We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident

Political Views & Humor from a Common Sense Perspective
 

Archives
2005 March
2004 December
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
 

BlogRoll
Lynnkramer's Blog
Larryconley's Blog
Thoolou's Lair
The Conservative Hitman
A Healthy Alternative to Work
UberBlog of Anti-Liberalism
A100wwe's Blog

 

Options

Everybody Wants to Rule The World, Well, At Least Kofi Does
09.22.04 (5:07 am)
UNITED NATIONS - President Bush, defending his decision to invade Iraq, urged a vast assembly of world leaders Tuesday to stand united with the country's struggling government and said the proper response to spreading violence "is not to retreat, it is to prevail."

The country's prime minister, Ayad Allawi, offered an upbeat assessment after Bush's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, saying, "We are winning, we are making progress in Iraq, we are defeating terrorists," even as insurgents claimed they had killed a second American hostage in two days.

Of the brutal slayings, Bush said, "We will not allow these thugs and terrorists to decide your fate and to decide our fate."

Yet in a sign of continuing world unease with the situation, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan — who last week called the war in Iraq illegal because it lacked Security Council approval — warned that the "rule of law" is at risk around the world.

Quick Question here for Kofi, but exactly when did we need your approval or the approval of the UN Security Council to declare war? When did we ever agree to give up our sovereignty and our right to protect our own nation in favor of a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats, many of whom were being bribed to vote against us?

We did not need nor should we ever need your approval or the approval of the UN Security Council to declare a war. The laws concerning how this nation goes to war is clearly spelled out in our Constitution, and we obeyed it to the letter.

So while I'm sure it makes you feel like your really something special to pontificate from on high, perhaps you should concern yourself with putting your own affairs in order before you get so self righteous. Perhaps you could take a look at your total failure to come up with even a notion as to how to deal with the situation in Somalia. You might even want to take a few minutes of your time figuring out how to deal with the corruption that runs rampant through your own organization. Perhaps you could spend some of your precious time figuring out how a vicious dictator like Hussien could manipulate and bribe so many UN officials to get whatever he needed.

You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your the leader of the world Kofi, but the truth is the guy working mall security has more real authority than you. So the next time you feel the need to mount your moral high horse and pass judgment on us, you might want to stop and consider the fact that without the United States military and economic might there wouldn't be a U.N., and you'd be back in Ghana herding goats instead of tooling around Manhattan in a limo.
43 Comments
 
The Evil's of Outsourcing
09.20.04 (11:36 am)
Picked up a rather interesting factoid today. One of the campaign issues this election season is a discussion on jobs, particularly on jobs being outsourced to other countries.

The number of jobs we currently outsource to other nations is around 2.8 million, according to the Survey of Current Business.

Staggering! 2.8 million jobs! We must march on the White House immediately and stop the Evil Bush Junta from sending all of those jobs overseas....

But of course that is only if we fail to realize that in addition to America outsourcing jobs to other countries, other countries also outsource jobs to us. In fact according to this study we picked up 4.7 million jobs from other nations outsourcing work here to the United States.

So yes, we could pass a lot of silly laws and regulations to prevent our jobs from being outsourced, but when we do we could hardly expect other countries not to do the same thing to us. The net result? We would put approximately 1.9 million people who currently have jobs out of work here in America, a big net loss for us not only in numbers of jobs but also in relative income. Anybody else want to talk about outsourcing?
14 Comments
 
Press Virtually Ignores Yet Another Theresa Heinz Kerry Meltdown
09.20.04 (9:57 am)
In her latest bout of verbal "honesty" Theresa Heinz Kerry lashed out at her critics for an interview with a Pittsburgh Television station, calling them "scumbags."

Strangely enough our ever present watchdogs in the mainstream media seemed to feel that this, like so many of her other outbursts, were unworthy of reporting.

This and a few of her more interesting statements came to light in an article written by Judith Thurman, of New Yorker magazine:

The New Yorker's Judith Thurman chronicled some of Heinz Kerry's more well-known verbal gaffes before noting the videotaped vulgarity:

"She dismissed voters skeptical of her husband’s health-care proposals as 'idiots,' and, in a television interview with a Pittsburgh anchorwoman, employed the word 'scumbags' to describe some of her detractors," Thurman said.

"There are these bizarre moments that make you shudder," one Kerry adviser told Thurman. "Like calling herself African-American to black audiences."

In an effort to put Heinz Kerry's vulgar verbiage in context, The New Yorker writer explained, "I doubt that she knows the literal meaning of 'scumbag,' but perhaps, after forty years in America, nearly thirty of them as a political wife, observing how the flaws and contradictions of a personality as complex as hers are melted down for ammunition by the other side, she should have learned it."

She doesn't know the literal meaning of the word "scumbag"? Lol.. ok, I've heard some pretty amazing statements made by the liberal media apologists over the years, but this one is so over the top it defies description. If the woman is smart enough to master at least two languages then you can't tell me she doesn't know the meaning of a slang term like scumbag, any more than she doesn't know the meaning of the word kaffir (my apologies to those of you from South Africa or those who are familiar with the term, I use it only to illustrate a point). That is simply ridiculous. You don't bandy about terms like that unless your certain of their meaning, especially not in a public form, and certainly not if you have one iota of common sense.

Considering the absolute lambasting that Dan Quayle recieved for his verbal gaffes I find it rather disingenious of the national media to bury these stories of Theresa Heinz Kerry's verbal outbursts.
2 Comments
 
Rather Disappointing, CBS news dances around truth again
09.20.04 (6:06 am)
After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

But they cautioned that CBS News could still pull back from an announcement. Officials met last night with Dan Rather, the anchor who presented the report, to go over the information it had collected about the documents one last time before making a final decision. Mr. Rather was not available for comment late last night.

The report relied in large part on four memorandums purported to be from the personal file of Mr. Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago. The memos, dated from the early 1970's, said that Colonel Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat'' the record of the young Lieutenant Bush and that the officer had disobeyed a direct order to take a physical.

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian's feelings but that the documents' authenticity was now in grave doubt.

The developments last night marked a dramatic turn for CBS News, which for a week stood steadfastly by its Sept. 8 report as various document experts asserted that the typeface of the memos could have been produced only by a modern-day word processor, not Vietnam War-era typewriters.

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed had come from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents.''

But officials decided yesterday that they would most likely have to declare that they had been misled about the records' origin after Mr. Rather and a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Amazing, that they would express such confidence in their "sources" considering that Bill Burkett has been a rabid Bush hater for years. The man is an obvious partisan with a lot of ties to the Kerry campaign. And what of their two other sources? They too are also highly partisan and extremely suspect. The only "proof" of any of these charges was the memo's themselves, which we have now discovered were forgeries.

CBS contacted two document experts who told them as much, and they ignored both. They ignored the fact that the two people involved here were obviously partisan and had political motives for wishing to discredit Bush. They reported none of these reservations nor did they bother to fact check one of their sources who claimed he got Bush preferential treatment by getting him into the National Gaurd as the Lt. Governer of Texas when he wasn't even Lt. Governer of Texas when Bush joined the Gaurd, he didn't recieve that appoinment until a full year later. Now he's a Vice Chair of Kerry's election campaign, something else the CBS news report utterly failed to mention.

I'd love to be able to give CBS news the benefit of the doubt here, but their sources could at best be considered "highly suspect" from the outset. The fact that they ignored this, and ran with the story despite these obvious problems with no further investigation into it's accuracy. In fact they buried and ignored a great deal of evidence.

If this were a trial and CBS were acting as the prosecutor they'd be up on charges now for disregarding all of this exculpatory evidence. Now they wish to make it seem like they were the innocent "dupes" in this situation.

There were a lot of serious warning flags about this story from the outset. It would have been easy for CBS to discredit their first interview subject, all they would have to do was simply check the dates. Their apparent source of the documents should have also raised some serious red flags. Bill Burkett could be described at best as a rabid partisan. To claim that they were "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents" is laughable at best. They got these documents from an obviously biased and tainted source, and did almost nothing to check the accuracy of his claims as to their source.

They never contacted the Killian family, all they did do was to contact Killian’s former boss and read him "cherry picked" comments and ask him if that sounded like Killian. After he got all of the information he said that definitely did not sound like Killian or anything Killian would have done, but CBS didn't want that answer so they never gave him the whole truth.

CBS obviously didn't like the answer they got from the first two document experts they spoke with, ignored their objections and went looking for a document expert that would give them the answer they did want and totally failed to mention these facts in their story. Sorry CBS, but this innocent dupe thing just isn't going to fly. You obviously had a really good idea this thing stunk to high heaven before you ever put it on the air. If you had any real confidence in the story at all you would have given it much more scrutiny at the outset. You would have fact checked it better, and you would have put the brakes on or at the very least mentioned a lot of the severe doubts about the veracity of there information and sources.

As it is they tried you tried to sell this lemon to the American public and you got caught, red handed. Your sources are partisan hacks that work for the Kerry campaign, one of whom is a Vice Chairman. Your fact checking consisted of ignoring any facts that cast doubt on there story. Your much vaunted "chain of evidence" apparently can be traced back to Bill Burkett, a rabid partisan that has made all sorts of terrible allegations against President Bush and who also works for the Kerry campaign. Someone I would also note would have no business at all having memo's from the personal files of Killian.

It's fairly obvious that Mr. Rather and CBS news were not duped here, they wanted this story to be true so badly that they ignored a ton of evidence to the contrary. A simple fact checking is all that was required to prevent this story from airing, a fact checking that came after the fact not by professional journalist but by bloggers. It's obvious that CBS news had a political agenda in running this story, and their own partisan bias is now evident. If they had truly been unbiased this story either never would have run, that much is obvious. It would have been dismissed as partisan attacks much like they dismissed the Swift Boat Vets, even though the Swift Boat vets have much more credibility and so far have been batting a thousand as far as their allegations are concerned.

Nope, CBS has managed to quite effectively back itself into a corner here. Time to make a full accounting, and to start addressing the actual problem rather than continuing this sorry song and dance you folks have been doing over there. Dan Rather and a lot of your team have stepped over the line, they have ceased being journalists and started being partisan supporters of one political party. As a result you are no longer a news organization, rather you have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic party.

Now, if you wish to fix this your choice is clear, you need to either remove these people completely. I can't imagine anyone ever trusting CBS news as an actual news organization again until you get rid of all of the partisan hacks that allowed this story to go through totally unvetted. As long as they are on the payroll it is only a matter of time before it happens again, and we all know it.
5 Comments
 
More Rather Bad Reporting
09.17.04 (8:12 am)

Caught a rather interesting article over at Powerline today about the White House's response to Dan Rather's smear piece. They quoted an article that appeared in the Washington Times, and I found this of particular interest:


The spokesman also fired back at Mr. Rather for challenging the president to "answer the questions" raised in his widely discredited report, which aired Sept. 8 on "60 Minutes II." The anchorman told an interviewer on Tuesday that such presidential candor would help Bush win re-election. "It's always best for journalists to stick to reporting the facts and not try to dispense campaign advice,"


Mr. McClellan said. He also commented on Mr. Rather's attempt to salvage the story by interviewing an 86-year-old Bush critic on Wednesday's edition of "60 Minutes II." The anchorman asked Marian Knox, a secretary for a National Guard unit more than 30 years ago, whether Mr. Bush received preferential treatment. "I feel that he did," she replied.


To which Mr. McClellan answered, "So now some are looking at feelings and not the facts. We don't have to rely on the feelings of a nice woman who has firmly stated her opposition to the president." White House aides were furious that Mr. Rather did not disclose to viewers that Mrs. Knox told the Dallas Morning News that she opposed the president's re-election, calling him "unfit for office" and "selected, not elected."


Bush advisers were also incredulous that Mr. Rather gave such credence to a woman who openly admitted that much of what she was telling the newsman was "conjecture" and "gossip."


Looks like Rather is at it again, and still unashamedly putting obvious partisan's on and trying to pass them off as credible sources. One can only hope that CBS news will eventually acquire at least enough integrity to put a stop to this sort of nonsense, and put Rather out to pasture where he belongs. But until then I think we can count on CBS's ratings to continue their downward spiral. Take the hint folks, if people wanted to only see press releases from the DNC they'd contact the DNC website. They don't need that stuff not so cleverly disguised as "news".

6 Comments
 
Kerry Supports the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, But Only For John Kerry...
09.17.04 (5:27 am)
Ran across this interesting little tidbit on on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. John Kerry said in an interview:

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

Umm, Senator, weren't you the one that just recently launched an ad campaign decrying President Bush for allowing the ban on assualt weapons to lapse? And now your suggesting that you own a Chinese made assualt rifle yourself?

Lol.. Why do I get the feeling pretty soon were going to learn that the Chinese assualt rifle in question actually belongs to the "family", much like your SUV?
4 Comments
 
Our Defense of Theresa Heinz Kerry.... No, Really
09.16.04 (10:14 am)
There has been a bit of a stir about Mrs. Kerry's recent remarks about hurricane victims not being in desperate need of clothes. She does make a valid point, albeit one that was phrased quite badly, that while clothing is a huge donation item for people wishing to send relief to hurricane victims that there is not nearly as urgent a need for clothes as their is for other items, like potable water.

Clothes is just a natural, most people have cast off's, hand me downs or other clothing items that are no longer needed. So when you hear about a disaster and want to pitch in and help, it's only natural that the first thing most people think to send is clothes.

But I don't think anyone really believes that Mrs. Kerry really wants these people running around naked, she was merely trying to make the point that there are other items that should be given a much higher priority when you consider making a donation.

Now we might disagree with almost everything she stands for politically, and on a personal note I firmly believe her husband is quite frankly the worst choice for President imaginable, I think the democratic party would have done better nominating even someone like Gary Coleman in preference to John Kerry. At least Coleman understands what it's like to actually work for minimum wage.

But despite this I can't really fault Mrs. Kerry for making what is obviously little more than a silly gaffe. The only thing I think is really worth noting here is that if Mrs. Kerry were a republican political figure, rather than a democratic one, the national media would be swarming all over this trying desperately to make a mountain out of a molehill. There would be reporters on her front lawn with pitchforks and torches even as we speak, and I'm sure some of them would even be demanding that she apologize to nudists everywhere for her "crass" remark.

Don't believe me? Just go ask Dan Quayle.
4 Comments
 
Major Media's Major Meltdown (Abject Apologies for Alliteration)
09.16.04 (9:14 am)
NEW YORK The current controversy over the validity of documents pushed in large part by bloggers and purporting to prove that President Bush received special treatment in the National Guard shows that partisan Internet pundits are having a growing impact on mainstream press, for better or worse, according to several newspaper editors.

Although editors from four major dailies contend that their product remains the most trusted source of news for most readers, they admit the blogging community is offering competition and provoking even more skepticism of the mainstream media than usual. But they are divided on whether or not this is a positive trend or not.

"It lends itself to a lot of manipulation," said James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune. "You can have information anarchy. You have to look at who these people are. We have to put some scrutiny on the bloggers."

Well, in the not so immortal words of John Kerry, by all means, bring it on. But of course you realize when we say bring it on, we actually mean bring it on. We don’t mean it they way John Kerry normally does.

But seriously, if you’d like give us all the scrutiny you can handle. While I’m the first to admit that some blogs are more accurate than others, I think you’ll find that most of the good blogs are quite accurate, and often cover things that the mainstream press buries. It’s small wonder so many people turn to blogs as a source of information, considering how out of control some media outlets have become.

Some pundits, including columnists who write for newspapers, have claimed this week that the blog uprising over the CBS documents signals the end of "old media" dominance. But O'Shea believes "that's a lot of baloney. Wait until people start relying on THEIR information and getting burned." He said newspapers need to closely examine who the bloggers are, their expertise and motivation, and "the phenomenon" in general.

Would that be like relying on CBS news for information and getting burned? How about CNN? Or the New York Times? Or the Los Angeles times? I can point out huge errors made in stories by all of these outlets. What’s more, all of these major media outlets have a really bad tendency to bury stories completely or spin them toward a liberal point of view. Very rarely will you see the same standard applied to stories about politicians in the Democratic party as opposed to politicians in the Republican party. The only real difference here is that at least those of us in the blogsphere freely admit our bias, we don’t try and hide it. That allows our audience to make it’s own judgments of our work with some idea as to our personal viewpoint. The major media outlets I mentioned (and many I did not) pretend to be “non-partisan” but nothing could be further from the truth. So you can get off your high horse there O’Shea, no moral high ground for the major media there.

"It is an increasing burden," said Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, who admits daily papers are feeling the impact of bloggers. "It hurts because now anyone can publish on the Web. You have people who are politically aligned raising questions about our standards, but there is no attention given to their standards."

Boo-hoo. Need a tissue there Mr. Ryerson? Seriously though, you can give any attention you want to the standards we use on our blog, I think they will hold up as well if not better than anything used by the major news media. Your own publication included.

Other editors, such as Doug Clifton of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, find bloggers performing an often useful service. He likened them to alternative voices that have always critiqued the mainstream or distributed information daily papers ignore. "The history has been that they find their way into the mainstream press. It used to be handing out pamphlets," Clifton told E&P. "Blogging has ascended more radically because it reaches more people."

Clifton started his own blog on the Plain Dealer site this year.

But, like Ryerson, Clifton warns that many blog readers can fall into the trap of believing anything presented well. "The bloggers cover an incredible spectrum of credibility and authenticity, just like newspapers," he said. "We have the National Enquirer and The New York Times and a lot in between."

No argument there.. though personally I think the New York Times rates only slightly higher than the National Enquirer when your talking about journalistic standards, and only because I haven’t seen a two-headed baby story in the Times lately. The Times is possibly the worst example of journalistic standards one could imagine, it is a thoroughly partisan and biased paper that rarely if ever applies the same standards to stories of a political nature or those concerning public policy. They have an obvious preference for liberal politics and are not at all concerned about presenting what is in truth opinion as fact to support those political agenda items.

For Phil Bronstein, editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, the blogs are just another outlet for those who want to question newspapers, which he believes is positive. "In terms of additional scrutiny it brings, it is good," he said. "It is one of the ways to monitor ourselves."

Still, Bronstein agreed that the growing abundance of such self-published Web sites means newspapers have to deal with much more outside skepticism, opinion and information. "It is a question of filtering through all of the noise," he commented.

Added Bronstein, "blogging is the current hot thing and there may be something else in six months. It may be just a passing phase. And once everyone has a blog, it will become much harder to follow them all."

Ryerson, however, was not as confident. "I don't have a crystal ball," he said. "It is hurting and having an impact. They are now using us more as a punching bag."

And deservedly so, I think. You guys have been getting paid big bucks to be our watchdogs, a supposedly unbiased or nearly unbiased source of information both good and bad. But instead you guys have taken sides, and you don’t have the integrity to admit it. You claim to be unbiased, non-partisan, but a simple examination of your publications makes it quite easy to prove that you are not.

Sure, everybody and their brother has heard of Matthew Shepard, the mainstream media was all over that story. But where were you for Jesse Diskhising? I wouldn’t even know who he was if it weren’t for the internet. How about Juanita Broderick? Sure, you’ll spend tons of time, energy, effort and money tracking down and widely publicizing memos that even the first two document experts you contact think are fake if they criticize a republican politician, ala CBS News. You'll even go so far as to bury the fact that there are some serious questions about the memo’s. You’ll take the word of a partisan political operative that claims that he used his influence to get Bush into the national guard when we was Lt. Governor of Texas, but you won’t do a simple fact check to discover that the guy is obviously lying because he wasn’t Lt. Governor until almost a full year after Bush joined. That is what your organizations consider a “credible” source, but take a woman who accuses then President Clinton of rape and what happens? Story gets buried. A full hour interview with what is described by everyone who has seen it as a credible witness and the story gets buried. You tell me why anyone would give the mainstream media even the slightest benefit of the doubt considering how many times you guys have pulled stunts like this.

Sorry, but you’ve made your own bed and it is high time you lie down in it. You have buried stories and hid information from the public for years trying to influence them to your own political perspective, or the perspective of your respective editors. You’ve printed opinions as facts and ignored any facts that didn’t agree with your opinions. Now you folks want to get all high and mighty and proclaim yourself to be somehow “better” than bloggers? Get serious. You are every bit as partisan as we are, only you don’t have the integrity to admit it.

