Who Is John Kerry?

[thedrifter]

JUDGE JOHN KERRY BY HIS RECORD

October 21, 2004 -- In 12 days, Americans will go to the polls to render a verdict on George W. Bush's presidency.
But Nov. 2 will not simply be a re ferendum on President Bush's leader ship. It is about the choice facing the nation — not just whether Bush deserves another term, but whether Sen. John F. Kerry provides an acceptable alternative.

The answer to the latter question is an emphatic no.

John Kerry comes out of the Democratic Party's elitist left wing, embracing values and goals that America has repudiated at the polls time and time again.

True, Kerry campaigns like a centrist. But his 20-year record in the Senate belies that flag of convenience.

Suffice it to say that John Kerry has rarely seen an expensive social program he didn't embrace — or a national-security initiative he could abide.

And long before he came to the Senate, Kerry made a national reputation as the spokesman for those whose solution to Vietnam was simply to run away. Moreover, he earned that rep by publicly slandering an entire generation of U.S. soldiers as — in his own words — "war criminals."

Now America faces a chal lenge unlike any it has ever before experienced: global Islamist terrorism.

But to Kerry, terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, to be fought like organized crime or gang violence. And — for all his equivocation on a pledge never to use military force unless its purpose meets a "global test" — his record suggests strongly that he meant precisely what he said the first time.

He first ran for office pledging that he'd "like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations" — and he's rarely strayed from that position.



Yet even when America put together a global coalition and United Nations endorsement to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, Sen. Kerry actually led congressional opposition to that effort.

Once the war was being prosecuted successfully, however, Kerry started waving the flag — even praising the first President Bush's "moxie."

This time around, Kerry endorsed the removal of Saddam Hussein as a threat to America's security and voted to authorize the unilateral use of force.

Then, when the postwar picture grew complicated (and radical antiwar can didate Howard Dean seemed to be running away with the nomination), he turned against the war, voting against properly equipping supplying troops then in harm's way — explaining that he'd only meant to "authorize" the use of force, not actually to use it.

For two decades, he has voted to slash America's defense budget, eliminating vital weapons systems.

As recently as 1994 — just one year after the first World Trade Center bombing — he proposed mammoth cuts of the Pentagon and intelligence-agencies budgets. Many of Kerry's own Democratic colleagues took to the floor of Congress to warn that his cuts endangered America's security.

In the end, even Ted Kennedy voted against Kerry's proposed defense cuts as too drastic.

Yet, the following year, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years. The year after that, he introduced a bill to slash defense spending by a further $6.5 billion.

Today, Kerry campaigns as a deficit hawk, citing his support of the Reagan-era balanced-budget bill. At the time, however, he boasted that he only voted for the bill "to force the Reagan administration to cut defense spending."

John Kerry, in short, remains firmly in the throes of Vietnam syndrome, afraid to take the steps needed to protect America from threats to its security — and, even worse, tailoring his worldview to his current standing in the polls.

And, by the way, he now campaigns against the Patriot Act, calling it a threat to our civil liberties. Yet he voted in favor of that very same bill, too.

Little wonder, then, that John Kerry has spent almost no time on the campaign trail talking about his record. Because it's the skeleton in his closet — an endless litany of left-wing votes and proposals that refutes his headlong rush to the political center as Election Day draws near.

On domestic issues, the record is the same: Kerry's campaign pledges and pronouncements are totally contradicted by his 20-year performance as a legislator from Massachusetts. "I'm a liberal and proud of it," Kerry declared in 1991 — and nothing he's done in the Senate suggests otherwise.

He has voted consistently to raise taxes — though on other issues, he is consistently inconsistent: opposing the death penalty for terrorists in 1996, then supporting it in 2002; voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, then attacking it as a "mockery"; opposing work requirements for welfare recipients, then voting for welfare reform; saying he opposes litmus tests for federal judges, then vowing to impose one if he wins this year.

And at a time when soaring liability insurance costs — in the wake of sky-high jury verdicts — are threatening the U.S. health-care system, Kerry chose as his running-mate a multi-millionaire personal-injury lawyer who stands in the way of any meaningful tort reform.

Himself a multi-millionaire by marriage, Kerry unconvincingly pretends to champion the struggling middle-class even as his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, derides the work experience of Laura Bush — a former schoolteacher and librarian and a full-time mother.

"I don't know that she's ever had a real job, I mean, since she's been grown up," Heinz Kerry told USA Today — a remark for which she quickly apologized.

Ultimately, however, there is one over- riding issue in this campaign: the War on Terror.

That much became clear — to everyone, it seems, except John Kerry — in the ashes of the World Trade Center.

For most Americans, 9/11 changed the way this nation needs to think about external threats and national security.

But for John Kerry, still stuck emotionally in the Vietnam quagmire, it appears that there were no lessons to be learned.

Which is why America can't afford John Kerry as president.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/32314.htm


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Kerry says social justice would guide presidency


By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry said a broad vision of social justice, including care for the poor and those without health insurance, is at the root of his religion and would guide his presidency.
The Massachusetts senator sought to win over remaining undecided voters with a speech that advisers said would explore "his sense of faith" and how it would affect his decision-making process as president.
He cited Matthew 25:40 — "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me" — and said Jesus' admonition should determine the moral obligation everyone in society has to each other.







"The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members," he said, arguing that the government has an obligation to protect the environment, fight AIDS, reduce poverty and defeat terrorism.
He did not give a moral defense of his pro-choice stance on abortion and his support for embryonic stem-cell research, but he acknowledged the contentious debate within the Catholic Church about his public role in these matters.
"I love my church, I respect the bishops, but I respectfully disagree," Mr. Kerry said, to one of the wildest ovations of the speech.
"My task, as I see it ... is not to write every doctrine into law. That is not possible or right in a pluralistic society," he said. "But my faith does give me values to live by and apply to the decisions I make."
Afterward, audience member Jeff Schuster said the applause reflected the audience's belief that Republicans don't have a lock on Christianity.
"The church isn't right on every decision, and a lot of people respectfully disagree," said Mr. Schuster, 43.
President Bush has been clear on the role of his Protestant Christian faith in guiding him, saying in the third presidential debate that "prayer and religion sustain me." Mr. Kerry has been more reluctant to talk about his religious practice, yesterday talking about prayer as something he learned as a child and practiced as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam.
If elected, Mr. