Just like Monty Hall and Doors 1, 2 and 3, kerry has citations 1, 2 and 3. The problem is these 3 citations are for his Silver Star Award. Methinks that is 2 citations too many. - Sailor
John Kerry's Puzzling Silver Star Citations
By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com August 24, 2004
Introduction
Having sowed the wind by carefully crafting his tour of duty in Vietnam as a campaign gimmick, John Kerry is now reaping the whirlwind. He has seen virtually everything about his four months in country challenged with provable eyewitness accounts backed by sworn affidavits: the “wounds” which never required hospitalization or lost time, for which he finagled three Purple Hearts; his Bronze Star with a combat “V” for “heroically” rescuing a special forces soldier who was about to be pulled from the water by a nearby Swift boat, the man in danger, perhaps, of drowning but not under hostile fire; his “gallantry” for back-shooting an enemy soldier, for which he was awarded the Nation’s third-highest decoration, the Silver Star.
Now, on the heels of yet another revelation—that Kerry’s DD 214 (“Report of Transfer or Separation”), displayed on his website, shows his Silver Star embellished with an unauthorized “V” for valor—which makes it facially false and at variance with official government records (see our article, John Kerry’s Mysterious Combat “V”)—it has come to light that his Silver Star award is fraught with other peculiarities.
In the United States military, the process of awarding a medal begins with preparation of a form prescribed by official regulations. The current Navy form (OPNAV 1650/3, “Personal Award Recommendation”), substantively identical to the one in use during John Kerry’s time in Vietnam thirty years ago, provides that when an award is recommended, attached to that recommendation is a “proposed citation.” A citation, in essence, is a narrative description of the “service” that the recipient performed to warrant the award. In other words, the citation explains why the award was made and in what way it was earned. (The regulations pertaining to Personal Award Recommendations also reccomend that combat awards be supported by at least two witnesses.)
Here’s where it gets puzzling. Lieutenant John Kerry’s award for the Silver Star has—not one citation, but three—an unheard of number for a single award.
Understandably, as we shall see, only Kerry’s most recent citation—nearly two decades older than the first and signed by a Secretary of the Navy who was years away from that office when Lieutenant Kerry, now Senator Kerry, originally obtained the award—appears on his website. (Not one of the three citations, incidentally, refer to the combat “V” that appears on Kerry’s website’s DD 214.)
Citation 1
By now, a key incident for which Kerry obtained the Silver Star is well known: He shot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back, presumably acting, in the words of the statute, with “gallantry.” We have reproduced in its entirety that portion of the citation which is significantly different from Citations 2 and 3.
COMMANDER
UNITED STATES NAVAL FORCES
VIETNAM
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to
JOHN FORBES KERRY
LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE
UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE
for service as set forth in the following:
CITATION
" * * * . . . Patrol Craft Fast 23 and 94 moved upstream to investigate an area from which gunshots were coming. Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area while the Patrol Craft Fast continued to provide fire support. After the enemy had been completely routed, all personnel returned to the Patrol Craft Fast to withdraw from the area.” * * * (Emphasis added).
For the President
/s/ E R Zumwalt
E.R. ZUMWALT, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam
Citation 2 (Asterisks refer to eliminated repetitive material)
COMMANDER IN CHIEF
UNITED STATES PACIFIC FLEET
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to
Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes KERRY
United States Naval Reserve
for service as set forth in the following:
CITATION
* * * On a request from U.S. Army advisors on shore, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered PCF’s 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94. With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his own boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.” * * * (Emphasis added).
For the President,
/s/ John J Hyland
JOHN J. HYLAND
Admiral, U.S. Navy
Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet
Citation 3
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Washington
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the SILVER STAR MEDAL to
LIEUTENANT (JUNIOR GRADE) JOHN F. KERRY
UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE
For service as set forth in the following
CITATION:
* * * After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94: with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. * * * (Emphasis added).
For the President,
/s/ John Lehman
Secretary of the Navy
All three citations are undated.
Citation alterations
According to Citation 1—apparently prepared soon after the February 28, 1969 episode it describes and laced with the accolades “expertly,” “without hesitation,” “devotion to duty,” “courage under fire” and “outstanding leadership”—three PCFs came under fire, returned it, and embarked indigenous troops onto the shore. Kerry’s boat and another then moved upstream, where “Kerry’s craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard” (i.e., it missed). He beached the boat and “an enemy soldier sprang up from his position . . . and fled” (i.e., turned and ran). Kerry “pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him” (i.e., Kerry chased a man running away, lugging a rocket launcher), and apparently shot him in the back—although we can’t know because there was no witness, let alone the recommended two. (Incidentally, no one else in that episode was awarded a Silver Star).
Although Citation 2 also is undated, we can still ascertain when it was issued. Kerry’s first citation was for action on February 28, 1969, so Citation 2 had to be issued some time after that, but probably not immediately. Citation 2 was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, who no longer served in that capacity after December 5, 1970. Thus, Kerry’s second citation had to have been issued some time between February 29, 1969 (following Citation 1) and December 5, 1970 (when Hyland was no longer CINCPAC). Significantly, Kerry left Vietnam in “early 1969” (his website’s timeline) and was separated from service on March 1, 1970. This means that it is likely Citation 2 was issued some time in the almost two years after his departure from Vietnam but before late 1970—when he was back in the United States.
Describing the February 28, 1969 incident, Citation 2—considerably shorter than Citation 1, but including the accolades “utter disregard for his own safety,” “daring and courageous” and “extraordinary daring and personal courage”—presents a very different picture because of a significant omission. This time, it seems, Kerry “led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.” Vanished is the enemy soldier of Citation 1, springing up from ten feet away, carrying a rocket launcher, turning, running behind a hut, and being back-shot by Kerry. Indeed, in Citation 2’s version, there were no enemy soldiers jumping out of spider holes. Most important, gone is any implication that the current presidential candidate shot an unarmed enemy soldier in the back.
Citation 2 raises two important and intriguing questions. First, why would Kerry bother to have a second citation issued? The obvious answer is that he wanted to expunge from the record that he had shot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back. Another possible explanation, speculative though plausible, is found in the relative ranks held by Admirals Zumwalt and Hyland at that time. Zumwalt had “only” three stars, Hyland four. The politically ambitious Kerry, in a ploy (see below) that he may have repeated later in his career, could well have sought to upgrade his citation from three stars to four (especially since, at that time, it was questionable whether a three-star admiral had the authority to issue a Silver Star).
The other important and intriguing question is how a lieutenant (junior grade), far down on the totem pole and then separated from service, could have induced an active duty four-star admiral, not only to reissue a citation for the Nation’s third-highest award, but to rewrite it by sanitizing Kerry’s killing of a fleeing enemy soldier. Unfortunately, Admiral Hyland is dead, so we can’t ask him. But there is someone else we can ask: the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. Why Kennedy? Because at the time the sanitized Citation 2 was issued, Kerry and Kennedy were pals. For example, there is a photograph of the two taking a stroll together on April 21, 1971, not long after Citation 2 was issued. The photo’s caption reads: “Senator Ted Kennedy and John Kerry discuss the Supreme Court injunction against Vietnam veterans sleeping on the Mall and whether the vets ought to risk violating it. Washington, D.C., April 21, 1971.” (The photo is at www.vietnamwar.com/JohnKerrySilverStar.htm).
Citation 3, like Citations 1 and 2, is undated. But, again, we can narrow the time frame, since it was signed by John Lehman as Secretary of the Navy. Lehman served from February1981 to April 1987—long after Kerry left Vietnam, long after he was separated from service, and during Kerry’s tenure as a United States Senator.
While it is not difficult to understand why Kerry apparently sought and obtained a sanitized second version of his Silver Star citation, at first glance it is not so easy to surmise why Kerry went after yet a third citation, this time from Lehman (especially because the third citation is word-for-word, in every important respect, the same as the second). One theory dovetails with what may well have motivated him, at least in part, to prefer Hyland’s imprimatur over Zumwald’s. Kerry, now a senator, may have been trying to upgrade his award, issued by a couple of “mere” admirals, to one issued by the Secretary of the Navy.
Correction of military records
Whatever the reason—and only Kerry and the Navy Department, and perhaps Kennedy, know the truth—Hyland’s Citation 2 and Lehman’s Citation 3 would have had to satisfy the requirement of Title 10, Section 1552, of the United States Code, subsection (a) (1), which provides that “The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.” Subsection (b) provides that “No correction may be made . . . unless the claimant . . . files a request for the correction within three years after he discovers the error or injustice. However, a board . . . may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice.”(Emphasis added).
This means that in order to obtain Citation 2, Kerry would have had to prove that there was an “error” in Citation 1 and/or that the existence of that citation somehow constituted an “injustice.” Was the error in Citation 1 that he had shot the enemy soldier in the back, or that it was somehow an injustice to Kerry for the citation to say so?
As to obtaining Citation 3, there are two problems for Kerry. First, since it is virtually identical with Citation 2, there could be no error or injustice. Second, even if arguably there were, since the three-year statute of limitations had passed by the time Lehman was in office, in order for Kerry to obtain the correction, he would have had to prove that correcting Citation 2 was “in the interest of justice.”
An Army officer formerly in the Pentagon’s “awards and decorations” hierarchy for many years, explains the amendment process for military citations this way:
In the Army, and up until the 1980's, decorations for valor and heroism as well as service and achievement were published on general orders by the commander vested with the approval authority to act in finality on a recommendation. * * * The general orders contained a citation (reason) for the award. The recipient of the decoration also received a certificate which contained the citation or a certificate and a separate citation. The wording of the citation whether it was on the certificate or a separate document was lifted or copied from the general order.
The approved method of changing or correcting a general order once it had been issued was in the form of an amendment and there was a prescribed format for issuing an amendment on a later general order. The method voiding a previously issued general order was through a revocation and it too had a prescribed format. Most amendments were issued to correct personal data or dates on the original general order, but seldom were amendments issued to correct the citation or reason for the award. If the citation or reason for the decoration as it appeared in the original general order required a change or correction, it was accomplished through the issuance of an amendment. In this unlikely event (amendment of the citation/reason), a new certificate containing the corrected citation or a separate document containing the corrected citation/reason would be issued to the recipient. Amendatory general orders were almost always issued by the headquarters who issued the original general orders, however, amendments could also be issued by a higher headquarters; most often by Headquarters Department of the Army. This was especially true of revocations.
It is difficult to comprehend the basis for administratively amending a citation other than for correcting misspellings or transpositions of service numbers or erroneous grades, but it could be done. But the citation/reason and its factual content formed the basis for approval of that level of decoration. Changing or correcting the factual content infers that the level of recognition might have been in error, necessitates a review and calls into question the original decision, so that is why changing or correcting a citation/reason is almost never done. (Emphasis added).
Questions for John Kerry
John Kerry is a lawyer, so he should be familiar with an important and useful discovery tool: written interrogatories. Here are some for him:
Citation 1
Who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation,” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and will candidate Kerry either make the document available or authorize its release?
Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 1, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release?
Citation 2
Was there contact between Kennedy (or members of his staff, or others) with Admiral Hyland (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts.
Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 2, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release?
When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, what error or errors did he claim existed in Citation 1, and what injustice did he cite?
Citation 3
Was there contact between Kerry (or members of his staff, or others) with then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehman (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts.
Was there contact between Kennedy (or members of his staff, or others) with then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehman (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts.
Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 3, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release?
When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, what error or errors did he claim existed in Citation 3 and what injustice did he cite?
When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, in order to surmount the three-year statute of limitations, what evidence did he produce to prove correction was in the interest of justice?
Did Lehman sign Citation 3 himself, or does the document contain a machine signature?
Miscellaneous
Did any other crewmen on Kerry’s boat at the time of the Silver Star incident receive any award(s) for that engagement? If any did, set forth the recipient’s name(s), the award(s), the conduct justifying the award(s), who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation(s),” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and will such recipient(s) either make the document(s) available or authorize its release?
If any other crewmen on Kerry’s boat at the time of the Silver Star incident received any award(s) for that engagement, who was asked to prepare the citation(s), who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Will such recipient(s) either make the document(s) available or authorize its release?
