Kyoto, Redux

This can't be said enough:

Global emissions are now rising about 2 percent annually.

The only way to reduce them sharply is to have a worldwide cooperative plan to do so. The Kyoto protocol, negotiated in 1997, was one plan. But it would not have actually reduced greenhouse emissions. They would have continued rising even if the United States had adopted Kyoto. Undermining Kyoto's effectiveness was the unwillingness of most developing countries -- prominently China and India -- to join. With mass poverty, they're more interested in faster economic growth than in slower global warming.

Their refusal was one reason the Senate would never have ratified Kyoto. In 1997 senators passed a resolution 95 to 0 disapproving the Kyoto approach. The other reason is that even modest reductions in U.S. greenhouse gases might result in higher energy prices, more regulations, slower economic growth or all three.

While this won't keep the usual supects (Democrats) from lying about Bush killing Kyoto, it is nice to see the record set straight again. No matter how often they try to lie about Kyoto, remember- George Bush did not kill Kyoto.

He simply had the common decency to provide the treaty with a proper burial.

More on the 'Served With' Canard

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Steve Gardner, and finally (FINALLY!), someone addresses the idiotic 'served with' talking points I have been bitching about for a week:

HH: Last night on the Daily Show on Comedy Central, Jon Stewart, the host, said this about the book that is coming about by John O'Neill: There are powerful indictments, or rather it would be had any of those guys served on Kerry's boat,. By saying 'with him' they mean they were in Vietnam at the same time. Kind of the same way Snoopy served with the Red Baron. How do you respond to that?

SG: Well, on any movement we would do, we are talking four or five boats going in on an engagement, we were always within 50 or 75 yards of each other. And to be perfectly honest about it, if you were to look at an overview, if your were looking for an overview of a situation, you were better off being on another boat and looking at the rest of the other boats.

Finally.

In Defense of Tereza

At the Kerry Spot, I see Jim Geraghty tryingto make the case that Tereza Heinz Kerry simply does not belong on the campaign trail, and he offers this anecdote as evidence:

I realize most Kerry Spot readers, including the most important one named Mom, cannot stand Teresa Heinz Kerry. But I hear stories like this, or her comment about how she roots for the Pittsburgh Steelers while in Cleveland (garnering boos from Browns fans), and I just feel bad for her. This poor woman does not belong anywhere near the campaign trail.

I don't know Geraghty's background, but it is clear he does not understand some fundamentals about Pittsburgh:

A.) For a 'Burgh native, it is a capital offense to fail to root for the Steelers when they are playing the Browns.

B.) Should a 'Burgh native not only fail to root for the Steelers, but, *SHUDDER*, root for the Browns, the Death Penalty becomes an option.

Tereza may have been a bad campaigner when failing to root for the Browns, but she was just doing her loyal duty and fulfilling her obligations as a Pittsburgh native. It really is that simple.

BTW- the Steelers home field is Heinz field.

Desperation...

How desperate are the Democrats when confronted with Kerry's possible lying nuance about Cambodia? Enough so to run this picture from the Yale yearbook showing Bush playing Rugby:

Our intrepid partisan then notes:

As long as we're re-examining the 1960s, looking for signs of character, trying to decide if a man who volunteered for combat and was decorated five times was more or less courageous than a guy who didn't even show up for his own medical exam... here's George W. Bush during his college days, hitting a fellow sportsman in the face.

Bwahahaha. Sorry. I am laughing too hard to type. Bush was rough during rugby in college, so therefore questioning Kerry's character is not important and he did not lie about anything in Vietnam. But then there is this:

Dem presidential candidate John Kerry called his secret service agent a "son of a bitch" after the agent inadvertently moved into his path during a ski mishap in Idaho, sending Kerry falling into the snow.

When asked a moment later about the incident by a reporter on the ski run, Kerry said sharply, "I don't fall down," the "son of a b*itch knocked me over."

The Secret Service agent in question has complained about Kerry's treatment, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

And why does it matter so, Mr. Harris?

The point about Kerry's Cambodia service is the context of his claim. He did not simply inflate his service record. He used the claim as a club to bludgeon supporters of Reagan's Nicaragua policy. Nicaragua = Viet Nam. Reagan = Nixon. Support for the Contras = John Kerry sent to Cambodia by his duplicitous government. His indignation gave him not the moral high ground, but an amazing simulation. In 1986 that was all he needed to put defenders of Reagan's policies on the defensive. If his claim to Cambodia service is false it reveals a particularly repugnant form of cynicism. If he can't prove his claim, it speaks very badly indeed for his political character.

Shorter Matt Yglesias

Also via the Instapundit, this Matt Yglesias post:

Seriously, in my experience these damaging-looking allegations have a way of turning out not to be true, a fact that never seems to get as much coverage as the initial allegation. But it certainly looks bad from here, and I haven't seen a good explanation yet, perhaps because there isn't one. It's a little hard to see what could possibly be the motive for a Kerry lie on this front, which makes it plausible that there's a reasonable explanation, but also a little freaky if there does turn out to be one. Personally, I've never maintained that John Kerry had a George Washington-esque level of honesty (see, e.g., my article about how Kerry is basically lying about his trade policy) so my world won't be shaken to the core if this turns out to be a fib.

Translation: He's a liar, but he's my liar.

The Pakistan Leak

Seems I was a bit hasty blaming the Khan leak on the administration. Smallconsolation hat I was right about the Washington Monthly, Atrios. and Josh Marshall. in light of Mickey's post, special credit should go to Juan Cole, who is now 0-lifetime and whose coverage of the issue has been especially pointed and anti-administration. If only we could blame this on the Jews.

(via the Instapundit)

Caption Contest

This is most definitely worthy of a caption contest:

A larger version can be found here. Have at it.

What Were They Thinking?

I have ignored the scandal-mongering from the Washington Monthly, Atrios, and Josh Marshall regarding the outing of the Pakistani double-agent because, quite frankly, their track record on successfully recognizing scandals isn't that great. However, it now appears that there is no question someone in the administration screwed up:

The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an al-Qaida computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s terror network to escape, government and security officials said Tuesday.

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, was nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. He then led Pakistani authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and cooperated secretly by sending e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their locations.

His arrest was first reported in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to reporters by U.S. officials in Washington. Later, the Pakistan government also confirmed his capture but gave no other details.

Two senior Pakistani officials said the reports in "Western media" enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away.

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

Unless other details emerge clearing the administration, let me be the first to say the Administration blew it and big time.

I understand the Democrats have created a climate in which any administration action is loudly and publicly denounced as partisan maneuvering- that is to the Democrats shame. That does not, however, excuse the kind of carelessness that took place here, and is certainly no way to 'win' a war on terror.

Most disturbing of all is that you would think they would know by now that they can not trust the press. You know the old saying- Fool me once...

*** Update ***

As of right now, comments are 100% against me blaming the administration. Go figure.

No Shame

It appears that politicizing foreign policy is not beneath the Democrats.

Rodney Alexander

Personally, I think Rodney Alexander switching parties from Republican to Democrat right before the filing deadline so as to avoid opposition in the election is a shitty thing to do, and I personally would never do it. However, I do find the reaction from the usual suspects pretty predictable and laughable:

Rodney Alexander, a Democratic congressman from Louisiana, one week ago today filed papers to run for reelection. Two days later, last Friday, fifteen minutes before the deadline for entering the race, this scumbag refiled — as a Republican. The intent of this last-minute party switch, of course, was to guarantee that he would not have substantive Democratic opposition.

A true tale of moral squalor and cowardice — but now emerging from this cesspool comes word of moral splendor and courage: his entire D.C. staff Monday morning resigned en masse. I wish them luck. It is to be hoped that the DNC will take care of these people. If not, and if one of the big sites like Atrios or Kos that specializes in raising money starts up a collection, I’d kick in.

You know, the model for party switching should be the way Phil Gramm handled his perception that the party he belonged to no longer represented his beliefs. What did he do? As a disillusioned Democrat, he resigned from his seat and ran in a special election as a Republican. That truly is the principled way to do things, but from the howls of outrage from the left about Alexander, you would almost think he:

- Ran for election as a member of one party.

- Used enormous amounts of party money to secure the election

- Waited until several months after the election, and in the most obnoxious, grandstanding manner possible denounced the party he had been a member of for years and had just used for re-election.

- Switched parties, shifting the balance of power in the Senate, effectively disenfranchising thousands of voters who had wanted the party he had belonged to to remain in power, while making sure he would not be up for election for another six years.

In other words, he is no Jim Jeffords. And you remember what a hero the Democrats portrayed him as when he turned on the GOP:

First and foremost, Jeffords' decision to exit the GOP is incredibly courageous...

As an independent-minded man of conscience, Jeffords was left with no choice: he could not remain in the Republican Party. If he had, he would be silently supporting its agenda, the way so many "nonpracticing" Nazi's silently supported Hitler by remaining part of the Third Reich's machinery. When a man or woman is truly motivated by conscience, then there is no such thing as inaction in such a case.

The people of Vermont, both Republicans and Democrats alike, should be proud and extremely grateful to be represented by a man of conscience, courage and compassion (the kind Bush gives lip service to but has yet to honestly exhibit). Too many representatives on Capitol Hill today cannot claim even one of these virtues. While Jeffords is committed to doing what he believes to be best for his country and his fellow Vermonters, there are, alas, Democrats among us right now who are committed to personal gain at the sacrifice of both country and state (Zell Miller, John Breaux and Ben Nelson come immediately to mind).

Reap what you sow.

The Pot and the Kettle

Atrios is horrified that the White House has not done enough to shut down the Swift Boat Vets commercial, and notes:

The Bush reelection campaign today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Floyd Brown, a conservative activist who produced the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988 and recently has been digging for dirt about Bill Clinton. ...

Speaking in San Diego after a meeting with Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, Bush said, "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics," and "we will do whatever we can ... to see that [Brown] does not use my name for these nefarious purposes."

The 364 contributors listed on Brown's FEC reports have received letters from the Bush campaign informing them that Brown's "Citizens for Bush" is not affiliated with Bush/Quayle '92, according to a statement by White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater. The same message -- and encouragement not to contribute to Brown's effort -- also went to 85,697 "major contributors" over the signature of the president's son, George W. Bush. (Emphasis added.)

Two words, Atrios:

Michael Moore.

Election 2004

Remember, this election is more than Bush/Cheney v. Kerry Edwards. We still have to maintain control of the House and Senate, and there are underfunded Republican candidates out there.

With that in mind, please go over to Redstate and donate for one such underfunded candidate, Jim Demint.

FIre up The Video Editing Equipment

Kerry sure is the gift that keeps on giving:

Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," said Mr. Kerry, who has faced criticism throughout his presidential campaign for that October 2002 vote.

I bet they thought it would be at least a couple weeks before they had to update this video.

The base is not amused.

Amusing Campaign Slogans

I found this Keyes bumpersticker amusing.

An A-List Get

John Hawkins interviews Michael Barone. Impressive catch, Hawk.

Kerry and Cambodia

Everything you need to know about Kerry's Cambodia claims can be found here.

It sure seems like Kerry is lying nuanced.

The Roots Of Democratic Rage

Jeralynn points to this piece listing who of prominent Democrats, Republicans, and journalists has military service, and then urges us to view this 'astute analysis' from Markos "Screw 'em" Moulitsas:

Look at the military records of prominent Democrat politicans and their Republican counterparts. It's not even close. In fact, the entire Republican leadership has either not served, or went AWOL playing pool volleyball with ambitious secretaries. It's no accident that Lindsey Graham of SC (who did serve) was one of the harshest Republican critics of the Abu Ghraib scandal...

Finally, yet another publication gets my last name wrong (it's Moulitsas -- always address a Latino by the first surname, not the second). But I don't mind a reminder to the world that I've actually served my country and wore combat boots. Unlike the vast majority of the chickenshit war-cheerleading wingers.

Astute, indeed- if you think Michael Moore is a deep thinker.

My question- If Florida had not been so disputed in the last election, would Democrats be this bitter and obnoxious?

*** Update ***

Regarding Kos and those who 'served':

Look, I would rather talk about the war. The current one, I mean — not the one that ended three decades ago. But, insofar as I understand the rules of Campaign 2004, every time any member of the administration says anything about the present conflict, he is accused by Democrats of shamelessly "politicizing" it. Whereas every time John Kerry waxes nostalgic about those fragrant memories of the Mekong Delta, he should be allowed to take his unending stroll down memory lane unmolested. After all, as everyone from John Edwards to Max Cleland to Bill Clinton has assured us, being a Swift boat commander for four months is the indispensable qualification for being president. When Hillary runs in 2008, no doubt she'll be leaning heavily on her four months running a Swift boat up and down the Shatt al-Arab during the Iraq war.

Life Begins Again

The dark desolate months from January until August have passed, and life begins again tonight.

The NFL is back.

Go Steelers!

The Big Lie About Iraq

Tacitus has written at great length about the real Kerry plan in Iraq, and has come to the conclusion that what Kerry really intends to do is to cut and run.

Tacitus makes a persuasive case, and Kerry to date has publicly offered little more than a Nixonian deal with the devil. "Trust me," he in effect says. "I will release my plan after I have been elected." This did not impress the editors at USA Today, who stated today:

Thirty-six years ago, Republican candidate Richard Nixon made a similar pitch for ending the Vietnam War: He slammed the Democrats as incompetent, called on allies to bear more of the burden and suggested that he had a plan to end the war that he couldn't disclose until he was in office.

Four years later, he still had no answer.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, and Kerry's plan isn't quite as opaque as Nixon's, but the historical echoes are strong enough to suggest that if Kerry has a credible proposal for Iraq, he needs to fill in the blanks.

As Tacitus stated earlier, Kerry's only real stated plan is to 'internationalize' the War, whatever that means. In case you are unconvinced by Tacitus's piece, you need only use google to check for Kerry's public proclamations:

John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy. They will:

Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries. - Kerry/Edwards Website

Kerry said he has laid out several steps that should be taken to increase international involvement in Iraq, including sitting down and talking "in a very personal way" with leaders of other countries, sharing decision-making and reconstruction there and getting together the United Nations, NATO or another "group of international players" to recognize its "global responsibility." He said he would get a U.N. resolution authorizing action in Iraq.

"Statesmanship and leadership are the art of persuading people who might otherwise have reservations of their interests," he said. - Fox News, 16 May 2004

First, he said, the other members of the United Nations Security Council should be brought in "to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States."

The coalition should endorse the transition plan of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, Kerry said, and a high commissioner should be appointed. Finally, he added, NATO must contribute forces and "take on an organizing role." - Military.Com, 1 May, 2004

Kerry beat the drum on multilateralism. "American soldiers are bearing the huge majority, the lion's share of the risk in Iraq. It doesn't have to be that way, it never had to be that way," he said. It was a stance he repeated Friday.

"The immediate goal is to internationalize the transformation of Iraq, to get more foreign forces on the ground to share the risk and reduce the burden of our own forces," he said. "That is the only way to succeed in the mission while ending the sense of an American occupation." - Washington Times, 3 May 2004

Kerry's message is clear- he wants to 'internationalize' the war in Iraq, a statement so vapid and vacuous that were the roles been reversed and it was George Bush running to unseat John Kerry uttering these inanities, the chattering classes would have another round of 'Bush is stupid' jokes circulating the DNC by mid-morning.

The roles, however,are not reversed, and the press has continuously failed to ask the hard questions, such as:

"As President, Mr. Kerry, why do you think you will be able to place more international troops on he ground?"

"Have any countries promised to provide more support if you are elected?"

"What countries have troops that are available for deployment?"

"Are those troops modernized and professional enough to work effectively besides British, Australian, and American forces?"

If he were to be asked those questions, the ruse would immediately be over, and Mr. Kerry would immediately be exposed as the fraud that he is. IN fact, honest responses to those questions would be so devestating that the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the DNC would immediately have to threaten to sue news stations to keep them from airing his response.

There simply is no international will to become involved in Iraq beyond what has already been contributed. Germany and France, our recalcitrant allies, have stated over and over again that they will not provide any troops- in fact, it took months of negotiation to even persuade France to allow a NATO training mission in Iraq to move forward. Kerry is, to be blunt, lying:

"I understand why John Kerry is making proposals of this kind, but there is a lack of realism in them," Menzies Campbell, a British lawmaker who is a spokesman on defense issues for the Liberal Democratic Party, said in a typical comment.

Many allied countries may welcome a new team in Washington after years of friction with the Bush administration. But foreign leaders are making it clear they don't want to add enough of their own troops to allow U.S. forces to scale back to a minority share in Iraq, as Kerry has proposed.

Allies say they are ready to consider further financial aid and other help for the fragile new Iraqi government. But some officials overseas already are fretting about Kerry's talk of burden-shifting.

"Some Europeans are rather concerned that Mr. Kerry might have expectations for relief [from abroad] that are going to be hard to meet," said one senior European diplomat in a statement echoed in several capitals.

In an interview with The Times last week, Kerry said that by building up international support, it would be a "reasonable goal" to replace most U.S. troops in Iraq with foreign forces within his first term. There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops stationed there, or 88% of a total international force of about 160,000.

Not only is there no international will, there are simply no forces to deploy in the first place:

Some key countries have already ruled out providing troops, and others are badly strained from the deployments they have already made.

The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. British officials have made no such categorical statement, but they have expressed concern that their troops are overstretched.

Although Japan has supplied a 550-member noncombat force as a symbol of its international commitment, analysts there see little chance the nation would agree to send more.

Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. "We are not going to send anybody there, and that's all there is to say," Denisov said.

"From the major European countries, there's simply not a lot of available troops out there, for both practical and political reasons," said Christopher Makins, president of the Atlantic Council of the United States, which supports U.S. engagement abroad.

In summary, Kerry has no plan available forpublic scrutiny, and what can be pieced together from his public statements is untenable. Why are you only reading about that here?

BlogAds

There are two blogads available on the right. If you are so inclined, use them.

The More Things Change

Remeber the 'nuts and sluts' attacks by the Clinton game? It seems that was just a warm-up:

The Democrat National Committee has prepared a full-scale assault against the Vietnam Veterans for Truth to draw their character and veracity into question, according to one anonymous source inside the DNC. The campaign of character assassination is scheduled to coincide with the release of the book Unfit for Command which reveals inconvenient facts for the Kerry campaign. "We have prepared what we call ‘Brown Books’ that contain damaging military records, personal credit histories, medical histories, psychiatric histories, divorce records, you name it,” our source told us. "We've got the goods on the Veterans who oppose Kerry."

The “Brown Books” are so called because of their distinctive plain brown covers, which contain no words. Some books have already been delivered to Kerry-friendly reporters. Others are on their way, our source told us. When asked if we could have a copy, our source declined, saying there is a limited number of “Brown Books” and they have been carefully inventoried to control in whose hands the books ended up.

Don't refute the charges. Destroy the accuser. I wonder what Kerry thinks about rape shield laws?

Blogs In Primetime

Blogs were just mentioned on the Dead Zone on USA.

Rape Shield

Excellent piece in the NY Times by Dahlia Lithwick on Rape Shield laws and the Kobe Bryant case:

This well-intentioned reform in our rape laws has led to two unappealing alternatives: Either the defendant's legal presumption of innocence is flipped on its head, since rape shield laws unambiguously deny him access to potentially exculpatory evidence, or - as a practical matter - the woman's sexual history goes on trial regardless, permitting humiliating public scrutiny often likened to a second rape.

With his right to a fair trial and her right to be spared a second assault on a collision course, the role of the media becomes absolutely lethal. In the Bryant case, by insisting on its constitutional right to act as watchdog, the press gained access to the most lurid details of the accuser's intimate life. Consequently, high-profile rape trials allow the media to do far more damage than rape shield laws ever tried to mitigate.

I don't know much about the specifics in the case, but I do know one thing. The fact that the accuser may have had sex with someone else after allegedly being raped by Kobe Bryant and before reporting the rape proves nothing. While it does look damning, it is common knowledge that rape victims are oten so traumatized by the rape that they try to 'egt on' with their life and 'act normal.' It is not unheard of for women to be raped, go home, have consexual sex with their husband/boyfriend, and days later break down and finally report the alleged rape.

There are no winners in rape cases.

Lies and the Lying Liars

Yeah- they were not on his boat so they did not 'serve' with him:

As described in the attached affidavits, Al French (Exhibit 2), Bob Elder (Exhibit 3), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10), and Bob Hildreth (Exhibit 14) were all officers in charge of Swift boats in Vietnam in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry. Coastal Division 11 was a small naval unit with about one hundred sailors and fifteen or sixteen boats which operated in groups of two to six boats. Each of these boat officers operated directly with John Kerry on numerous occasions. Van Odell (Exhibit 6) is a retired Navy enlisted man who also served in Coastal Division 11 on the Chenoweth boat, a few yards from John Kerry during Kerry's March 13, 1969 Bronze Star action.

Captain George Elliott, USN (retired), (Exhibit 4) was John Kerry's direct commander in Coastal Division 11, while Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired), (Exhibit 9) was Kerry's administrative commander. Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (retired), (Exhibit 8) commanded all Swift boats (including Kerry's) in Vietnam. Each of these commanders interacted on numerous occasions with Kerry and, for example, are discussed for many pages in Kerry's own authorized book, Tour.

Dr. Louis Letson (Exhibit 5) was the doctor in Cam Rahn Bay who treated Kerry's first Purple Heart "wound," while Commander Grant Hibbard (Exhibit 11) was John Kerry's commander at Coastal Division 14 where Kerry claimed to have suffered the wound. Finally, Joe Ponder (Exhibit 13) and Shelton White (Exhibit 12) are veterans of Coastal Division 11 who were badly wounded near the Song Bo De River where Kerry served most of his short tour.

The Kerry campaign has utilized a revolving group of eight veterans from Coastal Division 11 (none of whom served with Kerry as much as two months). In stark contrast to this small stable of supporters, the veterans on "Any Questions?" have intimate knowledge of John Kerry or (in the case of Ponder and White) of the falsehood and injury of his false war crimes charges. Although many more of the over 250 signers of the Swiftvets' letter served directly with John Kerry, it would be hard to locate people with more detailed and first-hand knowledge of John Kerry's short Vietnam stay than those in the advertisement. They are well-suited to respond with first-hand knowledge to Edward's invitation. Their sworn affidavits are attached (in order of appearance in the advertisement) as Exhibits 2 through 14.

That will leave a mark.

I'm With Teresa

Teresa and I find common ground:

On Thursday, Kerry told a convention of minority journalists that he would have reacted more decisively to the news than Bush, who continued reading with a group of Florida schoolchildren for seven minutes after an aide whispered the news into his ear. It’s a scene that filmmaker Michael Moore uses to skewer the president in his anti-Bush movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to," Kerry said.

The candidate’s wife, on the other hand, is not so sure an abrupt response would have been the right one. "I think the president behaved correctly in terms of being quiet amidst stunning news like that in a classroom of kids," she told the host of MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" during an interview before the Democratic National Convention last month. "You know, what can you do? It takes you a couple of minutes to digest what you have just heard. And then he was . . . not in his White House and in his office with all of his people. He was in the school in Florida."

I guess JFwannabee's wife is a member of the VRWC.

(via LGF)

Explain To Me

Why aren't conservative leaning outlets scrambling to hire Tacitus?

Swift Boats, Again

Most of the attempts to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truths usually include something like this:

John O'Neill is a right wing whacko who can not be trusted.

