Sunday, October 31, 2004
How yet resolves the ludicrous Caliph of stygian whores?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
(Shakespeare, Henry V, Act iii,Scene iii)
We are reminded that the Men of this Earth have yet again lended tolerance to its limit where the beasts are concerned. The barbarians gloat at their own ruthlessness and savagery; there self-immolating insanity. We are easy to kill when we are living according to our nature as benevolent Humans in our image of God... the image of God. And yet, when our blood is spilled in gallons and our patience and compassion raped and discarded, then the wraith of good men is mirrored against his virtue to reflect the true horror of vengeance wrought with the perfection of the hate that feeds it from the hearts of its enemies and falls upon them with fury of a storm so violent as can only be guided by the rational mind directed to a singular purpose to erase the presence of this malevolence with expediant demise from all corners of the Earth once and for all.
The Lion yields for one last warning to you wretched heathen as with the ultimatum of King Henry...
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid?...
Please us now, heathen, with the persistence of your immolation.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Much has been made this week about the history and significance of Iraq's Al Qaqaa weapons facility, and for good reason. The site was home to many of Hussein's WMD stockpiles, research and manufacturing programs. At last some focus has been directed at this reasoned evidence of ongoing WMD programs. After two years of the mainstream media ignoring a fact that was apparent to everyone (The UN, former Administrations, Journalists, and even John Kerry) prior to 2003, it is ironic that the scent of scandal has drawn so many negligent entities to the real scandal that Iraq represented on the world stage. Is it any wonder that the UN, on the verge of exposure, is attempting to obfuscate the facts while Russian diplomats are in full denial. At the Washington Times, Bill Gertz is reporting that the Russians sent military teams to Iraq, including Al Qaqaa, to remove munitions and equipment and destroy records. (Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms)
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.Subsequent updates indicate: (Photos point to removal of weapons)
While the story may contain much complexity and present too many complications to be fully plausible, it does beg the question... why would the Russians go though so much trouble to help 'sterilize' a known Iraqi weapons depot sure to be overrun by an invading Coalition Army? Granted, Claudia Rosette's intense investigations into the UN's Oil for Food Scandal would suggest that Russia - as well as other member nations - was snuggled deep in Hussein's bed. Trading obstruction and influence as a Member nation, for Hussein's coveted Oil voucers, Russia might certainly have found itself in an awkward position on the eve of War of having to help hide the evidence that would provide the American President's justification, and demonstrate a provocative degree of collusion.
Pentagon official John A. Shaw... told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq...Officials said numerous intelligence reports in the past two years indicate Saddam used trucks and aircraft to withdraw weapons from Iraq before March 2003. However, the new information indicates that Russian troops were directly involved in assisting the Iraqi military and intelligence services to secure and move the arms.
Skepticism and indignation abound on the blogs. At Captain's Quarter's, Captain Ed considers this possibility unlikely.
I doubt that the cash-strapped Russian military, with its own Islamist problems in Chechnya and elsewhere, would have acted as a hire-out moving service for Saddam Hussein in March 2003, with the US poised to invade. No one really knew how US forces would come into Iraq and running the risk of having a Russian unit captured by the Americans after Russia's opposition to enforcing UNSC Resolution 1441 seems far too big a gamble.Ed keeps the focus on a Presidential candidate and an American newspaper conspiring with the UN and foreign nations to undermine a Presidential election by fabricating a story about missing munitions. Whiskey continues, however, to analyze the Time's story, noting a deliberate intent to the Russian involvement in the evacuation...
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.The last bit of that statement is one that I find to be most notable: chemicals used to make chemical weapons. Hussein was known to have posessed chemical weapons. He used them, in fact, to massacre Kurds after the first Gulf War. There is no reason to believe that his penchant for WMD had simply vanished along with the tons of materials that he did posess. Shells discovered by Coalition forces earlier this year add additional confirmation.
Additionally, it was suspected that Saddam had an active biological weapons program. It's a suspicion once confirmed by former Soviet Weapons chief scientist, Ken Alibek (Dr. Kanatjan Alibekov) now a distinguished professor of medical microbiology and immunology at George Mason University. A 2002 BBC Story, Silent Weapons, discussed the proliferation of biological weapons in the post Cold War era.
Ken Alibek believes that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, unemployed or badly-paid scientists are likely to have sold samples of smallpox clandestinely and gone to workin rogue states engaged in illicit biological weapons development. DA Henderson agrees that this is a plausible scenario and is upset by the legacy it leaves. 'If the [Russian bio-weapons] programme had not taken place we would not I think be worrying about smallpox in the same way. One can feel extremely bitter and extremely angry about this because I think they've subjected the entire world to a risk which was totally unnecessary.'
There is no hard evidence, but in Alibek's opinion, 'there are many non-official stocks of smallpox virus'. Western intelligence agencies also believe, based on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, that three countries - North Korea, Iraq and Russia - currently have the capacity to deploy smallpox as a weapon of mass destruction.
With this added consideration, we might recall the original accounts from Al Qaqaa in the earliest days of the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 3rd ID reported finding white powder believed to be chemical or biological agents, along with a large number of biohazard suits . At that time, great care was taken to determine if the site, a known chemical weapons facility, contained evidence of WMD. A CBS report from that time (Hat Tip to Captain's Quarters) noted,
U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives...
The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18. (U.S. Searches 'Suspicious' Iraqi Site - April 2003)
The reason for the presence of the biohazard equipment remained allusive, if not suspicious. In a 2003 symposium, Mr. Alibek made the following observation (War in Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Hussein and his regime knew for sure that the U.S. would never use WMD against them. In this case -- why do they want these stockpiles of protective gear. If there was no threat, then why? It raises a completely different question. When you yourself use chemical weapons you need to protect your own forces.
Clearly there is strong evidence suggesting that the Al Qaqaa facility was a WMD site. Both the US and the UN believed that prior to the War. The IAEA catalogued an indeterminate amount of WMD component explosives along with Nuclear weapons components. Why these materials were left in the hands of Saddam, bay UN inspectors, remians the real 'scandal' of this story. Indeed, in light of US knowledge regarding the nature of the facility, accusations that the site was not adequately searched nor protected are absurd. Regardless, the question remains, where did the munitions from that site go after the last inspection and prior to invasion? And why would the Russians be involved? Mr. Alibek provides additional enlightenment from the same symposium.