Will Kerry request Tommy Belodeau, Mike Medeiros, Del Sandusky, Fred Short and Gene Thorson to reveal, regarding their own awards for the Silver Star incident, the conduct justifying the award(s), who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation(s),” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and ask such recipient(s) either to make the document(s) available or authorize its release?
Will Kerry request Tommy Belodeau, Mike Medeiros, Del Sandusky, Fred Short and Gene Thorson to reveal, regarding their own awards for the Silver Star incident, who was asked to prepare the citation(s), who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted, and ask such recipient(s) either to make the document(s) available or authorize its release? Will Kerry authorize former Navy Secretary John Lehman to disclose fully the facts and circumstances surrounding his participation in the granting of Citation 3?
In obtaining Citations 2 and 3, did Kerry in any manner utilize Department of the Navy procedures for the correction of records? If so, provide all details and copies of all documents submitted. As to the documents, set forth who prepared them, when they were prepared, and when and to whom they were submitted.
* * *
Not one of these questions is beyond the ability of John Kerry to answer. But their existence places him on the horns of a dilemma. If he stalls, or obfuscates, or refuses to answer, continuing a pattern he has employed about some of his more important records, the only reasonable conclusion is that he has something to hide. If he does answer, it is difficult to believe, given what is already known, that he will answer fully and truthfully.
Either way, John Kerry may soon learn that three citations for a single Silver Star is two too many.
Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializes in federal appeals. Erika Holzer, a lawyer and novelist, is co-author, with Professor Holzer, of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service. A second edition is forthcoming with a new preface entitled “John Kerry: The Ultimate Fake Warrior.”
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Monday, August 23, 2004
MoveOn Ads OK; Swift Boat Ads Not OK, Kerry Campaign Says
More bullshit from the kerry campaign, now on 527's. Seems the liberal 527's are okay because they were formed before the current election cycle. Well, duh, how disingenuous is that? There was no doubt that Bush would run for re-election. To Debra Deshong, I say this, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. So if you want to sue me, go ahead. You are nothing more then a shrill kerry ass kisser and a liar. When is kerry going to tell Soros to stop funding the liberal 527s? - Sailor
MoveOn Ads OK; Swift Boat Ads Not OK, Kerry Campaign Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning EditorAugust 20, 2004(CNSNews.com)
The Bush campaign has suggested that Sen. John Kerry join President Bush in calling off the dogs -- those "shadowy" 527 groups that run ads for and against Bush and Kerry.The liberal group MoveOn.org and the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are both 527s, named after a section of the tax code.But on Friday, a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign backed away from the suggestion.
She said what MoveOn.org is doing is perfectly fine, while what the Swift Boat Veterans are doing is "dishonest" and "dishonorable."Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group.
"Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House."Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story)"Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws."
According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn.
"What about the barrage of 527 ads thrown at President Bush? a Bush campaign spokeswoman asked on Friday."The fact is, not only has this president had over $62 million dollars spent attacking him by these shadowy groups, but let's not forget about Michael Moore's movie," said Bush campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise, also speaking on Fox News. She noted that for weeks, Americans could "hardly turn on a TV" without seeing Michael Moore "launch unbelievable attacks on this president.
"Millerwise said the Bush campaign would rather focus on the major issues -- including Sen. Kerry's spotty attendance at Senate Intelligence Committee hearings.
MoveOn Ads OK; Swift Boat Ads Not OK, Kerry Campaign Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning EditorAugust 20, 2004(CNSNews.com)
The Bush campaign has suggested that Sen. John Kerry join President Bush in calling off the dogs -- those "shadowy" 527 groups that run ads for and against Bush and Kerry.The liberal group MoveOn.org and the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are both 527s, named after a section of the tax code.But on Friday, a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign backed away from the suggestion.
She said what MoveOn.org is doing is perfectly fine, while what the Swift Boat Veterans are doing is "dishonest" and "dishonorable."Debra Deshong of the Kerry campaign told Fox News there's a difference between MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "is not an independent group.
"Deshong invoked Friday's New York Times article as proof: "And in today's New York Times, it details exactly all the ties this group (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) has to the Bush White House."Deshong condemned Bush for not telling Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to stop running their ad. (Swift Boats say it wouldn't matter what Bush said -- see related story)"Again, we (the Kerry campaign) have nothing to do with these independent ads, like MoveOn.org. That is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign. They have every right to be running what they are under the campaign finance laws."
According to Deshong, "This is about the Swift Boat Vets that are running dishonorable ads that Bush refuses to condemn.
"What about the barrage of 527 ads thrown at President Bush? a Bush campaign spokeswoman asked on Friday."The fact is, not only has this president had over $62 million dollars spent attacking him by these shadowy groups, but let's not forget about Michael Moore's movie," said Bush campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise, also speaking on Fox News. She noted that for weeks, Americans could "hardly turn on a TV" without seeing Michael Moore "launch unbelievable attacks on this president.
"Millerwise said the Bush campaign would rather focus on the major issues -- including Sen. Kerry's spotty attendance at Senate Intelligence Committee hearings.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Welcome Back, Europe Reentering history’s arena.
About time the euroweenies fended for themselves. kerry and his his band of lackies are out there whining. Hypocrites to the core. - Sailor
August 20, 2004, 9:23 a.m.
Welcome Back, Europe
Reentering history’s arena.
Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
The scheduled partial U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe were long overdue; some of us had become shrill and hoarse in calling for them over the past few years. It was not just that there was no longer any conventional enemy on Old Europe's borders, or that the new hot points are further to the east, or even that in terms of a cost-benefit analysis it made no sense stationing traditional army divisions roughly where Patton and Hodges ended up 60 years ago.
The real significance, inasmuch as many airbases and depots will stay, is symbolic and psycho-sociological. Unwittingly, we had created an unhealthy passive-aggressiveness in Europe that clinicians might identify as a classic symptom of dependency. Europe — now larger and more populous than the United States — has reduced defense investment to subsidize a variety of social expenditures found nowhere in the world. So insular had its utopians become under the aegis of NATO's subsidized protection that it was increasingly convinced that the ubiquitous United States was the world's rogue nation, the last impediment to a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave subsidies, and wind power the world over.
A once-muscular and hallowed NATO has become a Potemkin alliance. The more jetting grandees praised the "historic role of the Trans-Atlantic partnership," the more its logic dictated that it would deploy only where there were no enemies of the West — parading and maneuvering where there were never dangers, bickering and recriminating about going where there always were.
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting parent, always with the assumption that Dad would still hand over the keys, ignore the cheap sass, and "be there for me" if the car ended up in the ditch.
Expect more partisan hysteria here at home in response to President Bush's courageous announcement, which in fact had been under consideration for years, precisely because there is no legitimate criticism to be offered. The careful strategy of slow withdrawal fits in well with Mr. Kerry's notion of a new, restructured military. The notion of bringing troops home from anywhere is what the new Michael Moore Democrats always wish for when they label America as hegemonic, imperialistic, and meddlesome. Politicos appreciate that only Republicans would have enough foreign policy fides — in the manner that Nixon went to China, but Carter looked deranged when talking about pulling out all Americans from Korea — to pull off long-needed reform.
Thus because the move was both measured and sound, and yet could not be claimed by the neo-Democratic establishment, it will be seen as especially grating. Wesley Clark — who once had no problem with appearing on stage with Michael Moore for a cheap endorsement, even as the latter called Clark's commander-in-chief a "traitor" and is on record as praising the fascist killers of Americans as "Minutemen" — was wheeled out to utter a few banalities about "politics." But after a few deer-in-the-headlights appearances, he wisely withdrew, his heart really not in the script presented.
Thus in the manner we have seen about Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the isolation of Yasser Arafat, and Iraq, expect Kerry and company to triangulate, ankle-bite about "unilateral decision-making," "needlessly provocative measures" and "insensitivity to historical allies" — and, of course, in the end not dare to demand we put divisions back into Germany. Such is the new foreign policy of grumbling: "Cowboy Bush wrongly did it, but it's done, and in my infinite sobriety I'll let it be."
The real significance of Bush's decision will be felt inside Europe itself. Our gradual departure will bring slow reckoning to the nations of Europe, not just in places like Poland, worried about 10 percent of old Germany inside its borders, but also and especially in the west among nations like Denmark and Holland. Their no-nonsense leaders have ignored the mob's cheap antics and treasured the idea that real Americans in uniform were always nearby, whose sanctity meant their own security, and whose imperilment guaranteed that a $600 billion military would immediately rush to stand side-by-side on their ramparts. So their concerns — as bilateral partners — must be addressed.
Anyone old enough to have known the Wehrmacht in the past and the intra-European hounding that goes on in the present does not believe that we are at the end of history — at least not until the nature of man changes and national character is revealed as a mere construct. Germany is united again, but an economic colossus stalled, as its politicians silently gnash about "unfairness" in the EU, and as German Euros go east and south to subsidize "others." Germany, in fact, is in flux, a period of shake-out not seen since the late 1920s, in which the reaction to a failed socialist-pacifist agenda will one day either bring pro-American reform or unpredictable fury, in any direction.
In lieu of the Maginot Line and troops in the Ardennes, postmodern France will boast in multilateral tones more and more about its vaunted force de frappe — that is, how lucky the EU is to have the Gallic atomic deterrent at its disposal. Such is the braggadocio that will reveal secret apprehensions that next time America really will not come in for round three, that nuclear deterrence without conventional power has its practical and tactical limitations, and that in times of real crisis any EU country could match France's arsenal in weeks. For most Europeans the idea that the French nuclear deterrent will soon be all that stands between them and a rogue Iran is a frightening thought indeed.
To the south, in the Mediterranean, history's shoals are everywhere, submerged and unseen as long as American warships dutifully sailed to and fro and ignored the cheap slurs. Turkey and Greece will soon enough "discuss" everything from Cyprus to overflights in the Aegean without U.S. generals on both sides calling for calm, but perhaps lightly remonstrating southern Europe about "inordinate fear" of the old Ottoman Islam. Spanish socialists can work out, on their own, Gibraltar, ties with their Islamic friends across the water, and the angst when a few of their Mediterranean rocks are gratuitously occupied. And so on.
So Europe is gradually going to reenter history's arena. Yet this time, what is different from 1914 and 1939 is that the United States is not weak, isolationist, naive, and inexperienced in European affairs. No, it is enormously powerful, fully engaged elsewhere, and knows the European one-eyed Jack only too well. For better or for worse, don't count on American jets to take out another Milosevic in the near future.
Yet if there soon arises what the Germans call schadenfreude as we watch them implement continental utopia without retrograde American troops, there is a sense of sadness about it all as well. The Danish, the Dutch, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans, each according to their station, are engaged in Iraq. They are good and reliable friends, and haven't forgotten the white crosses that dot the European continental landscape. And as smaller nations they sense incipient bullying within the EU, both over their loyal relationships with America and heavy-handed trade politics with France and Germany. Smaller nations may see themselves first as independent Europeans, but privately they realize that it is only so the last two centuries because of the Anglo-Americans in the shadows who, from Wellington to Patton, at the eleventh hour always proved to be about the only ones who fought well for someone else's freedom.
So it is also with some trepidation that we are seeing the inevitable end of the old, and the beginning of a new, transatlantic world, as troops on the ground at last reflect the reality of the past 20 years. And as we begin to leave Europe, as NATO mutters and shuffles in its embarrassing dotage, as cracks in an authoritarian and unworkable EU begin to widen, ever so slowly we here in the United States shall start to witness all over Europe both a new sensibleness — and a new furor.
Gut-check time is approaching. In places like Brussels, Berlin, and Oslo, in the next half-century citizens will slowly decide who wishes and does not wish to be an ally of the United States of America. Some will prefer opportunistic neutrality and thus go the Swedish and Swiss route. Others in their folly may ape French and Spanish bellicosity, and think isolating the U.S., selling weapons to the Middle East, or going on maneuvers with the Chinese might work. Still more may prefer to remain staunch friends like the Poles and Italians, realizing that, for all the leftist slurs about unilateralism, never in the history of civilization has such a powerful country as the United States sought advice and cooperation from weaker friends about the wisdom, efficacy, and consequences of using its vast military.