This is not just John O'Neill:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 members, many of whom were wounded or highly decorated in Vietnam. We purchased with our blood and service the right to be heard, to set the record straight about our unit, and to tell the truth about John Kerry's military service record.

We respect Senator McCain's right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Senator McCain did not.

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (ret.), Founder and Chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

The Air Up There

Oliver writes:

There are two sides for the GOP to be on:

1. Principled opposition to John Kerry. You don't like him personally, or his policy, and don't think he should be president.

2. Wallow in the mud with racists, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Matt Drudge and the rest of the smear machine.

Play with fire, gonna get burned.

Right back at ya, buddy:

1. Principled opposition to George Bush. You don't like him personally, or his policy, and don't think he should be president. Again.

2. Wallow in the mud with theanti-semites, the religion-bashers, Margaret Cho, Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, Molly Ivins, The ANSWER crowd, MoveOn, the Bush Hitler Crowd, the Hollywood pottymouths, "Bush Knew" Conspiracy theorists, Ted Rall

Woops. Seems like you guys already made your choice.

The Democrats in a Nutshell

It appears clear that the Democratic response to the Swift Boat commercial is a three-pronged front, consisting of personal attacks, legal attacks, and flat-out lies. I touched on this last night in a late-night post, but much of this is worth further discussion.

For the record, I don't know what to believe about the commercial. In the past, I have been willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, and I will continue to do so until the story shakes out. However, I find theDemocratic attempts to silence these men despicable. They may be wrong, they may be lying, but these men served out country just like John Kerry, and far more so than former President Clinton, so their side deserves to be checked.

The personal attacks have been well-documented, as have been the legal challenges. However, what has not been challenged, at least other than here, is the big, fat, whopper of a lie that the Democrats are currently peddling. It is clear the talking points have been handed out- let's review them.

The first I saw of the talking points appeared in the Miami Herald:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Media Matters, the wholly owned subsidiarity of the DNC, funded by George Soros, has been quick to pass out the talking points:

Despite the ad's claim, members of the group did not serve with Senator John Kerry on his swift boat in Vietnam. Not only did the programs ignore that fact, but FOX News Channel hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes went so far as to call them Kerry's "fellow crewmates."

You see where this is going, don't you? They were not on the actual boat with Kerry, so therefore they have no idea who the man is or what he was like during the time in question. Except, of course, this defies reality. As I stated last night, you almost have to admire the brazenness and the audacity of those willing to make this statement, because it is so misleading and stupid that surely they must be afriad of being caught.

To the facts:

1.) Kerry, according to his own biography, served with the following UNITS:

- November 17, 1968- Upon completion of his training, Kerry reports for duty to Coastal Squadron 1, Coastal Division 14, Cam Ranh Bay, South Vietnam.

- December 6, 1968- Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island

- December 13, 1968- Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Ranh Bay

This is important information, because right away, you should understand that the nonsense the Kerry campaign and its surrogates are peddling is nonsense. While the Kerry campaign may hope that everyone thinks Kerry's Swiftboat experience was much like the long, solo journey portrayed in Apocalypse Now, this is not the case. Kerry was stationed with his crew and all the other men in his repsective units at their bases.

2.) A decription of Cam Ranh Bay:

While the concentration at Cam Ranh Bay of Market Time headquarters and forces during the summer of 1967, the demand for base support became extraordinary. Accordingly, the Naval Support Activity Saigon, Detachment Cam Ranh Bay, was redesignated the Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay, a more autonomous and self sufficient status. A greater allocation of resources and support forces to the shore installation resulted in an improved ability to cope with the buildup of combat units. In time, the Cam Ranh Bay facility accomplished major vessel repair and dispensed a greater variety of supply items to the anti-infiltration task force. In addition the naval contingent at the Joint Service Ammunition Depot issued ammunition to the coastal surveillance, river patrol and mobile riverine forces as well as to the Seventh Fleet’s gunfire support destroyers and landing ships. Seabee Maintenance unit 302 provided public works assistance to the many dispersed Naval Support Activity, Saigon detachments.

As a vital logistic complex, Cam Ranh Bay continued to function long after the Navy’s combat forces withdrew from South Vietnam as part of the Vietnamization of the war.

A description of An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island:

Of all the Navy’s bases in South Vietnam, An Thoi, on the southern tip of Phu Quoc Island in the Gulf of Siam, was the most isolated. Almost 1000 miles from Subic Bay, it taxed the seventh Fleet’s mobile logistic support force during the Vietnam War. Still naval leaders recognized early the strategic value of the site: from there the naval forces could readily interdict sea infiltration of communist men and supplies from Cambodia. Another favorable consideration was the availability to American units of real estate near the Vietnamese Navy’s existing compound.

These were bases. There was billeting (naval vessels, billet barges, on-shore billets, etc.), supply depots, docks for repair, etc. In other words, John Kerry was not sitting on a boat with only five crewmen for the entirety of his stay. Instead, he was staying with his entire UNIT.

3.) A description of a typical Swift Boat Unit:

The Division is now comprised of twenty-three officers and one hundred and twenty enlisted men divided into boat crews. A crew is comprised of one officer and five enlisted men who are trained as a team so that if the need arises one man can step in and do the other's job. The crews must be constantly alert 24 hours a day for they never know when the VC will strike.

4.) A description of a combat mission:

During the early hours of 1 March, four SWIFTS of Coastal Division 14 and several RVN Coastal patrol craft located an enemy steel-hulled ship attempting to infiltrate guns and ammunition to the VC. In what has been since described as "the greatest sea engagement of the Vietnamese conflict" PCFs 46, 47, 48 and 43 destroyed the 120 foot enemy trawler. The murderous .50 caliber machine gun and 81mm mortar fire enabled victory after a 15-minute battle. As in all victories some prices must be paid; two men aboard PCF-48 were wounded. ENFN Galliher suffered a minor leg wound and GMG2 Ulmer, a shoulder wound. today Galliher is back on the job and Ulmer recuperating in Japan. We all give Thanks that it was not more serious and wish Ulmer a speedy recovery. All personnel involved have been recommended to receive medals for their heroic actions.

5.) Descriptions of combat from Kerry's OWN website:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission.

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA Lords operation in the Bay Hap River.

Is this enough? Still don't believe me? Go watch the Kerry videos- count the boats.

In short, it is an absurd notion that because these men were not on the same exact boat they did not serve with Kerry. They fought together, slept together, bled together, ate together, and drank together. Pretending otherwise is the mother of all whoppers, and serves only to diminish Kerry's credibility.

As I stated yesterday, I am shocked that they would attempt a lie this big. But then again, Kerry is aware that the press is in bed with him, and his base would not know any better. After all, while Kerry was running around the Mekong Delta torching villages in the latter part of 1968 (and that is his own testimony, and not just unfounded some slur I made up), the core of his supporters were also busy burning things- albeit ROTC buildings, draft cards, and bras. It is not surprising that they should have no understanding of the military.

The idea that they can lie to the rest of us like this is obscene. Mind you- none of this means that the story of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is accurate. Nor does it diminish Kerry's service- this was not a stay at the Hilton. It does, however, shed some light on the Kerry campaign and their surrogates.

*** Update ***

Via Brian Carnell, a transcript of last night's Hannity and Colmes. Susan Estrich, who never met a Massachussetts liberal she did not like, uses the talking points against Swift Boat Veteran for Truth Van Odell:

ESTRICH: I have to interrupt you for one second. I think...

ODELL: Another boat...

ESTRICH: Sir -- Sir, I think it's my turn to ask you a few questions. You weren't a crew mate of Senator Kerry's, were you?

ODELL: I was not.

ESTRICH: You were not a crewmate of his. Right. All of the men on his boat are supporting his bid for the presidency, aren't they?

ODELL: No, that's not true.

ESTRICH: One is deceased, but all the rest are...

ODELL: Steve Gardener (ph) is not supporting him at all.

ESTRICH: But as I understand it all of the men on his boat...

ODELL: When I was in Vietnam -- when I was in Vietnam, the people there on his boat crew did not have the same take on what he is like now.

ESTRICH: So all but one who were on his boat are supporting him. Is that right? And you weren't on his boat. Is that right?

ODELL: I was in close proximity. I was right behind his boat.

ESTRICH: You were half a football field away; is that right?

ODELL: Oh, no, it's closer than that. Sometimes we laid alongside many times. We were close together.

The press 'Kerrying' the water for Kerry/Edwards. You really had to see the clip to fully appreciate Estrich's vicious tone.

Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes I wonder what Jeralynn is thinking:

The scenes of Bush continuing to read to children in a classroom after being told by aides of the WTC attacks were some of the most compelling in Fahrenheit 9/11. What was Bush thinking? Did he not understand? Did he think it would all go away? Was he really at such a loss as to what to do that he decided to sit there until someone gave him instructions?

Why do people praise his handling of the terror war post-9/11? Bush chose to go after a target that was not an immediate threat to the U.S., at the cost of failing to stop Al Qaeda, which his administration now tells us is about to launch an even bigger attack against us. What has he accomplished? His Attorney General put some young wannabes from Buffalo and Oregon in jail, but dropped the ball on the real terrorists. Osama's at large (unless he's in hiding for a timed perp walk before the election.) The security restrictions we now live with on a constant basis resemble those of a foreign dictatorship, not a free democracy.

What should he have done? What could he have done? Do you honestly believe hecould have stopped one ounce of blood from being spilled? Saved one life? Do you think if he had freaked out and run out of the classroom, we would now have Osama bin Laden in custody? Do you know for sue what information Bush was given, and why he chose to finish the story rather than run out?

If John Kerry had been President, and he left the room when you say he should have, would there be fewer casualties at the World Trade Center? At the Pentagon? at The crash in PA? Would we now have Osama in custody?

I am so sick and tired of this slur from Michael Moore and I hate how the Democrats think this is a reasonable criticism of the President.

And this line is just absurd: "Bush chose to go after a target that was not an immediate threat to the U.S."

Three questions:

What was the date of the WTC and Pentagon attacks?

On what date did operations in Afghanistan begin?

On what date did operations in Iraq begin?

Next canard, please.

Alabama- Making the Rest of the Country Safe

Thank God for Alabama. I know I will sleep easier now that they have taken care of the great plastic phallus menace, and I think we can all sleep a bit easier now that this has been taken care of:

A 74-year-old murderer became the oldest U.S. inmate put to death in decades after courts and the governor refused to stop his execution.

James Barney Hubbard died by injection Thursday at Holman Prison near Atmore.

"The legal execution of James B. Hubbard was carried out according to the laws of the State of Alabama," Corrections Department spokesman Steve Hayes told CBS Radio News. "His official time of death is 6:36 p.m. Central Time."

I am against the death penalty in general, but there is no doubt this man was aworthy candidate. Regardless, it seems that someone else had already given Hubbard the death penalty:

He was recently diagnosed with dementia; a psychologist concluded his condition may cause confusion and interfere with his ability to understand legal procedures, according to papers his lawyers filed in the appeals court.

Hubbard also claims he is suffering from hepatitis, diverticulitis, hypertension and acute back pain.

The man had one foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel, and Alabama probably spent a hundred thousand dollars in the legal fight to execute him. Oh well.

At any rate, I am sure glad Alabama is leading the way in keeping us all safe. Now, if they could just kindly ask their United States Senator to keep his damned mouth shut.

Florida

Just what the hell is going on in Florida?

When poll workers could not find Kelly Pierce's name on the registration rolls during the primary here in March, they told him to take advantage of a new election rule that allowed him to cast his vote using a provisional ballot.

The rule is intended to prevent one of the major problems experienced in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, when scores of voters, especially minority voters, were turned away at the polls over registration questions that could not be resolved quickly.

So Mr. Pierce, who had voted regularly since 1989, filled out his paper ballot. Election administrators then proceeded to throw it out, determining that poll workers had Mr. Pierce file it in the wrong precinct.

He was hardly alone. Of the 5,914 provisional ballots cast in the Chicago primary, 5,498 were disqualified, mostly on technical grounds.

I do not believe that all of the voting woes in Florida are some large conspiracy, with Jeb Bush as the mastermind. At the same time, what the hell is going on down there? What is so damned complicated that they can not get it right?

And while we are at it, can someone give me a good reason why felons can not vote? I understand the logic behind refusing them the franchise while incarcerated, but the logic of returning them to society as rehabilitated (*cough, cough*) individuals but refusing to allow them to live as full citizens makes absolutely no sense to me, and it seems to me that this is the one of the major problems with the Florida voting system.

*** UPDATE ***

I understand that the story I linked to occurred in Chicago- the word Chicago is only used 75 times throughout the piece. I was trying to ask a broader question- why does it seem like things are so screwed up in Florida regarding elections? I guess I wasn't very clear (which should come as no surprise). At any rate, check google news- there have been umpteen stories on Florida election problems in the past week.

Just Out of Curiosity

Am I the only one who remembers when 5.5% unemployment was generally regarded as a good thing?

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%, and it is spun as bad news...

Big Media Matt

Matt Yglesias gets a mention in a Paul Krugman op-ed. And I remember when he just started his website and I was one of the first promoting him...

Second Thoughts

It seems that one of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth has now changed his mind:

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.

Which just goes to show that the Kerry response of lawyering up was even dumber than I asserted yesterday. Let the ads air, let these people face scrutiny. If what they are telling is the truth, we will find out. If they are lying- well, see above.

*** Update ***

He retracts his retraction:

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Sorry for the language, but what a fucking embarassment:

Officials in Indiana and Washington, D.C., said they are dumbfounded by a statement U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris made about a terrorist plot to blow up a power grid in Indiana.

In making the statement during a speech to 600 people Monday night in Venice, Harris either shared a closely held secret or passed along second-hand information as fact.

WTF? It gets better:

She said in the speech that a man of Middle Eastern heritage had been arrested in the plot and that explosives were found in his home in Carmel, a suburb north of Indianapolis.

Harris, a Republican from Longboat Key who is running for re-election, said the case was an example of the nation's success in fighting terrorism.

A helping of overt racism to go with your bullshit sandwich?

He said that making such statements without providing specific details to back them up "only serves to erode public confidence" in the credibility of government.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security would not comment Tuesday on Harris' statements.

Probably because it is DHS policy not to call sitting Congressmen "stupid assholes."

You know- it is stupid half-wits like this that let shit-heels like Howard Dean claim Republicans are exploiting terrorism for partisan gain.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Kathy. And I really don't want to lose the House, but you are just in over your head, dear- one Patty Murray on Capitol Hill is enough.

(via Talk Left)

Cease and Desist

Count me as one blogger who is not even slightly surprised that the Kerry cabal has decided to lawyer up and issue threatening letters to television stations in order to keep them from broadcasting the Swift Boat commercial. This isn't the first time they have tried this tactic; it won't be the last.

While this approach is not surprising in the least, it is instructive, and helps to reinforce much of what I already believed about the Democratic party.

1.) They believe in outright intimidation of the media and of their critics.

The other day, the Instapundit posted this snippet from a John Fund report from the Democratic National Convention:

The Boston Democratic convention featured a rich side menu of interesting seminars. One of the most controversial was a workshop for new Democratic campaign press secretaries that sounded like a call to arms in its advice on how to deal with the new media universe.

Lecturers urged press secretaries to confront what one warned was "media that are no longer tilted in your direction." Bullying was openly encouraged. "When it comes to the media," suggested Democratic strategist James Carville, "intimidation works." "Challenge them," added David Brock of Media Matters, a new liberal group set up to criticize conservative media outlets.

There is a reason Media Matters includes the names, addresses, email adresses, and phone numbers of those who offend them, and it is not so that individuals such as you and me canhave an easy time asking follow-up questions. And, of course, we all remember the Clinton approach to those who dared cross their path. Ever heard the phrase "nuts and sluts?"

2.) Democrats believe in free speech. For Democrats.

Over the past four years, the Democrats have had a field day criticizing the current President, his administration, and supporters of the administration. Criticizing is not a really appropriate summation of their behavior. What they have actually been doing is lying outright, spreading half-truths, and questioning the motives, intentions, and actions of this administration at every step. No story is too obscene or too out of bounds, whether it be a 'war for oil' claim or a 'Bush knew.'

The apogee of their propaganda parade, of course, was the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11, which at last count has at least 59 documented and verified lies. For this outrageous venture in outright slander and deceit, Moore has been embraced by the mainstream of the Democratic party, greeted and entertained by the DNC chairman, and provided seating in the luxury boxes during the Democratic National Convention.

In the past few days, Kerry surrogate, DNC headline speaker, and former Presidential contender Howard Dean, aided and abetted by the media establishment, accused the President of issuing terror alerts for partisan political gain. The charges have turned out to be so obscenely false that in a rare act of contrition, the NY Times has been baktracking on the editorial page for the last three days.

In the most recent example of the Democrats and free speech, Kerry himself stuck to his VP's word to run a positive campaign, and today stated:

Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to.

The genesis of the statement is, of course, from Michael Moore's Triumph of the Will Fahrenheit 9/11, and the intent is to level the slanderous assertion that because Bush did not immediately and frantically run off and do 'something' upon being informed of the 9/11 attacks, somehow he is unfit for office. In order for the quip to be effective, one must assume that Bush could have done anything. Neither Kerry nor anyone in the Democratic has enough integrity to admit that not one less person would have been killed, not one less drop of blood spilled, and not one terrorist found a minute sooner had Bush behaved in the manner Kerry and his ilk are now suggesting would have been appropriate.

But, after all, it is free speech, and they should be allowed to say whatever they want, as should the Swift Boat veterans. Let's not forget that these men also served their country admirably- much more, in fact, than the titular leader of theDemocratic party and former President, Bill Clinton.

It is also interesting to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth appears to be one of only a few of the 527 non-profit groups that the Democrats oppose, but first we should remember how 527's came into prominence:

Democrats are kicking off a backdoor way of financing their 2004 congressional campaigns today with the very type of unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals that many party leaders had vowed to flush from the political system.

The strategy involves setting up two new groups unmistakably aligned with the Democratic Party's longstanding campaign organizations for the House and Senate. Technically, the two groups are not arms of the Democratic Party, a key distinction, because the nation's new campaign finance law bars lawmakers from soliciting ''soft money,'' the unlimited money that politicians still crave.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and minority whip Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, will headline a fund-raising event tonight at the Hotel George for a new group called the New House PAC.

Tonight, the group will raise ''hard money,'' a limited, regulated type of donation that lawmakers can legally solicit. But the group plans to ask donors for soft money later this year and to serve as a sort of shadow campaign committee for the Democratic Party, according to sources familiar with the effort.

So much for the McCain-Feingold ruse. As recently as yesterday, Democrats were openly bragging at their ability to skirt the law they endorsed for the rest of us to follow:

In the weeks leading up to the Democratic convention, Senator John Kerry's campaign aides worried that the senator would have to begin spending his $75 million in public financing a month earlier than President Bush. They even flirted with the idea that he would delay accepting the nomination so he could keep raising and spending millions of dollars on advertising throughout August.

But August has brought a spate of what seemed to be Kerry advertisements every day. To a voter's eye, the senator's campaign marches on seamlessly - and usually on message. And the campaign is not a penny poorer for it...

Liberal groups like The Media Fund and Moveon.org, which previously ran the advertisements The Media Fund is using now, ran heavy advertising campaigns after Mr. Kerry effectively clinched the Democratic nomination in March. They spent millions of dollars on spots highly critical of Mr. Bush in key states at a time when Mr. Kerry was too broke to run many of his own advertisements - and facing a barrage of attack advertisements from Mr. Bush.

Now, the Democratic Party, The Media Fund and others are doing the same thing because Mr. Kerry's campaign decided that it had to stop advertising in August to maintain financial parity with Mr. Bush in the last two months of the campaign.

Now, confronted with a commercial that does not fit their narrow view of the truth, the answer is clear. It must be stopped, with no legal stone unturned.

Again, the Democrats believe in free speech. For Democrats.

3.) Kerry isn't as stupid as some people think.

While some are questioning Kerry's intelligence, I do not. I am aware that Kerry is at least smart enough to recognize that his base is going to vote for him no matter what, and that an uncritical media which traditionally and openly beds down with the Democratic candidate every November of an election year poses no obstacle whatsoever. The architects of Kerry's electoral strategy or Kerry himself realize that bow all they must do is 'fool some of the people some of the time.'

I say this, because there is no other reason or excuse for the Kerry campaign releasing this breathtakingly vapid excuse/attack on the credibility of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Kerry knows this will not faze his supporters. While Kerry was running around the Mekong Delta torching villages in the latter part of 1968, the core of his supporters were also busy burning things- ROTC buildings, draft cards, and bras. It is not surprising that they should have no understanding of the military, nor is it surprising that the media will make no effort to inform them.

However, for the rest of us on planet earth, the 'they were not on his boat' is so overtly stupid that you almost have to respect the brazenness and arrogance of a campaign that would make such a statement. Maybe the Kerry campaign thinks that everyone of voting age has watched Apocalypse Now too often, and thinks that swift boats routinely took month long solo trips deep into Viet Cong territories, but that simply is not the case.

Let's just get rid of the notion that only the people in his boat 'served' with him. Kerry was part of larger units- he was not in isolation- he served with everyone in the unit. Units were typically composed of "twenty-three officers and one hundred and twenty enlisted men divided into boat crews." While the boats did have solitary missions, all the men in a unit knew everyone else.

When crews were not on missions, they were at their respective bases. For Kerry, he was stationed at Cam Ranh Bay and An Thois. The operative word- bases. There were living quarters, probably a supply depot, perhaps a small PX/BX, and probably meager dining facilities. This was no Holiday Inn by any stretch, but this was not Kerry and five men on a boat in the middle of a jungle for 4 months. He had continuous and repeated contact with the majority of the men, if not all, on both an operational and recreational basis. Here is one account of life on base:

While the crews were working on the boats, some of the officers left the Officer's Club long enogh to notice that they had been promoted also. The following Officers-in-Charge have recently been promoted to Lieutenant:

Lieutenant Jerry E. MENIKHEIM
Lieutenant O. Keith EVANS

The crews lucky enough not to be on patrol on certain Sunday afternoons enjoyed beach parties. with lots of beer, bar-b-qued steaks and chicken, good times were had by all. The main event of each party was a football game between the officers and enlisted men. Although they played hard, the enlisted men couldn't quite match the talents of their officers, and went down to defeat on several occasions. However, it always turned out to be an even match in the beer-drinking category. As an item of interest; during the recent basketball game the enlisted men lead the officers 50-48 at half time - it ended that way as the officers were unable to continue in the torrid Vietnam heat.

On other occasions the officers and men joined forces and represented Coastal Division THIRTEEN in the Cat Lo Naval Base football and basketball tournaments. The "Swifts" came out in first in football, and lost a well-played game in basketball to wind up in second place.

One more time- these men served with Kerry. They may not have been on his boat, but they worked with him, slept with him, ate with him, fought with him, and bled with him. Any notion that because they were not on the same boat with him they do not know him is absurd to the extreme. The notion that because the boats were 50 yards away when operating in a combat environment somehow disqualifies men from seving with each other is nothing more sheer idiocy. Boats probably routinely stayed that far away from each other, because boats close together are an easy target. Likewise, as with all moving vehicles in a tense combat situation, you want some space, because under gunfire and darkness, vehicles have a tendency of running into each other.

I was in an armor unit (a Cav Troop, really), on a tank with three other people. I was part of a platoon of 4 tanks, and a cav troop made up of nine tanks and 12 Bradley vehicles as well as a number of mortar, maintenance, and other support vehicles. Other than briefs refuels at LOGPAC in Assembly Areas, I spent my entire military career in the field more than 50 yards away from another tank. According to the criteria put forth by the Kerry campaign in this absurd press release, I only served with three people. Except I knew the majority of the guys like I know my brother.

I could go on and on about this- hell, even Kerry's re-enacted home videos show his damned boat ten feet from three other boats. His Silver Star write-up details a mission involving 5 Sift boats. How the hell did they get there, when Kerry only 'served' with the men on his boat?

Keep your eye out- every Democratic talking head will be spewing this nonsense- watch for it and laugh.

4.) This is really what this campaign is all about to the Democrats- Power at any cost.

Kerry won't release his plans for foreign and domestic policy. Thesum total of the campaign he is running on is the bifurcated platform that he is 'not Bush' and a 'war hero,' and now, we are not even allowed to question the latter of the two.

I am not going to tell you thatthe Swift BOat commercial is 100% accurate, and I am not going to tell you whether to believe the claims against Kerry. I trust that you are adults and will look into the issue for yourself.

I am going to tell you, however, that regardless of any of Kerry's numerous shortcomings, a vote for Kerry/Edwards is a vote to put this un-serious, dishonest, scheming party back in power. That knowledge by itself should be enough for you to vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

What Has Them Reeling

After spending over a year annointing a candidate with the bifurcated platform that Kerry is a war hero and not Bush, interviews like this have the Democrats shaking in their boots Birkenstocks:

WOODRUFF: Disingenuous. He says you are being disingenuous in not recalling what happened.

THURLOW: Let me ask Mr. Rassmann this question: I also ended up in the water that day during the rescue efforts on the 3-boat (ph). And my boat, the 51-boat (ph), came up, picked me up, business as usual. I got back on board, went about the business at hand.

I received no fire. But the thing I would like to ask is, we have five boats now, John's returning, and four boats basically dead in the water, working on the 3-boat (ph). If we were receiving fire off the bank, how come not one single boat received one bullet hole, nobody was hit, no sign of any rounds hitting the water while I was in it?

Good question, actually.

Unbelievable

I was completely unaware that Kerry was throwing his anti-war hissy fits and meeting secrelt with the North Vietnamese while serving as a LIEUTENANT IN THE RESERVES.

That liberal media.

Best Line I Have Read In Years

For some reason, when I read this, I started laughing uncontrollably:

"Democrats have all but ceded the Amish vote to Republicans."

Way to work on the minority folks, guys. Anyone have any polling data on the the Shakers?

And just so you don't think all Democrats are humorless, this was the next line in the story:

"If I know Republicans and their grass-roots operations, they'll spend most of their time trying to phone bank the Amish," said Kerry spokesman Mark Nevins." ***

Hehe.

*** Atrios and Pandagon readers:

"An estimated 180,000 Amish live in 28 states and Ontario. They are a reserved, Christian subculture in rural areas who descend from Swiss Germans and settled in Lancaster County in the early 1700s as part of William Penn's "holy experiment" in religious tolerance. The Amish do not drive cars, watch TV or use telephones in their homes, and are instantly recognizable by their horse-driven buggies and plain garb, bonnets and straw hats."

Things I Did Not Know

Frank J. has some interesting information up about Democrats, much of which I did not know. For example:

* Democrats chose the donkey as their symbol because the Democrat base smells as bad as one and has the same verbal skills. In the donkey's defense, it's smart enough to understand a butterfly ballot.

* If your skin pigmentation is dark enough, you may be legally required to vote for Democrats.

* Though there are more registered Democrats, they don't vote as much as Republicans percentage-wise because of their tendency to be distracted by shiny things.

* Some Democrats may have served in Vietnam. You can find out which ones by seeing who tells you that fact over and over and over.

* And over and over and over.

* In a fight between Democrats and Aquaman, Aquaman would be slurred by an NAACP ad that links him to lynching.

Interesting.

A Safe Place for Liberals

Kos provides the answers we have all wanted to know for ages:

I decided to start up my own election-themed site, Daily Kos. The site actually lived on fishyshark.com for a month as I tried to come up with a "serious" name for my new endeavour. Even though I eventually settled on "Daily Kos", I considered it a failure at the time -- I thought I should've come up with a more creative name. I selected orange as the site color so that it would stand out from the bloggy masses (branding 101).

In short time I caught Jerome's attention, and we made a habit of linking back to each other on a constant basis. A few months later, Jerome (who invented the "open thread") got sick of the flame wars on his message boards and followed Taegan's lead by shutting his comments down. So everyone headed on over to Daily Kos.

And I was ready. I had learned my lessons from Political Wire and MyDD's community failures, and immediately shut the door on the Republican commentors who had destroyed the previous sites' communities. I zealously worked to create a "safe zone" for liberal political junkies, despite howls of "censorship" from both liberals and conservataives, and the community grew. October 2002, MyDD was the highest-trafficked liberal blog, but Jerome shut down soon thereafter as he focused his attentions on Howard Dean. So Daily Kos became the only liberal election analysis game in town.

That is the answer, if, of course, the question is "How do you shamelessly self-promote while creating a tin-foil hat groupthink cesspool for bitter and deluded fringe lefties?"

I shouldn't be mocking them- I am perfectly content to let the Daily Kos serve as the standard bearer and public face for modern liberalism.

Let The Ad Hominems Begin

Yesterday I wondered how the Democrats would handle the Swift Boat commercial, and stated:

It will be interesting to see the Democrat response to this- I am almost willing to bet it will be nothing more than character assassination of the 16 men who dared to speak out.

The Political Animal aims to please:

I hope nobody minds if I ignore the whole Swift Boat veterans thing. These people are certifiable lunatics, and I just can't stand the thought of wasting neurons over them. I'm sure you can find plenty of coverage elsewhere from hardier souls if you're really in the mood to torture yourself.

Here are some more lunatics.

Hey- I oppose Kerry, and I am a veteran. By Drum's criteria, I am a raving lunatic!

More lunatics here!

For those of you keeping score at home:

Joe Wilson- credible.
Kerry's Band of Brothers- not credible.

Lamest Defense Yet

How damaging is the Swift Boat commercial? I think you can get an idea by the lame defenses being offered. This one is just a gem:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

So, when I run for President, and some people in my platoon denounce my candidacy, all I have to say is:

"Hey- they were never on the same 4 man tank as me. Often when we moved in formation, the other tanks were 100 to 200 yards away."

Snicker.

But don't worry- Media Matters is on the story. David Brock and Duncan Black probably can sniff out who the liars are!!!

Congrats

Everyone go say congrats to BlackFive. You will see why when you get there.

Then and Now

I have to take issue with Roger Simon on this one:

Ultimately, I don't care what a man did thirtysome years ago. I have to allow him to grow and change, if I am to allow that for myself. I care about where the man is today... and this man seems nowhere.

That seems fair on the surface, but his analysis has no bearing on Kerry's viability as a candidate. In fact, the essence of the Kerry campaign is that he is the same man he was 30 years ago, otherwise voters would know more about the man other than he has a second rich wife and served in Vietnam.

Not to mention, as Jay Caruso and Jay Reding, Kerry isn't helping us know who he is or what he intends to do, because he refuses to divulge his intentions or plans for Iraq or for the economy.

In short, John Kerry's platform to date reminds me of the old joke:

Q: "How do you say 'F--- You' in Los Angeles?"

A: "Trust Me."

Lies, Damned Lies

This Yglesias post reminded me, once again, how little most people know about statistics (and this is not a dig at Matt- his explanation is about as clear as it comes).

All the News That is Fit to Misrepresent

It is Thursday, so Atrios is once again spinning good economic news as- well, bad news:

Congratulations to the 336K new lucky duckies.

But, more importantly, tomorrow the monthly jobs report comes out. The usual reminder - anything under 150K or so is a "bad" number and anything under 300K or so is less than the average monthly job creation number Bush used to justify his most recent tax cut...

Now, that would be a question for a press conference. "Mr. Preznit, in Februrary of 2004, your Council of Economic Advisers predicted that if your tax plan passed, that 3,672,000 new jobs would be created. What went wrong?"

As you can clearly see- the employment situation is improving, at a rather decent clip:

As Atrios was a loud opponent of the tax cuts and is clearly claiming the tax cuts did not do ENOUGH, a better question might be- why are the Democrats in favor of widespread unemployment? Also note- initial claims are very close to where they were during the 'miracle economy.'

BTW- Props to anyone who can tell me what the number 357,000 means and who came up with the figure.

The Big Lie

One of my favorite mantras from the loony left is being re-packaged by Atrios and delivered to us for our consumption today:

There is a lot that makes me angry... but, I have to say that the lost opportunities post-9/11 really make me sad.

There may have been a brief hiatus from public partisan sniping, but the Democrats only piped down their rhetoric temporarilybecause the public demanded it. They found unity in much the same way that death row inmates find Jesus.

At any rate, it appears unity was dead by the time Atrios started his weblog in April of 2002:

Hey Ashcroft, did you catch Eric Rudolph yet?

The Anthrax mailer?

Osama Bin Laden?

Anybody?

Didn't think so. - 20 April 2002

I can respect that, but anyone who uses the term Bush Doctrine without collapsing into a serious case of the giggles is not someone to be taken seriously. - 20 April 2002

Brad Delong makes the obvious point that it actually matters if our president is a drooling imbecile. I think the fact that someone even has to make this point speaks volumes. - 18 April 2002.

Bush sure did kill that unity quick.

Progress

Looks like we got a few more:

Al-Hindi was among 13 men, ages 19 to 32, arrested in raids late Tuesday in London, the nearby towns of Watford and Luton, and Blackburn in northwestern England. One man was freed Wednesday without charge. The others were being questioned at a London police station "on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism," police said, according to the Associated Press.

The arrests in Pakistan that led investigators to al-Hindi began in June with the apprehension by Pakistani paramilitary forces of Mussad Aruchi, an al Qaeda operative. The operation was supervised by the CIA, officials said. Aruchi, described as a nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, told interrogators he "was sure that al Qaeda would hit New York or Washington pretty soon." He is also a cousin of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who was convicted of planning and carrying out an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

Aruchi's capture led to the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a Pakistani, in the city of Lahore on July 13, and to the apprehension last week of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Bush administration officials said the terror alert for financial sectors in Washington, New York and Newark was based in part on the contents of a laptop computer, disks and other materials seized during an arrest of an al Qaeda fugitive in Pakistan in late July showing that al Qaeda operatives had conducted detailed surveillance of the five buildings. U.S. officials did not make clear until Tuesday that the surveillance was conducted three to four years ago and that authorities were not sure whether it had continued.

I wonder if someone has told the wingnuts, who as recently as yesterday were stating that the terror warnings were elevated only for political reasons.

Loose Lips

Damnit, Shelby:

Federal investigators concluded that Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) divulged classified intercepted messages to the media when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to sources familiar with the probe.

Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.

Cameron did not air the material. Moments after Shelby spoke with Cameron, he met with CNN reporter Dana Bash, and about half an hour after that, CNN broadcast the material, the sources said. CNN cited "two congressional sources" in its report.

Just so irresponsible.

Blogads

There is room for two blogads on the left, and Iam working on a temlate for one premium blogad on the left. Just so you know.

The Nerve

The balls on these people:

The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack. But the delivery of the message was confusing. The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

Gee- I wonder who was leading the charge in making the 'delivery' of this information 'confusing.' Oh, yeah- it was the NY TIMES EDITORIAL STAFF AND PROMINENT DEMOCRATS. Insert the obligatory POGO reference here.

If the editorial were written honestly, it would state:

This administration has had three years to learn what idiots and partisan hacks the NY Times staff and the DNC have become, and it is their fault they have not yet learned what morons we are. In the future, when they issue terror alerts, they should speak slowly and use small words so we can comprehend we know. The color system with five colors is difficult to understand hard, so we propose turning it in to a two color system.