In 1995, an Iraqi delegation came to Moscow to buy some equipment for building a facility for "single cell protein production." they claimed that 5,000 liter reactors would be used to produce yeast. It was so silly. If you use this for protein production, your yeast would have have a price of a big piece of gold. The only real explanation would be that they had a completely different reason for this. But when I read the name of the person who headed the Russian delegation, Prof. Matveev, he's professor was a major designer of Russian bioweapons facilities. So there's a big question -- why this person was responsible for talking about equipment for protein production.
When Colin Powell showed us a picture of Iraq's mobile bioweapons facilities. There were three trucks. One truck was manufacture truck. One was for cultivation of pathogens and concentration. The third was for drying and packaging. It's logical, but what shocked me, is that this is an identical copy of the Soviet concept for bioweapons production. This design was done by the Institute in Moscow, firstassembles of this equipment were made in St. Petersburg and another city. When I saw these, I remembered the Iraqi/Russian 1995 negotiations.
If, as Alibek suggests, the Russians supplied Hussein with biological weapons systems, equipment and agent (anthrax or small-pox), the diplomatic backlash from its discovery would have been devastating to the beleagured nation. It would have certainly, therefore, been in Russia's best interest to remove those materials - and consequently, anything else Hussein wanted removed - to Syria, before the Coalition forces arrived. There was evidence of Russian forces moving through Iraq occupied areas near the Syrian border in early April of 2003. In one such account, A Russian journalist travelling with a convoy reported that it was caught in a crossfire between coalition and Iraqi forces. The convoy was hit as it travelled from Baghdad in the direction of the Syrian border. (Russian Convoy Attacked... ) Dare we trust that this convoy was indeed a diplomatic evacuation as was reported, in light of what we are learning about the events at Al Qaqaa?
There is indeed a mystery that needs to be unravelled concerning the activities and munitions stored at the weapon's facility. It is equally apparent, however, that the only parties that can be trusted to shed light on those events, is the U.S. Military and the Administration, in light of the malicious rhetoric emanating from the UN and a reckless Presidential candidate with a history of jumping from dubious conclusions to forthright condemnation absent any facts whatsoever.
Silent Weapon: Smallpox and Biological Warfare
Annals of War: The Bioweaponeers
New York Times - Russia's Deadly Expertise
Dueler88 weighs in - 10.29.04 10:45 Lima:
Russia is a sticky wicket. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the attempted Coup d’Etat in Moscow (where a good friend of mine was killed), everybody in the west either believed, or wanted to believe, that the Russians were finally our good friends. Therefore, it was instantaneously and collectively thought that we finally shared the same belief system in Individual Liberty as our own. After growing up in the Cold War, I wanted to believe that as much as anybody else did. And I believe I did, to a certain extent. But given the circumstances of al Qaqaa and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I have to conclude that the Bear still has the same powerful body, sharp teeth and deadly claws. The question is whether or not this Bear has been domesticated.
Could a country whose history is so full of overt and covert attempts to further its Communist agenda around the globe really go from a Grizzly to a Panda overnight? What is certain is that Russia will always act in its own self-interest, whether it be making nicey-nicey with the Americans (don’t get me wrong here – I think that Bush and Putin get along splendidly) or supplying chemical and biological weapons to a dictator that will give them cheap oil and an intelligence foothold in the Middle East.
Regardless of whether or not the Bear is friendly or hostile, it would be difficult for it to simply roll up its ability to act in its own self-interest. It would be foolish for us to not believe that all of its intelligence networks and operations remain, in one form or another, to this day.
The whole Russia/Iraq thing noted here sounds like a Tom Clancy novel. Tom Clancy novels are full of covert brinksmanship of varying types – little activities done in the dark that have profound global consequences. Maybe I’ve read too many of them (ha – I’ve read all of his fiction novels), and my application of fictitious espionage activities to real-world situations goes a little too far. But I have long held a belief that, given sufficient motive, opportunity and lack of innate morality/ethics, people will do potentially catastrophic things. This counts as much in espionage or terrorism as it does in biotechnology.
Nothing surprises me anymore, and if all of this is true, we can say that the Bear is still as powerful and insidious as it has ever been.
Update: 10.29.04 12:31pm:
Powerline continues to track the Al Qaqaa story through the impact of today's Pentagon Press briefing after which it seems that story is clearly a liability for the Kerry campaign and the Old Busted Media. Questions about WMD, however, persist with evidence building.
Is this enough, from President Bush's standpoint? It certainly should be. The obvious conclusion is that the New York Times and John Kerry shot from the hip, accusing the Army of incompetence when they didn't know the facts. They relied on a patently self-serving and anti-Bush letter from Mohammed El Baradei, a less-than-honest U.N. bureaucrat.
The story that has been illuminated by this attempted scandal is not, it seems, the one the Liberal Media wanted to tell in the 11th hour of a close election season... one of renewed terrorists threats, a belligerant UN, an irrational Democrat Presidential Candidate, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
I know someone who committed voter fraud this election. Do you? Now granted, I base this assumption on past conversations with the person and I have no evidence, so therefore, I cannot act accordingly. Nevertheless, I am sending in my ballot today, knowing full well that it has been neutralized by a fraudulent ballot. I would be hard-pressed to call this person a ‘Democrat,’ albeit he identifies himself as such. Yet being a former Democrat myself, I know that I would never have entertained an act of such fundamental depravity. This person is a hard-core Socialist in thought word, and now deed… the ambitions of the anointed being superior to the desire of the individual. As usual their ends justify any means necessary. This season, those means include, but are not limited too:
Undermining federalism ...
Stolen ballots ...
...and still the President continues to lead in the polls. At what point, will Democrats look at the evidence and conclude that the Left is working against the United States and the will of the people. Republicans and Democrats share culture, tradition, values, and heritage while engaging in useful and legimate discourse. The Left seeks to disenfranchise all of us and render the fundamental concepts of this Republic, meaningless. Candidates and parties come and go. But, it is the concepts and institutions that render democracy meaningful.
Call me extreme to recognize the precious heritage of democracy. In 2004, the idea of one citizen, one vote has been marginalized to a radical bit of historical sanity.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Did we miss something here? Over the last several years, starting with a crisp Manhattan morning in September of 2001 and leading up to the present, there have been numerous startling revelations concerning the nature of this Nation's present struggle. Taken in their entirety, they hint at a picture too ghastly for many to comprehend. Recall for an instant, the image of our rebirth to reality.
Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous. - H.P. Lovecraft
Fast forward, being the select method for reticent rationalized denial, America has skipped back one day and forward 1143 to the threshold of domestic chaos and a divisive Presidential election fueled on 9/10 rhetoric and 20/20 hindsight that professes the President, the War on Terror, 1000+ brave soldiers, and nearly 3000 innocent civilians to be 'illegitimate.’ The President warns that American security may be "up in the air " if we fail to make the choices that will secure our posterity. He is right. The choice at hand on November 2nd is between selective amnesia in the comfort of ignorance or forthright acknowledgement of the reality of the present where monsters lurk beyond the threshold (see: Podhoretz) .
What have we learned since that infamous Tuesday? We learned that box-cutters are weapons of mass destruction. The new V-1 is the 737. Osama Bin Laden was at war with Western Civilization for years. Al Qaeda was a modern barbarian horde massing at the gate. Western children, poisoned by Leftist progressivism had taken up arms against their own people. The Taliban’s fanatical brand of Islamic fundamentalism played host to a sadistic, homicidal spawn as did Hussein’s maniacal despotism. Both had become a dangerous liability while Iraq was an opportune sally port on that frontier. America has as many enemies in Europe as friends and the UN and US do not share compatible visions. The UN is comprised of criminal thugs on the take from at least one world despot, likely more, conspiring against the United States. Saddam Hussein was a mass-murdering tyrant. His sons were homicidal lunatics. He was funding terrorism. He was scamming the UN’s Oil for Food Program; starving his people while amassing money and influence for a Napoleonic return from his ceremonial exile. He conspired with Al Qaeda. He had weapons of mass destruction including a dormant nuclear weapons program. We know that large amounts of equipment moved across the Syrian border from Iraq in the days before the war and that Al Qa qaa contained component weapons of mass destruction prior to coalition invasion; that subsequently disappeared while the UN stalled coalition action and undermined Turkey’s cooperation with the US and the 4th ID (see also Belmont Club; Captain's Quarters). Enemies were massing and training in Iraq before and after the fall of Afghanistan. Al Zarqawi is Bin Laden’s surrogate in Iraq. Islamic fanatic lunatics from all over the world are pouring into Iraq to be eradicated appropriate to the moral pestilence that they represent, and American men and women in the United States military and their coalition compatriots standing now to humanity’s defense on the frontier of chaos are among the finest beings this planet has ever known. And we know that John Kerry, John Edwards and the world’s fringe Leftists do not acknowledge any of it. (See: Froggy Ruminations)
No! We did not miss anything. As wretchard at Belmont Club describes the situation, in reference to the most recent stories concerning Al Qa Qaa, we have been stroking the whiskers of a tiger in Iraq. “The point of discovering the whisker,” he points out “is understanding what that whisker is attached to.” And while the metaphor is profoundly accurate, it is increasingly clear from the multitude of whiskers that there are numerous tigers in the room with us.
The Left continues to profess, despite the guttural disclosures, the whiskers are those of kittens.
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. - H.P. Lovecraft
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Yet again, we find the Mainstream Media (MSM) - heretofore referred to as 'Old Busted Media' - up to their old tricks. Again the OBM is manufacturing stories in accordance with extreme liberal bias camouflaged in the presumption of objectivity, designed to unseat a sitting President in favor of their preferred ABB puppet, whose name is irrelevant so long as its Anything But Bush – a presumption proving to be increasingly remiss every time Mr. ABB opens his mouth and inserts both feet. Journalistic integrity be damned! Efficacious domestic policy and National security are equally subordinate to Leftist establishmentarianism and the sophomoric obsession to replay the last game of the previous season to their favor. In a free market, concepts are as liquid as currency often consumed and traded with less care. A new media has joined the trade, competing truth to prestige in a tightly controlled market of loyal, yet increasingly disgruntled customers. It’s a tough market. But, facts are proving to be a popular, if rare, commodity. The OBM is overloaded with Enron's and they're all pushing one feckless, bloviating, incompetent, 'Ken Lay’ executive officer on the American electorate in the form of John Forbes Kerry. Increasingly it is apparent; the OBM is willing to prostrate themselves in any manner imaginable to subordinate the truth to their delusional preference.
CNN has been forced to report, NBC's rebuke of the New York Times attempt to manufacture another story against the President of the United States. (See: Lost in Translation)
The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a network embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material had already vanished by the time American troops arrived.
Jim G. at KerrySpot makes the point,
If Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times, had a shred of concern over her paper's reputation for getting the facts right never mind objectivity or fairness, she would be running the correction - or at least this blatantly contradictory information - in the giant headline font and above-the-fold location that today's story got.
Ed at Captain's Quarter's points out that CBS was at it again. Not only did they too run with this bogus story, but they were producing another 60 minutes hit piece based on it.
Unnoticed in all of the attention given to the NY Times was CBS's broadcast of essentially the same story, based on its own reporting, which turned out to be just as incomplete as the NYT.Added 12:05pm... Wretchard posts a transcript of the original Nighly News story about Al Qaqaa along with his usual profound insight at Belmont Club. Read the comments as well...
Although it is both desirable and necessary to criticize the mistakes attendant to OIF, much of the really "criminal" neglect may be laid on the diplomatic failure which gave the wily enemy this invaluable opportunity. The price of passing the "Global Test" was very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken to the cleaners again.
The legends at Powerline have weighed in, in their nuanced way, to suggest complicity on the part of the New York Times to not only whitewash character flaws of their chosen candidate, but indeed to capitalize on those foibles - namely his lack of integrity and propensity to spin delusion, sadly to his own mother's terminal dismay.
And Cap'n Ed weighs in again, with a sterling analysis of what it would take to 'loot' 380 tons of munitions.
Bottom line this operation would take the resources of AN ENTIRE COMPANY (approx. 100 men) OVER TWO WEEKS, good Intel to know exactly where the"right" explosives were hidden and a means of breaching huge steel doors and concrete of an ASP.
... In my words, 'Kelly's Heroes,' insurgent style with flatbed trucks instead of Donald Sutherland's beatnik tank troup.
Finally, do let's take a renewed look at John Kerry's public charges against the President on Monday, based on this 'fake' story.
"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq; one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry continued. "And the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be."Let me say this as directly as I can - that the unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being the commander in chief." (CNS)Will he apologize? ... to the President? ...to the troops in Iraq doing their job?
... and to this Nation whose security has been further weakened by the Senator's endless undermining of her efforts in the War on Terror?
Monday, October 25, 2004
American security is “up in the air,” says President Bush.
A more profound statement has scant been uttered in the throws of the eleventh hour of a tight election season. With this honest and forthright assessment of the geopolitical conditions of global security, we find once again that the President’s integrity is showing. He speaks truth to the citizens that are his equal. Similarly, Senator Kerry’s character was exposed by the statement as well. He took the opportunity of a perceived ‘gaff’ to attempt to score political points… again. Ignoring for a moment, that the Senator attacks the President for playing straight with the American people – both implying that he: 1. would not play straight; and 2. ensuring by rhetorical sting that few other politicians will in the future - Kerry misses the true condemnation that is being cast upon his own judgment with that simple expression of concern, that spreads open a warning for the multitude of possible outcomes.
The President’s comment on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" show, taped on Saturday and released on Sunday, is en par with that of another American Statesman over two centuries ago. At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it. ” (reference). In his own way, the President is making the same statement as that of his posthumous mentor.
"Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up -- you know, is up in the air. I would hope we could make it a lot more safe by staying on the offensive," Bush said.
This nation can be safe and remain in existence, not if the President nor John Kerry makes it so, but if 'We the People' make it so. It is, after all, the people who are responsible for the decisions that secure the destiny of the nation. The candidates and their idiosyncratic personalities stand in representation ‘of the people’ and ‘for the people’ and not to be substituted in forfeiture of volition ‘by the people.’ The President clearly understands Ben Franklin's (and the Founders') notions concerning self governance. John Kerry, clearly does not! His statement in response is equally informative about his perception of leadership, as it is obtuse:
"George W. Bush doubts whether he can make America safe. Well, I give you this pledge: As president, we will find, capture and kill the terrorists. It's not 'up in the air.' We will win the war on terror, and we will make America safer," Kerry said in a statement issued from Boca Raton, Fla. (reference)
Like Castro with the Cubans, Kerry intends to make life 'possible' for Americans. John Kerry will protect you. John Kerry will educate your children. John Kerry will provide you with a job and benefits. John Kerry will attend to your healthcare and your retirement. John Kerry will see to your prosperity, just so long as you elect John Kerry and give him open access to your income and your indiscriminate judgment. John Kerry’s plan is not to be your representative, but rather, your omnipresent surrogate by manner of Democrats in substitute to them of your sovereignty.
“We will make America safer,” says John Kerry. Only the ‘We’ to whom the Senator refers, in stark contrast to President Bush, is he and the Democrats. Kerry’s understanding of security is as misshapen as his comprehension of ‘republic.’ After flip-flopping on the nature of the threat Iraq posses, Kerry has spent his entire presidential campaign catering to his myopic base who join sheepish Europeans, ignoring the wolves for the dog, in viewing the American President and Conservative Republicans as the greatest threat on the globe. Wretchard outlines the Left’s dangerously misdirected distrust over at Belmont Club, pointing to a Guardian article claiming that terror is a figment of the panicky American imagination. "There are really no wolves in the forest, just the sound of the wind in the trees." Islamofascism may be a ‘nuisance’ to the Left, but Capitalism represents absolute evil. Kerry’s entire campaign has been devoted to that singular premise. He intends to make America and the world safer, alright; safer from Republicans.
With regard to the war on Terror, however, the Senator continues to declare that Iraq was the ‘wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time,’ insisting that Iraq was ‘not an imminent threat.’ And yet, Kerry seizes on a regurgitated report from the IAEA that claims several hundred tons of conventional explosives were looted from a former Iraqi military facility that once played a key role in Saddam Hussein’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb. (reference) Naturally, Kerry’s concern transcends the presence of Sadam’s WMD program and its associated ordinance, noting instead that, "… the incredible incompetence of this President and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be." (reference)
Were that the presence of such weapons, in the hands of a mass-murdering Islamacist tyrant in command of massive oil reserves and one of the world’s largest armies, for distribution to terrorist networks was of equally grave concern to John Kerry, one might afford his indignation more respect. As it stands, that is not the case. Contrary to the impression afforded by the AP , The New York Times and CNN that the story reflects the incompetence of the administration, Ed at Captain’s Quarters, notes that weapons disappeared from the Al Qaqaa depot, but after the last IAEA inspection, before the invasion. Rather than damaging the administration and its motivations for invading Iraq, this story, actually undermines the Democrats charge and offers additional evidence that weapons (conventional and WMD) missed by the UN inspections were spirited away while the coalition awaited UN authorization for action and Turkey’s cooperation for participation. Kerry’s predictable reaction to this story further demonstrates a severe tendency towards poor judgment when it comes to national security. It is, unfortunately, the only characteristic for which, the Senator demonstrates consistency.
American security is “up in the air, ” says President Bush.
It’s not a gaff. The President is offering a fair bit of advice. American security is “up in the air,” Senator Kerry, if the nation sees fit to elect… you!
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Sinclair Broadcasting is scrapping its efforts to air the Vietnam documentary, Stolen Honor . Further details notwithstanding, the perception is that company executives relented to the will of Liberal activist groups pressuring the company, its advertisers, and shareholders. The company says that it will be airing 'snippets' of the film, but it will no longer proceed with plans to air the entire piece next week, prior to the election. Even that is unlikely. Delivering selective portions of the film would yield even more indignation from critics who claim that the story - one of US prisoners tortured at the hands of their Vietnamese captors, for 'war crimes' charges leveled in 1971 by then Lt. Kerry (see: Winter Soldier) - might damage the presidential candidacy of Senator Kerry.
In this episode, one might recognize a parallel with the great climactic battle of The Fountainhead (preferably the novel, but the campy 1949 movie version will suffice) Recall that Gail Wynand, the great entrepreneurial media tycoon finally seized the banner of integrity from journalistic malfeasance in the form of the malevolent columnist, Ellsworth Toohey, who refused to relent, stating:
So you were a possessive man, Mr Wynand, and you loved your sense of property? Did you ever stop to think what it rested upon? Did you ever stop to secure the foundation? No, because you were a practical man. Practical men deal in bank accounts, real estate, advertising contracts, and gilt-edged securities. They leave the impractical intellectuals, like me, the amusements of putting the guilt edges through a chemical analysis to learn a few things about nature and the source of gold. They hang on to Kream-O Pudding, and leave us such trivia as the theater, the movies, the radio, the schools, the book reviews and the criticisms of architecture. Just a sop to keep us quiet if we care to waste our time playing with the inconsequentials of life, while you’re making money. Money is power. Is it, Mr. Wynand? So you were after power, Mr. Wynand? Power over men? You poor amateur. You never discovered the nature of your own ambition or you’d have known that you weren’t fit for it. You couldn’t use the methods required and wouldn’t want the results. You’ve never been enough of a scoundrel. I don’t mind handling you that, because I don’t know which is worse: to be a great scoundrel or a gigantic fool. (Ayn Rand, 1943)
Gail Wynand surrendered his defense of righteous conviction, under severe popular pressure fomented by EllsworthToohey in his relentless crusade to destroy the hero in form of Howard Roark. Wynand failed Roark and destroyed himself in the process - at first in terms of spirit, and after the perseverance of Roark, indeed he was destroyed in fact. Sinclair Broadcasting has apparently fallen into a similar amateur trap. They stood with their convictions yet with no will to remain firm. And they weren’t fit as scoundrels to fight on the Left’s terms.
So Sinclair has succomb to pressure. Granted, this is not censorship. The Kerry/Edwards Campaign did however, pursue that option when demanding the FCC forbid the private broadcast company from airing the film. For their part, the DNC petitioned the FEC to prevent the broadcast. A Kerry/Edwards campaign spokesman even went so far as to threaten Sinclair, should they (the Democrats) win the election (see: Mice and Morlocks, Part 2). Nevertheless, market pressure (market pressure? )is a legitimate method for action, even if said action stems from a questionable moral imperative. After all, the hypocrisy the Left exhibits with their indignation regarding Stolen Honor is a monumental testimony to their fundamental depravity. Over the last three years the Left has inundated the public perception with poisonous rhetoric and innuendo about the President, his life, and his administration. The Fahrenheit 911 mockumentary summer theatre blockbuster (and subsequent October Blockbuster DVD billboard) marked the crescendo of vitriolic propagandizing. Additionally, there have been over 75 books (Amazon.com); two CBS 60 Minutes scandals aimed at damaging the President (memogate, draftgate) and numerous appearances on that same program by several anti-Bush authors with no reciprocal appearance by the SwiftBoat Vets; plus numerous theatrical plays entertaining assassination, infidelity, and even homosexuality. The efforts by the Left to indulge the sleeziest efforts at smearing a candidate's character have shown no bottom limit to their abysmal descent. The MSM Has continued to follow them down. Any attempt, in fact, to resist the plunge is met with avid fury from the tooheyan malcontents as witness through their reprehensible reaction to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, Stolen Honor, Unfit for Command, John O'neal and his veteran compatriots. The actions of Liberal activists in Philadelphia on Tuesday, forcibly closing a theatrical preview with threats of violence, further confirm that the Left is surely fit as scoundrels.
Heaven forbid, issues regarding someone’s judgment and leadership should be a question during a campaign. If the controversial issue is the timing, then let it be suggested that the historic analysis of Stolen Honor might have received a fair review by the MSM sometime over the past year that the depicted controversy has been circulating. No serious critic is disputing the facts of this particular period in history. Kerry was part of the Winter Soldier Investigation. His testimony before Congress in 1971 was recorded for posterity. And the men depicted in Stolen Honor are real and were imprisoned and tortured for war crimes by the North Vietnamese Army. Lt. Kerry gave testimony accusing those American troops of alleged war crimes and condemned the war and their behavior. What does it say about the Left that they fear the truth more than repression and violence? What does it say about a candidate that fears an honest review of his own resume so fervently that he would leverage tyrannical threats to have it suppressed? And what does it say about contemporary journalism that they would participate in the effort of one party to hide the truth from the American public? Sinclair shrugs... Toohey smiles.
Do let’s watch to see if the same sentiment will persist during these last two weeks of the election season when it comes to reciprocity.
UPDATE: You can now view the documentray, Stolen Honor online.
Monday, October 18, 2004
There are a plethora of reasons why I am NOT voting for Kerry. They are far too numerous to mention here, and have been summarized adequately in my previous posting at this site. They all amount to the simple fact that John F. Kerry is not George W. Bush! The Senator’s presence in this campaign is really quite irrelevant, in fact. The job of President is filled. We’re not interviewing nor are we hiring for the position. November is a performance review for the Man in the Executive seat, and his record reflects tremendous job performance.
Having recently moved from Texas to the Northwest in 2000, I had followed the Man’s successful political career and I appreciated the fact that he was not a career politician. I selected George W. Bush as the candidate for the Office of President because of his resume (including his Governance of Texas), his integrity, honesty, his values, a center Right agenda, and his adherence to his convictions through a bitter campaign where pandering may have motivated the temptation of weaker men (witness the current applicant). Four years later, all my expectations have been fulfilled and transcended. We selected the right man for the job. As we seek to extend his contract for another 4 years, the primary question to ask, is can we expect the same performance from this man in a second term dominated by modified socio-economic challenges and a brutal conflict for our security and very existence? For my answer to this question, I turn to a recent posting over at Froggy Ruminations. Matt parallels my own thinking on the subject. OBL is dead. Further, WMD have been found. I'm convinced. Nevertheless, the President could seal this difficult election with just a simple statement to that effect, whether it be true or false. Certainly if the Left were right about him, he would already have done just that. And yet, he knows that from a strategic standpoint, that information - while contributing to his victory - would also seed the resolve of martyrdom with the enemy. Additionally, it would remove their political advantage of not attacking with WMD. He is, in essence, putting his job on the line buying our troops more time and security to do their job, eradicating the enemy threat while ensuring greater safety for the American people. That is the strength and character of leadership. In my opinion, we already have the right man for the job, where the Presidency is concerned. It is George W. Bush.
In fact, after this election, rather than a promotion, we might consider firing the feckless Senator from Massachusetts even from his current position - for moral turpitude and atrocious job performance.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
I must say, what Kerry did in the last debate, with regard to inserting the Vice-President’s daughter into his discourse, is hardly new to the Liberal sensibility. This happens all of the time in the course of my local debates with friends and co-workers. Just as they are losing the argument, my own son is often referenced in the conversation to help make the opposite point: "He’ll be drafted... He’ll have no future!... He’ll be burdened by deficit!... His education is at stake!... If you won’t sacrifice your own son, how can you ask others to do the same... Well, If your son were gay…" Few things are more infuriating to me. And yet, I resist the temptation to indulge the emotional response that the play is meant to evoke as an act of desperation on a point that is so weak that it requires buttressing with cheap shots and tawdry references. Granted, Mary Cheney is an adult and requires no defense from me, or her parents with regard to her destiny and her choices. Nevertheless, the affection she shares with her parents can be exploited just the same as if she were an infant. I find it repugnant. It is the behavior of savages (see, Ghosts of Beslan). Kerry’s action during the debate, really personifies one fundamental aspect of the contemporary culture of liberalism – that children are their personal insurgent army for change. They are to be cultivated as the Left sees fit, used to undermine traditional American culture (and most certainly to undermine their parents), exploited for ideological expediency and discarded forthwith when they are a burden.
In the course of the follow-up interview and the question regarding his injection of Mary Cheney, Kerry explain that, "I said it in a very respectful way." If so, that would be the first time in four years that Senator Kerry has shown the Vice President any respect at all. The simple fact is that referencing Cheney's daughter at all in the course of the campaign reflects contempt for both her and her parents. Note that Kerry never admonished Elizabeth Edwards for accusation of 'shame.' If indeed his comments were meant 'respectfully' as he said, in acknowledgment of the love and support the Cheney's held for their daughter, then Edwards' comments were far out of line with respect to the Senator's sentiments. His silence on that issue speaks volumes. Mary Cahill thought Cheney was fair game. Mrs. Edward's agreed. And Kerry provided them with the invitation to a ritual sacrifice. As an intelligent and calculating orator, it is clear that Kerry's motives were anything but decent and respectful. Indeed he hoped to seed doubt by capitalizing on the bigotry of a deviant Republican base as gauged through the prism of his own prejudice... a bigotry that doesn't exist perceived by a prejudice that does. Given the equal split of the American electorate, Kerry looked at them and determined not to win their vote, but rather to encourage them to stay home. That is NOT the character of leadership. There is a definite schism in political reality between Democrats and Republicans. That comes as no surprise and is the source for a proper, rigorous and ongoing culture of lively political discourse, in America. But, Kerry’s brand of fringe liberalism transcends propriety. Clearly, he will use anybody to further his own political ambitions. In Vietnam, men were tortured and possibly killed when Kerry used them in malicious testimony to his bogus eyewitness accounts of criminal atrocities. He has never apologized to those men, and has recently re-affirmed his position from thirty years ago, as just and noble. Why would we expect him now to suddenly discover the integrity to express decency and apologize to Mary Cheney for publicly abusing her in the midst of a Presidential debate? Indeed we do not. That is why he has already lost this election.
Nevertheless, the Left is committed to a dirty political battle the likes of which has never been seen in the course of American History. They will do anything necessary to acquire their 'rightful' power, as I discussed in a recent post on this subject (see: Mice and Morlocks). Kerry's actions are a clear indication of the depths to which the Left is willing to sink to maintain relevance and authority; unraveling American democracy in the process. They are not so much consciously trying to destroy this Republic, as they are devouring it in a cannibal's frenzy.
One more point... I appreciate Mort Kondrake's acknowledgement of the reprehensible nature of Kerry's reference. But, with due respect to the center-left commentator, he is simply wrong to relegate my desire for a nationwide debate on the issue of marriage and civil unions to 'homophobia.' A phobia, sir, is an irrational fear born of bigotry. My fear in this regard is not of homosexuals. It is a fear of rogue judicial precedent... and it is hardly irrational. Contrary to your juvenile assessment of Republican character, as a mainstream Republican myself, I would defend civil unions for HS couples as ardently as I am defending traditional marriage. But, again I say, it is their responsibilty to define for me, the nature of their request and their own definitions of what is to be a fundamental HS relationship. Its not the court's responsibility to impose those desires on me, nor is it my responsibility to capitulate my values to their preferences. It is a discussion that this nation needs to have... the result of which we can all then accept in full recognition of its relevance to our culture.
Theres a great post on this at Matt Crash. "John Edwards' audition for the TBN circuit will reinforce the image of a snake-oil peddler, like the crude Bible salesman from O Brother! Where Art Thou? And Elizabeth Edwards? Middle-class women hear enough of that gossip at the beauty salon. They don't need anymore of it from the potential Vice President's wife.
Also, A Simple Desultory Dangling Conversation. Corrie makes a strong point about culture.
Astounding observation by Mrs. Hamilton's Pamphlets, at Hamilton's Pamphlets. "He just said in so many words that if the Cheney's love their daughter but go along with the President's policies, then they are really lying about loving their daughter or they are lying about supporting the President. He basically called the Cheney's two faced liars and questioned whether they love their daughter." See, Oh The Irony...
Mitch at Shot in the Dark, composes the Absurd Manifesto... 13 things you must believe to vote for Kerry.(My terminology, not his) Everyone should have a look at Common Decency.
Froggy Ruminations is a must read! Usama Bin Laden Is Dead. So is Bella Lugosi. "...it is important to recognize that the President's committment to killing terrorists supercedes his committment to his own re-election. I'm sure he hopes that the American people will come to this conclusion on their own and vote for him anyway, but it is quite a risk to take in the ultimate ME situation.This kind of integrity and committment stands in stark contrast to his opponent."
More good observations at Hard Starboard. "And with Republicans livid, independents turned off, and Democrats trapped between miasmic hate static, defensive spin, and in a rare case here and there, honorable repudiation, the contrast with the President couldn't be more unfavorable."
Interesting perspective from GayPatriot. "Republican "Big Tent" philosophy that I have always believed. My party has room even for those with far different political and personal views."
Friday, October 15, 2004
As if to highlight my point in Part 1, Drudge is reporting the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to manufacture incidence of voter intimidation. Indeed then it is likely their imaginations have improvised more variations on the theme with unverified registration scandals in Oregon and Nevada. Look for it to continue and escalate as the Democrat's stygian descent continues and accelerates. Vodkapundit parallels my own thinking on this, today, as he aptly points out that, "the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic... They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it." And while Mr. Green also recognizes the dangerous potential of this particular act of malfeasance, I submit that it merely scratches the surface of a pattern of behavior that, while dooming the Republic, also undermines its legacy, destroys the heritage, and erases twelve generations of service and sacrifice by a nation dedicated to a new way of life on Earth. As the Democrats piddle that away for the sake of a decrepit political machine incapable of winning honest elections, they damn themselves to an existence chiseled from the blackest heart of human malevolence. When one man's voice is replaced by litigated corruption, they will have succeeded in inaugurating a new era of competition among men for transcendent depravity.
It is a law of nature we overlook, that intellectual versatility is the compensation for change, danger, and trouble. An animal perfectly in harmony with its environment is a perfect mechanism. Nature never appeals to intelligence until habit and instinct are useless. There is no intelligence where there is no change and no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers. `So, as I see it, the Upper-world man had drifted towards his feeble prettiness, and the Under-world to mere mechanical industry. But that perfect state had lacked one thing even for mechanical perfection -- absolute permanency. Apparently as time went on, the feeding of the Under-world, however it was effected, had become disjointed. Mother Necessity, who had been staved off for a few thousand years, came back again, and she began below. The Under-world being in contact with machinery, which, however perfect, still needs some little thought outside habit, had probably retained perforce rather more initiative, if less of every other human character, than the Upper. And when other meat failed them, they turned to what old habit had hitherto forbidden. (The Time Machine, H.G. Wells)
Behold the plague of these fiendish Morlocks...
Since the election controversy of 2000 the President has suffered relentless debasement from charges of illegitimate despotism, to endless denigrations of his character and intelligence, to charges of cronyism and corruption... all before the 'W's' were even replaced on the White House keyboards. The attacks of 9-11 served as our sobering enlightenment to the brutal conflict of World War IV and the fact that we were hopelessly late to that realization. Like a college student who dismissed a challenging course - forgetting it altogether by his absence, suddenly awaking in a cold sweat the day of the final exam to the recollection of the prerequisite - America was reminded that an obligation awaits us. A war waged on the frontier, and that frontier had shifted to our home with cataclysmic efficacy. The Left hit 'snooze.' They wished to forget 9-11 happened at all, and merely return to the ceremonial malevolence and derision of 9-10. 'And even if it did happen,' they posited, 'it was OUR fault. We deserved it for being who we are.' 'We deserved it for electing Bush, ' is left implied. The self loathing that is required for a human to hate both himself and his neighbors (possibly even his species) to the degree that he could justify their murder at the rate of 1500 per hour provides certain condemnation of a party that has lost its moral compass in the fever swamps of relativism. A plague of irrational heedlessness has swept half of this nation and threatens its very existence. America cannot simply snooze again by indulging in ignorance to the danger posed by murderous fanatics. We will surely never wake again. And yet the Democrats are desperate to force America back to sleep, even if that means capitulating to the demands of those barbarians at the gate.
That desperation has yielded discourse to a base desire for victory at any cost. That debt is taking the form of a mortgage on civility. The Left is demonstrating a disturbing trend in their increasing tendency toward violence. Newsmax has summarized numerous attacks directed at Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters and staff in Knoxville, Miami, Orlando, Bozeman, and Bellevue, Washington. Republican attendees have been abused, manhandled, and beaten at opposition rallies. The level of neighborhood and automobile vandalism is escalating. Michelle Maulkin has recorded the Progressive's forfeiture of civility in her recent article at Townhall, noting that, "A single act of hate is a danger to the Republic, except when it's fomented by bug-eyed, rock-throwing, lighter-wielding Kerry/Edwards supporters just exercising their "free speech." H.G. Wells couldn't have described them better.
The Mainstream Media, on the other hand, refuses to describe them at all, virtually ignoring the incidents of violence against Republicans, thereby accelerating their own decent into darkness. And yet the first sign of alleged (and unverified) malfeasance on the part of Republicans (reference) , and the usual suspects of the MSM swarm to attention. To be sure, there are few remaining Americans that believe the myth of an un-biased press. And while the Constitution expressly outlines the protection of the institution as a veritable fourth branch of populous governance, it does not profess to dictate a qualifier for informational dispensation. The free market of ideas and opinions would serve to inform the public accurately by means of supply, choice, and educated preference - not unlike the economics of the free market where values determine selection and reality validates choice by means of evaluation. But, as with the three specified branches, ethics are understood to be requisite qualifier for participation. Bias is not therefore, discouraged while indeed any proclamation of objectivity should be suspect. Integrity begets trust. Trust promotes solicitation. The notion seems to have been lost among the major networks. Ultimately, the choice of Sinclair broadcasting to air controversial programming is subject to the volition of three parties: The company's Board, its advertisers, and the viewer. The charges of bias are irrelevant. Sinclair makes its preferences known, publicly... unlike CBS. They also research their facts... unlike CBS. With full disclosure, the public is empowered to make their informed choice. That is, unless Kerry/Edwards make good on their threats. If vindictive Democrats introduce the plague of selective censorship into the public airwaves their actions will ensure the transformation of the fourth estate into the fifth column for the dispensation of information that is politically expedient and reasonably convenient. And why not? The open mind has become a clogged sump filled with a lifetime of unfiltered debris. Consideration without judgment became the mantra of 'progressive' thinking. It eroded to tolerance without discrimination. It finally disintegrated into determination by consensus; judgment long since having been replaced with bigotry. Why not simply dictate preferences rather than allow for the possibility of mistakes?
With that, their descent is complete.
The left has not lost the intellectual argument as much as they have abandoned it to bromides, platitudes, and vitriol. Intellectual elitism has become oxy-moronic. The elite still fancy themselves to be intellectual yet nowhere are the capacity for logic, reason, or open-minded consideration of information more rare. The Left will indulge the most far-fetch conspiratorial delusions offered, while flatly denying wholly reasonable deductions. Indeed now one might recognize the most intellectually competent people in their midst, demonstrating the political judgment of a child in the character of a naked savage worshipping the moon. Through the Clinton years, their comfort with the parental surrogates on Pennsylvania Avenue lulled them to a state of critical abandon. A generation came of age in those 8 years of manufactured bliss with economic health, and national security assured by the preceding 12 years of toil. They simply assumed the legacy of their radical parents, rather than earning their own heritage. Far from a healthy distrust of authority, they expressed their willingness to prostrate their minds to any public despot that stroked their sensibilities. What’s worse, they taught their sheepishness to a subsequent generation far less bonded to traditional civility than their parental Eloi. Mindless hordes could not be bred more perfectly in a laboratory. Their children, were surrendered willingly to a fecklessness worse than their own... to a culture of motive without value or purpose… to a life without definition… to the violence of senseless revolution… and ultimately to a mentality of collective subservience.