But this is no parlor game any more. Islamic fascism, scary former Soviet republics, rogue Middle Eastern nuclear states, an ever more proud and muscular China thirsty for oil — these and more specters are all out there and waiting, waiting, waiting...
Welcome back to the world, Europe.
August 20, 2004, 9:23 a.m.
Welcome Back, Europe
Reentering history’s arena.
Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
The scheduled partial U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe were long overdue; some of us had become shrill and hoarse in calling for them over the past few years. It was not just that there was no longer any conventional enemy on Old Europe's borders, or that the new hot points are further to the east, or even that in terms of a cost-benefit analysis it made no sense stationing traditional army divisions roughly where Patton and Hodges ended up 60 years ago.
The real significance, inasmuch as many airbases and depots will stay, is symbolic and psycho-sociological. Unwittingly, we had created an unhealthy passive-aggressiveness in Europe that clinicians might identify as a classic symptom of dependency. Europe — now larger and more populous than the United States — has reduced defense investment to subsidize a variety of social expenditures found nowhere in the world. So insular had its utopians become under the aegis of NATO's subsidized protection that it was increasingly convinced that the ubiquitous United States was the world's rogue nation, the last impediment to a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave subsidies, and wind power the world over.
A once-muscular and hallowed NATO has become a Potemkin alliance. The more jetting grandees praised the "historic role of the Trans-Atlantic partnership," the more its logic dictated that it would deploy only where there were no enemies of the West — parading and maneuvering where there were never dangers, bickering and recriminating about going where there always were.
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting parent, always with the assumption that Dad would still hand over the keys, ignore the cheap sass, and "be there for me" if the car ended up in the ditch.
Expect more partisan hysteria here at home in response to President Bush's courageous announcement, which in fact had been under consideration for years, precisely because there is no legitimate criticism to be offered. The careful strategy of slow withdrawal fits in well with Mr. Kerry's notion of a new, restructured military. The notion of bringing troops home from anywhere is what the new Michael Moore Democrats always wish for when they label America as hegemonic, imperialistic, and meddlesome. Politicos appreciate that only Republicans would have enough foreign policy fides — in the manner that Nixon went to China, but Carter looked deranged when talking about pulling out all Americans from Korea — to pull off long-needed reform.
Thus because the move was both measured and sound, and yet could not be claimed by the neo-Democratic establishment, it will be seen as especially grating. Wesley Clark — who once had no problem with appearing on stage with Michael Moore for a cheap endorsement, even as the latter called Clark's commander-in-chief a "traitor" and is on record as praising the fascist killers of Americans as "Minutemen" — was wheeled out to utter a few banalities about "politics." But after a few deer-in-the-headlights appearances, he wisely withdrew, his heart really not in the script presented.
Thus in the manner we have seen about Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the isolation of Yasser Arafat, and Iraq, expect Kerry and company to triangulate, ankle-bite about "unilateral decision-making," "needlessly provocative measures" and "insensitivity to historical allies" — and, of course, in the end not dare to demand we put divisions back into Germany. Such is the new foreign policy of grumbling: "Cowboy Bush wrongly did it, but it's done, and in my infinite sobriety I'll let it be."
The real significance of Bush's decision will be felt inside Europe itself. Our gradual departure will bring slow reckoning to the nations of Europe, not just in places like Poland, worried about 10 percent of old Germany inside its borders, but also and especially in the west among nations like Denmark and Holland. Their no-nonsense leaders have ignored the mob's cheap antics and treasured the idea that real Americans in uniform were always nearby, whose sanctity meant their own security, and whose imperilment guaranteed that a $600 billion military would immediately rush to stand side-by-side on their ramparts. So their concerns — as bilateral partners — must be addressed.
Anyone old enough to have known the Wehrmacht in the past and the intra-European hounding that goes on in the present does not believe that we are at the end of history — at least not until the nature of man changes and national character is revealed as a mere construct. Germany is united again, but an economic colossus stalled, as its politicians silently gnash about "unfairness" in the EU, and as German Euros go east and south to subsidize "others." Germany, in fact, is in flux, a period of shake-out not seen since the late 1920s, in which the reaction to a failed socialist-pacifist agenda will one day either bring pro-American reform or unpredictable fury, in any direction.
In lieu of the Maginot Line and troops in the Ardennes, postmodern France will boast in multilateral tones more and more about its vaunted force de frappe — that is, how lucky the EU is to have the Gallic atomic deterrent at its disposal. Such is the braggadocio that will reveal secret apprehensions that next time America really will not come in for round three, that nuclear deterrence without conventional power has its practical and tactical limitations, and that in times of real crisis any EU country could match France's arsenal in weeks. For most Europeans the idea that the French nuclear deterrent will soon be all that stands between them and a rogue Iran is a frightening thought indeed.
To the south, in the Mediterranean, history's shoals are everywhere, submerged and unseen as long as American warships dutifully sailed to and fro and ignored the cheap slurs. Turkey and Greece will soon enough "discuss" everything from Cyprus to overflights in the Aegean without U.S. generals on both sides calling for calm, but perhaps lightly remonstrating southern Europe about "inordinate fear" of the old Ottoman Islam. Spanish socialists can work out, on their own, Gibraltar, ties with their Islamic friends across the water, and the angst when a few of their Mediterranean rocks are gratuitously occupied. And so on.
So Europe is gradually going to reenter history's arena. Yet this time, what is different from 1914 and 1939 is that the United States is not weak, isolationist, naive, and inexperienced in European affairs. No, it is enormously powerful, fully engaged elsewhere, and knows the European one-eyed Jack only too well. For better or for worse, don't count on American jets to take out another Milosevic in the near future.
Yet if there soon arises what the Germans call schadenfreude as we watch them implement continental utopia without retrograde American troops, there is a sense of sadness about it all as well. The Danish, the Dutch, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans, each according to their station, are engaged in Iraq. They are good and reliable friends, and haven't forgotten the white crosses that dot the European continental landscape. And as smaller nations they sense incipient bullying within the EU, both over their loyal relationships with America and heavy-handed trade politics with France and Germany. Smaller nations may see themselves first as independent Europeans, but privately they realize that it is only so the last two centuries because of the Anglo-Americans in the shadows who, from Wellington to Patton, at the eleventh hour always proved to be about the only ones who fought well for someone else's freedom.
So it is also with some trepidation that we are seeing the inevitable end of the old, and the beginning of a new, transatlantic world, as troops on the ground at last reflect the reality of the past 20 years. And as we begin to leave Europe, as NATO mutters and shuffles in its embarrassing dotage, as cracks in an authoritarian and unworkable EU begin to widen, ever so slowly we here in the United States shall start to witness all over Europe both a new sensibleness — and a new furor.
Gut-check time is approaching. In places like Brussels, Berlin, and Oslo, in the next half-century citizens will slowly decide who wishes and does not wish to be an ally of the United States of America. Some will prefer opportunistic neutrality and thus go the Swedish and Swiss route. Others in their folly may ape French and Spanish bellicosity, and think isolating the U.S., selling weapons to the Middle East, or going on maneuvers with the Chinese might work. Still more may prefer to remain staunch friends like the Poles and Italians, realizing that, for all the leftist slurs about unilateralism, never in the history of civilization has such a powerful country as the United States sought advice and cooperation from weaker friends about the wisdom, efficacy, and consequences of using its vast military.
But this is no parlor game any more. Islamic fascism, scary former Soviet republics, rogue Middle Eastern nuclear states, an ever more proud and muscular China thirsty for oil — these and more specters are all out there and waiting, waiting, waiting...
Welcome back to the world, Europe.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Kerry Camp Frets Over Cambodia Tale
Looks like the poodle is in a real mess now. For those of you who have underestimated the bloggers, you have to read this article by Deborah Orin. She really blows the lid off of many of the kerry lies. - Sailor
KERRY CAMP FRETS OVER CAMBODIA TALE
By Deborah Orin
August 20, 2004 --
THERE'S now some real angst in Democratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false — and just didn't happen.
But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" — that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)
Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.
Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.
"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.
Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 — and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.
Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident — of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.
Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared — seared — in me."
Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute — Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas — yes or no.
For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out — thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade — Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.
The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?
The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story — even as much of the press tries to ignore them.
For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing — David Alston — after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.
A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe — for just one week.
This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story — until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday — bloggers have been examining it in detail.
On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.
Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story — and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.
Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility — and its liberal anti-Bush bias.
Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington bureau chief.
KERRY CAMP FRETS OVER CAMBODIA TALE
By Deborah Orin
August 20, 2004 --
THERE'S now some real angst in Democratic circles be cause of the growing evidence that Democrat John Kerry's claim to have a memory "seared in me" of spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia was false — and just didn't happen.
But what worries some pro-Kerry Democrats is the fear that Kerry has, as one put it, "an Al Gore problem" — that he's a serial exaggerator. (Remember how Gore claimed to have invented the Internet and inspired the novel "Love Story"?)
Remember Kerry's claim that "I've met foreign leaders" who told him he had to beat Bush? Turned out he hadn't met any foreign leaders in years.
Kerry's campaign Web site claimed credit for Vietnam missions when another man, Tedd Peck, was the skipper (that was removed when he protested) and last week was claiming credit for former Sen. Bob Kerrey's service as Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman.
"John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names," blithely explained Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, as if Kerry didn't know his own bio.
Not one of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates, even the ones backing his candidacy, recalls being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968 — and anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans cite a host of evidence that he was 50 miles away in Vietnam.
Why does it matter? Because Kerry has said the Cambodia incident — of being sent on a covert mission to "a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops" was "seared" in his mind and changed his view of America.
Team Kerry's excuse is that maybe he accidentally crossed the border or his time frame was fuzzy, but that just won't square with his passionate 1986 claim, on the Senate floor, that the Christmas memory was "seared — seared — in me."
Unlike the conflicts over Kerry's medals, this isn't a he said/he said dispute — Kerry either was or wasn't in Cambodia. Eventually a reporter will ask him point-blank if he still claims he was in Cambodia that Christmas — yes or no.
For sure, as the anti-Kerry Swift vets pointed out — thus embarrassing every reporter who missed it for over a decade — Kerry's statements were clearly false, since Nixon wasn't yet president in Christmas 1968. But adding Nixon sure embellishes the tale.
The story has unraveled so badly that Kerry's court biographer, Douglas Brinkley, is said to be preparing a new account in which Cambodia is said to come post-Christmas. So why did Brinkley leave it out of his campaign bio?
The other fascinating part of this story is the key role that bloggers on the Internet have played in pointing out the holes in Kerry's story — even as much of the press tries to ignore them.
For instance, when Team Kerry held a press conference featuring his crewmates this week, one was conspicuously missing — David Alston — after the Internet-fueled revelation that he may have only served on Kerry's boat for one week.
A Web blogger, captainsquartersblog, began questioning whether Alston (who has spoken emotionally about how they "bled together") ever served with Kerry. National Review examined the records and concluded maybe — for just one week.
This whole story could be a test of the Internet's impact in this campaign. While most papers have been ignoring the story — until Kerry went ballistic at the Swift vets yesterday — bloggers have been examining it in detail.
On Web sites like Instapundit.com, captainsquartersblog.com, hugh- hewitt.com and rogerlsimon.com, skeptical veterans are trading details on Kerry's service and raising intricate questions about his veracity based on their own experience.
Their online dialogue is punctuated with questions about why the "mainstream media" have been mostly ignoring this story — and why the 13 pro-Kerry vets are automatically assumed to have more credibility than 264 anti-Kerry vets.
Just imagine the coverage if 264 vets who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard made similar charges. For those bloggers, this story has become a test of the mainstream media's credibility — and its liberal anti-Bush bias.