You might have better initial resources, but in essence that is your only edge, and not one that is likely to continue to give you the domination you seek. So if we scare you, good. If we cost you money, even better. If we finally force you to start vetting your own stories properly and start reporting things that may not agree with your biased world view, then by goodness we’ve done what most of us set out to do in the first place.
0 Comments
 
Riddle Me This, Batman....
09.16.04 (8:16 am)
This is a bit of a sidebar, but a rather interesting question came up as a result of another article we wrote and I thought it might be worthy to explore.

What, if any, obligation does the United States have to other nations of the world?
5 Comments
 
Scare Tactics, it's Not Just a Bad TV Show
09.16.04 (6:47 am)
PARKERSBURG, W.Va. — Vice presidential candidate John Edwards promised a West Virginia mother on Wednesday that if the Democratic ticket is elected in November the military draft would not be revived.

During a question-and-answer session, the mother of a 23-year-old who recently graduated from West Virginia University asked Edwards whether the draft would be reinstated.

"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation.

Ok, you want to talk scare tactics here folks? I know Vice President Cheney has taken a lot of flack from left wing pundints over his remarks about the possibility that electing Kerry-Edwards might result in another terrorist attack on the United States.

But the thing that amazes me is that for all the hoopla they've made over these remarks no one to my knowledge has addressed these kinds of scare tactics used by Democrats like John Edwards. The draft? Come on.. we haven't had a draft since the Vietnam era, over 30 years ago.

It would take an act of Congress that would then have to be signed by the President to institute a draft, not something that it at all likely nor is it something that is even necessary at this point. It's not something the administration has ever discussed, proposed, advocated or even alluded too at all.

But it's not the first time this has been brought up by the democrats during this election cycle. The message? If you vote for Bush you or your kids might get drafted. The tactic? Scare tactic of the highest order. The main stream media? Absent as usual, harping on the the republicans for using these types of tactics and taking no notice of the same shenanigans by the Democratic party.
4 Comments
 
More Apparent Forgeries, but at Least CBS is Not Involved
09.16.04 (5:49 am)
I recieved an email yesterday from a gentleman that pointed me to this website:

http://www.glcq.com/new_document.htm" title="http://www.glcq.com/new_document.htm" target="_blank"http://www.glcq.com/new_docum...

His contention was that the following document the showed proved George Bush did not fulfill his National Gaurd Commitment.

[image]stepdad_700661012.jpg[/image]

Ok, just reading through the text of this document it appears to be a fairly standard agreement, but of course one can immediately discount it based on the fact that records clearly show that George Bush did recieve an honorable discharge. If he had indeed signed such an agreement, then the agreement was between him and the United States Military. If the military chose to give him an honorable discharge, obviously they also chose to release him from any such agreements and state that as far as they were concerned his service was completed honorably. While certainly there are still some (mostly in the partisan media) that question that, there are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

No one, not even the partisan media, has ever accused President Bush of falsifying records or recieving his honorable discharge or any other medals, awards or honors conferred under false pretenses.

But lets assume for just a moment that this document might actually indicate that Bush did not serve "honorably" because he didn't honor all the conditions of the agreement, even though it is obvious that the military in this case waived any such agreement by giving him an honorable discharge.

The document itself is rather curious in two regards, first the website in question makes the claim "The source of this document was someone with unquestioned access to it, and there is no doubt regarding its authenticity. "

I would point out to the author of this webpage that while perhaps that might not raise doubt in your mind, any documents obtained that you cannot divulge the source raise serious doubts in the minds of any objective observer. All we have is your assurances that the document was obtained from a reputable source, but no way of verifying how reputable that source might be. That is cause for serious doubt indeed.

But the thing I found most curious about the document was the signature. Take a look at George Bush's signature on the document above.

Now take a look at his signature as it appears on this autograph:

[image]stepdad_1162705875 .jpg[/image]

Now folks I am certainly no handwriting expert, but I don't think you have to be to spot some serious discrepancies between these two signatures, they are almost nothing alike at all. So I think it's safe to say that we are most likely looking at yet another forgery, but thankfully at least this time CBS steered clear of it.
7 Comments
 
Hurrah for Bloggers, sort of...
09.15.04 (7:37 am)
Ran across this rather interesting article today


Bloggers key to tracking down truth in media

By Dan Gillmor

Mercury News Technology Columnist


I still don't know whether Dan Rather and his colleagues at CBS News' ``60 Minutes'' show got snookered by a memorandum-faking con artist when they reported on documents that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard duty. As a journalist I hope they didn't, though I suspect they did.

As a journalist you might want to keep current on the news, it's been reported now that CBS news contacted two document exports who expressed "serious concerns" about the documents before they ever aired the story, particularly about the signature which was fairly easy to spot as a fake. They apparently didn't like these expert opinions so they kept asking around until they finally found a "expert" that gave them the answer they wanted. It's fairly obvious now that CBS wasn't "snookered", they went into this wanting those documents to be real, either because of partisan politics or a desire to have a "scoop" or a mixture of both. They knew there were serious questions about the authenticity of those documents before the story ran, but they never even bothered to include those doubts in their own report.

And while doubts about the memo's authenticity were first raised on the Internet, some of the self-congratulatory online chest-thumping is overdone. Why? The traditional media would not have ignored the issue. Certainly by now, big newspapers and broadcasters would have been asking deservedly tough questions of a dismayingly recalcitrant CBS.

You have more faith in the major media than I do I'm afraid. I doubt most major media outlets would really spend that much time or attention on a news report done by the competition unless an outside source, (in this case bloggers) had not of done the legwork first.

Yet I'm also convinced that the emergent online community known as the ``blogosphere'' -- the world of Weblogs, or blogs -- has played an essential role in this bizarre sequence of events. The major shift, however, is one of perception, less in what happened than its high visibility and velocity.

Let's review.

A week ago tonight, ``60 Minutes'' added to the already voluminous yet remarkably fuzzy data about what Bush did or did not do during his Vietnam-era Air National Guard service. The broadcast included several purported memos from one of Bush's supervisors, alleging pressure from the Bush family to provide special treatment for a member of a politically powerful and connected family.

Whether or not you believe (I do) that Bush's family pulled strings to keep him out of Vietnam's dangers, and whether you believe (I do) that he skipped out on his duties toward the end of his Guard service time, the memos had an odd odor. For example, they'd surfaced at a suspicious time, two decades after allegedly being written.

But just because you "believe" this to be true doesn't mean you can provide any supporting evidence. Even the partisan hack that claimed he helped Bush get into the National Guard while he was Lt. Governer of Texas is easily discredited, he wasn't Lt. Governer of Texas when Bush joined the Guard. He didn't recieve that posting until a year later, so his assertion is obviously a lie.


Questions rose quickly

Soon after Rather and company signed off last Wednesday evening, some right-wing bloggers started asking tough but legitimate questions about the memos. They observed that the typeface and appearance were quite advanced for the electric typewriters of the era. Some bloggers asserted, without proof, that the memos were an outright forgery. Then family members said they didn't believe the supposed author, long dead, had written them. Big media and left-leaning bloggers jumped in, and collected more damning data (and some supportive of CBS's story, too).

CBS responded the way Big Media organizations are prone to doing. It threw up a semi-stonewall, reiterating utter confidence in the report.

Then the network suggested that the bloggers' political agenda and lack of journalistic credentials made their charges somehow ridiculous. That was another error.


I'll agree with you there, ignore us at your own peril.

Anyone reading the agenda-driven bloggers' reports had a right to be wary, given their motives and, in many cases, uncritical parrotting of the scurrilous and largely debunked charges about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam service. But the Bush-memo suspicions couldn't be dismissed, either. Maybe there's no fire, but there's a heck of a lot of smoke.

Largely debunked by whom? Even Kerry's own statements about what happened at that time frame are conflicting and full of factual errors. To my knowledge no one from the Kerry campaign or the major media has ever actually addressed these charges on a point by point basis or provided any evidence of any sort debunking anything. All they have is an official recommendation document that was based on an after action combat report that was probably written by none other than John Kerry himself, which is hardly what I consider to be an accurate source of information on the topic.

No one has ever done a point by point refutation of the charges brought by the Swift Vets, nor has Senator Kerry had the courage to release all of his records so that we can have a reasonable opportunity to ascertain the truth. Sadly you folks in the mainstream media have too much of a political agenda to pressure him to do so, even though you all chomped at the bit to put that kind of pressure on President Bush to release his records, which he has done.

Regardless of what one thinks of the bloggers' politics, they advanced the memo story. And they did it fast -- no doubt more quickly than the mass media would have done.

They could fuel the firestorm for several reasons. First, they were passionate about their cause: looking for reasons to shoot down the CBS report, which turned out to be a huge target.

Second, they are many. We in the media -- at least those of us who might have been prepared to jump instantly into the question of whether the memos were real -- are relatively few.

Third, the velocity of information is so much greater with digital technology. What once would have taken days or weeks to make its way through the media sphere now ricochets around the world in hours.

One danger in such a world is the spread of misinformation, corrected too late to erase or even very much mitigate the damage. Some hard-core partisans don't seem to care about this, but the rest of us should.

Lol.. are bloggers partisan? Yup. But at least people know where partisan and where we stand. Dan Rather and his crew did far more to spread disinformation than we ever could, and they do so under the pretense that they are objective. What a crock. They are every bit as partisan as the worst blogger, and their total refusal to properly vet this story or to retract it now is proof positive of that fact. So you might want to climb down off your high horse there. You in the "professional" media have proven yourselves to be every bit as partisan, error prone and suspect as the worst of partisan blogs. Their are only three real differences between us.

1. You for the most part have access to better resources, and as such have really no excuses for the glaring errors in your own reporting.

2. You pretend to be objective, we dont' suffer under any such delusions and neither does our audience. They know where our prejudices lie and as such can judge our information accordingly. We don't pretend to be above partisan concerns, and we don't con our audience into believing that either.

3. You do this full time and you get paid for it.


Really those are the only 3 areas in which we truly differ, and quite frankly I don't think you have the moral high ground by any stretch of the imagination.

And it's worth noting that this would not have become such a public controversy had the major media not picked up the story.

I think you underestimate our audience somewhat, but so be it. I think the major media had to pick this up because it was not a story that could be ignored.

Even as we take care not to draw the wrong lessons from this episode, though, let's not debunk the genuine achievement of the bloggers. Their version of ``open source'' journalism is notable.

No, they weren't the first to do this. Trent Lott lost his position as leader of the U.S. Senate's Republican majority in late 2002 because bloggers helped egg mainstream journalists into realizing that Lott's expression of nostalgia for a segregationist past was a serious story.

Increased scrutiny

Media watchdogging isn't new, either. But the newest version is nothing like the mostly polite coverage we in the business tend to extend to ourselves and our peers. What's happening now is sometimes instructive, and always tough.

Polite... lol.. ok, I think that might also be and understatement but lets just say it would be only natural for you folks to have a much higher opinion of yourselves than we have of you.

Journalists have demanded more transparency of others. Now, thanks to the ability of large numbers of people to dissect our work in public and in something close to real time, they're demanding more of us. We'd better get used to it.

That would be nice, it would also be nice if you folks weren't so whiny about it. It seems like every time you folks mention bloggers you have to go out of your way to degrade or belittle us in some way, even in this editorial you posted you have to make special point of our "partisanship". Truth is your every bit as partisan as we are, just take note of your own assertion that the accusations about John Kerry's vietnam service have been "debunked" when in truth you couldn't post a single mainstream media report that would actually do just that. The only real difference is that we dont' pretend to be non-partisan, and you do.

8 Comments
 
Best Wishes for the Big Easy
09.15.04 (6:15 am)
Pray (or whatever you do) for the people of New Orleans. They are in the line of fire in a big way, and if Ivan doesn't take a turn, there is a very real possibility of it wiping out New Orleans.

For those of you that may not realize, New Orleans actually lies below sea level. The city is protected from the sea by levees. If this hurricane hits there, it's very possible, according to reports that I've heard so far, that the city of New Orleans could find itself under 20 feet of water.

Let's hope and pray that's not so.

Submitted by: Redneck Bob
5 Comments
 
Without further delay, this weeks photo caption contest
09.15.04 (5:58 am)
You know the drill folks, enter as often as you'd like, no purchase necessary :)

[image]stepdad_534781100.jpg[/image]
12 Comments
 
Last Weeks Photo Contest Winners
09.15.04 (5:38 am)
Sorry for the delay folks, been a busy week. But here are the winners for last weeks photo caption contest

[image]stepdad_1020032513 .jpg[/image]


Our third place entry, submitted by Defensor. John Edwards discovers that sometimes dealing with senior citizens on the campaign trail can be rather frustrating:

[b]"Look, I'm pretty sure it's not Fargus, but for the 16th time, John's middle name is not important!!"[/b]

Our second place entry, by noguru, John Edwards tries his best to deal with the Swift Boat Vet issue.

[b]"That Christmas in Cambodia whopper by Kerry, hell, it had to be this big"[/b]


And our first place entry, submitted by LarryConley, John Edwards takes a que from his hollywood supporters and attempts a product placement during his campaign:

[b]"Let me make one thing PERFECTLY clear.... I am NOT going to pay a lot for this muffler."[/b]

Congratulations to all our winners, they will be recieving tbucks for their winning entries. This weeks contest will be posted shortly.
2 Comments
 
Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls
09.15.04 (4:45 am)
If you have been following the reaction to CBS getting caught with its pants down by the blogosphere, you’ve likely heard the charges made by critics that bloggers as a whole are, in sum, a bunch of unregulated rabble sitting in our pajamas and firing off tirades with none of their much-vaunted editorial control and “objectivity”. Our critics make the claim that because we are not paid professional journalists that we are not to be listened to.

Well, welcome to the marvelous world of Freedom of the Press.

Long ago, when our Founders first set up the First Amendment, there were no multi-national media conglomerates that had a monopoly on information dissemination. There was no CBS, no NBC, no CNN, and no Fox News. Clear Channel radio did not exist. The New York Times was not yet conceived. No indeed, what you had was that anyone that could get their hands on a printing press could publish and distribute information that he thought the people of his community needed to know. The history of early journalism is filled with examples of unregulated rabble-rousers making their voices heard to as large an audience as possible.

Sound familiar?

Over the years, journalism developed into a capitalist institution. This natural progression put more control of the flow of information into the hands of those who could buy ink by the barrel. With the advent of radio and television, the flow of information on world events was narrowed down into a handful of outlets. Namely three large TV networks, and a number of radio channels that presented news. This was the way it was for a while, until the advent of the cable news channels and radio programs focused on discussion of the events of the day, and allowed their listeners to add their voice to the program. A new era of interactive news was ushered in by a number of local talk show hosts, and exploded onto the national scene with the emergence of that “lovable little fuzzball”, Rush Limbaugh.

For years now, “geeks” of all stripes have congregated on internet bulletin boards, chatrooms, and other online gathering points. The world has narrowed as we communicate with people from all over the world, with their varied life experiences and viewpoints. We discuss all manner of topics, and share that experience and knowledge with each other.

Now, in the 21st Century, we have a new printing press. It’s called the World Wide Web. It’s affordable by the masses, and it allows the sharing, discussion, debate, and broadcast of news and opinion of anyone with the skills necessary to make themselves heard. It’s pure, unfettered communication, and it is the ultimate fulfillment of Freedom of the Press.

No longer is information controlled by a few powerful outlets. At your very fingertips lie the tools to research and fact-check just about any news story for yourself. Thousands of people can add their two cents to any discussion, bringing their own unique viewpoints, knowledge and experiences into the mix. This allows for a freedom of communication that exceeds our Founders’ wildest imaginations.

The “Rathergate” scandal is a watershed moment in this evolution, and marks the time when the internet comes into it’s own in the history of journalism. Within moments I can look at all sides of a story. I can even check sources that the reporters didn’t. Take the article I did on Pete Yost’s story about the rally fliers in the office of the Alachua County Republicans. Within hours of reading the story and finding I had questions about it, I did my own checking, and I shared the info that I had with you. I was able to communicate with sources closest to the story, and passed along what it was that they told me. You are then able to filter that information through your experience and decide what’s true, what’s not, and what to do with that information. You don’t have to take my word for it, even. The power of the medium allows you the check it out for yourself, and feed that information back into the discussion, enlightening everyone looking in on it. In the matter of the CBS memos, within an hour or two of engaging in the discussion, I had discovered info that convinced –me- that the memos were forged. I shared it with all of you. Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, Little Green Footballs, and others ran with their stories about the issue, and within 12 hours the information that the internet “hive-mind” had put together was reflected in the evening news.

That, folks, is a Free Press. Vox Populi. The People have been given back their Voice, and we are using it, and we are being heard. Our influence is being felt. It’s power to the people in its purest form, and it frightens those who would use –their- printing press to exert their influence on us and mold public opinion to suit their ends. It represents a loss of power to those who have controlled information for so long, and it in the end forces them to be honest with us, because now they know that our eyes are open, and at the very least it gives us the ability to call them on it when they are not, and to help information reach the airwaves that otherwise may have been buried.

This is how it was meant to work. Let Freedom Ring.

Submitted by: Redneck Bob
3 Comments
 
Kerry Declares Himself Unfit for Command?
09.14.04 (12:30 pm)
Seems like Senator John Kerry has taken the Howard Dean stance on the Iraqi War, well, at least for this week. The Senator declared the Iraq war to be "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."

But he's got a bit of a credibility problem here, as Vice President Cheney pointed out. During the Democratic Primaries Senator Kerry, in attempting to distance himself from Dean's position, had this to say:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president"

Ok, so according to Senator Kerry he himself lacks both the judgement and credibility to be elected President. Egads, I think I finally agree on something with John Kerry...

Lol..
0 Comments
 
Rather Silly
09.14.04 (9:54 am)
Rather: AT A DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY, THE SHOTS BEING FIRED BY RETIRED MILITARY MEN WERE AIMED DIRECTLY AT PRESIDENT BUSH'S NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE.

McPeak: "OFFICIAL RECORDS SHOW THAT HE SKIPPED A PHYSICAL AND WAS GROUNDED. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO FORGET YOUR ANNUAL PHYSICAL? I TOOK 37 OF 'EM IN A ROW."

Rather: THERE HAS ALSO BEEN CRITICISM OF THE NEW DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY CBS, BUT CBS USED SEVERAL TECHNIQUES TO MAKE SURE THESE PAPERS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Really? One of your "techniques" involved calling a guy on the phone and quoting several passages out of context and then asking him if that sounded like something Killon would say. You got the answer you wanted and called it good. But when this gentleman got to see all of the information, not just the few passages you cherry picked, he categorically stated these documents were almost certainly forgeries.

TALKING TO HANDWRITING AND DOCUMENT ANALYSTS AND OTHER EXPERTS WHO STRONGLY INSIST THAT THE DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE 70S.

Sure, they could have, assuming that a National Guard officer had a typewriter in his office that would cost at the time about the equivalent of around $15,000 today, which means their isn't a snowballs chance in Hades that this outlandishly priced piece of typesetting equipment would have been found in a National Guard office being used for everyday mundane tasks such as typing memos. I suppose we can even disregard the fact that supposedly he typed these memo's himself on this incredibly expensive typewriter despite the fact that it was well known he rarely if ever typed anything and on the rare occasions that he did take notes he did so in handwritten form.

That still of course leaves us with the minor inconsistency that the signature he used on these documents didn't come anywhere close to matching any signature he used before or after these supposed memos, the fact that he was supposedly being pressured by someone that had left the service some months earlier to give Bush a positive review, and all of the other glaring inconsistencies we find in the format and style not only of the memos but in the signature blocks themselves, which don't match any official documentation from Killon's office at the time.

Bill Glennon, Technical Consultant: "EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THOSE DOCUMENTS, THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING CAN'T BE DONE, AS YOU SAID, 32 YEARS
AGO, IS JUST TOTALLY FALSE. NOT TRUE. PROPORTIONAL SPACING WAS AVAILABLE. SUPERSCRIPTS WERE AVAILABLE AS A CUSTOM FEATURE. PROPORATIONAL SPACING BETWEEN LINES WAS AVAILABLE. YOU CAN ORDER THAT ANY WAY YOU'D LIKE."

Sure you can, if you were willing to pay through the nose for it, something the National Guard certainly would not have done, as it is quite rare that you would get new office equipment in the military to begin with, much less incredibly expensive piece of equipment like that. In modern day terms that would be like outfitting a national guard office with a top of the line computer system, desktop publishing software and a brand new top of the line color laser printer with which to write memos.

But lets suspend disbelief for just a moment and make the assumption that this man who from all accounts did not type was for whatever reason given this incredibly expensive IBM Selectric typewriter. The problem is that document experts have actually tested this particular model of typewriter and while it does indeed have the superscript and other features you mention, the type face simply doesn't match up no matter what they tried.

These same experts then tried to reproduce your documents using Microsoft word, and viola! A perfect match. A word processing program that wasn't even available until years after these memos were written. So much for your experts Mr. Rather.
2 Comments
 
CBS News ... That wouldn't happen to stand for Complete B.S. would it?
09.14.04 (5:55 am)
The suspected source behind the CBS News "60 Minutes II" segment on President Bush's National Guard service has spent the past six years lobbing accusations at Bush and his aides for allegedly tampering with military records.

Retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett has been identified by Newsweek magazine as a "principle source" for the Sept. 8 segment that showed purported National Guard records casting a negative light on Bush's performance with the Guard in the early 1970s.

Since the CBS report anchored by Dan Rather aired, many typographical experts have pointed to problems with the documents and the network itself has come under attack for possibly using forgeries as the foundation of its report.

Burkett has a long history with Bush, dating back to Bush's 1998 gubernatorial re-election campaign in Texas. After retiring from the Guard in January 1998 for medical reasons, Burkett accused the governor's aides of improperly inspecting Bush's records for anything embarrassing.

Similar charges surfaced in the days before the 2000 presidential election, according to the Sunday Times of London. At the time, Burkett said Bush's aides had searched military documents to resolve any conflicts between Bush's service and the account in his biography.

The allegations became the subject of an 1,800-word article by Burkett in March 2003, published by Veterans for Peace. It accused Bush of sending Burkett on a military assignment to Panama in retaliation for Burkett's refusal to alter Bush's official military personnel records. Burkett, who became ill after the trip, later said he had "overstated" his accusation.

Then, this February, after Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe broached the issue of Bush's record, Burkett reappeared with charges that he had overheard Bush's former gubernatorial chief of staff Joe Allbaugh in 1997 request that the Texas National Guard scrub Bush's files.

Newsweek's report this week noted that CBS News sent producer Mary Mapes to Texas to interview Burkett, who lives in Baird, about 25 miles from Abilene. CBS News has refused to reveal the source of the four pages of documents. Burkett didn't respond to a call or e-mail message from CNSNews.com on Monday.

I guess it's small wonder that CBS news doesn't want their source revealed, if indeed Mr. Burkett is their source. It would hard to find a more partisan source if one tried, and for all of their posturing about their source being "unimpeachable" if such were the case there certainly would be no need to protect their sources identity so fiercely.

Hopefully CBS news will eventually wise up and realize that his is not simply going to be swept under the rug. Their current stand, that there is in essence nothing wrong with their story is laughable at best. The documents have now been examined by a multitude of experts and they have thus far all come to the same conclusion, that the documents themselves are fakes, and fairly obvious fakes at that.

CBS news had an obligation to properly investigate any story that was this potentially damaging to someone’s reputation, and they completely failed to do so by any measurable standard. Instead they ran a story that as it turns out is based on forged documents and CBS news is still refusing to name this supposedly "unimpeachable" source.

So welcome to the information age, Mr. Rather and Company. These tactics may have worked 5 or 10 years ago, when the major media outlets had a stranglehold on this information, but not any longer. Your stories are no longer taken as gospel, and your sources are now being double and triple checked by people who have reason to be critical of your work.

The ivory tower is crumbling gentleman. I found it rather amusing that Bill O'Reilly was mentioning how this story was picked up by the internet bloggers first and then became something picked up by the media, he seemed surprised at the speed at which the information was dissected.

As RedneckBob and a few others mentioned in something of an impromptu round table discussion we had last night, it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise. The information is dissected, as he put it, by a "hive mind" of sorts. Each of us brings a different perspective and different life experiences to the table and our information and analysis is disseminated and shared at amazing speeds thanks to the internet.

There were bloggers who picked up on the typeface problems, there were others who noticed discrepancies in the manner in which the documents were phrased. It was our own RedneckBob who to our knowledge was the first to bring up the discrepancies in the signatures themselves.

Each blogger brought his own experiences and his own knowledge to bear on the problem, and that information and analysis was shared and double checked by others at internet speeds. The result? CBS News is busted, caught red handed airing a story that they didn't properly fact check.

Is this an example of bias? Perhaps one could have made the case that this was simply an honest mistake by CBS news. At least such a case could be made before they decided to throw what little credibility they had left behind defending this poorly researched and utterly false piece of garbage they laughingly referred to as a "news report".

Sorry CBS, but there is no easy way out of this one now. At best one could say you folks didn't do your research and ignored facts that might have interfered with your big "scoop", and as a result you aired a story that could have been very damaging to the reputation of a public figure. At worst one could assume that you are really little more than a propaganda wing for the Democratic National Party, and that you will do anything, including falsifying stories like this one, to try and get Kerry elected.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but regardless of which of these turns out to be true one thing is certain. You've allowed your bias and your arrogance to overwhelm you to the point where you printed a story that was really little more than a pack of lies. You know it and so do we. But rather than being professional enough to admit your mistakes instead you now wish to bury the truth and proclaim what you know to be lies as the truth in order to save your own reputation, or possibly your preferred political candidate, or both.

Sorry CBS, but that is simply inexcusable. No free pass here. You didn't check your sources, you didn't research your story, and you took the word of at least one partisan hack (and it appears most likely two) and some forged documents and fabricated a story from there.

Now you've been busted and rather than come clean you wish to pretend it never happened and that you are beyond reproach, as are your sources. Sorry Charlie, no cigar there. So how do you fix this mess? Simple, apologize profusely, admit your mistakes at least if not your actual bias, and make every bit as big a deal of retracting your story as you did of airing it in the first place.

Otherwise I'm afraid that much like the dinosaurs before you, CBS news will eventually become extinct. The times they are a changing folks. No more free rides for the major media. Your facts are being checked and double checked now. Your stories are being vetted by outside sources who have the advantage of a huge communications network and a variety of life experiences that you might not have in your microcosm.

The old days of lazy reporting where you didn’t have to check your facts and could air almost any story you wanted without regard for the truth are long since over, and you and other news organizations had best take note of that and quickly and adapt. For all of the disdain that many “professional” journalists show towards those of us in the blogosphere your simply going to have to cope with the fact that you no longer have a monopoly and that your facts will be checked, exhaustively.

So to CBS news I would strongly advise you to at the very least retract your story and to do something to assure the public that you won’t allow this sort of poorly researched, poorly fact checked partisan nonsense on the air again.

It’s not like you folks can really afford to loose to many more points in the ratings, your organization was gasping for air before this incident. I’m afraid your current pretense that the story was factual or at least well researched has been completely debunked, and this nonsense that your source that you refuse to name is somehow beyond reproach simply won’t fly either. Face it folks, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

0 Comments
 
A Timeline of Terror
09.10.04 (12:26 pm)

What follows is a partial timeline of events, each is an attack by an Islamofacist terrorist group or it's affliates, all of these events involve the kidnapping, torture or murder of United States Citizens.


 


This is the face of Islamofacist terrorism folks.  It didn't start on 9/11, and it certainly won't end there.  Please note that this timeline is not yet complete, and it includes only those attacks that involve U.S. Citizens.  When time permits perhaps I will extend this to include all attacks against the people of other nations as well, but for now these are just the attacks against U.S. Citizens.


 


1979



November 4th


 


Iranian radicals seize the US Embassy in Tehran, taking sixty-six American diplomats hostage. The crisis continues until 20 January 1981 when the hostages are released by diplomatic means.


1983



April 18th


 


U.S. embassy in Beirut Lebanon destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.


 


October 23rd


 


Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.


 


December 12th


US Embassy in Kuwait targeted by Iraqi Shia terrorists who attempted to destroy the building with a truck bomb. The attack was foiled by guards and the device exploded in the Embassy fore-court killing five people.


1984



March 16th


CIA station chief in Beirut, Lebanon, William Buckley, was kidnapped by the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad. He was tortured and then executed by his captors.


 


April 12th



Eighteen US servicemen killed and eighty three people injured in bomb attack on restaurant near USAF base in Torrejon, Spain.


 


September 20th


Suicide bomb attack on US Embassy in East Beirut kills twenty three people and injures twenty one others. The US and British ambassadors were slightly injured in the explosion which was attributed to the Iranian backed Hezbollah group


 


1985



March 16th


 


US journalist Terry Anderson is kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon, by Iranian backed Islamic radicals. He is released in December 1991.


 


June 9th


 


US academic, Thomas Sutherland, at the American University, Beirut, Lebanon kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and held until November 18, 1991.


 


June 14


A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy diver, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.


 


September 12th


US academic at the American University in Beirut, Joseph Cicippio, seized in Beirut by Iranian backed Islamic terrorists. He is released on December 1, 1991.


 


October 7th


Four Palestinian Liberation Front terrorists seized an Italian cruise liner in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, taking more than 700 hostages. One U.S. passenger was murdered before the Egyptian Government offered the terrorists safe haven in return for the hostages' freedom.


 


October 21st


American businessman Edward Tracy kidnapped in Lebanon by Islamic terrorists and held for almost five years until August 11, 1991.


 


1986



March 30th


A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four U.S. citizens.


 


April 5th


Two U.S. soldiers were killed, and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.


 


1987



January 24th


American citizens Jesse Turner and Alann Steen were seized in Beirut by Islamic terrorists. Turner was held until October 22, 1991 and Steen is released on 3 December 3, 1991.


1988



February 17th


US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgens, kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian backed Hezbollah while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization in southern Lebanon.


 


April 14th


 


The Organization of Jihad Brigades exploded a car bomb outside a USO Club in Naples, Italy, killing one U.S. sailor. 



August 8th


Pakistan president Zia Al Haq and US ambassador are killed, along with thirty seven other people, when a bomb explodes on a C-130 Hercules aircraft just after take off from Bahawalpu, Pakistan. December 21


December 21st


 


N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.


1993



April 14th


 


Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait


 


Feburary 26th


 


A bomb exploded in basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.


 


1995



July 4th


In India, six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.


 


August 21st
Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb in Jerusalem that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.


 


November 13th


Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.


1996



June 25th


 


Truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex in  Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring 385 others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.


 


1997



February 23rd


 


A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."


 


October 30th


 


Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.


 


November 12th


Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.


 1998


 



August 7th


 


Truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden, who remained at large.


 



December 28th


 


Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.



2000  



August 12th


In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.


 


October 12th


 


U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in a deliberate terrorist attack. Osama Bin LAden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network suspected.


 


December 30th


A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front is allegedly responsible.



2001



September 11th


 


Hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,995: 2,752 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group responsible.


2003


 



May 12th


 


Suicide bombers killed 34 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.


 


2004



May 29th through 31st


 


In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.


 
3 Comments
 
No Blogs Tommorow
09.10.04 (11:07 am)
In remembrance of the anniversary of 9/11 we will not be posting any blog entries tomorrow, and our normal photo caption contest winner and new contest will be delayed until Monday. I will also not be responding to any commentary until Monday.

I would encourage my fellow bloggers to do the same. Take tomorrow to remember 9/11. Take the time to spend with your families and loved ones, and appreciate how precious the gift of life. Take the time to stop by a local fire house or police station and thank them for all that they do for us.

Take the time tomorrow to be an American. Not a Democrat or a Republican, just an American.
39 Comments
 
A Look Back
09.10.04 (10:17 am)
[image]stepdad_1205736558 .jpg[/image]

Was it really three years ago?

I was sitting in my office that morning, the usual activity taking place, when I heard on the radio that a plane had struck one of the World Trade Center towers. I, like many others, thought that it was some kind of accident. Probably a (small, I thought) plane had gone off course, or out of control and hit the building. Details were scarce to start with, and I just kept an ear to the radio.

Details started to come in. That it was large plane, and that the Trade Tower was heavily damaged. Still thinking it was a tragic accident, I wondered how it could have happened, and thought about the people who were probably killed or injured. I remember talking to my wife on the phone, about how awful this was, and had I heard? Yes I’d heard, and I told her I was listening to the radio and would let her know what was going on.

There is one of those tiny little B&W TV’s in the office, and we had turned it on to see what was going on. The cameras were focused on the burning tower, smoke billowing.

Then the second plane hit. All activity in the office came to a halt as we rushed back to the little TV in abject horror. Email exploded as friends updated each other and discussed what was happening in New York. Somewhere along the line, I was talking to my wife on the phone again, and I remember mentioning that this went far beyond a terrorist attack. This was an act of war.

Over the next several hours, it all played out. The Pentagon is hit? Skyscrapers in Chicago being evacuated… the plane in Pennsylvania, bomb scares in DC… You may remember the images. People falling or jumping from the buildings, the smoke, the fire. Then the first collapse… Shock on the face of New Yorkers and commentators alike. Disbelief. These buildings, which had stood so tall for so long, couldn’t… fall down…. Could they? But it did. And then the other one.

I remember the shock, the outrage, the anger I felt. Hearing a plane go overhead (probably from the AF Base, as I think all commercial traffic was shut down by then), I cringed. That was new. Never gave much thought to the sound of a jet plane before.
It was also new not hearing or seeing them for a while.

Even though I live far from New York, Washington, and PA, the shockwave of 9/11/01 reached here and shook my foundations. I remember how thankful I was to hear the President make his speech that those who did this would soon hear from us all. And then he kept his word.

There are people in the world who want us, all of us, dead. Regardless of how sensitive we try to be, or how compassionate. Their twisted belief that their God calls them to exterminate anyone different from them is frightening. The latest kidnappings of French citizens, and the attacks in Russia highlight that even those who refused to engage Iraq are not safe. Some point out that the terrorists are striking out for perceived wrongs, and that if we only understand them and feel for them that they will leave us alone. This justifies the killing of innocents? Children, like in the Russian school? Tortured, surrounded by explosives… shot in the back when they fled? These child-killers are holy warriors to be understood and negotiated with?

The animals that destroyed all the lives lost on 9/11/01 are not to be negotiated with. The Palestinians who bomb pizza parlors are not to be negotiated with. Those who took captive a school full of children and shot them in the back do not deserve to be negotiated with. The killing of men, women, and children who have done no more harm than trying to live their lives does not entitle one to a seat at the table, it entitles one to a shallow grave. These cowards must be hunted down, wherever they are, and destroyed.

Some have forgotten who picked this fight. I haven’t. I remember. I remember 9/11, and Osama bin Laden, currently hiding out like the cockroach he is. I remember that Sadaam Hussein had spent several years shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone, and attempting to continue his program for WMD’s, which he showed no hesitation to use on his own people. I realize that post-9/11 it was time to end a regime that paid off families of those that committed suicide bombings, who allowed terrorists to train and prepare within his borders. I realize that our defeat of Iraq led to the capitulation of Libya. I know that our troops are fighting for what is best for our country, and that our allies in this are not a “coalition of the bribed and the coerced.” I know that our forces are liberators, not occupiers. I know that, whatever mistakes he may make, that the President respects and values our troops, and that he makes decisions with the best interests of the people of the US at heart. I look for the monster that some try to decry him as, and I don’t see it. I see a man burdened with a terrible responsibility who is doing the best he can with the hand history has dealt him.

He didn’t ask for this. We didn’t ask for this. But 9/11/01 happened, and our nation is fighting back. The terrorists are now forced to fight soldiers, not children. They attack, and our soldiers return force for force, and destroy the enemy. The cowards are forced to face an opponent who can deal with them, and for that I am thankful to those who fight in my place so that I don’t have to, and I pray for their victory and safe return, and mourn those lost.

And most of all, I remember why they fight. I remember 9/11.

Submitted by: RedneckBob
2 Comments
 
CBS News Abandons The Truth
09.10.04 (9:49 am)
Just ran across this rather interesting tidbit over at Powerline:

A half hour ago, Dan Rather went on CNN and said that he knows the Jerry Killian documents to be authentic, and knows that they are not forgeries. Therefore, he said, there will be no retraction, no correction, and -- apparently -- no investigation. The text of the interview is not yet available on CNN's site, but we'll link to it when it becomes available.

Powerline speculates that if Dan Rather is indeed willing to personally authenticate the documents then he must be the source of the documents. I find that a reasonable theory all things considered. Also in their story is the official response by CBS News:

This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking.

In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned.

So CBS is sticking by the documents, even though it is pathetically obvious that they are indeed forgeries, something any "document expert" should have known almost instantly.

But there will be no investigation, and CBS news will shred what little credibility it has left to stand behind a story that is obviously false, rather than apologize or retract this pack of lies because it doesn't bode well for their political candidate of choice.

This goes far beyond normal media bias, into the realm of the absurd. Someone over at CBS tried to pull a fast one, they took a story that was very negative about Bush, didn't bother to confirm any of the facts and ran it. This may or may not have been Dan Rather, we may never really know how this all got started.

Dan Rather realizes he is retiring soon and may be just "taking one for the team" as it were, or he may have been involved. Honestly it's pretty much a moot point I think, as it's CBS's execs that need to answer for this debacle, not some pretty boy talking head like Rather.

CBS is now trying to play it tough, thinking they can sweep all of this under the rug and pretend it never happened. Sorry CBS, you might have gotten away with that nonsense once apon a time, back when it was only you and two other major media outlets running the show. But you don't have a stranglehold on information anymore. Were living in the information age now kiddies, and the bloggers have got your number.

Thanks to folks like Powerline, Captains Quarters and other blogs you don't have a monopoly on information anymore, and your dirty little secrets are no longer secret. No sweeping this one under the rug.

You accused the President of the United States of being derelict in his duties on the basis of [b]forged[/b] documentation and by taking the word of an avowed supporter of the President's political opposition using forged documents to make your case.

Whoever forged those documents committed a fairly serious crime. It's possible that you yourselves also violated the law, as you obviously did not use due diligence in assuring the factual basis of the story before it aired. If you had any integrity at all you'd give up your sources and tell us all where you got those forged documents. But you won't.

You want to pretend that their is nothing wrong with your story and that your sources are fine, even though the forgery itself is evident, as is the fact that no document expert worth his salt took even a 2 second gander at it before your story hit the airways.

Sorry, but the level of disbelief required to swallow that tall tale hook line and sinker is simply more than any reasonable person could possibly muster. Not even David Copperfield could give you folks the illusion of credibility at this point. I can think of only one reason why you would even need to protect your sources at this point, and that would be if your "source" is either directly or somewhat indirectly involved with either the DNC, the Kerry campaign or both.
3 Comments
 
CBS... Careless Broadcasting System?
09.10.04 (7:22 am)
The press has, obviously picked up the faked memos story. A number of media outlets have independently examined the memos in question and are now questioning their veracity. both by pointing out the typographical questions, the differing signatures, etc, and also from interviews with the Lt.Col.'s wife and son, who both deny that he kept such memos. (Apparently CBS didn't check with them?) (I'm going to take a moment to blow my own horn here and note that I was on the story of the signatures long before it started showing up on Powerline and other "bigger" blogs. If you were reading "Self-Evident", you read it here first.)

It's gotten to the point where CBS is conducting an internal investigation if Drudge [url=] www.drudgereport.com [/url] is correct.

The next facet of the story that they should be forced to examine and highlight is the fact that their star "witness" that Bush got preferential treatment is little more than a Kerry operative, which severely damages his credibility. This has already been pointed out in a number of places, but let's lay some info on the table.

As I reported yesterday, his daughter Amy allegedly call a local radio show denying the allegations and basically calling him a political opportunist. This is further documented today on NewsMax [url=] http://www.newsmax.com/archiv... [/url]. Her identity has, to my knowledge, not been independently verified, but neither has she been disclaimed.

Second, Ben Barnes is the third largest fundraiser for the Kerry campaign having raised over $500,000 by various accounts, and is listed as a "Vice-Chair" on Kerry's website [url=] http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/... [/url] (link is a .PDF)

Third, Barnes can't even keep his own story straight, according to an NYPost editorial today [url=] http://www.nypost.com/postopi... [/url] He stated that he got Bush into the Guard "when I was Lt. Governor":

[i] The problem is not, as some would have it, that Barnes has raised half a million dollars for Kerry. The problem is that Barnes has already lied about this on videotape, and I use the word "lied" without difficulty, where he says he pulled strings for Bush when "I was lieutenant governor of Texas."

The thing is that George W. Bush was sworn into the National Guard in May 1968. Ben Barnes didn't become lieutenant governor until 1969. [/i]

A check of the records on the Texas State Library site [url=] http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/re... [/url] reflects his service dates at Lt. Gov. as 1969-1973. As was stated in the article, Bush entered the Guard in '68. This however, is a minor point.