Green would mean "all clear."

Red would mean "be vewwy vewwy afwaid."

We think this would help immensely lots.

Sincearlee,

Gail Collins

Of course, that would be honest, so you will never see anything like that.

Tom Maguire has more on the NYT's pointless and self-serving sedition and malfeasance.

Swift Boats For Kerry

I am curious what the reaction to this commercial will be- after all, it was Kerry who made this the center-piece of his campaign.

I understand that John O'Neill hates Kerry, but there is no way the Democrats can get away with tarring all of these men as VRWC members and brownshirts:

The Kerry campaign featured the photograph in an advertisement released in May titled Lifetime. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has contacted surviving members of this group to find out how many actually support John Kerry, and discovered that of 19 Swift boat skippers pictured other than Kerry, 12 consider him unfit, 4 are neutral, two have died, and 1 is working with the Kerry campaign. Four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry.

It will be interesting to see the Democrat response to this- I am almost willing to bet it will be nothing more than character assassination of the 16 men who dared to speak out.

For the record-

On June 1, 2004, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sent a cease and desist letter to John Kerry for President, Inc. on behalf of 11 officers shown in the photograph, pointing out that using their images in a campaign advertisement "wrongfully and incorrectly suggests their present endorsement of his candidacy."

The video is still up on his website. Anyone know what happened?

(via the Back Country Conservative)

*** Update ***

Others agree that this is a simply devestating ad.

Factesque

Jesse goes 2 for 2:

Today, in Davenport, IA, George W. Bush lauded Iowa's 4.3% unemployment rate as proof of the success of his policies. In November of 2000, Iowa's unemployment rate was 2.5%.

We're turning the corner...

2.5% was before the Clinton recession. The unemployment rate rose to close to 5%, and is now dropping.

The unemployment rate in Iowa during the miracle economy of the Clinton years? 3.8% (and that figure, unlike the 4.3% current figure and the 4.0% figure from last month and the figures in the graph, is seasonally adjusted).

*** Update ***

Jesse, with typical grace and wit, responds, and is wrong again. I give up on him. It must be hard work to so consistently miss other people's points and behave like a pompous fool. But then- he is learning from the master.

Dear Jesse:

We understandthat 4.3% unemployment is higher than 2.5%- we will credit you with being clever and witty for noticing. Really, though- there are reasons for why this is the case, and why Bush's statement is accurate. I am sure they have all bounced off your bitter, thick skull.

Media Matters.

Jesse Taylor- reason enough to vote for George Bush.

Thanks

Just got a package from Amazon which contained a brand spanking new copy of Altered Carbon. Thanks, T.S.

Amazon wish lists were a genius idea, and I appreciate those of you who have used it. I have received some great books this year, and I really am grateful.

Thanks again.

Media Matters- That's Why He is So Busy Distorting It

Duncan Black, aka the Prince of Darkness, has another laugher up:

The Bush Blog links to this NRO article which contains absolutely disgusting attacks on Firefighters.

Generally speaking, the likelihood that a firefighter will vote for John Kerry is inversely proportional to the number of fires he has actually fought. Witness all those T-shirted "Fire Fighters for Kerry" you saw at the convention. A little soft around the middle some of them were, weren't they? Do you think some of them could haul a hose pack up 50 flights of stairs? I'm not betting on it. I'm guessing the only fires many of them have seen lately were at IAFF barbecues.

That is it- the 'absolutely disgusting attacks' on firefighters was actually poking fun at the UNION leadership of the firefighters, who, predictably, vote a little bit different than their rank and file.

Who are the IAFF union bosses?

The IAFF played a critical role in helping Kerry secure the Democratic nomination and could play a role in the general election.

The group, seen as one of the most effective labor unions, admits that it usually has operated under the radar screen. However, the voice and stature of firefighters has increased since Sept. 11.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) called the firefighters "one of the most active and effective organizations in their endorsements. They really come out for whoever they endorse."

And what about the rank and file? From the FireFighters For Bush website:

Letter of the Week - Johneen Castle, Alexandria-St.Albans Twp. Fire Dept.

I thank God for this website. I am truly tired of seeing the media coverage of Kerry and all his IAFF signs that show support for him. My husband is an IAFF as a full-timer and he does not support Kerry. I am part-time and not affiliated with the union but find the signage to be offensive.

For those outside of the fireservice, "IAFF" is nothing more than letters, but the fact that every news stories includes some pictures of firefighters for Kerry does not show the true opinion of the people.

After having read the letters of support from the IAFF magazine, I am disgruntled with the amount of propoganda that this publication has put forth.

Why did Firefighters For Bush start?

Firefighters for Bush is a loose-knit, grassroots organization with three very clear, very simple goals:

To counter the IAFF's mischaracterization of firefighters as "offended" by President Bush's campaign ads.

To provide a public voice for those firefighters who wish to declare their support for President Bush.

To empower America's firefighters to fight back against the IAFF and the misrepresentation of firefighters by the media.

Toward these ends, we are freely providing the multiple resources available through this website as a public service to firefighters everywhere.

Can Atrios be honest about anything? Really, these Media Matters folks are quite the riot act.

Aggregating Intelligence

One of Dan Drezner's summer reading recommmendations is James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Dan quotes part of the text:

What was missing from the intelligence community, though, was any real means of aggregating not just information but also judgments. In other words, there was no mechanism to tap into the collective wisdom of National Security Agency nerds, CIA spooks, and FBI agents. There was decentralization but no aggregation and therefore no organization. [Senator] Richard Shelby's solution to the problem -- creating a truly central intelligence agency -- would solve the organization problem, and would make it easier for at least one agency to be in charge of all the information. But it would also forgo all of the enefits -- diversity, llocal knowledge, independence -- that decentralization brings. Shelby was right that information needed to be shared. But he assumed that someone -- or a small group of someones -- needed to be at the center, sifting through the information, figuring out what was important and what was not. But everything we know about cognition suggests that a small group of people, no matter how intelligent, simply will not be smrter than the larger group.... Centralization is not the answer. But aggregation is.

There was, not too long ago, a an idea for an informal, decentralized aggregator that would function very much like what is called for in this passage. Of course, I am referring to the Terrorism Futures Market.

We all remember what happened there- the idiots won and the project was cancelled. The usual suspects, of course, were loud and wrong, which is usually the correct combination to defeat anything that might do good:

"There is something very sick about it," a clearly angry Boxer said, adding that those responsible should be fired...

"I couldn't believe that we would actually commit $8 million to create a Web site that would encourage investors to bet on futures involving terrorist attacks and public assassinations," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said on the Senate floor. " ... I can't believe that anybody would seriously propose that we trade in death ... How long would it be before you saw traders investing in a way that would bring about the desired result?"

Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said, "The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, called the idea "stupid."

Wyden and Dorgan brought the proposal to public attention Monday.

The ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said that as reports surfaced about the plan, "Our first reaction was that it was a hoax."

*** Update ***

Turns out it is not surprising that passage reminded me of the terrorism futures market. Last year, the author himself wrote a lengthy piece in Slate defending the plan.

Cold Hard Fury

Mike Hendrix has had enough.

Actively Working Against Us

The Belgravia Dispatch details the backtracking regarding the latest terrorist plans, and predictably, the NY Times is leaving a trail of slime. Equally predictable, some fools are still insisting that the terror alerts were released for political gain. These younger members of the Democratic party are true believers- check out this vile 'win-win' scenario for Democrats:

Democrats aren't wrong about Bush politicizing terrorism warnings. But if a terrorist attack happens on American soil, whether Democrats were right or wrong to doubt the terror warning, Bush becomes responsible. Right now, Democrats are talking about how Bush handles the preparation for potential terrorist attacks. If one gets pulled off, it doesn't really matter what Democrats said about the warnings, because Bush would have failed. Yes, Democrats are going to criticize him, especially when he does things that are worth criticism.

Isn't that a gem?

Democrats aren't wrong about Bush politicizing terrorism warnings.

Even though it has been proven to such a degree that they are, in fact, wrong, and the adminstration has been acting responsibly regarding the new threat information.

But if a terrorist attack happens on American soil, whether Democrats were right or wrong to doubt the terror warning, Bush becomes responsible.

Even if we are wrong- IT'S STILL A WIN! Depsite our actively working against the administration, if we get hit before the election, we can pin it on Bush!

If one gets pulled off, it doesn't really matter what Democrats said about the warnings, because Bush would have failed.

Despite our doing everything we can to work against him, we can pin any tragedy on Bush. And, it doesn' matter what we said!

Yes, Democrats are going to criticize him, especially when he does things that are worth criticism.

Even, as Jesse has ably proven, when there is absolutely no reason to criticze them at all.

Personally, I am going to take Jesse's advice:

...it doesn't really matter what Democrats said about the warnings.

It really doesn't matter what they say- theyhave proven they will do and say anything to win. As Jesse seems to suggest, we should probably just start ignoring them, which would be easy if they were not so vile.

Gay Marriage

Here is the real reason Andrew Sullivan wants to makes sure the gay marriage issue is resolved in the courts:

Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday to ban gay marriage, the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as the gay marriage battle spreads to ballot boxes around the nation. At least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, will vote on similar amendments this year.

The amendment had garnered 70 percent of the vote with 91 percent of precincts reporting.

I really think the gay community overplayed their hand with the rash of gay marriages earlier this year. At any rate, I wonder if Sully will come back from vacation to tell everyone in Missouri that they are bigots?

The Sounds of Desperation

Joe Wilson- up in smoke.

Sandy Berger- stuffing documents down his pants.

16 words- accurate then and still true.

What do the Democrats have left? Well, there is this:

Plane Diverted For Bush Twins

Last Saturday, a flight from Boston to Washington was redirected to Albany in order pick up Barbara and Jenna Bush, the Washington Post reports. "In addition to the Bush twins, 22 other beleaguered passengers also boarded in Albany."

From the Post: "'We land in Albany, and the doors open and in come Jenna and Barbara and several Secret Service agents," our spy, who declined to be named 'for fear of going to Gitmo,' told us. 'I kept thinking, I haven't heard of anybody diverting planes for all these other people being inconvenienced. This doesn't fit in the norm of airline travel.'" The plane eventually arrived two hours late in Washington.

Oliver wants you to think that the only reason the plane was diiverted, inconveniencing the 'common man,' was to pick up the Bush twins. Otherwise, he certainly would have included this bit:

But before blame goes to the first daughters, it turns out that it's not unusual for US Airways to make such diversions. "Yes, there are times when we will divert an airplane to pick up passengers off of another canceled flight. We do that when we have no other way to accommodate those customers," said airline spokesman David Castelveter. In addition to the Bush twins, 22 other beleaguered passengers also boarded in Albany.

Petty, transparent, and desparate. It will get worse.

Nixon Redux

While you are over at Just One Minute, make sure you catch this bit about Nixon for President in '04.

Progress

After a day spent trashing the administration for doing their job, the Political Animal now grudgingly concedes there may just me something to the latest terror threat:

After spending some time reading about the CIA's "multiple streams" of intelligence regarding uranium from Niger, I'm not as impressed by this as I might have been a year ago. Still, even though my trusting nature has taken a beating lately, for now it looks like this is probably the real deal, not just a politically motivated announcement designed to scare everyone into voting for George Bush (The Only Candidate Who's Tough on Terror™).

No such luck at the fever swamp known as Pandagon:

That the new and exciting terror alert is based on three-year old information is so stunningly duplicitous, so clearly a base ploy to divert attention from the Democrats, that I haven't even wanted to cover it until now.

Fortunately, the Pandagon silliness is now getting the public mocking they have so richly earned.

Hugh Hewitt notes:

Told of the news that the terror alert was about to be raised, Howard Dean on CNN immediately speculated that politics had motivated the call --underlining why the party which gave him a key speaking role is not to be trusted on life and death issues. That level of paranoia about the GOP as opposed to the terrorists shows Moore's Disease has spread far and wide within the Democratic Party.