Deborah Orin is The Post's Washington bureau chief.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
International Taxation--An Idea (and Organization) We Cannot Afford
I would like to thank each and every one of you for your prayers and kind words of support during this difficult time for me. - Sailor
Doc Farmer has a very disturbing article on the UN and their desire to create world wide taxation. Just what we need, a corrupt organization trying to find more ways to skim money. - Sailor
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9072
Doc Farmer has a very disturbing article on the UN and their desire to create world wide taxation. Just what we need, a corrupt organization trying to find more ways to skim money. - Sailor
International Taxation--An Idea (and Organization) We Cannot Afford
Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
A few weeks ago, I wrote with glee in my heart about a book by Rep. Dennis Hastert, speaker of the House of Representatives, who suggested the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and of income taxes. Now, it would seem our esteemed president is giving the matter serious consideration. Personally, I’d love to be the guy who gets to push the button that turns the Infernal Robbery Service into a parking lot.
Now, however, my heart is downtrodden and my spirit is distressed. No, it’s not because John Kerry would take that dream away (although I do find that rather disquieting). Instead, there seems to be another group that wishes to tax us all.
The United Nations.
Yes, that home of unbridled stupidity (yes, even greater than Congress!), of corruption, of bribery, and support for terrorism and despotism, wants to tax you, me, and the rest of the planet. Well, the part of the planet that actually has an income.
Now, at present the member states of the United Nations are the ones who financially support this Great White Elephant on the East River. America, naturally, bears the greatest brunt of the cost, both directly and indirectly. We pay these incredible ninnyhammers millions of our tax dollars every year. New York City is further drained, since police protection for world leaders, ambassadors, and other scumbags, is paid for by local tax dollars. Throw in all the unpaid parking tickets that diplomatic immunity encourages, and you’re talking a serious chunk of change.
This, sadly, does not seem to be enough to sate the appetite of the United Nations' greed. Even the Oil for Bribes program, which brought BILLIONS into its coffers (as well as whatever millions were skimmed off the top by certain U.N. officials) is not enough for their greed. So, several committees were created (I wonder if we paid for those as well) to examine several ways to bleed Americans even more than we are already bled. In September, Kofi Annan and the General Assembly will start looking at how to raise $100 billion annually to meet their ''Millennium Goals''--a fancy term for wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Where would the money come from? Well, here are the items I’ve seen discussed:
E-mail Tax--Around $0.01 per megabyte. That doesn’t sound like much, but that can add up month upon month. The upside would be that international spam would be reduced--slightly--but the downside is that the companies who generate it would probably get an exemption. In return for a healthy ''donation'' to the Kofi-Klub.
Gasoline Tax – This tax would cost the U.S. consumers about $25 billion a year. The tax would be per litre as well, so Americans would have to pay 3.78 times as much. That alone would be enough to make John Kerry sprout antlers, although he’d be disappointed that the money wasn’t going into the Congressional Slush Fund. Ah, well, being the internationalist he is, I’m sure he could justify the cost to you. He’d have to do it in French, of course.
Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas Tax--This is part of the gasoline tax, but they’re calling this (are you ready?) the ''Carbon'' Tax. America has the largest coal reserves on the planet, and this tax would further reduce the attractiveness of that fossil fuel. Here’s a question; all life on Earth is based upon carbon. Will we have to pay a ''Carbon'' tax for every new child? I wouldn’t put it past these bozos.
Currency Transaction Tax--This is a good one. Taxing all the international money transfers. The banks already gouge folks for these transfers (and believe me, I know this one first hand), and now the U.N. wants to wet its beak in the giant martini of transborder funds exchange. Knowing the United Nations, they’ll use a bucket and start bailing at breakneck (or breakbank) speeds.
Air Transport Tax and Aviation Fuel Tax--I think these guys are taking a page out of America’s book. We tax people for gasoline, and we tax airlines for Jet-A. But we also tax passengers for flying (airport taxes), thereby paying two taxes for the same seat, the same lousy movie, and the same packet of stale pretzel bites. Every flight would be taxed by the United Nations. Think about how much the world flies on an annual basis.
So, what do we have? You’d be taxed for e-mailing your Uncle Reginald in London, you’d be taxed for the gas needed to get you to the airport, you’d be taxed for getting your dollars exchanged to Pounds Sterling, you’d be taxed for the Jet-A that keeps the airplane airborne, you’d be taxed for just sitting down into a seat that’s about three sizes too small, you’d be taxed for the taxi from the airport, and you’d be taxed AGAIN for all that stuff on the way back.
All of that tax would be going to the United Nations, which is arguably the most corrupt, mismanaged, and disgusting edifice to greed, stupidity, and hate ever conceived by lib/dem/soc/commies.
Coming out of your paycheck.
I know I’ve called for kicking out the United Nations before. In my fevered dreams, I see the ''diplomats'' stripped of their authority, frog-marched (especially appropriate for any cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys) at gunpoint out of Manhattan, and unceremoniously dumped onto a fleet of rusty Aeroflots with a one-way ticket from La Guardia to whatever hell-hole they hail from. I see the crumbling building of the U.N. razed to the ground, the rubble shot into the center of the sun, the ground salted so nothing may ever grow there again, and a single large block of marble in the center of the empty plaza as a monument to international stupidity.
If they actually try to tax us, however, then maybe we should just lock the doors of the place with all the ambassadors and bureaucrats inside, and then blow it up.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9072
Saturday, August 14, 2004
War Blog
This will be my last blogging until Thursday. Thank you all for your prayers and kind words of support on the passing of my mother. - Sailor
War Blog
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 13, 2004
REYNOLDS REPORTS THE LATEST ON KERRY'S CAMBODIA LIE
NOTHING ON THE KERRY/CAMBODIA STORY in either the New York Times or the Washington Post this morning -- I just searched both sites. Even though the Kerry Campaign has now admitted that Kerry's oft-repeated stories about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968 aren't true. The Post did find the time to condemn the Swift Boat vets, though, without admitting that one of their charges has already been borne out.
They're spending another chunk of their diminishing credibility to help this guy. Hope they still think it was worth it in a few years.
UPDATE: Well here's a report:
For the first time, Sen John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, has been left floundering by allegations that he invented a key episode of his decorated wartime service in Vietnam - a central plank of his election platform. . . . the Kerry campaign was left in verbal knots after a new book accused the senator of inventing stories about being sent, illegally, over the border into neutral Cambodia. . . .
In newspaper articles, interviews and at least one Senate speech, Mr Kerry has claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 inside Cambodia, at a time when even the US president was publicly denying that American forces were inside that country.
He has cited the missions as a psychological turning point, when he realised that American leaders were not telling the truth to the world about the war in south-east Asia.
The Kerry campaign responded, initially, that Mr Kerry had always said he was "near" Cambodia. Then a campaign aide said Mr Kerry had been in the Mekong Delta "between" Vietnam and next-door Cambodia - a geographical zone not found on maps, which show the Mekong river running from Cambodia to Vietnam.
Michael Meehan, a Kerry campaign adviser, told ABC Television: "The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol . . . in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam. He was ambushed, they fired back, he was fired upon from both sides, from the Cambodian side of the border and the Vietnam side during that day in 1968."
The map accompanying the story makes short work of that geographical absurdity. I hope that if Kerry's elected, he'll find some advisors who can read a map -- and who understand the difference between "parallel" and "perpendicular." (You can see a bigger, and clearer, map here, if you're interested.)
UPDATE: Harold Eddy emails:
The new "spin" seems to be that the Mekong Delta runs into Cambodia and, as a result, Kerry could have been near Cambodia or accidentially gone over the border. However, that "explanation" is non-responsive to the fundamental basis for the criticism of Kerry. He alleged, again and again, that the US knowingly, intentionally, secretly and duplicitously sent him into Cambodia as part of US policy, while denying the same publicly to the world. . . .
If, now, he is forced to admit that his recollection is untrue, it makes a mockery of over 30 years of his use of his war record. What does this say about his ability to lead? Moreover, how can he criticize George Bush for relying on faulty war intelligence when he has been willing to base policy on his own faulty recollection?
And Craig Henry observes:
Did Kerry vote against key weapon programs? How dare you question the patriotism of a man with three Purple Hearts. Is he too willing to defer to France and the United Nations? How dare you doubt the loyalty of a man with a Silver Star. Faced with this, does the press write about the voting record or about the "hard ball tactics" of the GOP?
Kerry didn't just use his Vietnam experience to enhance his stature as a man or leader. His campaign used it to shut down debate on his Senate record. They made the biography the issue.
Yes, they did.
More here: "And the Post manages to write an entire editorial about the veracity of the Swiftvets without even noting that their first charge scored a direct hit this week."
And Will Collier has a survey of the Big Media outlets that are ignoring this story:
Looks like that American Spectator blurb from a couple of days ago was accurate: beyond Fox News, the press is in full cover-up mode for Kerry on this one.
Yo, Media: Your candidate has apparently lied, repeatedly, over the last 30 years. He did so to embellish his credentials, and in the pursuit of various political ends. His campaign is putting out false spin that doesn't pass the laugh test. Does this say anything at all about his fitness for higher office?
Not to some people, I guess. Thursday, August 12, 2004
www.instapundit.com
*
LYING AND ITS IMPACT ON CREDIBILITY
An interesting juxtaposition: Scot Peterson's lie to Amber Frey about being in Paris, and John Kerry's lies to the Senate about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. Peterson's lie has practically guaranteed his conviction as whatever small bit of credibility he possessed is now destroyed. John Kerry, on the other hand, got a pass this morning from the Washington Post and the New York Times even though his campaign yesterday recanted a central detail of Kerry's Vietnam narrative that he has been peddling for three decades --a memory that he says was "seared, seared" into his consciousness, the Christmas Eve illegal voyage deep into Cambodian waters. Peterson lied to advance his chances of keeping up the ruse with Frey; Kerry lied to pad his political resume and add heft to his declamations about illegal wars. One lie was personal and intended to advance private gain; the other public and intended to advance political goals. The backdrop of the former is a double murder, of course, and the latter only personal ambition, but the immense gap in impact between the two is not because one is more destructive of credibility than the other, but simply because the media is choosing to treat it that way.
The new front in John Kerry's Kurtz Chronicles concerns the new story, which conveniently appeared yesterday after 30 years in the back room. Turns out that "[d]uring John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien." This is a statement put out by Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan, and quoted in a column by Tony Snow. As a stonewall, this one was put together by a master mason, covering as it does the numerous versions of the sailing into Cambodia story that Kerry has peddled over the years, and perhaps even the "magic hat." But it also tries to do too much, I think, because its very specificity calls into question how John Kerry could have confused this one mission with a Christmas Eve adventure and a CIA man getting dropped off, hatless, inside Cambodian waters.
Over and over again, veterans of that era have stressed that all special operation insertions in that period into Cambodia were done via air or overland to avoid the huge diplomatic problem that would come with the capture of marked American boats, and also the nature of the waterway border and where it was sealed. How very strange that the only swift boat Cambodian mission that any swift boat veteran can recall is the one John Kerry took, and that he's the only one that can recall it. Will anyone be asking for more details today? Or does Scot Peterson really deserve all the scrutiny when it comes to the telling of lies? Thursday, August 12, 2004
www.hughhewitt.com
*
AT LEAST KERRY'S FIRST IN ONE EVENT
Thursday, August 12, 2004
www.signonsandiego.com
*
MOORE BRAZENS IT OUT
A couple of weeks ago, we reported that a small newspaper, the Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph, was taking Michael Moore to task for one of the many lies in Fahrenheit 9/11. In the movie, Moore showed the front page of the Pantagraph, purportedly on December 19, 2001, with the headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."
In reality, the Pantagraph never ran such a headline, probably because every Florida recount showed that President Bush carried the state. On December 5, however, the paper did run a small headline containing those words--over a letter to the editor, which the paper said reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer." Moore took that headline, blew it up, and put it on the top of the front page as if it were a news headline. This was his "evidence" for the proposition that Gore really won the election.
Typical Michael Moore. The Pantagraph, however, didn't think Moore's misrepresentation of its front page was funny, and sent him a letter demanding an apology and a symbolic $1 in compensation.
Today, the paper said that it got a letter from Moore's lawyer, refusing to apologize or pay the dollar. Moore's lawyer didn't deny that he substituted a headline that described the opinion of a letter-writer for the main headline on the paper's front page. Instead, he made the legal argument that Moore's use of the paper and its fictitious headline fell under the legal doctrine of "fair use." He also denied that the paper had suffered damage to its reputation. (He may have a point there. Falsely reporting the results of the Florida recounts would no doubt raise the Pantagraph's image in the eyes of Moore's fans.)
Moore, a very rich man, can afford the finest counsel, and it's unlikely that the Pantagraph would consider litigation over the issue to be a wise use of its more limited resources. So Moore will get away with his lies again.
On a personal note, I spent a lot of time in Bloomington a few years ago when I had a big case there, and worked with the Pantagraph's lawyer, Casey Costigan.
ECONOMY OUTWEIGHS SWIFT BOAT VETS?
Real Clear Politics has posted the first poll data I've seen on the Swift Boat Vets and how their charges are affecting public perceptions of John Kerry. The results of the poll, by Fabrizio McLaughlin, are here.
Surprisingly, I think, 58% of respondents in swing states say that they have heard about the Vets' ad criticizing Kerry's claims relating to his military service. That suggests to me that the issue resonates with voters. Of the 58% who are aware of the ad, just over 50% say that it has no impact on their voting preference. But fully 27% of respondents say it makes them less likely to vote for Kerry. Given that the issue is just beginning to take off, and very few people are yet aware of the full extent of John (pocketa, pocketa, pocketa) Kerry's credibility problem, that's a pretty alarming percentage for the Democrats.
On the other hand, whatever damage the Vets may be doing does not yet show up in head-to-head polling between Kerry and President Bush. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll has shown Kerry with a three-point lead for the last three days, which represents a complete polling cycle. That's the first time in quite a while that has happened. Rasmussen has suggested that Kerry's bump relates to last week's bad news on jobs, to which I would add the currently-slumping stock market.
The economy does seem to be the most likely explanation, suggesting that for now, at least, voters' economic worries are canceling out doubts about Kerry's vaunted military service. Whether that will change depends, I suppose, on how the economy performs over the coming weeks and how much more people learn about Kerry's record in general, and his Christmas in Cambodia fantasies in particular.
BIG TRUNK adds: Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal editorial page ran a column that elegantly demonstrated the inverse relationship between Kerry's electoral prospects and the stock market averages: When Kerry goes up, the averages go down. The performance of the stock market is not a drag on Bush's poll ratings; John Kerry's poll ratings are a drag on the stock market.
KERRY'S BODYGUARD OF LIES
When we last sighted Thomas Lipscomb, we posted one of his ground-breaking New York Sun articles on Kerry's participation in some of the more exotic proceedings of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Our post with one of Lipscomb's follow-up stories on the subject is "John Kerry strongarms a vet." That post is the fruit of Lipscomb's first exposure to John Kerry's strongarm tactics.
The Swift boat vets are too numerous to deal with in this fashion, but they're getting another version of the bully boy tactics that Bill Clinton's goons turned into an art form. I personally spoke with Lipscomb several times about his Sun stories, and we had him as a guest on our weekend Northern Alliance Radio Network show. His exposure to Kerry's tactics on the earlier occasion left an impression. The guy is a solid journalist with an impressive record.
Today Lipscomb is back with a terrific column on Kerry and the Swift boat vets: "John Kerry's bodyguard of lies." Lipscomb's column concludes:
[I]t is time for the press to look into the charges brought by the Swiftvets. The Swiftvets have depositions, phone numbers, on the record statements, and for all of the innuendo from the Kerry apparatchiks, not one of the Swiftvets has enjoyed a fancy hotel room paid for by the Bush campaign, much less gone on a campaign tour with the candidate. It is easy to see what the nine Kerry crew members are getting out of their 15 minutes of fame. But what's in it for the 254 Swiftvets? It is important to answer that question in considering their charges.
(Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)
A SYMPTOM OF TROUBLE
It seems to me that this New York Times story is most useful as a symptom of the thematic problem at the heart of the Kerry campaign: "Bush's mocking drowns out Kerry's explanation of Iraq vote." Try it, you'll like it. Thursday, August 12, 2004
THE TIMES GETS IT WRONG AGAIN
Today's New York Times Corrections section contains this item:
An article in Business Day on Monday about the number of new low-income jobs compared with high-income jobs misstated figures from an analysis of Labor Department payroll data conducted by Economy .com, an economic research firm. Since January, industries ranked in the bottom fifth in terms of median wages have generated 177,000 jobs, not 477,000. Industries in the top fifth generated 135,000 jobs, not zero.
This is a rather stunning error: the Times reported on Monday that so far in 2004, there have been no jobs created in the top 20% best-paying industries, while 477,000 jobs--nearly half of the payroll positions added this year--were in the bottom 20% of industries in median pay. As so often happens, the Times' correction largely negates the whole point of the original article, which was that "a disproportionate number of new jobs appear to be lower-paying ones."
It's hard to believe that the Times makes mistakes on purpose. But it's also hard to understand why the newspaper's errors trend invariably in the same direction. Wednesday, August 11, 2004
www.powerlineblog.com
*
HOLIDAYS IN NAJAF
Remember the time when the international left was a lot more bellicose? Remember the Spanish Civil War? (I use the term "remember" in a non-personal and non-specific sort of way, not the way John Kerry "remembers" being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968) It was the last time that thousands of passionate Western lefties put their own asses on the line and joined the Republican side in the fight against Franco. Ever since then, however, the left has preferred to let "the people of color" (as they would say) fight the Western (American) imperialism on their behalf.
Today, once again, it's not the devotees of John Pilger or Noam Chomsky but the Western Muslims who occasionally join in the jihad against the US. Here's the latest two:
"British Muslims who take up arms against UK and US forces in Iraq could face treason charges on their return, the Home Office said today. The warning was prompted by a Guardian report that two Britons had traveled from their homes in London to join the Mahdi army, a militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
"The two men who traveled to Najaf from the UK were both born in Iraq - one in Najaf and the other in Baghdad - but had lived in Britain since they were children and held British passports. This was the first time they had returned to Iraq, the Guardian reported.
"Asked why they had traveled to Najaf, one - calling himself Abu Haqid, replied: 'Our brothers are fighting down here. They are not eating well, they are not sleeping well - we have to be in the same position as them. We all have a belief, me and my family, when it comes to jihad. We asked our families and they said yes. It is good to protect your country and be there with your brothers'."
Treason charges if they are lucky to return to Great Britain.
I just love those people who choose to live in the West and share in the peace, freedom and prosperity that comes from being a citizen of a liberal democracy such as the UK, but who feel so passionately that their "brothers" back in Iraq should live in an impoverished, stifling theocracy, that they will gladly go back and fight to keep them there. Thursday, August 12, 2004
www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com
*
HARVARD CELEBRATES MIDDLE EAST STUDIES
Daniel Pipes' blog:
In the years after World War II, Americans came to realize that the Cold War demanded expertise on the world's regions; Harvard University responded to this need in 1954 by establishing the Center for Middle East Studies and hiring H.A.R. Gibb (1895-1971), arguably the biggest name in Middle East studies of that era. Gibb gave the new center instant credibility but also surrounded himself with minor scholars who lasted well beyond his own tenure. Specialists in their beer agree – as do I, who spent the years 1969-86 in and out of the CMES, getting an A.B. and a Ph.D. along the way – that Harvard's work on the Middle East has been distinctly less successful than that at other major research universities, including UCLA and Princeton.
Further, the poor state of Middle East studies at Harvard reflects the judgment of the university administration that the field is a hopeless morass – something first learned in the debacle over Nadav Safran's conference on politics and Islam in 1985 and relearned again and again in subsequent years (most recently, in the embarrassing episode days ago of returning $2.5 million in cash to the United Arab Emirates). As Martin Kramer wrote in his pathbreaking book on Middle East studies, Ivory Towers on Sand, "Harvard tolerated its Middle East center (it brought in money), but never respected it."
Beyond Harvard's problems, there is the larger issue of the failure of Middle Eastern studies, as documented in particular by Kramer and also by Norvell B. De Atkine and myself in "Middle Eastern Studies: What Went Wrong?" The public critique of Middle East studies has been undertaken by Campus Watch, a unique project begun in September 2002 with the goal of improving the field.
None of these problems, however, are in any way acknowledged in the "CMES Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration Schedule" that details festivities planned for Oct. 30-31, 2004 in Cambridge, Mass. The outline suggests a mood somewhere between smug ("Lunch with brief reminiscences about CMES") and self-congratulatory ("An Israeli at CMES or why did I go to the States to study the Middle East?"), with not a word of self-criticism, not an iota of awareness of the field's troubles, and not a place on the program for a critic ready to point these out. But, then, what might one expect of Middle East studies? August 12, 2004
www.danielpipes.org
*
KAMAL NAWASH AND HIS MUSLIM COALITION FIGHT TERRORISM
The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism met with the Ambassador of the Sudan in Washington DC to denounce the violence in Sudan and discuss whether the Sudanese government is aiding militias who are engaged in genocide:
The President of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, Kamal Nawash, told the Ambassador that if his government was sincere about not supporting the militias then the Sudan should allow any outside person or organization to visit the Sudan to investigate the conflict. The Ambassador responded that he will meet with anyone who wants to investigate the Sudan and will personally see to it that any one who wants to visit the Sudan will promptly receive a visa from the embassy in Washington.
The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism is interested in this conflict because Arabs and Muslims must be the first to condemn and correct atrocities and wrongs perpetrated by other Muslims. The Sudan should not be immune from Muslim condemnation just because the Sudan is an Arab and Muslim country. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism hopes to lead a delegation of American Muslims to the Sudan to investigate the Ambassador’s statements and to determine whether the government of the Sudan is aiding the militias or as the Ambassador has said that the militias are renegades, outlaws who are committing atrocities on their own.
For more information visit their website at: www.freemuslims.org
*
THE LEGACY OF DR. J. GORDON EDWARDS
Steven Milloy relates how environmental extremist groups were able to ban DDT thirty years ago without proper evidence or administrative process, a ban that effectively led to millions of unnecessary deaths from malaria throughout the world. J. Gordon Edwards tirelessly laboured since then to redeem DDT in the eyes of academics and the public until his death last month:
Millions in the third world die from malaria every year in large part because of a virtual ban on the controversial insecticide DDT.
The removal of the unwarranted stigma from DDT and the saving of many future lives is now nearer at hand than it has been in the last 30 years thanks to the efforts of Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, who passed away on July 19 at the age of 85.
Though Dr. Edwards is best known to the general public as the author of the now-classic 1961 book "A Climber's Guide to Glacier National Park," his work as an entomologist and professor at San Jose State University may prove to be his most important legacy.
Dr. Edwards led the opposition to environmental extremist efforts to ban DDT in the wake of Rachel Carson's infamous 1962 book Silent Spring. The testimony of Dr. Edwards and others during Environmental Protection Agency hearings in 1971 on whether to ban the insecticide led to an EPA administrative law judge ruling that, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
Inexplicably — or so it seemed — DDT was nonetheless banned by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus. Dr. Edwards investigated and uncovered disturbing statements and troubling connections between Ruckleshaus and anti-DDT environmental extremist groups.
In a May 1971 speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshaus acknowledged being a member of the anti-DDT National Audubon Society and to have "streamlined" EPA procedures so that DDT could be banned even before the administrative hearings had been completed.
Read the whole thing.
*
ORIANA: HALF A MILLION COPIES IN FOUR HOURS
Italians are incredibly interested in what Oriana Fallaci has to say, even as she is reviled by Muslim and left wing groups worldwide. She published an interview with herself in the newspaper Corriere Della Sera—and it sold out of its first run of 500,000 copies within four hours. Here’s Google’s translation of the story: Fallaci sells half a million newspapers in 4 hours. (Hat tip: Mentat.)
SHI'ITES SEETHE, THREATEN FURTHER SEETHING
According to the LA Times, the world’s Shi'ite Muslims are seething with rage over US military actions in Najaf, although they don’t seem very upset over the thugs and murderers who’ve defiled the Imam Ali Mosque by turning it into a storehouse for weapons and a staging area for attacks: World’s Shiites Warn That U.S. Is Treading on Sensitive Ground.
Apparently, mosques are supposed to be magical sanctuaries for Muslims, where they are immune from all retaliation no matter what they have done, and especially if pursued by infidels.
Remember that outrage from the Muslim world when Palestinian terrorists broke into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and held the monks and priests hostage? You don’t?