What is more important is that even though Barnes claims that he helped Bush get presidential treatment, the sticking point is that , [i]by his own testimony[/i], neither Bush nor his family asked for any such consideration. From a 1999 AP article about this issue: [url=] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [/url]

[i] Barnes testified for several hours Monday in a deposition in the case. Afterwards, his lawyer issued a written statement saying Barnes had been contacted by the now-deceased Sidney Adger, a Houston oilman and friend of the elder Bush.

"Mr. Barnes was contacted by Sid Adger and asked to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot position with the Air National Guard. Barnes called Gen. (James) Rose (Texas Air Guard commander) and did so," the statement said.

"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said. [/i]

So if you're not aware you're recieving preferential treatment, are you somehow still complicit in it? The sticking point, to me, would not be that he got preferred treatment, if that's even the case. If someone pulled strings without his knowledge that's not his fault. The damning part would be if he -sought- preferential treatment, an assertion for which there is no evidence.

Further, the idea that he entered the Guard specifically to avoid Vietnam service is hampered by the fact that he volunteered for duty in the Palace Alert program, which was in-theatre duty. There is also the fact that f-102 pilots had a high probability of mobilization. So the assertion that he was somehow dodging service in Vietnam is questionable.

It's also marvelously convenient that the only person who could confirm that he asked for President Bush to recieve this favor, Sid Adger, is dead. Likewise, the recipient of the phone call, General Rose, is also deceased. That by itself, however, to be fair, proves little.

So what you have now in the 60 Minutes story that recieved so much hype and was supposed to nail Bush's coffin shut is a "confession" from a Kerry Campaign operative and fundraiser (We were supposed to automatically discredit Swiftvets, BTW because they recieved some funding from a Republican, right?) that he recieved a request from, and made a recommendation to two people who are no longer here to verify his story, and a bunch of, it seems, fake documents.

So what was the big breakthrough here again?

The National Guard garbage has been brought up time and again by the Kerry campaign as a smear on the President.

His operatives are out there claiming that Bush "betrayed" his country by [b]serving in the National Guard[/b]. Does the fact that Kerry enlisted in the Naval [i]Reserve[/i] make him a betrayer? How about the reservists here at home now who have not been sent to Iraq? Are they betrayers?

There are reasons that despite the fact that this has been repeatedly brought up, it has never gained traction, and that's because 1) it doesn't ring true, and 2) it means -nothing- because Bush is not running on his Vietnam record. The reason it is being dredged up, yet again, is because the Kerry Campaign knows that they are losing, and is latching on to -anything- they can find to try to discredit the President.

-Submitted by: Redneck Bob
2 Comments
 
60 Minutes Caught Red Handed
09.10.04 (4:40 am)
(CNSNews.com) - Additional questions were circulating Friday about the contents of four purported military documents regarding President Bush's National Guard service that served as the basis for a Bush-bashing segment on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" Wednesday night.

Doubts about the authenticity of the documents spread across the Internet and cable news shows Thursday when several forensic document experts, typographers and retired military officers offered their analysis. Friday's newspapers also carried stories questioning the documents' authenticity.

Even the widow and son of the alleged author of the memos, the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, questioned whether the documents were real. Killian's widow, Marjorie, called the records "a farce," according to The Washington Post, and his son, Gary, who retired from the Texas Air National Guard in 1991, told The Associated Press one unsigned document looked fake.

A memo dated May 4, 1972, claims that Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination. Another unsigned memo from May 19, 1972, suggests that Bush was "talking to someone upstairs" to get out of his duty with the Texas Air National Guard.

"It just wouldn't happen," Gary Killian told the AP. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

"I don't think there were any documents," added Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, in a Washington Post article. "He was not a paper person."

Questions about the documents, which were the basis of Wednesday's "60 Minutes" program, prompted a swift reaction from the network.

"As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity," the network said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

In a subsequent interview with WorldNetDaily, CBS spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said, "CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written."

The documents were released Wednesday night by the White House, which didn't question their accuracy but characterized them as "dirty politics," after obtaining them from CBS News. The network has refused to reveal the source of the documents.

Typography questions

Initial questions about the 32-year-old documents arose when two Internet blogs - Power Line and Little Green Footballs - noted some of the computer-like characteristics of the documents. Typographers who spoke to CNSNews.com confirmed some of the discrepancies.

According to Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass., the documents couldn't have been produced on a typewriter because they contain the superscript "th" in "111th F.I.S." and apostrophes in words like "I'm" and "he's."

Those characters are native to current word processing programs. Microsoft Word, for instance, automatically changes the "th" after numbers to a superscript. Most typewriters, except perhaps the most high-end models, couldn't process such a character in 1972, typographers told CNSNews.com.

"The 'I'm' is set with an apostrophe," Haley added. "There were no apostrophes on typewriters. There were foot and inch marks that had to do double duty."

Another characteristic not typically found on typewriters in 1972 was a proportional typeface. Although some typewriter models included this feature, they were not widespread. Each of the documents is set in proportional type, meaning the letter "m" occupies a larger space than "i."

Strange military lingo

Former military officers and others with knowledge of military correspondence contacted CNSNews.com Thursday to present their own critique. Among the problems they cited:

* The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.

* Dates in the letters - "04 May 1972" and "14 May, 1972" - are inconsistent and do not follow military form. The military prefers the following example, according to ex-officers: 4 May 72. It doesn't include a zero preceding the date or a comma following the month.

* The lines "MEMORANDUM FOR:" and "SUBJECT:" that begin the May 4, 1972, document, weren't officially used in the 1970s. According to one retired military officer, the correct format then was most likely "REPLY TO ATTN OF:" then "SUBJECT:" and finally "TO:" preceding the text of the message.

* Bush's name was listed in the memo as "1st Lt. George W. Bush." But other military documents, including those posted on Sen. John Kerry's website use a different format. Bush's name would have likely appeared as "1LT Bush, GW" or "1LT G Bush."

* There shouldn't be disparities in the May 4, 1972, letter such as, "111 F.I.S." and "111th F.I.S.," according to ex-military officers. Also, the acronym "F.I.S.," which stands for Fighter Intercept Squadron, shouldn't have included periods.

* The signature block with Killian's name lists his rank as "Lt. Colonel," when in reality most military commanders abbreviated that title as "LTC" or "Lt. Col.," according to retired officers. The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.

Source of the letter

Despite the attempts of news organizations to obtain the source of the "60 Minutes" documents, CBS News has refused to budge. The Washington Post reported Thursday and Friday that the network wouldn't disclose where the documents came from.

Gary Killian told the AP the documents didn't come from his family, even though an article on the CBS News website said they were retrieved from Jerry Killian's "personal file."

One anti-Bush group distanced itself from the controversy Thursday amid suspicion that it was a possible source of the purported memos.

The group Texans for Truth, which has received support and assistance from MoveOn.org, was formed in late August and has created a television ad critical of Bush. A spokesman for MoveOn.org said the left-wing group hadn't supplied CBS News with the documents.

In an article published Thursday by The Weekly Standard, author Stephen F. Hayes wrote that CBS News could clear up the controversy if it provided the name of the expert who authenticated the documents, offered outside experts the opportunity to review original copies of the documents and disclosed the source of the documents.

But, as the magazine reported, CBS News spokeswoman Edwards was "overwhelmed with phone calls" Thursday. She said the network wouldn't provide any further information beyond its statement.


Well folks, looks like 60 minutes got caught red handed on this one. They tried to sneak one past the American public and got themselves nailed to the wall by a couple of bloggers. Kudo's to both Power Line and Little Green Footballs for their excellent powers of observation.

My guess is 60 minutes probably obtained these "documents" from someone working for "Texan's for the Truth". The reporter in question didn't do her homework and the network never bothered to check it's facts, odds are they got so worked up about the notion of being able to run a story that was damaging to Bush they never bothered to consider the likelihood that the documents could be forged.

So they ran their story, and now they are in a bit of a pickle. My guess is they can't reveal their source (their claim that it came from Killian's family is obviously bogus), because in doing so it would most likely damage or destroy what little credibility 60 minutes has left. The only reason they would need to hide that source now is if it was indeed a partisan group like Texans for the Truth.

They refuse to even identify the document "expert" they claim checked the documents and certified that they were probably not forgeries. The only reason I can think of for withholding this information is that they never had the documents checked in the first place, or their document "expert" also happens to work on their janitorial staff.

The huge array of errors and inconsistencies in these documents are such that even those not professionally trained in such matters spotted them quickly. It is a pretty big stretch to imagine any document "expert" being taken in by these amateurish forgeries.

The only question remains what will 60 minutes do from here? Will they come clean, make a huge apology to the President and clear his good name? Or will they continue to obfuscate the truth? Sorry folks, but your bias has finally come back to bite you. You didn't check your facts, you only wanted to make the President look bad. If you have even an ounce of integrity or self respect you'll make as big a deal over the apology as you did over the original news story.

Otherwise I wouldn't give your organization another 60 seconds of credibility, much less 60 minutes.
0 Comments
 
How much of 60 Minutes is bogus? About An Hour's Worth.
09.09.04 (12:13 pm)
CNS News had an interesting article on the possible forged documents 60 minutes used as a source for their allegations.

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.
The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

Hmm.. methinks someone is busted here. Apparently in their rush to get the story they didn't bother to determine if the documents were real or not. Funny how these mainstream media outlets can completely dismiss the Swift boat vets as a partisan republican organization without doing a single bit of investigation or refuting any of their charges factually and yet they are willing to publish a huge story like this accusing the President of being AWOL without checking their sources even well enough to notice some huge discrepancies that became apparent to even a cursory examination by the general public.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

Not even close.. lol.. If you are looking at the equipment in those offices 30 years ago then odds are excellent that your looking at equipment that was at least 40-50 years old at best. Take it from someone that has been there, even as recently as the late 80's most military offices were still using technology that was 10-15 years behind the curve for office work, particularly in areas in which office work was not their primary duty.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

Guess somebody needs to go back to forger school. Lol.. At the very least I would hope that 60 minutes will have the integrity to run a huge retraction story, and make every bit as much of a fuss over it as they did the original story. Doubtful though, the whole thing will be lucky to get a small one sentence mention at best. Sad but true.

According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

An expert who didn't spot any of these discrepancies? Amazing. Just what sort of expert was this?
5 Comments
 
Forged Documents Possibly Used as Source of AWOL Charges
09.09.04 (9:05 am)
New information purported to show President Bush received preferential treatment and was AWOL from his service have surfaced on 60 Minutes. There are a number of questions arising on the ‘net about the veracity of the documents presented. Most notably Power Line [url=] http://www.powerlineblog.com/... [/url] who is tracking information that the new documents appear to have been created on a modern word-processor, rather than the typewriter technology available at the time:

[i] Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.
The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively. [/i]

I’ve looked the docs over, and wasn’t entirely convinced myself, until in the course of a Forum discussion on Swiftvets.com, a mention of AWOLBush.com, an anti-Bush site that presents docs related to his alleged AWOL status, brought me to another document purportedly signed by Lt.Col. Killian.

Here is the link [url=] http://users.cis.net/coldfeet... [/url]

And the link to one of the CBS docs, for comparison: [url=] http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs... [/url]

I have created a picture excerpting the signatures for comparison.


[image]stepdad_695724888.jpg[/image]


[b]They are not the same signature, nor are the style of presentation of his rank the same.[/b] The possibility exists that his signature could have changed over the course of a year, but such a radical change is highly unlikely. I’m still not sure we have this dead-to-rights, but it sure looks fishy. More as I hear it on that.

Additionally, it should be noted that the daughter of Ben Barnes, Former TX House speaker who is alleging that he helped President Bush recieve a position in the TXANG, has been heard on a local radio program denying her father's allegations and terming him a political opportunist. Here is the ear-witness report from the Swiftvets forums: [url=] http://www2.swiftvets.com/php... [/url]

[i] Just a note: Ben Barnes daugher, Amy who lives in Denton, Texas is on the radio right now with Monica Crowley (sitting in for Mark Davis on our local radio 820 show) and she just said that herf father is a a political opportunist. Whoa!

She said she loves her father but she knows he is doing this for purely political reasons and that she knows that he never used any influence to get Busn into the National Guard. She also says that he has a book coming out and that is the reason he went on TV. Watch for flying feathers on this. [/i]

So, can the new info be believed? Do you really believe it matters, considering that the President has -never- made his Guard service an issue in this campaign? He didn't bring it up. Kerry has, in consistent attempts to smear the president. It will be interesting to see the reaction if the new docs are proved to be forgeries. More as it develops.

Submitted by: Redneck Bob
0 Comments
 
Bring it On, But Play Nice Or We'll Cry
09.09.04 (5:58 am)
(CNSNews.com) - "Brace yourselves," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie is warning congressional Republicans.

"Senator Kerry's campaign is implementing a strategy of vicious personal attacks against the President and Vice President," Gillespie wrote in a letter this week.

Gillespie reminded Republican lawmakers that the Kerry campaign "is bringing in a bevy of former Clinton henchmen," including James Carville and Paul Begala.

"In August alone, Gillespie noted, "Begala called President Bush a 'gutless wonder,' said he has a 'lack of intelligence,' and called Vice President Cheney a 'dirt bag.' Carville said the President is 'ignorant big time' and said 'George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are a couple of nobodies.'"

Gillespie offered other examples as well:

-- At a Kerry rally last Friday in Ohio, Democrat John Glenn compared the Republican Convention to a Nazi rally;

-- at a Kerry-Edwards campaign event in New York, the President was called a "cheap thug," a "killer" and a "liar";

-- Mrs. Kerry has called the President's policies "unpatriotic" and "immoral";

-- DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has falsely accused the President of being AWOL from the National Guard

-- Democratic strategist Susan Estrich, in a column last Wednesday, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney alcoholics, then asked "is any alcoholic ever really cured?" Estrich also called President Bush's service as a National Guard fighter pilot "draft dodging," and she said the new Kitty Kelley book "raises questions about whether the President has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion."

Gillespie also mentioned Ben Barnes, a vice chair of the Kerry campaign, who - in an interview with CBS News -- says he pulled strings to get George W. Bush into the Air National Guard. [A Bush campaign spokesman said Barnes has no credibility; has contradicted himself; and is a John Kerry supporter.]

"Any mention of John Kerry's votes for higher taxes and against vital weapons programs will be met with the worst kind of personal attacks," Gillespie wrote to Republican lawmakers.

"Such desperation is unbecoming of American presidential politics, and Senator Kerry will pay a price for it at the polls as we stay focused on policies to continue growing our economy and winning the war on terror."

Funny isn't it? Read through some of this nonsense, this has been going on for about a year and half now. Almost every major democrat has been making the most outlandish allegations or using the worst kind of personal attacks against the current administration.

Don't get me wrong, politics is a combat sport. It always has been since the founding of our nation. But is this sort of nonsense really necessary? I've got no problem with attacking another persons views or their policies, but this really is over the top.

But it is pretty funny to see Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards wringing their hands and pretending to be the victims of Dick Cheney, Zell Miller, or anyone else that dares to question anything about them, including their policies or views. Nope, anytime anyone says anything at all that is negative about Kerry Edwards they instantly seek victimhood. They cry and whine and carry on, feign outrage and demand apologies.

I'm just rather curious, is this the sort of behavior we can expect from them if they are elected to office? If we get attacked by terrorists, will Kerry-Edwards retreat into victimhood yet again? Will they cry and whine and demand apologies from the terrorists? Or will they act?

And when they do act, will they act appropriately? What message will they send? Will the message be much like the one President Bush sends, that he is willing to do what is unpopular to get the job done? Or will it be a much more Clintonian message, "I'll lob a few cruise missles at some empty tents but I'll never actually commit to any decisive action as it might prove to be unpopular".

The Clinton message resulted in attack after attack after attack, finally culminating in 9/11. Can we really afford to send that sort of message to our enemies again?
2 Comments
 
Would someone please hand John Edwards a tissue?
09.08.04 (11:19 am)
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. - Democrat John Edwards urged President Bush on Wednesday to renounce Vice President Dick Cheney's statement that the United States risks another terrorist attack if voters make the wrong election choice, calling the warning dishonorable and un-American.

"This statement by the vice president of the United States was intended to divide us," Edwards said. "It was calculated to divide us on an issue of safety and security for the American people. It's wrong and it's un-American."

Lol.. so tell us Senator Edwards, why aren't your comments about how the economy will tank and that all of these poor people without health insurance will never get health care considered "intended to divide us"?

Please. Your party has been playing the class warfare card in every election for quite some time. One of your mainstay's is to try and scare people into believing that old people or poor people or minorities will be horribly mistreated under a Republican administration.

You've been playing the game of division politics for years Mr. Edwards, you and almost all of the leadership of the Democratic party. Now you honestly have the chuptza to claim that Dick Cheney's remarks are out of line?

So when exactly did Ted Kennedy apologize for calling the President a liar? When exactly did you and Senator Kerry denounce his terrible and unproven accusations against our President?

Oh, that's right, never. You've never denounced any kooky conspiracy theory or Bush=Hitler ad produced by Moveon.org or the rest of the looney left either, now have you?

So now you think Dick Cheney quite accurately pointing out that neither you nor Senator Kerry has even the first clue as to what is required for our national defense is somehow out of bounds?

Please. You guys have been using nasty, below the belt attacks on the President for about a year and a half now. You don't have the right to start crying when they start hitting back, particularly when what they say is true.

If you can't handle that Senator, perhaps you should start trying to control some of the out of control elements in your own party.
0 Comments
 
Does AP Stand for Abandoning Principles?
09.08.04 (8:43 am)
I’ve become aware today of an AP Story that ran over the weekend that stated that a crowd of Bush supporters booed when given the news that former President Clinton was in the hospital. Thanks to PowerLine [url=] http://www.powerlineblog.com/... [/url] we have the original text, as follows:

[i]WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. [b]Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.[/b] Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."[/i]

That report has since vanished, and been replaced with this one:

[i]WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday offered former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), who faces heart bypass surgery, "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery."

"He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally.

Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath.

Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president." [/i]

An audio clip has been posted on the web, which can be found at this link : [url=] http://homepage.mac.com/mkold... [/url] The clip leaves no doubt in this reporter’s mind that what is heard after the President’s remarks is nothing at all like boos, and in fact is polite applause mixed with cheers.

The obvious slant in the original story is that those evil, hateful, mean-spirited Republicans were booing our poor, ill ex-President and that the evil Dictator Bush did nothing to stop them. This is a lie on its face. The author of the original piece was listed as Tom Hays, according to Powerline, but his byline has been removed from the new piece, obviously to shelter him. This is simply another example of members of the media who aren’t reporting the news, they’re being partisan shills. The Powerline article goes into more detail on the whole affair. Combine this story with the Pete Yost debacle about the Alachua County Republicans and it shows a pattern of taking an otherwise benign news story and twisting it ever so slightly to make it a “bombshell” that blasts Republicans.

-Submitted by: Redneck Bob
2 Comments
 
Choosy Communists Choose Kerry, Yet Again
09.08.04 (5:29 am)
[image]stepdad_1271093734 .jpg[/image]

Like to see some of the foriegn leaders that support Kerry over Bush? Well here's a good example. The gentleman standing next to Kerry in this photograph is Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party.

The photograph was taken in 1993, when Mr. Do Moui met with met with Congressman and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam July 15-18, 1993.

Alright, I realize some folks may be asking themselves what the big deal is over the photograph. It certainly wouldn't be all that unusual to see a Senator meeting with dignitaries from another government, even a communist government. That sort of thing happens quite often, right?

True enough, but what's important here is where the location in which this photograph is kept. This photograph is hung prominently in the War Crimes Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, the city formerly known as Saigon.

Their can be no doubt that the North Vietnamese communists honor John Kerry for his protest of the Vietnam war in 1971. Apparenlty they so appreciated the tapes of his testimony accusing other Vietnam vets of war crimes, tapes they used to play for POW's to demoralize them, that they dedicated a special place in their War Crimes Museum just for Senator Kerry.

Well, it is some sort of legacy I guess....

2 Comments
 
Kerry and the French Connection
09.08.04 (5:05 am)
Found this in the Washington Times:

New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq.

The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

"No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began.

That official was careful to stipulate that intelligence reports did not indicate whether the French government had sanctioned or knew about the parts transfers. The French company at the beginning of the pipeline remained unidentified in the reports.

France's government tightly controls its aerospace and defense firms, however, so it would be difficult to believe that the illegal transfers of equipment parts took place without the knowledge of at least some government officials.

Iraq's Mirage F-1 fighter jets were made by France's Dassault Aviation. Its Gazelle attack helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which became part of a consortium of European defense companies.

"It is well-known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," a senior Bush administration official said before the war, refusing to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts.

The State Department confirmed intelligence indicating the French had given support to Iraq's military.

"U.N. sanctions prohibit the transfer to Iraq of arms and materiel of all types, including military aircraft and spare parts," State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said. "We take illicit transfers to Iraq very seriously and work closely with our allies to prevent Iraq from acquiring sensitive equipment."

Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, declared that France's selling of military equipment to Iraq was "international treason" as well as a violation of a U.N. resolution.

"As a pilot and a former war pilot, this disturbs me greatly that the French would allow in any way parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis could continue to use those planes," Stevens said.

"The French, unfortunately, are becoming less trustworthy than the Russians," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "It's outrageous they would allow technology to support the jets of Saddam Hussein to be transferred."

The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous.

Ok, I'm not certain what Senator Kerry's position on the War on Iraq is today, as far as I know it's the same as it was yesterday but given how often it has changed it's difficult to tell.

At one point I do recall him making a big fuss over how we should have involved, or truth be told gotten the approval of our allies, and by our allies it is fairly clear the Senator was referring to France and Germany.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that France never wanted Hussien removed from power. They were making billions from this despot, both in the corrupt Oil for Food scam as well as by selling him weapons and dual use technology.

So I guess my question to the Senator would be, knowing what we know now about the French and their deep financial ties to Iraq's former regime, how can you categorize your stance as anything other than dangerously naive?

Sadly however this is not a question that our liberal media is going to ask Senator Kerry, in fact the vast majority of them haven’t even bothered to report France’s ongoing financial and military dealings with Iraq’s former regime.

Most mainstream media outlets have become so incredibly biased that they are no longer trustworthy sources of news or information. They bury stories routinely, and spin what they do report in an effort to influence public opinion.
0 Comments
 
New Study Confirms the Obvious
09.07.04 (12:14 pm)
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teenagers who watch a lot of television with sexual content are twice as likely to engage in intercourse than those who watch few such programs, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The study covered 1,792 adolescents aged 12 to 17 who were quizzed on viewing habits and sexual activity and then surveyed again a year later. Both regular and cable television were included.

"This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities," said Rebecca Collins, a psychologist at the RAND Corp. who headed the study.

"The impact of television viewing is so large that even a moderate shift in the sexual content of adolescent TV watching could have a substantial effect on their sexual behavior," she added.

The study found that youths who watched large amounts of programming with sexual content were also more likely to initiate sexual activities short of intercourse, such as oral sex.

It found that shows where sex was talked about but not depicted had just as much impact as the more explicit shows. "Both affect adolescents' perceptions of what is normal sexual behavior and propels their own sexual behavior," Collins said.

She said the 12-year-olds who watched a lot of sexual content behaved like the 14- or 15-years-olds who watched the least amount. "The advancement in sexual behavior we saw among kids who watched a lot of sexual television was striking."

Her comments were released in a statement in conjunction with publication of the study in the September issue of "Pediatrics," the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

So kids who are bombarded by the massive amounts of smut on TV make bad choices about sex themselves? My goodness, what a landmark study that must have been. Congratulations folks, you've just spent a whole ton of money to learn what any self-respecting parent could have told you for free.
7 Comments
 
The Few, The Proud, The Horribly Confused
09.07.04 (9:47 am)
Looks like the Kerry campaign has locked and loaded, and once again taken aim at their own foot.

[image]stepdad_1172369777 .jpg[/image]

Here is a picture of the good Senator accepting a gift from some campaign supporters, a shotgun with a "pistol" type grip.

Hey, it's a great campaign picture, but this one happens to be worth a bit more than 1000 words. Seems that the good Senator has neglected to mention that one of the very few bills he sponsored (or in this case co-sponsored) in the Senate was S. 1431, “The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003.

This bill would have banned any weapon with a "pistol grip" as an assault weapon. Section SEC. 2; (H) (ii) and (b)(42): "The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip."

Now take a nice long look at the shotgun Kerry is holding, and you'll notice it has the self same "pistol grip" described in the above bill, it does indeed have a characteristic that can function as a grip, meaning the shotgun in question would have been banned as an assault weapon if his bill had been passed into law.

You really have to wonder what on earth Kerry’s campaign staff is thinking when they do things like this.

Here's another view of the infamous "pistol grip" :

[image]stepdad_516980090.jpg[/image]
3 Comments
 
The Politics of Sesame Street
09.07.04 (7:06 am)
GREENSBORO, N.C. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry seized new predictions of a record federal budget deficit Tuesday to hammer President Bush's economic agenda, accusing the president of taking the country in the wrong direction.

"Only George W. Bush could celebrate over a record budget deficit of $422 billion, a loss of 1.6 million jobs and Medicare premiums that are up by a record 17 percent," Kerry said. "W stands for wrong — the wrong direction for America."

W stands for wrong? Egads.. Ok, I know the Kerry campaign is in a little trouble here but do they really think hiring new advisors from Sesame Street is going to solve thier problems? Lol...

But seriously, there are a few problems with Kerry's claims. First and foremost of course is the deficit itself. What Kerry fails to mention is that his own proposals are hardly the cure for the problem.

According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Senator Kerry's budget proposals so far in the campaign would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency, including an additional $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, and environmental and energy costs, according to a study of his budgetary recommendations. Hardly a good prescription for reducing the federal deficit. Sorry Senator, but I'm afraid the Sesame street catch phrase, while cute, hardly paints an accurate portrait of the situation.

But that's ok Senator if you'd like you can always fire Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch from your campaign staff. Funny thing is that seems to account for a good portion of the actual "job loss" this year, all of the campaign strategists you've been forced to fire.
5 Comments
 
Were under attack, circle the cellphones!
09.07.04 (6:29 am)
Another one from our strange but true file:

A mobile phone carried in a shirt pocket saved a man's life when it stopped a crossbow arrow fired by a drug dealer, a court heard today.

Michael Brown escaped with nothing more than an injured finger in the attack outside Ipswich, west of Brisbane, on December 16, 2002, the Supreme Court was told.

Prosecutor Tim Ryan said Brown, 33, was targeted by Robert Troy Scanlon, who believed him to be a police operative.

Scanlon, 31, was sentenced to 12 years' jail by Justice Phil McMurdo after pleading guilty to attempted murder and drug possession.

Mr Ryan said Brown had approached Scanlon for 10 pounds of marijuana, but had bought only an ounce, returning a second time to purchase another ounce.

Scanlon threatened Brown that he would kill him if he turned out to be a police informant, Mr Ryan said.

The court heard Scanlon planned the attack on Brown, buying the crossbow at an archery store and practising before hiding it in bushland north of Ipswich.

Scanlon lured Brown to the spot at night and fired the arrow, but it became lodged in his mobile phone and he fled.

Defence barrister Sean Barry denied Scanlon had tried to kill Brown because he thought he was a police informant.

But Mr Barry told the court he was not able to say what Scanlon's motive had been.

He said his client, although not normally a drug dealer, had been approached by Brown for drugs at his work as a spray painter in Ipswich.

Justice McMurdo said he took into account that Scanlon did not initiate the drug deal.

Could lead to a whole new line of commercials. Guy gets shot, perp runs away, guy takes mangled cell phone out of pocket, opens it up and says in a weak voice, "can you hear me now? No.. well that's ok"

Lol..
0 Comments
 
Last Weeks Photo Caption Contest Winners
09.04.04 (3:08 am)
[image]stepdad_731388003.jpg[/image]

Our third place entry from starchybean, John Edwards acting his age:

[b]"What's that, John?? You say we're going to win? Oh, GOODY!"[/b]

Our second place entry, because who doesn't dream of being Arnold? Submitted by Defensor:

[b]"Quick John, you're losing them! Start flexing."[/b]

Our grand prize winner, Kerry snaps from Deshanews

[b]"I've had it with you hairboy. It's time you were bitch slapped."[/b]

As usual our winning entries will all be recieving tbucks. Thanks for all the great entries, as usual!
2 Comments
 
New Photo Caption Contest
09.04.04 (2:43 am)
Sorry for the delay folks, been a busy week. But here are the winners for last weeks photo caption contest

[image]stepdad_1020032513 .jpg[/image]


Our third place entry, submitted by Defensor. John Edwards discovers that sometimes dealing with senior citizens on the campaign trail can be rather frustrating:

[b]"Look, I'm pretty sure it's not Fargus, but for the 16th time, John's middle name is not important!!"[/b]

Our second place entry, by noguru, John Edwards tries his best to deal with the Swift Boat Vet issue.

[b]"That Christmas in Cambodia whopper by Kerry, hell, it had to be this big"[/b]


And our first place entry, submitted by LarryConley, John Edwards takes a que from his hollywood supporters and attempts a product placement during his campaign:

[b]"Let me make one thing PERFECTLY clear.... I am NOT going to pay a lot for this muffler."[/b]

Congratulations to all our winners, they will be recieving tbucks for their winning entries. This weeks contest will be posted shortly.
14 Comments
 
Sorry for The Construction
09.04.04 (12:34 am)
Sorry about all the construction we've been doing over the last few days. We've been moving a few things around, updating our style sheet and attempting to make the blog easier to navigate.

Hopefully you'll find the changes to your liking, as always your questions, comments and suggestions are welcome here.
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : The 2004 Campaign
09.04.04 (12:10 am)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the 2004 Campaign.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry Declares Himself Unfit For Command?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Forged Documents Possibly Used as Source of AWOL Charges[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Bring it On, But Play Nice Or We'll Cry[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Would someone please hand John Edwards a tissue?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Choosy Communists Choose Kerry, Yet Again[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Few, The Proud, The Horribly Confused[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Politics of Sesame Street[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Kerry Cattle Drive[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry's Midnight Run[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry Campaign on Shaky Ground?[/url]
0 Comments
 
The Kerry Cattle Drive
09.03.04 (11:15 pm)
So John Kerry got up last night at midnight and gave a speech that was supposed to be a response to the President’s acceptance speech, but was basically a trotting out of the same crap that he’s been spouting the whole campaign.

John Kerry took the opportunity of an unprecedented rally on the night of his opponents convention speech to attack not the message, but the messengers. He just couldn’t wait to get out there and attack the President, who gave Kerry the benefit of his convention without interruption.

So what was Kerry’s response to Bush’s speech? Four words. “All hat, no cattle”. Well thanks for that insightful commentary John. He then went on to complain that they had spent four days attacking his “patriotism”. Didn’t happen. It’s a lie. Notably, Zell Miller (A Democrat, if you didn’t know) even said that he wasn’t questioning his patriotism, but his judgment. Kerry claimed that they hadn’t spent any time talking about “real issues” like healthcare and the economy… apparently he didn’t listen to the President’s speech.

George Bush spent a substantial portion of his speech (too much, in the view of some pundits) outlining specific proposals for the economy, jobs, health insurance, social security, education, and his domestic agenda. He highlighted his successes, made note of the challenges that hold our growing economy back, and told us what he plans to do to overcome those challenges. But to Kerry that’s not addressing the real issues.

Kerry slams Bush for deficits, but has himself proposed trillions in new spending, and tax hikes that won’t even pay for half of it, and will ultimately put the brakes on an economy this is growing by dumping a tax on the very people who are creating jobs, the small business owners. Recent reports have the dollar on the rise against the Euro, jobless rates falling, and more jobs being created. The current “soft patch” is being termed by many as temporary and that the economy seems poised to resume stronger growth. CEO’s are “more optimistic about the economy than they have been for two years, anticipating greater sales and hiring through the rest of this year and into 2005, according to a survey released yesterday by the Business Roundtable “ (Credit Bloomberg [url=] http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap... [/url])

In what amounts to a “big shock”, Kerry turned his guns on his opponents by reviving the Vietnam issue that he’s spent the last couple of weeks telling us we shouldn’t be talking about. He stated that he’ll let us decide if five deferments trump two tours. At least one of those tours has been shot full of holes by the Swiftboat veterans who pointed out that his much vaunted service is shot through with exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies. Let’s talk instead about the VP in terms of his record. The VP was The Secretary of Defense that helped lead the effort that punted Sadaam and his army back across the Kuwaiti border, in a military effort that John Kerry opposed. Let’s talk about your two tours, John (after you sought a deferment to “send me” to Paris, and when that was denied, only then signed up for the Navy. You also signed up for the PCF’s with the understanding that they would be far from the shooting, and then the situation changed, so don’t tell us you volunteered to be shot at.). Let’s talk about your support of Bill Clinton, a flagrant draft-dodger whom you supported to be President when it was convenient, who repeatedly sought deferments and even left the country to avoid the draft. So Clinton was ok to be your president even though he had never served but Cheney’s not qualified to be VP because he didn’t serve in Vietnam, even though he has first hand experience in dealing with a war from the highest levels of command as head of the Pentagon during the Persian Gulf war. I’ll take his experience as a civilian leader of the military over your 4 months injuring yourself with grenades, John, yes.

Let’s talk about how, when you returned stateside, you testified before Congress calling our veterans rapists, murderers and barbarians on the order of the army of Ghengis Khan. Instead of telling the truth, which is that atrocities occurred and that those are terrible, but our soldiers as a whole are honorable Americans, you smeared the whole bunch of them, stating that these actions were a day to day occurence with the full awareness of the entire chain of command. Your leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and your collusion with such traitors as “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and your meetings with Vietnamese officials wound up prolonging the conflict, killing more of our troops, and ultimately handing victory to the enemy. Thanks to you and your “band of brothers” in the 1970’s, our veterans were spit upon and shunned. Let’s talk about that, Senator.

Hey, you brought it up. [b]Again[/b].

On Iraq, Kerry continues to call Bush a liar, saying that he “misled” us into war, even though he said himself [i]"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."[/i] [url=] http://www.johnkerry.com/pres... /url]. So did you mislead us, too, Senator? The intelligence was there from our own intelligence and that of several other countries. There is evidence that they were there, that he did have a program, and you know just as well as we do that given the chance, he would have fully reconstituted the program again. Then you pull up the old "blood for oil" meme that shows you have absolutely no understanding of the strategic reasons that we are over there.

Kerry does here what he has done throughout the campaign, waving his Vietnam service and calling Bush a liar, denigrating the war in Iraq, saying that the economy is in the tank despite evidence to the contrary, discounting the emergence of a war on terror and the 9/11 attacks as factors that Bush had to recover from before the economy could really start into bigger growth. His solution? Tax the rich. He snidely attacks Cheney’s deferments during Vietnam, but claims his “patriotism” is being attacked when Republicans talk about his Senate record, which is what we thought he wanted to talk about… the issues, right? He whines about being attacked, and then goes on the attack. Just more of the same from the Kerry Campaign.

Submitted by: RedneckBob
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches: President George W. Bush
09.03.04 (11:12 pm)
[b]Transcript of President George W. Bush's acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention[/b]

Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens: I am honored by your support, and I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning. We saw the bravery of rescuers grow with danger. We learned of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds, and charging through sandstorms, and liberating millions, with acts of valor that would make the men of Normandy proud.

Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb, and found the strength to climb them. Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach, and greatness in our future. We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America -- and nothing will hold us back.

In the work we have done, and the work we will do, I am fortunate to have a superb Vice President. I have counted on Dick Cheney's calm and steady judgment in difficult days, and I am honored to have him at my side.

I am grateful to share my walk in life with Laura Bush. Americans have come to see the goodness and kindness and strength I first saw 26 years ago, and we love our First Lady.

I am a fortunate father of two spirited, intelligent, and lovely young women. I am blessed with a sister and brothers who are also my closest friends. And I will always be the proud and grateful son of George and Barbara Bush.

My father served eight years at the side of another great American -- Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and goodwill and decency are in this hall, and in our hearts, and will always define our party.

Two months from today, voters will make a choice based on the records we have built, the convictions we hold, and the vision that guides us forward. A presidential election is a contest for the future. Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years.

I believe every child can learn, and every school must teach -- so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors -- so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ranchers -- so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs, and nothing will hold us back.

I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.

I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world, and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. I believe this Nation wants steady, consistent, principled leadership -- and that is why, with your help, we will win this election.

The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our Nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.

The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career ? often with one company that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today, workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all Moms also work outside the home.

This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems -- the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, worker training -- were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared -- and thus truly free -- to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams.

My plan begins with providing the security and opportunity of a growing economy. We now compete in a global market that provides new buyers for our goods, but new competition for our workers. To create more jobs in America, America must be the best place in the world to do business. To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation, and making tax relief permanent. To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess -- filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

Another priority in a new term will be to help workers take advantage of the expanding economy to find better, higher-paying jobs. In this time of change, many workers want to go back to school to learn different or higher-level skills. So we will double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for community colleges. I know that with the right skills, American workers can compete with anyone, anywhere in the world.

In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. To stand with workers in poor communities -- and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs -- we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

As I've traveled the country, I've met many workers and small business owners who have told me they are worried they cannot afford health care. More than half of the uninsured are small business employees and their families. In a new term, we must allow small firms to join together to purchase insurance at the discounts available to big companies. We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. And we will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care: In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.

As I have traveled our country, I have met too many good doctors, especially OB-GYNS, who are being forced out of practice because of the high cost of lawsuits. To make health care more affordable and accessible, we must pass medical liability reform now. And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly workplace.

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.

Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high. Tonight we set a new goal: seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years so more American families will be able to open the door and say welcome to my home.

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.

In all these proposals, we seek to provide not just a government program, but a path -- a path to greater opportunity, more freedom, and more control over your own life.

This path begins with our youngest Americans. To build a more hopeful America, we must help our children reach as far as their vision and character can take them. Tonight, I remind every parent and every teacher, I say to every child: No matter what your circumstance, no matter where you live -- your school will be the path to the promise of America.

We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability, empowering parents and teachers, and making sure that local people are in charge of their schools. By testing every child, we are identifying those who need help ? and we're providing a record level of funding to get them that help. In northeast Georgia, Gainesville Elementary School is mostly Hispanic and 90 percent poor ? and this year 90 percent of its students passed state tests in reading and math. The principal expresses the philosophy of his school this way: "We don't focus on what we can't do at this school; we focus on what we can do -- We do whatever it takes to get kids across the finish line." This principal is challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations, and that is the spirit of our education reform, and the commitment of our country: No dejaremos a ningún niño atrás. We will leave no child behind.

We are making progress -- and there is more to do. In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools, and expanding Pell grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma.

America's children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.

Anyone who wants more details on my agenda can find them online. The web address is not very imaginative, but it's easy to remember: GeorgeWBush.com.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

His policies of tax and spend -- of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity -- are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future -- and we are not turning back.

In this world of change, some things do not change: the values we try to live by, the institutions that give our lives meaning and purpose. Our society rests on a foundation of responsibility and character and family commitment.

Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them. Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.

My opponent recently announced that he is the candidate of "conservative values," which must have come as a surprise to a lot of his supporters. Now, there are some problems with this claim. If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I'm afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed, you are not the candidate of conservative values. If you gave a speech, as my opponent did, calling the Reagan presidency eight years of "moral darkness," then you may be a lot of things, but the candidate of conservative values is not one of them.

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism -- and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, "Whatever it takes." A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, "Do not let me down." Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America -- whatever it takes.

So we have fought the terrorists across the earth -- not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake. Our strategy is clear. We have tripled funding for homeland security and trained half a million first responders, because we are determined to protect our homeland. We are transforming our military and reforming and strengthening our intelligence services. We are staying on the offensive -- striking terrorists abroad -- so we do not have to face them here at home. And we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East, because freedom will bring a future of hope, and the peace we all want. And we will prevail.

Our strategy is succeeding. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks. Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror, Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders, Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests, Libya is dismantling its weapons programs, the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, and more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer.

This progress involved careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose, and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late.

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office -- a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East. In Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can to intimidate people -- yet more than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October presidential election ? a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export. Free governments in the Middle East will fight terrorists instead of harboring them, and that helps us keep the peace. So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Our troops know the historic importance of our work. One Army Specialist wrote home: "We are transforming a once sick society into a hopeful place ... The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq," he continued, "are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists."