In this case, the disease appears to be terminal. Oh well- I have always favored euthanasia.

Politicizing Intelligence, Pt. 2

Remember the Jay Rockefeller memo that explicitly called for Democrats on the Senate Intelligence to use their position for partisan political gain? I think that would be an accurate case of politicizing intelligence, not the vacuous claims made below. And you do remember the response from the Democrats when caught red-handed plotting to politicize national secrets:

"Hey- How did you get that memo?"

Politicizing Intelligence

The Prince of Darkness is still distorting the information that was used for the terror alerts:

1) The WaPo should ignore that Ridge explicitly politicized the terror warning.

2) The WaPo should chastize Howard Dean and unnamed Democrats for pointing out the truth - that this and other terror alerts in the past were explicitly political.

3) Then, finally, the WaPo should meekly suggest that maybe it's a bad idea to use these for political purposes, without acknowledging that it had been done.

Wow- a stupid trifecta.

1.) Apparently the Al Qaedainformation updates are a pattern of behavior:

Much of the information that led the U.S. on Sunday to raise the alert of a possible terror attack in New York and Washington was three to four years old, the New York Times said, citing unidentified government officials.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge raised the terror alert to ``orange,'' the second highest level, for financial institutions in Washington, New York City and northern New Jersey. Ridge cited intelligence on al-Qaeda plans to set off bombs at sites including the New York Stock Exchange, Citigroup Inc. and the International Monetary Fund.

No evidence has been found that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance are still under way, the paper said. The intelligence showed al-Qaeda had conducted reconnaissance of the intended targets, a step that it has taken in the past some years before carrying out attacks, the paper said.

Officials are still analyzing computer records, photos, drawings and other papers seized in Pakistan a month ago, the paper said. Combined with more recent intelligence, the documents show that the al-Qaeda network remains active and intent on attacking the U.S., the paper cited an American official as saying.

2.) Dean's comments were so clearly over the line that even John Kerry recognized it:

Kerry was campaigning Monday in Grand Rapids, Mich., where he dismissed suggestions that a decision to raise the terror alert level was politically motivated.

"You take any threat seriously," said Kerry, who was briefed on Sunday about the latest threats against financial institutions in New York City, Washington and New Jersey. "What's important, however, is not to sort of bounce along from threat to threat. It's to win the war, and I believe that I can fight a more effective war on terror than George Bush is."

Kerry dismissed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's comment that raising the terror level might be politically motivated.

"I don't care what he said. I haven't suggested that and I won't suggest that," Kerry said. "I do not hold that opinion. I don't believe that.''

3.) Why should the Washington Post take advice from a paid political hack funded by extreme leftists? Back in your hole, Atrios.

*** Update ***

Never one to let an accusation against this adminstration go unrepeated, Oliver chimes in. Evidence? Who needs evidence? Oliver's got assertions! And he really believes them! So it must be true! Vote Kerry!

*** Update ***

Jay has more.

Bizarro World

Mor Al Qaeda agents have been captured in Pakistan:

Pakistani authorities have arrested two high-ranking al-Qaida terrorists one with a multimillion-dollar U.S. bounty on his head in a days-long sweep that has netted at least six suspected militants, officials said Tuesday. The interior minister said the arrests in eastern Punjab province were a major break just days after intelligence agents arrested Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Predictably, the Washington Monthly is pissed.

Priceless

It seems the Palestinians have stumbled upon a new solution for the 'Mid-East crisis:'

Palestinian militants attacking an Israeli armoured bulldozer inadvertently killed three other Palestinians Tuesday.

The roadside bomb in the Rafah refugee camp went off a few metres from where the bulldozer – part of an Israeli operation to destroy weapons-smuggling tunnels from Egypt – was piling up dirt in a crowded residential area, Associated Press Television News said.

No Israelis were injured but three Palestinian men 200 metres away were hit by shrapnel, one so severely it took off half his skull.

Ten people were wounded, including a Reuters TV cameraman, witnesses and hospital officials said.

Idiots.

Cease and Desist

Whoever is responsible for teaching the racoons how to get into my garbage cans can stop it right now. They are even these Rubbermaid cans:

The cans are advertised to have "Friction-fit lid with handles that lock down provides security and extra protection against rodents, pets, etc. "

Whatever.

Brass Balls

You have to admit- Sully has balls:

With last week being the most trafficked in the history of this blog, it's a good time to take my annual month of August off.

Translation- Thanks for all the loot for 'bandwidth.' I'm hitting the beach.

I think I am a much better bargain- and I will be honest. Bandwidth is now paid for- I am spending anything in

Outsourcing

This is certainly timely- the multimedia arm of the Democratic National Committee, otherwise known as CBS, apparently has run out of Bush-bashing books and will instead have to re-air this piece on outsourcing:

For decades, American manufacturers of everything from blue jeans to semiconductors have searched the world for the cheapest labor they could find.

It may have cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs, but it's made American products more affordable. Now, some of the most familiar companies -ones we deal with every day - are moving a whole new class of jobs overseas.

They call it outsourcing. Not the old economy assembly line jobs, but jobs in the new economy -- anything that involves a computer or a telephone.

Gee- just in time to support the false messages put forward during the convention. I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Chutzpah

Kevin Drum notes these comments from an anonymous White House Spokesman:

At the White House, where officials are formulating their own package of reform proposals, a senior official, speaking on background to reporters, indicated that the administration will oppose any such arrangement. The official said Bush "wants to protect intelligence agencies from any undue influence" and "ensure that intelligence analysts maintain their autonomy."

"It is fair to say that there [are] some very important potential consequences to the placement of the office," the White House official said.

Before tentatively agreeing with the remarks, the Political Animal quips:

The chutzpah of these people is just breathtaking, isn't it? How do they find people willing to say stuff like this with a straight face?

Maybe they hire them away from the Washington Monthly? Remember this, Kevin:

The Committee ste out to examine a number of issues including whether anyone within the Intelligence Community was pressured to change their judgements or to reach a specific judgement to suit a particular policy objective. Not only did we find no such "pressure," we found quite the opposite. Intelligence officals across the Community told Members and staff that their assessments were solely the product of their own analyses and judgements. They related to Committee staff in interview after interview their strong belief that the only "pressure' they felt was to get it right. Every individual with whom we spoke felt a deep sense of responsibility to provide the highest quality product possible. This was especially evident among terrorism analysts whose assessments had become all the more important after September 11th, 2001.

Of course, the bi-partisan report means nothing to fierce partisans. If you say something often enough in certain circles- it is true. That is why they still are attempting to defend and spin serial liar Joe Wilson, even though Tom Maguire has effectively laughed them out of the blogosphere.

Zarqawi Captured?

More newspapers are joining the chorus.

No Kidding

Sayeth Rich Lowry:

The debate has now been settled: John Kerry definitely served in Vietnam.

That was a major point of the Democratic Convention and of Kerry's acceptance speech. This must be one of the great acts of chutzpah of all time: The party that made national politics safe for Vietnam draft avoiders in 1992 now considers Vietnam service arguably the foremost qualification for the presidency. But, hey, the Democrats are now the party of militaristic display and cultural conservatism.

Red State

I don't know if you have been reading Red State, a right leaning collaboration for which I am an editor and a frequent contributor, but you really should check the site out.

If you want to know why Iam proud to be a member of the staff, go read this piece on the Kerry speech by Tacitus, one of the founders.

Kerry Speech

I did not watch the Kerry speech- I figured it would just piss me off. I like reading the speeches instead, as there is something about the last few prominent national Democrats that just infuriates me when they speak- the self-righteousness, the lies. Not sure what it is. Where have you gone, Pat Moynihan?

At any rate, some comments:

This line just blew me away:

I was born, as some of you saw in the film, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Colorado, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not kidding. I was born in the West Wing.

Holy loads of cheese, Batman. That is reason enough to keep the man out of the Oval Office.

This line was amusing, too:

I have unforgettable memories of being a kid mesmerized by the British, French and American troops, each of them guarding their own part of the city - and Russians standing guard on that stark line separating East from West. On one occasion, I rode my bike into Soviet East Berlin. And when I proudly told my dad, he promptly grounded me.

My first thought was- I wonder if that is when they flipped him. Gary Farber- that was an attempted joke.

I actually felt a moment of comaraderie when he said this:

I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and I heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever."

I cry every time I hear it. Same with the National Anthem, TAPS, and America the Beautiful.

This is a gem- an attack on Bush's line from 2000:

To all who serve in our armed forces today I say help is on the way.

A quick trip down memory lane:

When first running for his Senate seat in 1984, Kerry explained carefully that he was firmly against such mainstays of the defense establishment as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system.

He also ran on a platform of cutting back on the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16. The average newspaper-reading American, of course, recognizes these systems as the veritable tip of the spear that not only crushed Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War but also smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan and punched through to Baghdad in the second Gulf War...

In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise.

In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA.

In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry.

In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote.

I think you get the point. on we go, until we reach this mess in the middle:

And tonight we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes to the truth and their ears, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim our democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism, it is the heart and soul of patriotism.

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The Stars and Stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of those people who are here tonight and all across the country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. And it was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men that I served with and friends I grew up with. For us that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.

Get the man some lithium. Apparently, questioning Kerry's proposals is questioning his patriotism.

You know what? I am tired. I don't care what he has to say- there is no chance I will vote for the man.

BTW- no mention of abortion. Weird.

*** Update ***

Michael Totten:

John Kerry is a Politician. I’d give him a 50-50 grade on the content of his speech. Only trouble is he’s such a self-contradictory phony parsing his speech isn't worth any effort. He says he won’t let any nation veto our foreign policy. Excellent. Glad to hear it, John! So what, exactly, was the point of your 18-month whine-fest because Bush more or less stuck to your promise?

Heh.

Berger Rumors

Atrios and the Atriettes are promoting this WSJ piece stating that Sandy Berger is in the clear:

Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Not so, says Newsmax:

senior spokeswoman for the National Archives denied a report Friday morning that Archives officials have cleared former Kerry-Edwards campaign adviser Sandy Berger on charges that he withheld documents from the 9/11 Commission.

"In spite of what the Wall Street Journal said, the National Archives really isn't commenting on this case because it's under investigation," Susan Cooper, chief spokeswoman for the Archives, told NewsMax.com.

I'll keep you posted.

BTW-now that we know that Atrios's real name is a Soros-funded left-winger named Duncan Black, I guess I really wasn't all that off last year when I called him the Prince of Darkness.

WaPo on Kerry

Everyone is talking about the Washington Post Editorial slamming Kerry's speech. Read the whole thing, but my favorite part was this:

Yet in economics as in national security, Mr. Kerry missed an opportunity for straight talk. His promises to stop the outsourcing of jobs and end dependence on Middle East oil are not grounded in reality.

Holy loads of euphemisms....

Kerry v. Kerry

Via Talk Left:

By e-mail we're told that in an attempt to limit John Kerry's message, the Republicans will release a 12 minute video to embarass Kerry tonight, and that it will be all over the news tomorrow and this weekend.

Anyone know if this is true? What's the appropriate response if it is true?

Update: Minipundit advises it's true and you can watch it here.

I watched the video yesterday. It is 12 minutes of Kerry completely shifting his opinions on Iraq, starting with his very hawkish behavior and belligerent attitude toward Hussein in 1998 (so spare me the "how was he supposed to know Bush was lying" bullshit) until the Iowa caucus, when Dean'santi-war position was cleaning Kerry's clock in thepolls. Once that became clear, Kerry took on a more 'nuanced' position.

Only in the weird world in which Democrats reside could this be considered an 'attack' ad. Is it embarassing? Yes. But so is John Kerry.