The Left is not conciously destroying this Republic as much as they are devouring it. Each cherished attribute of the American experiment is mutilated by their assault, like cannibals swarming over their last victim knowing full well their next meal will be one another. A victory of that effort in November will validate their malevolence for a long time to come.
... And when other meat failed them, they turned to what old habit had hitherto forbidden. So I say I saw it in my last view of the world … It may be as wrong an explanation as mortal wit could invent. It is how the thing shaped itself to me, and as that I give it to you.Mice and Morlocks, Part 1
Thursday, October 14, 2004
I'm hard-pressed to log my thoughts on last night's third and final debate. I just don't know that they really matter much, if the expression of both substance and style is subverted to the grandstanding of punditry. Perhaps it would be more enlightening for Rove and McAuliffe to simply match irrational courage on a special edition of Fear Factor. It would be as informative as the networks dynamic post debate polling evaluations that are nothing more than email mass-mailings beginning in September or over samples of the fellows at local 49. The President clearly won all three debates where it matters -the first on substance, the second on style and substance, this last on style, substance, and character. Jim G. at Kerryspot encapsulated the overall impression of John Kerry with his one sentence evaluation of last night's performance.
"John Kerry came across as an old, tired, worn out, stretched-out Leftist TreeAs usual, the bloggers had the most comprehensive, informative and objective analyses (see: Powerline, The Corner, Captain's Quarters, Instapundit, HughHewitt) that I could find. Granted I no longer tune into television broadcasting of any kind, after spending 35 years in fanatic worship to cathodic delusion. CNN, AP and Reuters... the MSM called it for Kerry, and his campaign declared 3 strikes for Bush and tried to return to their line-up. Last night witnessed a repeat of Kerry's tired platitudes, more 'funny' factisms, assured tax increases, litmus tests, global tests now augmented with 'truth' tests (to be ostensibly administered by the thugs that brought us the oil for terror scandal (reference), Hillary Healthcare, abortion on demand, abolishing marriage, Second Amendment erosion, more CBS malfeasance (link), tawdry exploitation of the VP's daughter, more references to the 'magic plan' and Kerry's ill-conceived affirmation that inalienable rights are bestowed by leave of the government via the Constitution.
Spirit belched forth by the fiery pits of Massachusetts liberalism."
The announcers declared a rout for by the Left. The stadium saw a single a triple and a called shot over the left field wall, yielding 3 runs for Bush in the top of the sixth... no outs.
On Tuesday, October 12th, 2004, The Kerry Campaign, representing the Democrat Party in America, made the following statement to a broadcast audience.
“Listen - they better look out there at Sinclair Broadcasting," campaign spokesman Chad Clanton threatened, as the controversy around Sinclair's decision to broadcast a documentary about Kerry's anti-Vietnam War protests continued to heat up.
Sinclair Broadcasting has plans to air a documentary on Vietnam Veteran prisoners of war who were tortured for 'War Crimes.' Fearing that a factual potrayal of the consequences of Lieutenant Kerry's anti-war rhetoric and criminal accustations against his comrades, might reflect poorly on the candidate, the Left is up in arms. In the aftermath of Michael Moore's anti-Bush propaganda film, dozens of 'hit' books on the President - including a few literal ones - two fabricated smear stories from CBS Broadcasting plus an open 60 minutes forum for any author willing to bash the President, and the Democrats ongoing misrepresentation of Bush's National Guard Service, the Left has the nerve now to promote censorship... or worse. This is an astounding admission from America’s perveyors of progressive tolerance, as they appear to be threatening a broadcast company, and representative body of journalism (the press) for behaving in a manner detrimental to their regime. In isolation, the statement might be dismissed to the inane ranting of a clearly unbalanced individual in need of immediate intervention. But, taken together with the numerous stories of increasing violence toward Republican voters, organizations, and campaign offices and the equally disturbing (and quite overt) nationwide incidences of voter registration fraud, there is a clear trend emerging on the Left that threatens to inaugurate a frightening era in American history. In this nation today, we have a party with political parity, backed by the majority of the fourth estate, willing to abandon their ideological legacy, for the sake of one election. Inevitably it will relegate them to the unforgiving pages of historic infamy while damning this nation to a future of uncertain chaos. H.G. Wells once wrote:
"I'm not a lawyer, but they've stirred up a lot of hatred," Clanton continued to rail on Fox News Channel's "Dayside with Linda Vester."
"We've got thousands of people now very mad, jackballed up - calling these [Sinclair]stations, protesting, threatening boycotts of their sponsors," he claimed. "I think they're going to regret doing this," the Kerry spokesman warned before adding -"They better hope we don't win." (reference)
I grieved to think how brief the dream of the human intellect had been. It had committed suicide. It had set itself steadfastly towards comfort and ease, a balanced society with security and permanency as its watchword, it had attained its hopes --to come to this at last. Once, life and property must have reached almost absolute safety. The rich had been assured of his wealth and comfort, the toiler assured of his life and work. No doubt in that perfect world there had been no unemployed problem, no social question left unsolved. And a great quiet had followed. (The Time Machine)In fact, it is the Democrats who had better hope they don’t win this particular election season. They stooped to the level of vermin after the 2000 election, when they damned the Constitutional election process, feeding on the detritus of rhetoric and propaganda, and delivering pestilence forever into the process. After the attacks of 911, the Left stooped to stygian depths to undermine the nation's authority, respect and resolve in the War, showing more solidarity with an inhuman enemy, then with their brethren. For the sake of the 2004 election, they have sold their political souls to those demons of chaos, with whom they must forever reside in the darkness of venal victory. They have accepted the terms as offered - ignorance, dishonesty, depravity, intolerance, self-loathing, violence, malaise and a few million fanatic suicide chickens coming home to roost. As it stands, the Democrats time machine is set for three weeks from today when they hope to retake that which they believe to be rightfully theirs. Kerry and Edwards have been annointed as the personification of 'anything but...' From now until then, 'anything goes' to make that journey possible; all of which might be forgotten as if it never occurred. Not likely! Their faith in a nation being as delusional as they is as ill-founded as the belief that Saddam had no WMD and Al Qaeda was in sixty other countries on Earth except Iraq. The stage will be set for the next progeny of despots willing to slide the bar ever lower for their 'right' at the throne by any means. If successful, the plagues the Democrats will unleash can never be put back in the box...
...and hope will go home with the man from Crawford.
Mice and Morlocks, part 2 .