That young man is right -- our men and women in uniform are doing a superb job for America. Tonight I want to speak to all of them -- and to their families: You are involved in a struggle of historic proportion. Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan, and making America safer. Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium. Because of you, the people of Iraq no longer fear being executed and left in mass graves. Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful. We owe you our thanks, and we owe you something more. We will give you all the resources, all the tools, and all the support you need for victory.

Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi -- and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others -- allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.

The people we have freed won't forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had "X"s branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein's secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes. During our emotional visit one of the Iraqi men used his new prosthetic hand to slowly write out, in Arabic, a prayer for God to bless America. I am proud that our country remains the hope of the oppressed, and the greatest force for good on this earth.

Others understand the historic importance of our work. The terrorists know. They know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate. They know that men and women with hope, and purpose, and dignity do not strap bombs on their bodies and kill the innocent. The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear -- and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers, and political prisoners, and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances -- heart by heart, and nation by nation -- America will be more secure and the world more peaceful.

America has done this kind of work before -- and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, "Germany is ... a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed." End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials. Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.

The progress we and our friends and allies seek in the broader Middle East will not come easily, or all at once. Yet Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of liberty to transform lives and nations. That power brought settlers on perilous journeys, inspired colonies to rebellion, ended the sin of slavery, and set our Nation against the tyrannies of the 20th century. We were honored to aid the rise of democracy in Germany and Japan and Nicaragua and Central Europe and the Baltics -- and that noble story goes on. I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our Nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me.

In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English -- I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." Now and then I come across as a little too blunt -- and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there.

One thing I have learned about the presidency is that whatever shortcomings you have, people are going to notice them -- and whatever strengths you have, you're going to need them. These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I have tried to comfort Americans who lost the most on September 11th -- people who showed me a picture or told me a story, so I would know how much was taken from them. I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers, some with a very tough road ahead, who say they were just doing their job. I've held the children of the fallen, who are told their dad or mom is a hero, but would rather just have their dad or mom.

And I have met with parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag, and said a final goodbye to a soldier they loved. I am awed that so many have used those meetings to say that I am in their prayers ? to offer encouragement to me. Where does strength like that come from? How can people so burdened with sorrow also feel such pride? It is because they know their loved one was last seen doing good. Because they know that liberty was precious to the one they lost. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong.

The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose.

We see America's character in our military, which finds a way or makes one. We see it in our veterans, who are supporting military families in their days of worry. We see it in our young people, who have found heroes once again. We see that character in workers and entrepreneurs, who are renewing our economy with their effort and optimism. And all of this has confirmed one belief beyond doubt: Having come this far, our tested and confident Nation can achieve anything.

To everything we know there is a season -- a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding. And now we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America -- and tonight, in this place, that dream is renewed. Now we go forward -- grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.

God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches: Vice President Dick Cheney
09.03.04 (10:46 pm)

[b]Transcript of Vice President Dick Cheney's speech to the Republican National Convention[/b]



THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.


AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  I'm sure glad Zell Miller is on our side.  (Applause.)


Mr. Chairman, delegates, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans: I accept your nomination for Vice President of the United States.
(Applause.)


AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  I am honored by your confidence.  And tonight I make this pledge:  I will give this campaign all that I have, and together we will make George W. Bush President for another four years.
(Applause.)


Tonight I will talk about this good man and his fine record leading our country.  And I may say a word or two about his opponent.  (Laughter.) I am also mindful now that I have an opponent of my own.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  People tell me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, his charm, and his great hair.  I said, "How do you think I got the job?"  (Laughter and applause.)


On this night, as we celebrate the opportunities that America offers, I am filled with gratitude to a nation that has been good to me, and I remember the people who set me on my way in life.  My grandfather noted that the day I was born was also the birthday of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And so he told my parents they should send President Roosevelt an announcement of my birth.  (Laughter.)  Now my grandfather didn't have a chance to go to high school.  For many years he worked as a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad, and he and my grandmother lived in a railroad car. But the modesty of his circumstances didn't stop him from thinking that President Roosevelt should know about my arrival.  My grandfather believed deeply in the promise of America, and he had the highest hopes for his family.  And I don't think it would surprise him all that much that a grandchild of his stands before you tonight as Vice President of the United States.  (Applause.)


It is the story of this country that people have been able to dream big dreams with confidence they would come true, if not for themselves, then for their children and grandchildren.  And that sense of boundless opportunity is a gift that we must pass on to all who come after us.


From kindergarten to graduation, I went to public schools, and I know that they are a key to being sure that every child has a chance to succeed and to rise in the world.  (Applause.)  When the President and I took office, our schools were shuffling too many children from grade to grade without giving them the skills and the knowledge they need.  So President Bush reached across the aisle and brought both parties together to pass the most significant education reform in 40 years.  (Laughter.)  With higher standards and new resources, America's schools are now on an upward path to excellence -- and not for just a few children, but for every child.
(Applause.)


Opportunity also depends on a vibrant, growing economy.  As President Bush and I were sworn into office, our nation was sliding into recession, and American workers were overburdened with federal taxes.  Then came the events of September 11th, which hit our economy very hard.  So President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see.  (Applause.)  Businesses are creating jobs.  People are returning to work.  Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high.  The Bush tax cuts are working.
(Applause.)


Our nation has the best health care in the world, and President Bush is making it more affordable and accessible to all Americans.  (Applause.) And there is more to do.  Under this President's leadership, we will reform medical liability so the system serves patients and good doctors, not personal injury lawyers.  (Applause.)


These have been years of achievement, and we are eager for the work ahead. And in all that we do, we will never lose sight of the greatest challenge of our time:  preserving the freedom and security of this nation against determined enemies.


AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you all.  (Applause.)


Since I last spoke to our national convention, Lynne and I have had the joy of seeing our family grow.  We now have a grandson to go along with our three wonderful granddaughters.  (Applause.)  And the deepest wish of my heart and the object of all my determination is that they, and all of America's children, will have lives filled with opportunity, and that they will inherit a world in which they can live in freedom, in safety, and in peace.  (Applause.)


Four years ago, some said the world had grown calm, and many assumed that the United States was invulnerable to danger.  That thought might have been comforting; it was also false.  Like other generations of Americans, we soon discovered that history had unexpected duties in store for us.


September 11th, 2001 made clear the challenges we face.  On that day we saw the harm that could be done by 19 men armed with knives and boarding passes.  America also awakened to a possibility even more lethal:  this enemy, whose hatred of us is limitless, armed with chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons.


Just as surely as the Nazis during World War II, and the Soviets during the Cold War, the enemy we face today is bent on our destruction.  As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win.
(Applause.)  Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb Commander-in-Chief, we will prevail.  (Applause.)


The fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans may have thought they could attack us with impunity -- because terrorists had done so previously.  But if the killers of September 11th thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America.  And they did not know George W. Bush.  (Applause.)


From the beginning, the President made clear that the terrorists would be dealt with -- and that anyone who supports, protects, or harbors them would be held to account.  (Applause.)  In a campaign that has reached around the world, we have captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda.  In Afghanistan, the camps where terrorists trained to kill Americans have been shut down, and the Taliban driven from power.  (Applause.)  In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat, and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein.  (Applause.) Seventeen months ago, he controlled the lives and fortunes of 25 million people.  Tonight, he sits in jail.  (Applause.)


President Bush does not deal in empty threats and halfway measures, and his determination has sent a clear message.  Just five days after Saddam was captured, the government of Libya agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program and turn the materials over to the United States.  (Applause.) Tonight, the uranium, the centrifuges, and the  plans and designs for nuclear weapons that were once hidden in Libya are locked up and stored away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, never again to threaten America.  (Applause.)


The biggest threat we face today is having nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists.  The President is working with many countries in a global effort to end the trade and transfer of these deadly technologies. The most important result thus far -- and it is a very important one -- is that the black market network that supplied nuclear weapons technology to Libya, as well as to Iran and North Korea, has been shut down.  (Applause.) The world's worst source of nuclear weapons proliferation is out of business -- and we are safer as a result.  (Applause.)


In the global war we are fighting, we owe a mighty debt to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.  (Applause.)  They have fought the enemy with courage and reached out to civilians with compassion, rebuilding schools and hospitals and roads.  They have won stunning victories.  They have faced hard duty and long deployments.  And they have lost comrades, more than 1,100 brave Americans, whose memories this nation will honor forever.  (Applause.)  The men and women who wear the uniform of the United States represent the very best of America.  They have the thanks of our nation.  And they have confidence, the loyalty, and the respect of their Commander-in-Chief.  (Applause.)


In this election, we will decide who leads our country for the next four years.  Yet, there is more in the balance than that.  Moments come along in history when leaders must make fundamental decisions about how to confront a long-term challenge abroad, or how best to keep the American people secure at home.  We faced such a moment after World War II, when we put in place the policies that defended America throughout the Cold War.  Those policies -- containing communism, deterring attack by the Soviet Union, and promoting the rise of democracy -- were carried out by Democratic and Republican Presidents in the decades that followed.


This nation has reached another of those defining moments.  Under President Bush we have put in place new policies and created new institutions to defend America, to stop terrorist violence at its source, and to help move the Middle East away from old hatreds and resentments and toward the lasting peace that only freedom can bring.  This is the work not of months, but of years -- and keeping these commitments is essential to our future security.  For that reason, ladies and gentlemen, the election of 2004 is one of the most important, not just in our lives, but in our history.
(Applause.)


And so it is time to set the alternatives squarely before the American people.


The President's opponent is an experienced senator.  He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.  (Applause.)  But there is also a record of more than three decades since.  And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest.  (Applause.)  History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe -- yet time and again, Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security.  Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations."


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And in 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed.  He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror" -- (Laughter.) -- as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.  (Laughter and applause.)


He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America -- after we have been attacked.  My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked.  (Applause.)


AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  We're faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, and we cannot wait until the next attack.  We must do everything we can to prevent it -- and that includes the use of
military force.   (Applause.)


Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve
-- as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics.  (Applause.)  But, in fact, the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side.  (Applause.)  But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few.  (Applause.)  George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.  (Applause.)


AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military.  Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!  Flip-flop!  Flip-flop!  Flip-flop!  (Applause.)


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of Commander-in-Chief.


AUDIENCE:  Booo!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a Commander-in-Chief -- and that is to support American troops in combat.  (Applause.)


In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate -- and fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed.  (Applause.)  But the presidency is an entirely different proposition.  A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation.  (Applause.)  But a President -- a President -- always casts the deciding vote.  (Applause.)  And in this time of challenge, America needs -- and America has -- a President we can count on to get it right.  (Applause.)


AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats.  But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself.  (Laughter.)


AUDIENCE:  Flip-flop!  Flip-flop!  Flip-flop!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  His back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion.  And it is all part of a pattern.  He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act -- and against it.  He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and against it.  He is for the Patriot Act ? and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas.  He makes the whole thing mutual
-- America -- (applause) -- America sees two John Kerrys.  (Laughter and
applause.)


The other candidate in this race is a man our nation has come to know, and one I've come to admire very much.  I watch him at work every day.  I have seen him face some of the hardest decisions that can come to the Oval Office -- and make those decisions with the wisdom and the humility Americans expect in their President.  (Applause.)  George W. Bush is a man who speaks plainly and who means what he says.  He is a person of loyalty and kindness -- and he brings out these qualities in those around him.  He is a man of great personal strength -- and more than that, a man with a heart for the weak, and the vulnerable, and the afflicted.  (Applause.)  We all remember that terrible morning when, in the space of just 102 minutes, more Americans were killed than we lost at Pearl Harbor.  We remember the President who came to New York City and pledged that the terrorists would soon hear from all of us.  (Applause.)  George W. Bush saw this country through grief and tragedy.  He has acted with patience, and calm, and a moral seriousness that calls evil by its name.  (Applause.)  In the great divide of our time, he has put this nation where America always belongs: against the tyrants of this world, and on the side of every soul on Earth who yearns to live in freedom.  (Applause.)


Fellow citizens, our nation is reaching the hour of decision, and the choice is clear.  President Bush and I will wade this effort -- wage this effort with complete confidence in the judgment of the American people. The signs are good -- even in Massachusetts.  (Applause.)  According to a news account last month, people leaving the Democratic National Convention asked a Boston policeman for directions.  He replied, "Leave here --? and go vote Republican."  (Laughter and applause.)


AUDIENCE:  Four more years!  Four more years!  Four more years!


THE VICE PRESIDENT:  President Bush and I are honored to have the support of that police officer, and of Democrats, Republicans, and independents from every calling in American life.  (Applause.)  We are so fortunate, each and every one of us, to be citizens of this great nation and to take part in the defining event of our democracy: Choosing who will lead us.


The historian Bernard DeVoto once wrote that when America was created, the stars must have danced in the sky.  (Applause.)  Our President understands the miracle of this great country.  He knows the hope that drives it and shares the optimism that has long been so important a part of our national character.  He gets up each and every day determined to keep our great nation safe so that generations to come will know the freedom and opportunities we have known -- and more.  (Applause.)


When this convention concludes tomorrow night, we will go forth with confidence in our cause, and in the man who leads it.  By leaving no doubt where we stand, and asking all Americans to join us, we will see our cause to victory.


Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
5 Comments
 
Kerry's Midnight Run
09.03.04 (10:03 pm)
After listening to John Kerry's speech last night I must admit I was a bit stunned. Not by it's contents, of course, this sort of political rhetoric and badly researched facts is pretty much par for course in an election year.

No the thing that struck me the most is that I cannot ever recall a single occassion in which someone has held a midnight rally immediately after the oppositions convention.

The whole thing smacked of.. well, desperation for lack of a better term. What follows is the text of Kerry's speech, naturally with some commentary mixed in for good measure 8)


The election comes down to this. If you believe this country is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush. But if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, join with us.

John and I offer a better plan that will make us stronger at home and more respected in the world. We offer responsible leadership and with your help, we're going to bring that leadership to the Washington!

Ok, fair enough. What is it? Your plan I mean Senator. What is it? I recall at one point you mentioned some really grand notion on how to take care of this whole Iraq situation. But that plan I guess is a secret. You've talked the desperate need for healthcare.. but you haven't actually proposed a plan for taking care of it.

See the problem here Senator is that all you've talked an awful lot about what you see are the problems, but you haven't offered a single solution. The only thing you have said you would do with any specificity at all is raise taxes. Thanks, but the government takes everything I earn from January all the way through July already. I don't think you really need any more of my money.

For four days in New York, instead of talking about real plans for creating jobs, strengthening the economy, expanding health care, and bringing down gas prices, we heard almost nothing but anger and insults from the Republicans. And I'll tell you why. It's because they can't talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can't talk about their record because it's a record of failure.

Say John, you might want to talk to Theresa and see if maybe she'll spring for a satellite TV hookup on the old Learjet there buddy. If you had listened to the President's speech last night you would have notice that over half of it talked about real plans - including some specifics - about how to create jobs, strengthen the economy, healthcare and energy policy. He laid it out pretty well I think.

Tonight, President Bush got up and told us that he's got a plan for the economy. That's exactly what he said four years ago. But with the largest deficit in American history, I don't think we can afford four more years of this president's plans. That's because for four years, this president has taken us in the wrong direction.

Um, John, you remember back in 2000 when Mr. Clinton left office? He gave Bush the gift that just keeps on giving, a recession. So Bush inherits the recession from Clinton, and about a year later we get hit with the worst terrorist attack on American soil ever.

You remember those two huge buildings in New York that collapsed? That World Trade Center thing? That cost our economy billions. So Bush inherits a recession that is only made worse by this massive terrorist attack.

And here we are, just a couple of years later, and our economy is in recovery. Jobs are being created, home ownership is at an all time high and unemployment is about where it normally is in this country rather than being in the double digits.

Personally I think that is a remarkable achievement, considering the fact that we started in a recession and sustained a direct attack on our economy of unprecedented proportions. Sorry Senator, I can't see how anyone could have done a better job on the economic front than what George Bush has done in the last 4 years.

But the plans he offered tonight are just more of the same policies that are failing at home and in Iraq now. And we know he won't change them. In fact, the President is quite proud of the fact that not even failure will force him to change course.

Why should he change them? They are working...

You all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We'll, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

Whoa, calm down there Johnny. No one attacked your patriotism, and no one said you were unfit to be our commander in chief at the Republican convention. Those attacks are coming from the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, not from the Republican party. Big difference. The Swift Vets served with you in Vietnam, and when you got back from a remarkable 4 month stint there you started bad mouthing them, remember?

You accused them of all manner of atrocities and said they "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan" to jump start your political career. Small wonder they are a little ticked of at you now. You made your own bed there John, no sense crying over split milk. But hey, they did make you a heck of an offer. They’d get off your back if you’d apologize for all that nonsense you testified to when you returned from Vietnam and clear their names. Funny isn’t it John, how your willing to be so sensitive to terrorists, our enemies, and yet your much vaunted sensitivity doesn’t seem to extend to America’s heroes who served with you in Vietnam.

The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.

Umm, Senator, you didn't serve two tours of duty in Vietnam, you served a grand total of 4 months. You spent the rest of your time in the service with the extremely cushy job of Admirals aid. I would also ask you to double check your facts in regards to Dick Cheney, he never once said you were unfit for office. I have the transcripts of his speech if you would care to check it for yourself.

Besides Senator, during your own campaign you opened the door for this. You said that if they wanted to talk about your Vietnam service "Bring it On". Well the swift vets have done exactly that Senator, and now your crying foul.

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit.

Senator those are extremely serious allegations that have no basis in fact, something I'm sure your well aware. I think it is pretty evident however just how badly the Swift Boat Vets have effected your campaign. You tried to obfuscate your total lack of meaningful accomplishments after 20 years in the Senate by focusing on the 4 months you spent in a combat zone. Sadly you have discovered that not everyone that was there with you has forgotten or forgiven you for smearing their names and their reputations with your outlandish stories of commiting atrocities.

Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And that only scratches the surface. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America. And together, you, John Edwards and I will do that on November 2nd. For four years, George Bush has stubbornly misled America and taken us in the wrong direction.

Wow.. Senator, you must be in pretty big trouble to be making wild allegations like this.

He's misled America's workers - he told them his economic plan would create 6 million jobs. The truth is we've lost nearly 1.8 million since George Bush took office. He said his plan would create 266,000 jobs in Ohio. Instead Ohio has lost 230,000 jobs since he took office -- 112,000 jobs since the recession ended in November of 2001.

Senator, you might want to check with factcheck.org or some other non-partisan outfit rather than getting your information from your campaign staffers. What you've stated here is simply not true.

Earlier this week, his Labor Secretary even said outsourcing was good for America. I don't believe that. John and I have a plan that will put an end to tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and reward companies who create and keep jobs here in America. And we have a plan that will give tax credits to employers who create new jobs - and we'll eliminate capital gains taxes for those who make long-term investments in their small businesses. We'll also help small businesses meet the rising costs of health care - costs that keep so many of them from hiring and expanding.

So now your for cutting taxes? Lol...

For four years, George Bush has misled America's families - saying he had a health care plan for America. The truth is he's done nothing as 5 million more Americans have lost their health care, bringing the total number to 45 million people without coverage nationwide. In Ohio, 114,000 people have lost their health coverage since bush took office, bringing the total number of Ohioans without coverage to 1.4 million. John and I have a plan to make quality health care affordable for all. Because we believe that your health care is as important as any politician's in Washington, DC.

Oh, Senator, you need to avoid this debate like the plague. Your running mate John Edwards is one of many individuals who bear primary responsibility for driving up the costs of health care, by sueing doctors for malpractice where he knew good and well none existed. That's how he made his fortune Senator, bilking the health care industry for his millions. Hasn't John Edwards mentioned this too you at all? He stole his fortune directly from the Health Care industry, every million he has is being paid for by myself and others through higher health care costs. Too bad he couldn't just marry a rich widow, nes pas? Lol..

When it comes to getting gas prices under control, George Bush has misled America. America is more dependent than ever on Mid- East oil. John and I have a plan to make America energy independent by investing in new technologies and alternative fuels. John and I believe we need to rely on American ingenuity and brainpower to ensure our country's freedom and independence, not on the Royal Saudi family.

Lol.. Senator, you might want to research this a bit before making such ignorant claims. High gas prices have less to do with the supply of oil and far more to do with the fact that we can't refine it fast enough, thanks mostly to outlandish regulations on refining which are supported by liberal politicians, like yourself and Mr. Edwards. As far as the alternative energy sources shtick, yes we need to develop them but they are decades away from being viable for mass market use at best, certainly nothing that is going to have any impact in the next 4 years by any stretch of the imagination.