Another One Down

Score one for the good guys:

Pakistan has arrested a senior al Qaeda figure with a bounty of up to $25 million on his head, Interior Minister Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat told CNN television Thursday.

He said the suspect had been captured during a raid in central Pakistan a few days ago. He did not identify the captive but said he was "a person who is most wanted internationally."

Al Arabiya satellite news channel quoted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as saying the suspect was arrested Sunday.

"The Pakistani president said the arrested person is Tanzanian who is married to an Uzbek woman, and who is wanted by the United States," the station said.

Al Arabiya said the suspect may be Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. Ghailani is the only Tanzanian on the FBI's most wanted "terrorists" list, for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings by al Qaeda of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Now, if we can only keep him away from an International Court.

*** Update ***

The usual suspects are calling this the "July Surprise," which is silly for numerous reasons:

1.) Of course we are pressuring Pakistan to turn over terrorists. That kinda is the goal of the War on Terror- to find and kill/neuter/prosecute terrorists. Oddly enough, it is a goal of the Kerry-Edwardsticket- to work with our allies in the fight to keep America secure. Imagine that.

2.) This will have no impact on the election whatsoever, and not even bump Kerry's acceptance speech off the headline of ANY paper.

3.) Only the kool-aid drinkers who think that we really were 'distracted' by the War in Iraq would think that we have ever stopped aggressively persuing these scum.

I am just happy we caught the a-hole, and it is not going to impact my opinion on the election at all.

*** Update ***

Ezra, in his usual calm, reasoned self, resonds in the comments:

Liar. We're questioning it because a TNR report came out three weeks ago saying the Bush Administration was pressuring Pakistan to deliver them DURING the convention. Liar liar liar. This is beneath you.

Actually, I had no idea there was such a report. The link in your post today only mentioned pressure to deliver targets 'before the election,' which of course is a no-brainer.

At any rate, I stand corrected. But you really need to upgrade the meds, Ezra. I guess the only innocent mistakes in the eyes of Democrats are when you slip and stick your dick in an intern or shove secret documents down your pants.

Really- being civil with the political opposition pays off, doesn't it?

International Justice 0, UN Apologists 1

European 'Justice':

A U.N. war crimes tribunal Thursday ordered a Bosnian Croat commander's early release from prison after clearing him of responsibility in a 1993 massacre, a decision that could make it harder to convict high-ranking officials accused of masterminding ethnic violence in the Balkans.

Overturning a ruling by a lower chamber, the five-member panel of judges dismissed 16 of 19 war crimes charges against Gen. Thiomir Blaskic, exonerating the 43-year-old of ordering ethnic bloodshed in Bosnia. The judges upheld lesser charges of illegal detainment and inhumane treatment of Muslim prisoners. His sentence was reduced from 45 to nine years.

A summary of the 300-page ruling read out in court found that prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blaskic planned or even knew about war crimes being committed by his forces.

Great.

The appeals chamber also said that it had taken into account Blaskic's good behavior, clear prior record, poor health, voluntary surrender and his young children.

"The trial chamber also erred in failing to consider the appellant's real and sincere remorse,'' the ruling said.

Apparently, if you keep your cell clean after being arrested for the wholesale slaughter of hundreds, you get a pass.

In short, Hitler's real failing as a person was that he was born 60 years too early and neglected to have kids.

BTW- this is who John Kerry wants to turn Iraq over to...

Blog changes

Starting in a couple of weeks, I am going to really have to begin finishing a project that is several years old and long overdue. Therefore my blogging tie is going to be limited, and I will be unable to post at the same rate as normal.

Fear not- I am not going anywhere. I will have time for a 2-3 posts every day, but not much more. At any rate, I am thinking about inviting a co-host aboardfor several months, andhell, if it works out, forever.

At any rate, if you are a Republican with a more moderate approach towards social issues, a libertarian, or a straight up flaming liberal and interested, drop me a line. The only qualification is that you can write (the rules are not applied to me, damnit) and you don't act like a barking moonbat.

I would prefer people that will not talk about religion or abortion, however. Not because I dislike theocons, but because I would rather shower in prison than discuss abortion or religion or both. People who are deeply religious, from my experience, are deeply and profoundly religious, and can not help but let their religious perspectives dominate their philosophy, and inevitably the conversation turns to abortion. That is not a fault, but just not the direction I want this blog to take. If you need an example, check yesterday's stem cell thread at Red State, which after 4-5 comments on stem cell research turned into an abortion debate. Again, I would rather beat my big toe with a ball peen hammer than spend 3 hours sorting through a comments thread devoted to when life starts.

At any rate, I know there are plenty of capable contributors out there, so let me know if you are interested. And please, don't feel rejected if I choose someone other than you. Although technically, you will have been rejected. Oh, well, life is tough.

Thanks in advance.

Hope in One Hand

When I was in the army, my platoon sergeant had a particular saying he liked to use whenever someone started a sentence with "I hope..." His gruff response was always:

"Hope in one hand, and then shit in the other. Tell me which one fills up first."

At any rate, John Edwards promises that "Hope is on the way." He better hope so, because according to his speech last night, he and Kerry are going to, if elected:

- Provide all Americans with the same health care provided to the Senate.

- Close loopholes in the Nonproliferation Treaty.

A point by point fisking of the speech is unnecessary. One aspect of the speech is correct, though- there are 'Two Americas.'

One who buys this shit, and one who sees right through it.

*** Update ***

The Reason folks are making fun of the laundry list, too.

Grasping At Straws

Dear Kos,

Please look up post hoc ergo propter hoc. Then get back to your regularly scheduled cheerleading for the deaths of Americans.

Just a Flesh Wound

One minor oversight in the rush to gay marriage in canada. They forgot to set provisions for gay divorce.

The women, identified only as MM and JH, wed on 18 June 2003, a week after the province legalised same-sex unions, the Toronto Star reports.

The couple, who had been together for five years, separated five days later.

Three provinces and the Yukon have ruled in favour of gay weddings, but the divorce laws have not been amended to apply to same-sex couples.

Oops.

The Marine Corps Reviews F9/11

I don't know if this is another hoax or not, but I like the sentiment.

Wow

Just read.

Napoleon Complex

Kevin is pissed at Arnie, who intends to challenge the CA legislature:

The Republican governor may call a special election next year asking voters to, among other things, convert the Legislature to part-time status, strip legislators of their power to draw their own districts and restrict campaign contributions, his spokesman said Tuesday.

Kevin writes:

In substantive terms this is laughable, since as near as I can tell the budget deadlock was almost entirely Schwarzenegger's fault. He screwed up his negotiations with local governments and had to backpedal, and then went to the mat over two trivial items that no one would even have noticed if he hadn't suddenly brought them up out of the blue.

Some advice for Arnie:

1.) Advertise the special election as an opportunity for 'every vote to count.'

2.) Call the conversion of the legislature to part-time status 'Mandatory annual maternity/paternity leave.'

3.) Turn all re-districting issues over to the courts. All Democrats know that is where decisions are supposed to be made.

4.) Call the restriction of campaign contributions "Campaign Finance Reform."

I don't know how Democrats could oppose any of that.

And no, I amnot serious about any of this- thought I would just tease Kevin, who has yet to say one nice thing about arnod, who still smells like a rose compared to the last offering from the Democrats.

*** Update ***

Actually, Kevin being bitter towards Arnie is rather predictable. After all, who is he going to credit with the California recovery- Bush or Arnie? Neither is a decent choice for the Calpundit.

I Will Not Stand By

While Nick Gillespie slanders Carter Country.

"Handle it, Roy! Handle it, handle it."

Just Out of Curiosity

After watching Ron Reagan whore his father's name for personal and partisan political gain at the Democratic national Convention last night, I thought we should check the current state of knowledge on stem cell research.

MYTH #1: If George Bush and the GOP have their way, there will be no scientific activity in the field of stem cell research.

FACT: Stem cell research is legal, and has always been legal through private research.

MYTH #2: George Bush and the radical Republicans have done everything they can to make stem cell research illegal.

FACT: Prior to George Bush, federal funding of stem cell research was ILLEGAL, with Bill Clinton ensuring such research remain illegal through executive order in 1994. The Clinton administration did examine and create some basic guidelines regarding stem cell research, but these were not widely debated and not implemented, thus leaving the issue to the Bush administration.

MYTH: Bush's backwards, Christian Fundamentalist beliefs threaten the existence of stem cell research

FACT: Bush, during the campaign, was actually against any form of stem cell research (a mistake, IMHO), but later reversed course and came to favor such research.

MYTH: Bush's decision on stem cell research has crippled the field.

FACT:Before President Bush's Aug. 9, 2001, announcement, no NIH funds were used in supporting human embryonic stem cell research. In fiscal year (FY) 2000, $147 million and in FY 2001, $152 million funded all non-embryonic stem cell research. In FY 2002 things changed, with $10.7 million for hESC research and $170.9 million for non-embryonic human stem cell research . In FY 2003 the budget for hESC research was more than doubled to$24.8 million and non-embryonic stem cell research funding increased to $190.7 million.

MYTH: Because of President Bush, stem cell research is nearly impossible to conduct in the United States.

FACT: From a letter to concerned members of the House of Representatives, signed by by Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the NIH:

Through the President's leadership and the extraordinary efforts of the NIH, we are making good progrss in meeth the potential of this exciting new field of science- a field that had not been federally funded prior to the President's historic addresss toe the Nation on August 9, 2001.

As you know, 78 hESC derivations met the criteria established by the President on that date. Although some have been withdrawn or have failed to expand, many lines are currently being used for research into diabetes and Parkinson's. Eligible lines are being used in private sector research and in research using funding from other Federal sources...

Today, much of the basic research thatneeds to be done canbe and is being supported with Federal funds under the President's policy. In the three years since the President announced his policy, this science has advanced. Yet we still do not know with certainty what we will or will not be able to accomplish with 19lines or 23 lines or more. And although it is also fir to say that from a purely scientific perspective more cell lines may well speed some areas of hESC research, the President's position is still predicated on his belief that taxpayer funds should not "sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

MYTH The President's position on stem cells is keeping medical treatment from people with horrible diseases.

FACT Stem cell research is just that- research, and much of the debate is about the promise of cures in the future:

The most promising use of stem cells is due to their ability to be modified into different functional adult cell types and serve as a potential source of replacement cells to treat numerous diseases. Thus, any disease in which there is tissue degeneration can be a potential candidate for stem cell therapies, including conditions and disabilities as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, Type 1 diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, muscular dystrophies and liver diseases...

Recently, new possibilities for the use of adult stem cells have emerged when researchers showed that cells from the bone marrow can give rise to specialized cells in a variety of tissues as different as blood, brain, muscle, kidney, pancreas and liver. One can imagine that one day, we will be able to isolate our own bone marrow cells, treat them and reintroduce them back into the body to renew or repair cells in a number of different organs.

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), present in the bone marrow and precursors to all blood cells, are currently the only type of stem cells commonly used for therapy. Doctors have been transferring HSCs in bone marrow transplants for more than 40 years. Advanced techniques for collecting or "harvesting" HSCs are now used to treat leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders.

The clinical potential of stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases, including diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. However, these new therapies have been offered only to a very limited number of patients using adult stem cells.

This is a sensitive issue- not a political football. Keep that in mind when you hear statements like this:

In an exclusive interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews scheduled to air Monday at 7 p.m. ET on MSNBC TV, Ron Reagan said that the speech wasn’t about political one-upmanship. "I won’t be making a political speech," he said. "I think it's important to talk about stem cell research—important to the country and the world. The Democrats support this, and President Bush doesn’t."

From Reagan's 'non-political' speech last night:

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.

Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.

Ron Reagan, Jr.- liar, demagogue, and disgrace. Or, if you will, a campaigning Democrat.

BTW- If this was a 'non-political' address, why was it necessary to be delivered at the NOMINATING CONVENTION FOR THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

(Also posted at Red State)