SUDAN: THE WEST WANTS OUR FABULOUS WEALTH
The Sudanese government continues to act like craven murderers, whining that Western countries are lusting after their natural resources, while Sudanese proxy militias rape and kill: Sudan Says West After Country’s Oil, Gold. As if.
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on Thursday accused Western nations of interfering in its troubled western Darfur region to try to exploit Sudan’s gold and oil resources.
Sudan is under intense international pressure to rein in Arab militias, accused of looting and burning African farming villages, and provide security for more than 1 million people displaced by the fighting in the remote area bordering Chad.
If not, the U.N. Security Council in a July 30 resolution says Khartoum could face unspecified sanctions. There has also been talk of possible foreign troop intervention in Darfur.
Bashir on Thursday said Western nations, especially Britain, were inflaming the Darfur fighting to destabilize wider Sudan.
“There is an agenda to seek for petrol and gold in the region,” he told a women’s union meeting on Darfur in Khartoum on Thursday.
“This highlife that they (the West) enjoy now is a result of the theft of the colonies and their riches and peoples,” he added with specific reference to Britain, which granted Sudan independence in 1956.
Why is Sudan holding to this transparently stupid line? Because it’s the best way to get the equally craven Arab League on their side: Arab League Chief Pledges Sudan Support. Thursday, August 12, 2004
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
*
HOLBERT SUMS UP THE IMPACT OF THE DNC
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
www.news.bostonherald.com/holbert
*
www.daybydaycartoon.com
*
WORLD WAR 3
The US is rolling on three fronts. The first is against Sadr in Najaf. The BBC quotes President Bush as saying US forces are "making pretty good progress" in Najaf. The New York Times has a John Burns piece entitled U.S. Is Tightening Grasp on Rebels Encircled in Iraq. It begins with the dry assessment that "American forces besieging militiamen of a rebel cleric in a shrine and cemetery sacred to Shiite Muslims tightened their cordon on Monday, warning that the rebels had been left no way in or out." The Guardian thinks America is also looking across the border to Iran. In a story entitled Diplomacy sidelined as US targets Iran, the British newspaper editorializes that "The US charge sheet against Iran is lengthening almost by the day, presaging destabilising confrontations this autumn and maybe a pre-election October surprise." Although the Guardian's assertion rests soley on US efforts to line up sanctions against Teheran's failure to stop nuclear proliferation, it sounds, in the context of recent American successes, like something that could happen. On the third front, recent arrests of Al Qaeda leadership may have hurt it so badly as to disrupt its planned pre-election attack on America. The intelligence leads are burgeoning so quickly that it has become hard to pursue them all.
All three developments convey the huge sweep of the War on Terror and reveal both how far American efforts have come and how long the road that remains. The key theaters of conflict, evident only in outline in early 2002, are coming into clearer focus. They are:
stopping WMD proliferation;
destroying transnational terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda;
strongarming or toppling selected regimes like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Two regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, have been toppled. Intelligence and police operations are ongoing on every continent. And the Guardian fears it has only just begun. The geographical scope of the struggle is staggering: pursuit across the Arabian peninsula, North Africa, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe and North America. The instruments of struggle are equally various. Defensive security, diplomatic pressure, covert operations, bilateral training, special operations and conventional combat. An old world is being torn down and a new one -- for better or worse -- is being created "in a fit of absentmindedness". The falure by the Left to articulate an alternative vision of a post-September 11 world except in the negative has banished what should have been the most momentous public policy debate of the last 50 years into the outer dark. By declaring discussion of the transformation of the world illegitimate and then only belatedly presenting a Presidential candidate whose countervision consists of a "secret" but unstated plan, liberals have effectively left matters in the hands of President Bush. It is a staggeringly reactionary performance and a fundamentally unhealthy one. Because the one certain thing is that the antebellum world, the universe of September 10, can never be restored. The Clinton era, like the green light at the end of Daisy's dock, has been borne into the past.
It is unlikely that a meaningful national dialogue on the future of world can occur until the Left frees itself from the taboos which have stultified its intellect. The dead hand of Vietnam and its attachment to the cultic nonsense of the 1960s lies heavy on Democratic Party. That spectral limb will grip them by the throat until they shake free. Until then, forward to wherever. We'll know where we're going when we get there.
Addendum
Although it may be premature to say that the War on Terror is rising to a crescendo, recent events have imparted a distinct sense of movement, as in 'hey, this thing might actually be going somewhere'. If so, it will force those who opposed the notion of fighting fundamentalist terrorism, as distinct from negotiating with or appeasing it, to admit at least to themselves (if they have any intellectual honesty) that they were not only wrong, but deeply and fundamentally mistaken. Some ground for salvage may be found in Todd S. Purdum's New York Times article of February 2003, in which he argues that the strategy for bringing democracy to autocratic regimes in the Middle East sprang in part from impeccable liberal antecedents.
Any history of the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq will have to take account of long years of determined advocacy by a circle of defense policy intellectuals whose view that Saddam Hussein can no longer be tolerated or contained is now ascendant. ... At the center of this group are longtime Iraq hawks, Republicans like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration defense official who now heads the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon's advisory panel; and William Kristol, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and now edits the conservative Weekly Standard.
But the war camp also includes more recent and reluctant converts like Kenneth M. Pollack, an Iraq expert in the Clinton White House, who has become a prominent advocate for an attack on Saddam Hussein as the best way to avoid, as he calls his recent book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" (Random House 2002); and Ronald D. Asmus, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
The truism that victory has many fathers while defeat is an orphan may partially explain why the Democratic Party sought to rebrand itself as the War Party during its recently concluded convention in Boston. It may also lie behind the transformation of John Kerry from anti-war activist to the warrior who is "reporting for duty" about three years after September 11. If George Bush ever defeats international terrorism, many historians will endeavor to describe it as "Clinton's war" in much the same way that Vietnam is now described as "Nixon's war" though he had the least to do with starting it and the most responsibility for ending it. Winston Churchill facetiously said that "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Those without his literary skill need never fear. Academia will take up the slack.
But all this is mortuary makeup on an intellectual corpse. The death of public discourse over the War on Terror was at least partly the result of the self-lobotomization of the Leftist mind. That operation was necessary to prevent an admission of the obvious: the basic Leftist tenets were bankrupt and sustained only by ever more tedious extensions to the original discredited theory; a latter day replay of the downfall of geocentrism which held back the Copernican revolution only by introducing artificial and complicated epicycles. Thus was the Marx's theory of the impoverishment of the proletariat transformed into Lenin's theory of imperialism. It had the virtue of postponing the false prophecy, but even that was not enough. From there it lost all cohesion and branched into "North-South" theory, a generalized schema of victimology and finally into Said's Orientalism in which it is not only impossible for the West to understand the world; it was even impossible for it to be innocent. Every Western -- and especially American -- act became ipso facto, a crime.
I wish I could say that general understanding of the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam in the United States has improved somewhat, but alas, it really hasn't. For all kinds of reasons, the situation in Europe seems to be considerably better. In the US, the hardening of attitudes, the tightening of the grip of demeaning generalization and triumphalist cliché, the dominance of crude power allied with simplistic contempt for dissenters and "others" has found a fitting correlative in the looting and destruction of Iraq's libraries and museums. What our leaders and their intellectual lackeys seem incapable of understanding is that history cannot be swept clean like a blackboard, clean so that "we" might inscribe our own future there and impose our own forms of life for these lesser people to follow. It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of changing the map of the Middle East, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar. But this has often happened with the "Orient," that semi-mythical construct which since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in the late eighteenth century has been made and re-made countless times. In the process the uncountable sediments of history, that include innumerable histories and a dizzying variety of peoples, languages, experiences, and cultures, all these are swept aside or ignored, relegated to the sand heap along with the treasures ground into meaningless fragments that were taken out of Baghdad.
This magnificent paragraph, aside from being factually wrong (Said's reference to the looting of Baghdad's museums after Operation Iraqi Freedom) served the purpose of making it unnecessary to think. Indeed necessary not to think, lest one commit an unconscious Western crime. The Left, shackled by its epicycles, became speechless in the face of the rapid changes transforming the world, as conservatives, armed with nothing but common sense, simply acted; unless one excepts the commentary provided by Michael Moore. Yet in the end the Leftist illusions must be overthrown, just as the earth was proven round, despite all authority to the contrary. The sooner the better; a mind is a terrible thing to waste. August 10, 2004
www.belmontclub.blogspot.com
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Kerry: Yep, I'm Back to Pro-War
I would think that those Dr. Demento (Dean) would be very upset at the poodle's latest stance on Iraq. Of course this is kerry trying to look like a moderate, instead of the leftist he really is. - Sailor
Kerry: Yep, I'm Back to Pro-War
By Joel MowbrayFrontPageMagazine.com August 12, 2004
Continuing his quest to be more all over the map than the Grateful Dead in the band's heyday, John Kerry has offered yet another new position on the Iraq war. He’s for it—for now.
Uttering words no sane person ever predicted would pass through his lips, Kerry started his statement with, “I’ll answer it directly.” (Editor’s note: That quote is authentic. We couldn’t believe it either.)
President Bush had challenged his opponent to announce whether or not he would still authorize the war knowing what we know today. The rest of Kerry's response? “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”
What does that mean, to use “authority effectively”? Is Saddam not sitting in a cell right now? Are not the Iraqi people free? Is Iraq not on the verge of its first-ever free election? Is there a more effective way to win a war?
For those keeping score at home, it has been a dizzying past few weeks. At the convention, he seemed to be against the war. But at least he was definitely a Vietnam vet.
Warming up for the big day, Kerry tested out a number of themes, some pro- and some anti-war. Speaking to the NAACP, Kerry blasted Bush for “needlessly going it alone” and even suggested that the war was fought over oil. The very next day, he appeared to endorse both unilateralism and preemptive strikes, though each pledge was married to carefully crafted caveats.
In Boston, Kerry talked tough about his willingness to defend America—he’s a Vietnam vet, didn’t you hear?—yet he dragged out his tired staple, “We’ll never go to war because we want to; we’ll only go to war because we have to,” and even trotted out the “going to war over oil” bit for good measure.
No need to delve into the full history of his hemming and hawing—from the voting to authorize war yet voting against funding the rebuilding afterward—as the record is fairly well-established at this point.
Some might predict that Kerry’s newfound hard-line position might mean that Iraq is now off the table. Well, it is for Kerry, but certainly not for Bush.
The President has one consistent position—albeit one that is not always clearly articulated—yet Kerry has so many that he needs to reach into his hat on any given night to see which previously stated stance he should embrace. Unless he chooses to manufacture a new one, as he did this week.
Kerry’s conundrum is that he has negligible pro-Kerry support. He has anti-Bush voters. That’s enough to keep him in the game, but that alone cannot—and will not—push him across the finish line come November.
Depending on which pollster you believe, somewhere between 42-46% of Americans absolutely, positively, will-not-under-any-circumstances, even if their heads were in a vise, vote for Bush. That’s a sizeable base with which to start. And it would seem that Kerry only needs to pick up a few points to win, and could even position himself for a romp.
Unfortunately for Kerry, he’s barely known by the electorate, yet at least 40% of voters could never pull the lever for him. But even if that figure were much lower, Kerry would still be in trouble.
Just ask Bob Dole.
Going up against a man who had already been responsible for a still-to-increase cottage industry of Regnery books and who had two years earlier been the main cause of his party losing control of Congress after 40 years, Dole should have been if great shape. Clinton was hated by the right, and Dole was an affable chap who never really riled any “anti-” sentiment.
Trouble is, Dole didn’t spark much sentiment of any kind.
And the Massachusetts liberal is, to borrow a phrase, “literally in the same boat.”
Proving that money cannot buy everything, the billionaire’s spouse has an utter lack of either humor or charm. Without a personality to attract supporters, Kerry is forced to garner votes through his policy positions. Which is where things get sticky.
Where does Kerry stand on Iraq? Depends on the day. On the overall war on terror, he spouts pleasant-sounding platitudes about getting more international cooperation and making better use of intelligence. But how? Not once has Kerry laid out a clear blueprint, nor should anyone expect one.
Counterintuitively, Kerry is worse for the wear for not having clawed his way to a primary victory. He was not battle-tested in the sense of scrapping for support through good old-fashioned stump speeches and street fighting. He won because he was the best-organized candidate who didn’t implode.
Kerry came out of the primaries a survivor, not a winner. And unless Bush crashes—spectacularly—in the next three months, Kerry won’t be one in November, either.
Joel Mowbray (mail@joelmowbray.com) is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.
Kerry: Yep, I'm Back to Pro-War
By Joel MowbrayFrontPageMagazine.com August 12, 2004
Continuing his quest to be more all over the map than the Grateful Dead in the band's heyday, John Kerry has offered yet another new position on the Iraq war. He’s for it—for now.
Uttering words no sane person ever predicted would pass through his lips, Kerry started his statement with, “I’ll answer it directly.” (Editor’s note: That quote is authentic. We couldn’t believe it either.)
President Bush had challenged his opponent to announce whether or not he would still authorize the war knowing what we know today. The rest of Kerry's response? “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”
What does that mean, to use “authority effectively”? Is Saddam not sitting in a cell right now? Are not the Iraqi people free? Is Iraq not on the verge of its first-ever free election? Is there a more effective way to win a war?
For those keeping score at home, it has been a dizzying past few weeks. At the convention, he seemed to be against the war. But at least he was definitely a Vietnam vet.
Warming up for the big day, Kerry tested out a number of themes, some pro- and some anti-war. Speaking to the NAACP, Kerry blasted Bush for “needlessly going it alone” and even suggested that the war was fought over oil. The very next day, he appeared to endorse both unilateralism and preemptive strikes, though each pledge was married to carefully crafted caveats.
In Boston, Kerry talked tough about his willingness to defend America—he’s a Vietnam vet, didn’t you hear?—yet he dragged out his tired staple, “We’ll never go to war because we want to; we’ll only go to war because we have to,” and even trotted out the “going to war over oil” bit for good measure.
No need to delve into the full history of his hemming and hawing—from the voting to authorize war yet voting against funding the rebuilding afterward—as the record is fairly well-established at this point.
Some might predict that Kerry’s newfound hard-line position might mean that Iraq is now off the table. Well, it is for Kerry, but certainly not for Bush.
The President has one consistent position—albeit one that is not always clearly articulated—yet Kerry has so many that he needs to reach into his hat on any given night to see which previously stated stance he should embrace. Unless he chooses to manufacture a new one, as he did this week.
Kerry’s conundrum is that he has negligible pro-Kerry support. He has anti-Bush voters. That’s enough to keep him in the game, but that alone cannot—and will not—push him across the finish line come November.
Depending on which pollster you believe, somewhere between 42-46% of Americans absolutely, positively, will-not-under-any-circumstances, even if their heads were in a vise, vote for Bush. That’s a sizeable base with which to start. And it would seem that Kerry only needs to pick up a few points to win, and could even position himself for a romp.
Unfortunately for Kerry, he’s barely known by the electorate, yet at least 40% of voters could never pull the lever for him. But even if that figure were much lower, Kerry would still be in trouble.
Just ask Bob Dole.
Going up against a man who had already been responsible for a still-to-increase cottage industry of Regnery books and who had two years earlier been the main cause of his party losing control of Congress after 40 years, Dole should have been if great shape. Clinton was hated by the right, and Dole was an affable chap who never really riled any “anti-” sentiment.
Trouble is, Dole didn’t spark much sentiment of any kind.
And the Massachusetts liberal is, to borrow a phrase, “literally in the same boat.”
Proving that money cannot buy everything, the billionaire’s spouse has an utter lack of either humor or charm. Without a personality to attract supporters, Kerry is forced to garner votes through his policy positions. Which is where things get sticky.
Where does Kerry stand on Iraq? Depends on the day. On the overall war on terror, he spouts pleasant-sounding platitudes about getting more international cooperation and making better use of intelligence. But how? Not once has Kerry laid out a clear blueprint, nor should anyone expect one.
Counterintuitively, Kerry is worse for the wear for not having clawed his way to a primary victory. He was not battle-tested in the sense of scrapping for support through good old-fashioned stump speeches and street fighting. He won because he was the best-organized candidate who didn’t implode.
Kerry came out of the primaries a survivor, not a winner. And unless Bush crashes—spectacularly—in the next three months, Kerry won’t be one in November, either.
Joel Mowbray (mail@joelmowbray.com) is author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America’s Security.
Connecting Dots
The good Lt. Col. gives a very astute and concise explanation on how intel is gather and analyzed. His explantion is wriiten in terms that they the laymen can easily understand. - Sailor
On a personal note, I will not be posting for about a week starting on Sunday due to the death of my mother.
Connecting Dots
By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com August 12, 2004
Only at the movies is intelligence information presented in a way that is instantly comprehensible and incontrovertible. In the real world it doesn’t happen that way because intelligence is not an event but a process. Analysts receive bits here, pieces there, over an extended period of time. To borrow a computer industry word the analysis process is iterative – analysts formulate hypotheses that they test and retest. They continually add to their base of information. It’s all judgment: including what they evaluate as solid information here, discarding what appears to be wrong. Nothing is black or white. Meanwhile analysts and their colleagues continually challenge assertions. Once they reach a logical conclusion they attempt to extrapolate possible enemy options. It is difficult enough to evaluate capabilities (i.e., can the enemy do this thing?), but the analysts must also make their best estimates of intentions (i.e., will the enemy do this thing?). Both are difficult, the latter exceedingly so.
The intelligence process never stops: information is gathered, reported, collected, analyzed, disseminated and new questions levied on those who gather it. Intelligence analysts have an insatiable appetite for information. They can never have sufficient amount and always fret over the quality. That indeed is their greatest anxiety: how do you know with certainty? A truly disreputable source could provide a key piece of information that completes the previously hidden puzzle. But can the source be trusted? Can the information be confirmed? Is it strong enough to be actionable? Only those few whose reputations and even whose lives depend on their answers understand the intensity of the intelligence process.
Only those who are ignorant of the complexity or those who wish to deceive the untutored would state or imply that intelligence is ever a certainty. The amorphous nature of intelligence information makes it vulnerable to inane accusations, especially when accompanied by the crystal clarity of 20/20 hindsight. Leavened with some partisan yeast it produces the spectacle of retreads like 9/11 Commissioner Ben-Veniste abusing National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice over her inability to predict the future accurately from an anodyne memo.
Probably the closest thing in civilian life to an intelligence analyst is an investigative journalist. Someone who makes a living digging out information - from often dubious or recalcitrant sources - and trying to tie it together into a coherent whole ought to appreciate what a complex process the intelligence analyst must sweat through in order to derive a solid product. That makes it doubly disappointing when the press appears to misunderstand totally an intelligence-based warning. After all, if they have been trained to do their jobs they surely must realize that a ‘best guess’ is as good as it normally gets. One has to wonder if their reporting on the intelligence process is itself skewed by their political bias. Let’s take a couple of examples.
The press has for the most part lauded the 9/11 Commission to the skies although it has carefully cherry-picked its way through the conclusions. The Commission concluded, among other things, that cross-agency communications, ‘imagination,’ and improved penetration of enemy sources were lacking and contributed to an intelligence failure for the September 11 attacks. Fair enough. In response the Bush administration working with Congress created a new Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and issued directives to remove many of the artificial ‘walls’ erected by well-intentioned but misguided bureaucrats that prevented efficient, expeditious inter-agency information sharing. Now, three years post-September 11, the situation in the intelligence community has improved dramatically. While a long way from ideal and though some institutions and agencies still cry for reform, it is an order of magnitude improvement.
Meanwhile, new information sources are opening. Our commitment to the war against terror worldwide has convinced all concerned – enemies and allies – that we are serious. A country like Pakistan that was drifting into Islamic fascism has found the courage to side with America in the fight by our example of strength and commitment. As a result, information from previously untapped sources is pouring into our system. This new information is added to that already in the hopper. As a consequence analysts are able to confirm suspicions that had surfaced earlier.
During the intelligence process analysts almost never discover an iron-clad order to attack a confirmed target. That is a film script. Instead, a mass of information accumulates, some relevant, most not. Reports are sifted, weighted, given an evaluation and disseminated on the chance that they may provide the key to a puzzle that other analysts may be developing. In fact it may take years to reach the point that an analyst is comfortable making a forecast. And much of the information in the puzzle may have been on hand for a long time. If you have ever assembled an abstract jigsaw puzzle, for example, the design only becomes clear when the last few pieces are inserted. But does that make the first score of pieces you had fitted together earlier somehow unnecessary? All pieces are needed to make the puzzle clear: those that are fitted early make it possible to place those that are fitted late.
This is not an incomprehensible concept, especially to a community such as journalists who assemble puzzles as a career. For top line journals like the New York Times and Washington Post to imply, if not actually state, that the recent terror alert is ‘based on information three or four years old’ in an attempt to discredit the Bush administration for issuing the alert is the height of irresponsibility. They know better, pure and simple, and are counting on deceiving their readers who may not. It demonstrates a breakdown of journalistic ethics in favor of political gain. Moreover, it makes one question their common sense.
Are these people saying that it would be better to persuade the public that a terror alert is bogus, cause them to let down their guard and risk suffering an attack rather than acknowledge that the Bush administration may be doing exactly what they have been criticizing it for not doing? This is not harmless political spin. This intentional dismissal of a real threat derived over time from on-hand and recent intelligence information plays games with people’s lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu has been an Army Green Beret lieutenant colonel, as well as a writer, popular speaker, business executive and farmer. His most recent book is Separated at Birth, about North and South Korea.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Can America Survive a ''Thoughtful and Sensitive'' War Against and Terrorists?
Finally, some one actually understands why this is a war with terror and there can be no negotiations. Barbara Stock give a very clear and concise veiw of why negotiating with this scum will not work. - Sailor
Can America Survive a ''Thoughtful and Sensitive'' War Against and Terrorists?
-->Written by Barbara StockThursday, August 12, 2004
Out on the campaign trail, John Kerry has stated that if he were elected president, he would fight a more ''thoughtful and sensitive war'' against the terrorists. After the shock of the ignorance of this statement passed, laughter followed. A lot of laughter followed.
Perhaps some background is in order. First, who is the enemy? Many seem to be working under the misguided impression that if one man named Osama bin Laden is hunted down and killed, this war will be over. After all, when Hitler put a bullet in his brain, the war in Europe ended. Would it not be the same in this war? No, it would not.
Bin Laden is but one leader in a large group of radical Islamic fundamentalists who feel it is Islam’s destiny to rule the world. They believe that this has been promised to them by Allah. They were defeated once by the Christian Europeans and they have not forgotten nor forgiven. The enemy has now focused on the leader of the free world, the United States. We are the evil Satan that stands between Islam and the fulfillment of its prophecy.
Radical Islam has much of Europe within its grasp. A train was bombed and a country folded. Some European countries have growing numbers of Muslim immigrants that in some cases are now 20% of the population. Anti-Semitism is on an alarming rise in Europe. The slogan of ''Blame the Jew'' is becoming popular once again. A group of college students were touring Auschwitz carrying an Israeli flag and they were attacked by French students also on the tour. It is unconscionable that Jews would be attacked in such a place.
Spain set a dangerous precedence when it caved in to terrorist demands, voted in the anti-American government, and pulled its troops out of Iraq as the terrorists demanded. As an added bonus for the terrorists, Spain blamed the United States for the bombing instead of the men who actually committed the act. If terrorists are rewarded for killing, they will continue killing.
Radical Islam has many leaders, and Bin Laden is only one of them. Killing Osama will barely slow the terrorists down. Bin Laden will be immortalized as a martyr and his terrorist movement will continue, always looking towards its ultimate goal of world dominance. Radical Islam must destroy America and all it stands for to have any chance of success.
Let’s briefly review the tactics of this enemy. It has flown planes into our buildings, killing 3000 people in the blink of an eye. Terrorists strap bombs on to small children and, using remote control, blows them up after they are in a crowd. It has put bullets into a toddler’s head at point-blank range. This warring faction of Islam has blown up cars and buses, killing kindergarten children in Iraq and young men standing in line for a job. Funamentalist Islam slaughters fellow Muslims without a second thought. It has extensive plans for further attacks on America with the hope of killing thousands more people than it killed on 9/11.