Worst of all, George Bush misled America when he took us to war in Iraq. The truth is, when it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would've done almost everything differently. I believe it's time we had a president who told the American people the truth.

The truth? Senator, you haven't told the truth about your time in Veitnam, you haven't told the truth about your Senate voting record, in fact Senator I can't think of much you have been truthful about since this campaign started. As to your ridiculous allegations about the president lying in Iraq, that too is simply not true an you know it. But I suppose with your poll numbers slipping as they are the truth simply isn't something you can afford right now, is it Senator?

We need to take America in a new direction. And we have a specific plan to do just that. So tomorrow morning, John and Elizabeth and Teresa and I are hitting the road on a bus tour across America's heartland. From here, we'll go out and talk with Americans in towns across Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. And because a stronger America begins at home, we'll talk about our plan to create jobs, cut taxes for the middle class, lower health care costs, and make America safer and more secure.

Ok.. great. How? You know, what’s the actual plan? So far you've been pretty good at making a ton of promises like this, but thus far you haven't proposed a single thing with any specifics on how you would get it done. Talk is cheap Senator, and so far that's all we've seen. You had 20 years in the Senate to work on this issues that you claim are so near and dear to your heart. I can't think of a single piece of legislation you introduce in 20 years time that addressed any of these issues. Can you?

Lol.. small wonder then I guess that you chose to focus on your 4 months in Vietnam instead of your 20 years in the Senate.

I believe we can be stronger at home - we can create jobs again, get health care costs under control, and make ourselves independent of Mid-East oil - but George Bush's policies won't get us there. And I believe we can be more respected in the world - but it won't happen with George Bush's arrogant, go-it-alone foreign policy.

You mean his “don't cowtow to France and the UN policy”, don' t you Senator? Please. Considering the billions they were making from the corrupt Oil for Food program, are you really naive enough to believe that they would have ever done anything to stop terrorism or remove Hussien from power regardless of who was in the White House?

We tried the sensitive appeasement approach since 1972 Senator, and each terror attack was worse than the last finally culminating in 9/11. Your policy and philosophy has been tried before and it never worked then, why do you think it will work now?
9 Comments
 
Kerry's Swiftboat Hits A Mine, Before It Doesn't
09.02.04 (2:29 pm)
Alright folks, I know we've done a lot of articles on Kerry's experiences in Vietnam. In fact I hadn't planned on writing another one for a while, but it seems like every time I turn around I'm tripping over yet another inconsistency about John Kerry's Vietnam service.

And of course, as usual, the source of this information is not the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth or any other group. No, as usual the contradiction comes from none other than John Kerry himself.

Jim Rasmussen has been a staunch defender of Kerry's heroism, and wrote the following in an editorial posted on Kerry's website:

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later.

[b]The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river.[/b] [/i][Emphasis Mine] [i]Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

So supposedly according to Rassman he was blown off Kerry's boat during an explosion. However, it seems that Kerry told a different story about the events that took place on this fateful day in a eulogy for crew member Thomas Belodeau, which Kerry entered into the Congressional Record in 1998.

[i]There was the time we were carrying special forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M–60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands.

He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets [Rassman] walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M–60. [b]As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going -- straight into the river. [/b][/i] [Emphasis Mine]

Ok, so now we have Kerry disputing Rassman's account of events. Again we have two different versions of supposedly the same incident. Again our sources here are Kerry supporters, not Kerry critics.

I think any benefit of the doubt that Mr. Rassman and Mr. Kerry could possibly have is pretty much exhausted at this point. According to the Swift Boat Vets account of this incident one boat hit a mine. Kerry's boat fled the scene, which might account for the high speed turn that Kerry says threw Rassman into the water. Kerry then returned and picked Rassman up.

The other boats remained on station to help the boat that hit the mine. While they did fire at the shore at first, a standard operating procedure called suppression fire, all of the Swift Boat vets that were there that day claim there was no incoming fire from the shore at all. Navy records indicate that no one else was injured and that the boats themselves loitered in the area for nearly an hour without sustaining any damage whatsoever.

The only two eyewitnesses who are claiming that Kerry acted heroically that day are Kerry and Rassman, and it seems that their accounts of this event not only do not match the other accounts of the other vets they don't even match each other.

I would think that Kerry and Rassman have some explaining to do here, at the very least to explain why it is that in Rassman's account he was blown out of the boat by an explosion (presumably from a mine) and in Kerry's account he fell overboard during a high speed turn.

It would be nice if Kerry would release his military records voluntarily, to help clear up some of this controversy. As it is it appears as if the score is now Swift Boat Vets 3, Kerry 0 as far as credible versions of what happened during Kerry's brief stint in Vietnam.
0 Comments
 
Kerry Campaign on Shaky Ground?
09.02.04 (1:43 pm)
New York (CNSNews.com) - Rumors of a possible shakeup of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's presidential campaign put Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe on the defensive Wednesday when peppered with questions from reporters.

"There will be no major campaign shakeups. Let me be crystal clear on that," McAuliffe said. "Will we add people and complement the campaign on the national level? Of course we will."

Political operatives have suggested that Kerry's inability to deflect attacks from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will lead to campaign changes. It took Kerry two weeks to directly respond to the television ads that questioned his military service in Vietnam.

Funny thing is, if Kerry were telling the truth all he would have to do is release his military records to the public and that would probably be more than defense enough. However since he totally refuses to release those records, or respond specifically to the Swift Boat Veterans allegations it certainly doesn't lend much to his credibility. All he has done thus far is to simply try and dismiss the Swift Boat Vets as a republican front group, and it doesn't appear as if this tactic has been particularly effective.

He's also tried pretty hard to convince everyone that this campaign isn't about Vietnam, but he's the one that keeps bringing up his Vietnam service and pushing it to the forefront of his campaign. Sadly after 20 years in the Senate even his own campaign staffers can't find much of note to use as a centerpiece of the campaign. The closest they have come so far is to claim that he was the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Apparently they were pretty embarrassed to discover that this wasn't true either, Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was the Vice Chair of the Committee, not their candidate John Kerry.

In the meantime, Kerry has lost his lead in polls since the anti-Kerry veterans began running their ads. Now, according to news reports, frustrated Democrats want to oust Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and communications director Stephanie Cutter.

McAuliffe refuted reports about a Kerry campaign crisis. He said Democrats were in good shape heading into the next two months.

"Standing here today, I am very comfortable where we are," McAuliffe said. "Friday the general election begins. They've had their convention, we've had ours. We are off for those 60 days and we are going to be out aggressively."

I dunno Terry, I don't think I'd be all that comfortable right now if I were you. Now I'm not one who really puts much stock in polls personally, but considering the fact that you got no bounce whatsoever out of your own convention and the fact that the Republicans are already seeing what looks to be a good sized bounce before their convention is even completed that I think should worry anyone. That has to hurt I suppose, spending that much money on a convention, showcasing your message and not getting even a single point rise in your poll numbers as a result.

But it just seems like every time John Kerry speaks his poll numbers go down, and every time Bush speaks his poll numbers go up. If I were in charge of the Kerry campaign I'd be very worried right about now.

Your candidate still can't deal with the Swift Boat issue at all, and his credentials for fighting an effective war on terror are almost non-existent. The only memorable thing he has said about his approach is that it would be more "sensitive", and was just a blunder of epic proportions.

So while I'm glad you are all feeling really good about yourselves over at the DNC, my guess is if you don't do something soon your going to loose this election by a much wider margin than the polls would suggest.

But hey, it's not like that would hurt my feelings at all :D
0 Comments
 
Making a few changes
09.02.04 (12:57 pm)
My apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced by the blog changes we made today.

We added a couple of new features, you'll notice them over in the right hand margin. Our first new feature is a collection of transcripts from the speeches given at the 2004 Republican National Convention. We'll add new transcripts as they become available, to read the full transcript of a speech just click on the name of the speaker.

Our second new feature is our new issues archive. If your interested in reading blog entries about a particular issue, just choose your area of interest and all of the blog entries we've done on a specific issue will be listed for you by title. They are sorted by date, the newest entry will be at the top, the oldest at the bottom of the list.
1 Comments
 
Issues Archive : Constitutional Issues
09.02.04 (12:47 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the Constitution.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]I Thought That Was Seperation of Church & State...[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Right to Keep and Arm Bears[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Freedom of Religion, revisted[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom From Religion[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Moore Confusion on the First Amendment [/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : The United Nations
09.02.04 (12:44 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the United Nations.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]UN = Useless Ninnies?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The League Of Extraordinary Weasels[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]UN Rushes to Prove Itself Totally Superfluous[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Swinging for the Fence[/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : Public Policy Debates
09.02.04 (12:40 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to public policy debates, including healthcare, tort reform, tax cuts, gay rights, and welfare issues.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]New Study Confirms the Obvious[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Charity Begins At Home, Shouldn't it End There Too?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Why Is He Called Gay If He Acts So Miserably?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Canadian Drug Imports No Miracle Cure [/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Look No Further Than California[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Gay, Proud, And Unemployed..[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]When Tolerance Rears It's Ugly Head[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Rob From The Poor, Pay For The Rich[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Death & Taxes, at least in Death they cut you some slack[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Public Education Deserves an F[/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : Media Bias
09.02.04 (12:33 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to Bias in the Media.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Rather Silly[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]CBS News ... That wouldn't happen to stand for Complete B.S. would it?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]CBS... Careless Broadcasting System?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]60 Minutes Caught Red Handed[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]How much of 60 Minutes is bogus? About An Hour's Worth.[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Does AP Stand for Abandoning Principles?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry and The French Connection[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Wilson and Akre, Not All That They Appear At First Glance[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Outrage in Tennessee[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Unfit To Be Called A Journalist[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry Campaign Misrepresents His Record Like "Clockwork"[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Where Is That Blasted Remote?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Take The Liberal Media Challenge![/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]CNN? On Journalistic Ethics?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Actions Speak Louder Than Words [/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Shrimp Vindallo Not On The Wendy's 99 Cent Value Menu [/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : The War on Terror
09.02.04 (12:25 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the War on Terror.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]A Timeline of Terror[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]A Look Back[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The John Edwards Plan, Nuclear Whistlestop[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Million Mullah March?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Choosy Dictators Choose Kerry[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Sensitivity Training, Conservative Style[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Al-Qaida Iraqi Connection, According To Richard Clarke[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Hurray for Hazem[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Open Mouth, Insert Foot [/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]My Hero Hazem[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Its About The Future[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]I Will Fight To The Death! No Wait, Lets Negotiate...[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Just Imagine[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry's Credibility Problem[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]When Reason is Abandoned[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]President Mohammad Khatami, A Hungry Hungry Hippo[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Old Intelligence Leading to New Arrests?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]An Objective Case for The War in Iraq[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]All we are saying, is give surrender a chance....[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Flight 93 Remembered[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The 9/11 Report - 567 pages of hindsight[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Abu Ghriab in perspective[/url]
0 Comments
 
Issue Archive : Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth
09.02.04 (12:14 pm)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the issue of John Kerry's service in Vietnam and the 527 Group Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry's Swiftboat Hits a Mine, Before it Doesn't[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Golly Ollie[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Smell of Politics[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Has John Kerry's Swiftboat Washed Ashore on Gilligan's Isle?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]More Veterans Respond to Kerry's Campaign[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Senator Kerry And The Chamber of Secrets.[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Pete Yost, professional journalist or partisan hack?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry Campaign Abandons Ship[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry's Democratic Allies Begin Bailing To Save His SwiftBoat[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]This weeks Hippo award winner, Howard Fineman [/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Bring this On[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Is John Kerry A Republican Attack Dog?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Land Of The Free And The Home of the Lawsuit[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Apocalypse Then, John Wayne Movie Now[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Thank you for protecting our right to free speech, now sit down and shut up.[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]It's a Bird, It's a Plane.. It's ... Carl Cameron?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Has Kerry's SwiftBoat Story Sprung A Leak?[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Kerry's Cambodian Christmas[/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : Abortion
09.02.04 (11:56 am)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to the issue of Abortion.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]When Liberal Just Isn't Liberal Enough[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]A Critical Look At Abortion[/url]
0 Comments
 
Issues Archive : Our Legal System
09.02.04 (11:45 am)
Our issues archives allow you to quickly and easily access all of the blog entries related to a particular issue. Just click on the titles below to read the various blog entries related to our legal system.

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]A Boy Named Sue[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Judicial Responsibility[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]It's A Hate Love Relationship[/url]

[url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Massachusetts Mayhem[/url]
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches: Senator Zell Miller, Democrat, Georgia
09.02.04 (9:13 am)
Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America ``all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.''

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their ``private plans'' than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president'' or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,'' he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a ``yes-no-maybe'' bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in ``Amazing Grace,'' ``Was blind, but now I see,'' and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you. God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California
09.02.04 (7:34 am)
[b]Transcript: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech to the Republican National Convention[/b]

Thank you very much. Thank you. What a greeting. What a greeting. Wow. This is like winning an Oscar -- as if I would know.

Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." And that's what the Democrats should have called their convention.

You know, on the way up here to the podium, a gentleman came up to me and said, "Governor, you are as good a politician as you were an actor." What a cheap shot.

Cannot believe it.

Anyway, my fellow Americans, this is an amazing moment for me. To think that a once-scrawny boy from Austria could grow up to become governor of the state of California and then stand here...

... then stand here in Madison Square Garden and speak on behalf of the president of the United States -- that is an immigrant's dream.

It is the American dream.

You know, I was born in Europe and I've traveled all over the world. And I can tell you that there is no place, no country, more compassionate, more generous, more accepting and more welcoming than the United States of America.

As long as I live, I will never forget that day 21 years ago when I raised my right hand and took the oath of citizenship. Do you know how proud I was? I was so proud that I walked around with an American flag around my shoulders all day long.

Tonight, I want to talk to you about why I'm even more proud to be an American -- why I'm proud to be a Republican -- and why I believe this country is in good hands.

When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria.

I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw Communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.

Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Just look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him back to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

Now, my family didn't have a car. But one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to the Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy. I was not an action hero back then.

But I remember. I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I would never see them again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union, and it is because of the United States of America.

As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. Now, don't misunderstand me, I love Austria, and I love the Austrian people.

But I always knew America was the place for me. In school, when the teacher would talk about America, I would daydream about coming here. I would daydream about living here. I would sit there and watch for hours American movies transfixed by my heroes like John Wayne.

Everything about America seemed so big to me, so open, so possible.

I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.

The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.

But then I heard Nixon speak. Then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military.

Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?"

My friend said, "He's a Republican."

I said, "Then I am a Republican."

And I have been a Republican ever since. And trust me -- and trust me -- in my wife's family, that's no small achievement.

But I am proud to be with the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, and the party of George W. Bush.

To my fellow immigrants listening tonight, I want you to know how welcome you are in this party. We Republicans admire your ambition. We encourage your dreams. We believe in your future.

And one thing I learned about America is that if you work hard and if you play by the rules, this country is truly open to you. You can achieve anything.

Everything I have, my career, my success, my family, I owe to America.

In this country, it doesn't make any difference where you were born. It doesn't make any difference who your parents were. It doesn't make any difference if you're like me and couldn't even speak English until you were in your 20s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came true.

I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities. And I believe they can. That's why I believe in this country, that's why I believe in this party, and that's why I believe in this president.

Now, many of you out there tonight are Republican like me in your hearts and in your beliefs. Maybe you're from Guatemala. Maybe you're from the Philippines. Maybe you're from Europe or the Ivory Coast. Maybe you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania or New Mexico.

And maybe -- just maybe -- you don't agree with this party on every single issue. I say to you tonight that I believe that's not only OK, but that's what's great about this country.

Here we can respectfully disagree and still be patriotic, still be American and still be good Republicans.

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? Well, I tell you how. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.

If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican.

If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.

If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican.

If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican.

And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican.

Now, there's another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy. And to those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie-men.

The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of 20 years ago, when the critics said Japan and Germany are overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous.

Now, they say that India and China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it. We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what Americans do.

We move prosperity ahead.

We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead. And we move people ahead.

And under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, America's economy is moving ahead in spite of a recession they inherited and in spite of the attack on our homeland.

Now, the other party says that we have two Americas. Don't you believe that either. I have visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany, and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. I have visited our military hospitals. And I tell you this, that our men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas. They believe we are one America, and they are fighting for it.

We are one America, and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul.

That's what I admire most about the president. He's a man of perseverance. He's a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who doesn't waiver, and does not back down.

My fellow Americans, make no mistake about it: Terrorism is more insidious than Communism, because it yearns to destroy not just the individual, but the entire international order.

The president did not go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite. But leadership isn't about polls.

It's about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions.

That's why America is safer with George W. Bush as president.

He knows you don't reason with terrorists. You defeat them. He knows you can't reason with people blinded by hate. You see, they hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women. They hate the religious freedom of others. And they hate the liberating breeze of democracy.

But, ladies and gentlemen, their hate is no match for America's decency.

We are the America that sends out the Peace Corps volunteers to teach our village children. We are the America that sends out the missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor and the sick.

We are the America that gives more than any other country to fight AIDS in Africa and the developing world.

And we are the America that fights not for imperialism, but for human rights and democracy.

You know, when the Germans brought down the Berlin Wall, America's determination helped wield the sledgehammers. And when that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America stood with him. And when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too.

We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they're trapped, they hear our call. They see our light. And they feel the pull of our freedom.

They come here, as I did, because they believe -- they believe in us. They come because their hearts say to them, as mine did, "If only I can get to America." You know, someone once wrote, "There are those who say that freedom is nothing but a dream." They are right. It's the American dream.

No matter the nationality, no matter the religion, no matter the ethnic background, America brings out the best in people.

And as governor -- as governor of the great state of California, I see the best in Americans every day.

I see the best in Americans every day, our police, our firefighters, our nurses, doctors and teachers, our parents.

And what about the extraordinary men and women who have volunteered to fight for the United States of America?

I have such great respect for them and their heroic families.

Let me tell you about the sacrifice and the commitment that I have seen first-hand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg, he had a hole through his stomach, and his shoulder had been shot through. And the list goes on and on and on.

I could tell that there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "Sir, in three weeks."

And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg, and then he was going to get some therapy, and then he was going to go back to Iraq and fight alongside his buddies.

And you know what he said to me then? You know what he said to me then?

He said, "Arnold, I'll be back."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, America is back -- back from the attack on our homeland, back from the attack on our economy, and back from the attack on our way of life. We're back because of the perseverance, character and leadership of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.

My fellow Americans, I want you to know that I believe with all my heart that America remains the great idea that inspires the world. It's a privilege to be born here. It's an honor to become a citizen here. It's a gift to raise your family here, to vote here, and to live here.

Our president, George W. Bush, has worked hard to protect and preserve the American dream for all of us. And that's why I say, send him back to Washington for four more years.

SCHWARZENEGGER and audience: Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years. Four more years.

SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you, America. Thank you, and God bless you all.
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches: Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor of New York City
09.02.04 (7:23 am)
[b]Transcript: Rudy Giuliani's speech to the Republican National Convention[/b]

Thank you. Welcome to the capital of the world.

New York was the first capital of our great nation. It was here in 1789, in lower Manhattan, that George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States.

And it was here in 2001, in the same lower Manhattan, that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and he said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, "They will hear from us."

Well, they heard from us.

They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.

They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

And we put him where he belongs, in jail.

They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction.

They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists or terrorism.

So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?

We owe that much and more to the loved ones and heroes that we lost on September 11.

The families of some of those we lost on September 11 are here with us. To them, and to all those families affected by September 11, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones made. We recognize the sacrifices that you're making. You are in our prayers, and we are in your debt.

This is the first Republican convention ever held here in New York City.

I've never seen so many Republicans in New York City. It's great.

I finally feel at home.

And you know something? Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Pataki, all of you that worked so hard in bringing this convention to New York, our president and the party that decided they'd have it here, above and beyond everything else, it's a statement, it's a strong statement that New York City and America are open for business, and we are stronger than ever.

New York. New York. New York.

AUDIENCE: New York. New York. New York.

GIULIANI: This is getting to be like a Yankee game. I don't know. Watch out.

You know, we're just not going to let the terrorists determine where we have political conventions, where we go, how we travel. We're Americans, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

AUDIENCE: USA. USA. USA.

GIULIANI: From the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.

And our party is at its best when we make certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very, very dangerous world.

I don't believe that we're right about everything, and Democrats are wrong. They're wrong about most things.

