is) was there to to criticize a man who regularly faces assassination attempts by al-Qaeda and former Baathists as a Bush puppet. I wonder how that statement will play in the Arab press Joe? Think maybe it will encourage the terrorists and help recruitment? Maybe they'll get the idea that if the advisors to the Democratic nominee for US president take this position after just a few American beheadings that more violence will turn the tide? DOES ANYONE AT THE KERRY CAMPAIGN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE NOMINEE HAVE AN AUDIENCE BEYOND OUR SHORES? It does appear that they either want American policy to fail to bring about a secular democratic government in Iraq or they are complete and utter fools.

Why should anyone be suprised that the violence is escalating in the months leading up to our presidential election and the Iraqi elections? The lesson that the terrorists learned from the Madrid bombing was that faced with the brutal tactics of random slaughter Westerners are more than willing to sacrifice Iraq to the Islamofacsists. Having seen this work in Spain they would be fools not to try it again to influence American elections. If they are really smart they understand that Americans are a little more stubborn and patriotic than Spaniards and that any attack on US soil prior to the election will most likely rally the public around the president. But, a procession of videotaped beheadings of Americans could cause public opinion to sour.

Do the terrorists want Kerry to win the election - you bet they do. What Kerry never says (because he can't and still hope to be elected) is that he wants to pull the troops out of Iraq in short order. Senator Kerry is completely unserious about the war in Iraq and the war on Islamofacsism in general and the American electorate senses this - that is why he has no chance to win in Novemeber.

Weblog Commenting by 
<!--WEBBOT bot=