Terrorists laugh at the Geneva Conventions and behead, rape, and kill men, women, children, and babies without regard. Terrorists kill them all and rejoice in the deed. White flags mean nothing to this killer. Weakness is a sign of victory to this enemy and it will move in quickly for the kill as any predator would do. This enemy is willing to die without hesitation for its cause.
Nature shows us that when a predator is stalking prey it shows amazing patience as it singles out the weakest in the herd. Then, it moves in for the kill. It is survival of the fittest. The strong live another day and the weak become a meal. Europe is slowly becoming a meal. The United States by contrast, has become the predator. The enemy did not expect this and its rage is expressed by its constant threats of how our streets ''will run rivers of blood.''
Now we return to John Kerry’s totally ridiculous statement that he wants to have a ''sensitive'' war against terrorists. How, exactly, does one do this? I cannot imagine how John Kerry can believe that terrorists can be reasoned with in a ''thoughtful and sincere'' fashion.
John Kerry has said that he will have meetings with world leaders where he will profusely apologize for the boorish behavior of America under the Bush administration. Kerry believes that this ''rejoining of the world family'' will cure all ills, and our allies--mainly France and Germany--will be our friends once again. But the question is, will they help America in the war on terror or will they continue to be concerned only about their own internal affairs? As has been clearly shown, many European countries are quick to capitulate to terrorist demands.
While John Kerry is busy being ''thoughtful and sensitive'' around the world, radical Islam will be planting its bombs in major American cities. Terrorists just love ''thoughtful and sensitive'' people. These people are easier to kill because they are busy being ''sensitive.''
No American president can sit at a table and negotiate with a terrorist leader because the term ''terrorist'' does not refer to a nation of people but a splintered group driven by an absolute belief in religious supremacy that has infected members of Islam all over the world like a disease.
John Kerry cannot have a ''thoughtful and sincere'' battle plan against people whose only desire is to kill all infidels, no matter how long it takes, no matter how many lives are lost. The enemy has spent generations preparing for this final battle. It has indoctrinated its children to hate. Radical Islam has ingrained in its children’s consciousness that dying for Allah while killing the evil ones is the only route to paradise.
The enemy cannot be reasoned with because it is incapable of reason. It does not understand ''thoughtful and sincere.'' Those words are not in a terrorist’s realm of conscious thought. An American president who uses such words will be perceived as weak and the predator will attack with renewed viciousness, sensing the kill.
History is repeating itself. The enemy has a different, more shadowy face, but it is just as lethal as past enemies. Make no mistake, its goal is the same. America’s response must be the same. The response must be decisive and lethal. The time for ''thoughtful and sincere'' passed almost four years ago when 3000 people died in an attack by an enemy emboldened by the weakness it perceived from the giant that had once again gone to sleep. Americans are awake, but dozing, and the war is far from over. Alas, the real war has just started.
About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara receives e-mail at dickens502003@yahoo.com.
Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets
I want to thank Agent Aldrich for his kind words and support. He knows exactly what the Swiftees are about to go through. He stood alone and took it from all sides. Just goes to show you how far the left will go to suppress the truth. To those on the left, we are ready for you, we have already spilt our blood. Your attacks are as feeble as you are. Give us your best shot, then we will give ours and overwhelm you. - Sailor.
Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets
Gary Aldrich
townhall.com
August 10, 2004
In 1996, I took the ride of my life, but I have no regrets about exposing Bill Clinton for the louse that he is. Blowing the whistle on a powerful politician was different from any activity I had ever undertaken, and I arrested people and dodged bullets for a living!
I thought I had seen it all, but I was wrong.
When I began my quest to surface the truth, I was an honest, independent, a-political FBI agent. But, when the establishment was finished with me, I was “aligned with the Dole campaign, Big Tobacco, shadowy right-wing financiers of various anti-Clinton cabals and conspiracies, and a friend of the NRA!” The “Left” attacked me while the “Right” ran and hid in the tall grass.
The truth did not matter – I was whatever the news media said I was. I’ve labored long and hard to regain my reputation and credibility, and to some degree I have succeeded. But for a lot of Americans, all they will ever remember about my attempt to tell the truth is that the president’s top advisor, George Stephanopoulos, called me a pathological liar.
So, my warning to the Swift Boat Vets is this: When you take on the establishment, be prepared to suffer serious assaults to your reputation, at least in the short run. Over time, you will be proven to be honest, as well as brave. Eventually, your reputations will be mostly restored, but nothing will ever be the same for you again. The mainstream media will work diligently to alter the population’s perception of you in ways that you could not possibly imagine.
They will demonize, and then marginalize you so that your impact on this coming election will be minimal.
Many have come before you and have suffered the same fate. When you become whistle-blowers and take on the establishment, you’ll find few friends within the establishment, right or left, to support you. The establishment does not want the truth; therefore, your real support will come from the grass roots.
You have already had some hint of this from the recent White House response to your Television ad. They said they didn’t like it. Your effective and moving testimony as Swift Boat veterans who really did know John Kerry blew his war-hero cover to bits.
If your 60-second ad were given honest exposure, the election would be all but over, and the people who have seen it know this. That’s why they will destroy you, then ignore you.
The establishment can’t stand people like you. Especially not now, not after the candidates have gone through the primary process and are coming down to the wire. There is much campaigning to come, and so much money to be spent. You just cannot have a circumstance where the people are given honest information that would alter the course of an election. It’s just not done, you see?
Besides, the mainstream media does not like George Bush, and they will do nothing to help him win re-election. Did you think for a minute that they would rush to cover your press conferences and report the news that the majority of Veterans cannot stand John Kerry? Did you actually believe you would be invited on “Sixty Minutes”? Even now, reporters are out looking for your dirty laundry and trying to poke holes in your stories. After they find out that your stories match, have the ring of truth, and that you’re decent folk just trying to do what’s right, they will simply close their notebooks and quietly walk away.
And don’t expect to speak at the GOP convention in New York City or sit in the president’s box, like Michael Moore did at the Democrats’ convention. The GOP establishment doesn’t like the ad – it makes them very nervous. For example, it upset Senator John McCain, who rushed to defend his senatorial pal when he heard about it.
Of course, Senator McCain wishes all grass-roots types and ordinary folk would just go away. He has been instrumental in silencing a lot of Americans with his campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain is part of the establishment now, and the establishment does not care for boat rockers.
You have served our country well, and your exploits were heroic. You received real wounds, some of you, and you earned honest to goodness Purple Hearts and other medals which you wear proudly. You faced death and you took life in a war, and then you came home to a nation that has failed to honor you properly. You have never forgotten that this dishonest man, John Kerry, and his friends in the mainstream media caused the scorn you experienced.
But you didn’t let that get you down. You blended back into society in various ways. You have become successes in the private sector, where you have labored for decades, minding your own business and mostly letting others charge the windmills of political protest.
But like whistle-blowers before you, you came to believe that you were in possession of significant information that the American people needed to know before an important election and as a nation. You stood up for the truth, and we owe you a debt of gratitude – again!
We are a nation that was attacked, and now we are at war. We’re trying to protect ourselves against future attacks, and because of what you know – first hand – you believe with all your hearts that Senator Kerry should not become commander in chief. At least, not right now – not at this time.
I believe Kerry will lose in a landslide, just like George McGovern in 1972. I believe the reason he will lose is, in part, because you had the courage to step forward and tell the American people the truth. The people will get the truth – they always do.
You will take hits and wounds of a different kind this time, but your solace may be found printed on a sign that once sat on the desk of a great president, Ronald Reagan. It read, “Great things can be accomplished as long as you don’t care about who gets the credit.”
Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.
Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets
Gary Aldrich
townhall.com
August 10, 2004
In 1996, I took the ride of my life, but I have no regrets about exposing Bill Clinton for the louse that he is. Blowing the whistle on a powerful politician was different from any activity I had ever undertaken, and I arrested people and dodged bullets for a living!
I thought I had seen it all, but I was wrong.
When I began my quest to surface the truth, I was an honest, independent, a-political FBI agent. But, when the establishment was finished with me, I was “aligned with the Dole campaign, Big Tobacco, shadowy right-wing financiers of various anti-Clinton cabals and conspiracies, and a friend of the NRA!” The “Left” attacked me while the “Right” ran and hid in the tall grass.
The truth did not matter – I was whatever the news media said I was. I’ve labored long and hard to regain my reputation and credibility, and to some degree I have succeeded. But for a lot of Americans, all they will ever remember about my attempt to tell the truth is that the president’s top advisor, George Stephanopoulos, called me a pathological liar.
So, my warning to the Swift Boat Vets is this: When you take on the establishment, be prepared to suffer serious assaults to your reputation, at least in the short run. Over time, you will be proven to be honest, as well as brave. Eventually, your reputations will be mostly restored, but nothing will ever be the same for you again. The mainstream media will work diligently to alter the population’s perception of you in ways that you could not possibly imagine.
They will demonize, and then marginalize you so that your impact on this coming election will be minimal.
Many have come before you and have suffered the same fate. When you become whistle-blowers and take on the establishment, you’ll find few friends within the establishment, right or left, to support you. The establishment does not want the truth; therefore, your real support will come from the grass roots.
You have already had some hint of this from the recent White House response to your Television ad. They said they didn’t like it. Your effective and moving testimony as Swift Boat veterans who really did know John Kerry blew his war-hero cover to bits.
If your 60-second ad were given honest exposure, the election would be all but over, and the people who have seen it know this. That’s why they will destroy you, then ignore you.
The establishment can’t stand people like you. Especially not now, not after the candidates have gone through the primary process and are coming down to the wire. There is much campaigning to come, and so much money to be spent. You just cannot have a circumstance where the people are given honest information that would alter the course of an election. It’s just not done, you see?
Besides, the mainstream media does not like George Bush, and they will do nothing to help him win re-election. Did you think for a minute that they would rush to cover your press conferences and report the news that the majority of Veterans cannot stand John Kerry? Did you actually believe you would be invited on “Sixty Minutes”? Even now, reporters are out looking for your dirty laundry and trying to poke holes in your stories. After they find out that your stories match, have the ring of truth, and that you’re decent folk just trying to do what’s right, they will simply close their notebooks and quietly walk away.
And don’t expect to speak at the GOP convention in New York City or sit in the president’s box, like Michael Moore did at the Democrats’ convention. The GOP establishment doesn’t like the ad – it makes them very nervous. For example, it upset Senator John McCain, who rushed to defend his senatorial pal when he heard about it.
Of course, Senator McCain wishes all grass-roots types and ordinary folk would just go away. He has been instrumental in silencing a lot of Americans with his campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain is part of the establishment now, and the establishment does not care for boat rockers.
You have served our country well, and your exploits were heroic. You received real wounds, some of you, and you earned honest to goodness Purple Hearts and other medals which you wear proudly. You faced death and you took life in a war, and then you came home to a nation that has failed to honor you properly. You have never forgotten that this dishonest man, John Kerry, and his friends in the mainstream media caused the scorn you experienced.
But you didn’t let that get you down. You blended back into society in various ways. You have become successes in the private sector, where you have labored for decades, minding your own business and mostly letting others charge the windmills of political protest.
But like whistle-blowers before you, you came to believe that you were in possession of significant information that the American people needed to know before an important election and as a nation. You stood up for the truth, and we owe you a debt of gratitude – again!
We are a nation that was attacked, and now we are at war. We’re trying to protect ourselves against future attacks, and because of what you know – first hand – you believe with all your hearts that Senator Kerry should not become commander in chief. At least, not right now – not at this time.
I believe Kerry will lose in a landslide, just like George McGovern in 1972. I believe the reason he will lose is, in part, because you had the courage to step forward and tell the American people the truth. The people will get the truth – they always do.
You will take hits and wounds of a different kind this time, but your solace may be found printed on a sign that once sat on the desk of a great president, Ronald Reagan. It read, “Great things can be accomplished as long as you don’t care about who gets the credit.”
Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)