But seriously, neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

We don't have all the right ideas. They don't have all the wrong ideas.

But I do believe there are times in history when our ideas are more necessary and more important and critical, and this is one of those times when we are facing war and danger.

There are times when leadership is the most important.

On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history. On that day, we had to confront reality.

For me, when I arrived there and I stood below the north tower and I looked up, and seeing the flames of hell emanating from those buildings, and realizing that what I was actually seeing was a human being on the 101st, 102nd floor, that was jumping out of the building, I stood there, it probably took five or six seconds, it seemed to me that it took 20 or 30 minutes, and I was stunned.

And I realized, in that moment, in that instant, I realized we were facing something that we have never, ever faced before.

We had never been confronted with anything like this before. We had to concentrate all of our energy and our faith and our hope to get through those first hours and days. And we needed all the help that we could get and all the support that we could get.

And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building that we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street, and I realized that things outside might actually be worse than inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement watching a cloud come through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.

Our people were so brave in their response.

At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight:

Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president.

On September 11, George Bush had been president less than eight months. The new president, the vice president, the new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history virtually at the beginning of their administration.

President Bush's response in keeping us unified, in turning around the ship of state from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together for that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in history as a great American president.

But you and I, we're not going to wait for history to present the correct view of our president. Let us write our own history. We need George Bush now more than ever.

The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.

We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes, but a great religion and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to killing us and eradicating us and our way of life.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It started a long time ago. And it had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. That's a long time ago.

That's not yesterday.

And the pattern began early. The three surviving terrorists were arrested. And then within just three months, the terrorists who slaughtered the Israeli athletes were released by the German government -- set free.

AUDIENCE: Boooo.

GIULIANI: Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn time after time that they could attack, that they could slaughter innocent people and not face any consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro. And they murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorists were released, and some of the remaining terrorists -- they were allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals from the terrorists.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community, and too often the response, particularly in Europe, would be accommodation, appeasement and compromise.

AUDIENCE: Boooo.

GIULIANI: And worse, they also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously almost in direct proportion to the horror of their attack.

Terrorist acts became like a ticket to the international bargaining table. How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize while he was supporting a plague of terrorism in the Middle East and undermining any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world, much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism, we must also be on offense.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world, and he changed the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America, under his leadership, to destroying global terrorism.

The president announced the Bush Doctrine, when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And since September 11, President Bush has remained rock solid.

It doesn't matter to him how he is demonized. It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists. Leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present, and it's set on a future of real peace and security.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.

President Bush has the courage of his convictions.

In choosing a president, we really don't choose just a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. We choose a leader.

And in times of war and danger, as we're now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision.

There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.

Another one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire," while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and even belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.

President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.

John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision. This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry. I respect him for his service to our nation.

But it is important and critical to see the contrast in approach between the two men: President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts and goes back and forth; and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often, even on important issues.

Now, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War.

AUDIENCE: Boooo.

GIULIANI: Ah, but he must have heard your booing because -- because later he said he actually supported the war.

Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for the presidency, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just nine months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

AUDIENCE: Boooo.

GIULIANI: He even, at one point, declared himself as an antiwar candidate. And now he says he's pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words, not mine. I quote John Kerry, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas.

One is where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against exactly the same thing.

Yes, people in public office at times change their minds, or they realized they're wrong. I have, others have, or circumstances change. But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception.

In October of 2003 he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace." OK.

Then a few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

AUDIENCE: Boooo.

GIULIANI: The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we don't have to confront it, or we reduce of confronting it here in New York City, or in Chicago or in Los Angeles or in Miami or in the rural areas of America.

That's what it means to play offense with terrorism, and not just defense.

John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combating terrorism gives us no confidence that he'll pursue such a determined, difficult course.

President Bush would not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over 30 years to stand up to terrorists, he wouldn't allow them to stop us from doing what is necessary in the defense of our country.

He's not going to let them set the agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead, not follow.

Remember, just a few months ago, John Kerry kind of leaked out that claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him.

Well, to me, that raises the risk that he might well accommodate his position to their viewpoint.

It would not be the first time that John Kerry changed his mind about matters of war and peace.

I remember the days following September 11 when we were no longer Republicans or Democrats, but we were Americans. We were determined to do everything, everything that we could to help the victims, to rebuild our city and to disable our enemies.

I remember President Bush coming here on September 14, 2001, and lifting the morale of our rescue workers by talking with them and embracing them and staying with them much longer than was planned.

In fact, if you promise to keep this between us, because, I mean, I could get in trouble for this.

But I get in trouble all of the time. I was mayor of New York.

It is my opinion that when President Bush came here on September 14, 2001, the Secret Service was not really happy about his remaining in the area so long.

With buildings were still unstable, with fires raging below ground of 2,000 degrees or more, there was good reason for their concern.

Well, the president remained there. And talked to everyone, to the firefighters, to the police officers, the health care workers, the clergy. But the people that believe -- this is my opinion now from observing it -- that the people that spent the most time with him were our construction workers.

Now, New York construction workers are very special people. I'm sure this is true all over America where you come from, but I know the ones in New York really well.

And they were real heroes that day, like many others.

But I have to tell you, they're big. They are really big. They have arms that are bigger than my legs. And they have opinions that are bigger than their arms.

So every time the president would go up to one of them, they would hold his hand a little bit longer. And they would give him advice. I think like his Cabinet, Mr. Vice President, gives him advice.

They would like tell him in their own language exactly what he should do with the terrorists.

I can't repeat -- after all this is the Republican convention -- I can't repeat what they said, but one of them really got the president's attention. The president really bonded with him. They sort of hit it off. And the guy's giving him this long explanation of exactly what he should do. And when the man finished, President Bush said in a rather loud voice, "I agree."

At this point, all of the people kind of looked at this guy, all of his buddies. And can you imagine -- I mean, you're a construction worker, and all your buddies say -- and the president says, "I agree."

The guy went up in his own estimation from his 6 feet to about 6-10.

He lost total control of himself. Forgot who he was dealing with. He leaned over. He grabbed the president of the United States in this massive bear hug, and he started squeezing him.

And the Secret Service agent standing next to me, who wasn't happy about any of this, instead of running over and getting the president out of this grip, puts his finger in my face and he says to me, "If this guy hurts the president, Giuliani, you're finished."

I didn't know what to say. I was kind of shook when the -- and I said -- the only thing I could think of, and it's the moral of the story, I said, "But it would be out of love."

I also remember on that same day, as I'm sure Governor Pataki does, the heart-wrenching visit President Bush made to the families of our firefighters and our police officers at the Javits Center. I'm sure some of you remember it.

I remember receiving all the help and the assistance and support from the president, and even more than we asked for. For that, and for his personal support of me, I am eternally grateful to President Bush. He helped to get me through.

And I remember the support being bipartisan and actually standing hand in hand Republicans and Democrats, here in New York and all over the nation.

During a Boston Red Sox game in the seventh inning there was a sign that read, "Boston loves New York."

You're not going to see it now with a 4.5 game spread between the two teams.

And then one of the most remarkable experiences was, I was driving along and I saw a Chicago police officer directing traffic in the middle of Manhattan, sent here by Mayor Daley of Chicago, who was a good friend of ours, and is. And that's what I mean about no Democrats or Republicans.

Well, the guy is directing traffic. And I got out to thank him, and I did. And then I went back in my car and all of a sudden, I had this thought: "I wonder where he's sending these people."

I think some of them are still driving around the Bronx, but it was very reassuring to know how much support we had, and I thank all of you for it, because you all gave us support -- Republicans, Democrats, everyone.

And as we look beyond this election and realize that elections do accentuate our differences, let's make sure that we rekindle that spirit that we had, that we are one America. We are united to end the threat of global terrorism as one people.

Certainly President Bush will keep us focused on that goal. When President Bush announced his commitment to ending global terrorism, he understood, I understood, we all understood that it was critical to remove the pillars of support for the global terrorist movement.

In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered thousands and thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction -- he was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and to rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is nothing to be defensive about.

It's something for which all those involved, from President Bush to the brave men of our armed services, should be proud. They did something wonderful. They did something that history will give them great credit for.

President Bush has also focused us on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.

Rather than trying to grant more freedom, or create more income, or improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and to Israel and to other external scapegoats.

But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world.

It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.

It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria.

It doesn't stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.

The president understands that the changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful, decent governments that can be role models and solve the problems of their own people.

This has been a very important part of the Bush doctrine and the president's vision for the future.

Have faith in the power of freedom. People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression.

That's the story of the Old Testament.

That's the story of World War II and the Cold War.

That's the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.

President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he can see beyond just today and tomorrow. He can see in the future. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and a safer world.

Don't be discouraged. Don't be cynical. We'll see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.

You know, right now, it may seem very difficult and a long way off. It may even seem idealistic to say that. But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems.

Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down and the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom.

When it catches hold, there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators and even defeat terrorists.

That is what we've done and must continue to do in Iraq. That's what the Republican Party, our party, does best, when we're at our best.

We extend freedom, and it's our mission. It's the long-term answer to ending global terrorism. Governments that are free and accountable.

We have won many battles in this war on terror, at home and abroad. But as President Bush told us way back on September 20, 2001, it will take a long-term determined effort to prevail.

The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There will be no dramatic surrender. There will be no crumbling of a massive wall.

But we will know it. We'll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We'll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end and we save lives. And then, God willing, we'll all be able on a future anniversary of September 11 to return to Ground Zero, or to the Pentagon, or to Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and to say to our fallen brothers and sisters, to our heroes of the worst attack in our history and to our heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the war on terror, we will be able to say to them that we have done all that we could with our lives that were spared to make your sacrifices build a world of real peace and true freedom.

We will make certain, in the words of President Bush, that they have heard from us, that they've heard from us a message of peace through free, accountable, lawful and decent governments giving people hope for a future for themselves and their children.

God bless each one we have lost, every soul, every single person, here and abroad, and their families. God bless all those who are currently at risk and in harm's way defending our freedom. And God bless America.
0 Comments
 
RNC Speeches : Senator John Mccain, Arizona
09.02.04 (7:13 am)
[b]Transcript: Senator John McCain's speech to the Republican National Convention[/b]

Thank you, Lindsey, and, thank you, my fellow Republicans.

I'm truly grateful for the privilege of addressing you.

This week, millions of Americans, not all Republicans, weigh our claim on their support for the two men who have led our country in these challenging times with moral courage and firm resolve.

So I begin with the words of a great American from the other party, given at his party's convention in the year I was born.

My purpose is not imitation, for I can't match his eloquence, but respect for the relevance in our time of his rousing summons to greatness of an earlier generation of Americans.

In a time of deep distress at home, as tyranny strangled the aspirations to liberty of millions, and as war clouds gathered in the West and East, Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted his party's nomination by observing:

"There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was, and how terrible were the plans of our enemies.

It's a big thing, this war.

It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil.

And should our enemies acquire for their arsenal the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek, this war will become a much bigger thing.

So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny.

And much is expected of us.

We are engaged in a hard struggle against a cruel and determined adversary.

Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and to the very essence of our culture ...liberty.

Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war.

Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs.

But we must fight. We must.

The sacrifices borne in our defense are not shared equally by all Americans.

But all Americans must share a resolve to see this war through to a just end.

We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks.

We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.

If we do less, we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed

to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit.

Remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.

We were united. First, in sorrow and anger. Then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless, inhumane theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.

In that moment, we were not different races.

We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries.

We were Americans.

All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second.

We must not lose sight of that as we debate who among us should bear the greatest responsibility

for keeping us safe and free.

We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.

My friends in the Democratic Party and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends

assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's

most important obligation.

I don't doubt their sincerity. They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.

They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all,

that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies. We agree.

And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the President believes.

And, thanks to his efforts we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some. I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.

Our President will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.

War is an awful business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged.

Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and

diplomacy conflict.

However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly. And while this war has many components, we can't make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.

That is not just an expression of our strength. It's a measure of our wisdom.

That's why I commend to my country the re-election of President Bush, and the steady, experienced, public-spirited man who serves as our Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

Four years ago, in Philadelphia, I spoke of my confidence that President Bush would accept the responsibilities that come with America's distinction as the world's only superpower.

I promised he would not let America "retreat behind empty threats, false promises and uncertain diplomacy;" that he would "confidently defend our interests and values wherever they are threatened."

I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center, with his arm around a hero of September 11th, and in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and summon our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong, and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear.

He promised our enemies would soon hear from us. And so they did. So they did.

He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al Qaeda and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. He worked effectively to secure the cooperation of Pakistan, a relationship that's critical to our success against al Qaeda.

He encouraged other friends to recognize the peril that terrorism posed for them, and won their help in apprehending many of those who would attack us again, and in helping to freeze the assets they used to fund their bloody work.

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein,

President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves

and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.

By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

As the President rightly reminds us, we are safer than we were on September 11th, but we're not yet safe. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight.

We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them; a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest.

And this President will not rest until America is stronger and safer still, and this hateful iniquity is vanquished. He has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him.

I salute his determination to make this world a better, safer, freer place. He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He will not yield. And neither will we.

I said earlier that the sacrifices in this war will not be shared equally by all Americans. The President is the first to observe, most of the sacrifices fall, as they have before, to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. We may be good citizens, but make no mistake, they are the very best of us.

It's an honor to live in a country that is so well and so bravely defended by such patriots.

May God bless them, the living and the fallen, as He has blessed us with their service.

For their families, for their friends, for America, for mankind they sacrifice to affirm that right makes might; that good triumphs over evil; that freedom is stronger than tyranny; that love is greater than hate.

It is left to us to keep their generous benefaction alive, and our blessed, beautiful country worthy of their courage. We should be thankful -- for the privilege.

Our country's security doesn't depend on the heroism of every citizen. But we have to be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf.

We have to love our freedom, not just for the material benefits it provides, not just for the autonomy it guarantees us, but for the goodness it makes possible.

We have to love it as much, if not as heroically, as the brave Americans who defend us at the risk, and often the cost of their lives.

No American alive today will ever forget what happened on the morning of September 11th. That day was the moment when the pendulum of history swung toward a new era. The opening chapter was tinged with great sadness and uncertainty. It shook us from our complacency in the belief that the Cold War's end had ushered in a time of global tranquility.

But an absence of complacency should not provoke an absence of confidence. What our enemies have sought to destroy is beyond their reach. It cannot be taken from us. It can only be surrendered.

My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests,

and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government.

We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.

We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences.

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.
0 Comments
 
Let He Who Is Without Sin
09.01.04 (12:13 pm)
I'm not normally in the habit of writing blogs of a religious nature, but in this instance I felt compelled to do so to respond directly to Mr. Alan Keyes' recent statements.

NEW YORK — Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes labeled homosexuality "selfish hedonism" and said Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is a sinner.

The former talk show host who has made two unsuccessful runs for the White House made the comments Monday night in an interview with Sirius OutQ, a satellite radio station that provides programming aimed at gays and lesbians.

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."

Is Mary Cheney a sinner Mr. Keyes? Of course she is. But something you have apparently overlooked here is, aren't we all?

Her lifestyle choice very well may be a sin according to our faith, Mr. Keyes, but you and I are also sinners. Christ illustrated this quite well in John Chapter 8:

but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.

One of the many things that scripture teaches us is the lesson of the Pharisee. The Pharisee used the law to condemn those they felt guilty of sin and punish them accordingly. But Christ showed us that such judgment is a judgment that should be left to God. We in our flawed, human judgment simply lack the capacity to judge such things.

I would also refer you to 2nd Timothy, Chapter 2:

And the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will.

So you see Mr. Keyes, while Mary Cheney might indeed be guilty of sin we too are sinners. It is our job as Christians to offer her our teachings, our forbearance, and gentle correction, but if she refuses that offer there is nothing we more we can do for her. It is not for us to condemn her for her sins even if she chooses to indulge them rather than to reject them. While we can condemn the sin itself, what we should offer Ms. Cheney is our understanding and our compassion, not our condemnation.

I would also point out that should she decide to reject these teachings that is a matter of her own free will, and it is not left to us to hurl stones at her for this decision. All we can do is offer the truth. Should she decide to reject it there simply is nothing more we can do in this regard. If and when God decides to open her heart He will. It is not up to us to try and force such a change on her or anyone, it is not within our power and not our calling as Christians.

So put down the stone, Mr. Keyes. It's possible to take a stand against the social acceptance of homosexual lifestyle without casting stones at specific individuals like Ms. Cheney.

9 Comments
 
Coming Home to Roost
09.01.04 (8:40 am)
More than a dozen militants wearing suicide-bomb belts seized a southern Russian school in a region bordering Chechnya on Wednesday, taking hostage about 400 people -- half of them children -- and threatening to blow up the building if police storm it. At least eight people have been killed, one of them a school parent. In a tense standoff, Russian forces wearing camouflage and carrying heavy-caliber machine guns took up positions on the perimeter of Middle School No. 1 in the town of Belsan, 10 miles north of the regional capital of Vladikavkaz

I can't even begin to describe the horror I feel at this, that these monsters are willing to kill even innocent children supposedly to effect political change. This is the mind of a terrorist folks, and it is also case in point for why compromise and appeasement simply are not options for dealing with terrorist groups.

The Russian Government, in conjunction with France and Germany opposed any meaningful action against Iraq, based primarily on the fact that they were making billions from the UN's incredibly corrupt oil for food program.

The Russian government maintained, as many in our own government do now, that appeasing terrorists would help to alleviate the problem. Their theory was if you are just nicer to the terrorists, if you just make concessions to them and leave them alone, then they will leave you alone.

But it simply doesn't work that way. You are dealing with groups of people here that do not respect human life, even their own. Every concession you give them, every time you appease them, you make matters worse.

In their culture your appeasement, your attempts at diplomacy are not considered nice or worthy of respect or admiration, they are considered a sign of weakness.

Everytime you try and deal with these people or reason with these people they realize that you are weak, and that all they have to do is threaten you or attack you and again they will have their way.

It doesn't matter to them that many of their own die in the attempt, it doesn't matter to them that they are attacking innocent civilians, even women and children. They have a political goal for which they are willing to murder and die for without reservation. As a result appeasement only sends them a loud and clear signal, we are vulnerable.

The French are beginning to learn that lesson, two frenchman have been kidnapped by islamofacists in an effort to get the government to remove it's strictures on religious head coverings in French public schools. The French have spent so much time appeasing these terrorists it was only natural for them to assume that if they threatened a couple of French citizens the French government would cave in. The French government is standing firm at the moment, but still negotiating with these monsters. So France has placed itself in a rather unenviable position, every time they pass a law that some Islamofacist doesn't like they have said to these groups "if you threaten our citizens we will try to compromise with you".

Russia now finds itself in much the same boat. They defended countries with known ties to terrorists and would have willingly allowed terrorism to grow and flourish as long as they continued to recieve all of the kickbacks they were getting under the UN Oil for Food scam. The message to Islamofacists everywhere? Russia can be bought. Now Russia is paying the price for that message.

That having been said, our hopes and prayers go out to all of those trapped inside the school, and to all of their families as well.
5 Comments
 
From the Truth Is Stranger than Fiction File
09.01.04 (7:24 am)
Twenty-two-year-old Willie "Troy" Coco of Grand Coteau, La., was arrested last Tuesday for punching Jean Coco, his uncle's former wife, in the face, according to the Lafayette (La.) Daily Advertiser.

Troy Coco is also Grand Coteau's fire chief. Jean Coco is mayor of the Cajun country town, population about 1,000.

The younger Coco went loco when the mayor confronted him about the volunteer department's poor fire rating.

"I thought we had a good conversation," Jean Coco told the newspaper.

Troy Coco, however, said he and his former aunt started calling each other names, and that he finally snapped when Jean Coco disparaged his mother and threatened to fire him as fire chief.

He added that he didn't mean to hit the mayor, but he'd "just had enough."

After Jean Coco dusted herself off, she called the town's chief of police — her own son, and presumably Troy's cousin, Jonty Coco.

Troy Coco was arrested by St. Landry Parish sheriff's deputies and charged with battery on a public official.

Jean Coco has asked Grand Coteau's Board of Aldermen to suspend Troy Coco as police chief, but implied it wasn't personal.

"I know this is not all Troy's fault," she told the newspaper.

From what I understand the Judge in this case was forced to recuse himself, apparently on the grounds that he was the only one in this town who wasn't related to all the parties involved.
0 Comments
 

 

Blog Calendar
 

Photo Contest

Contest Archives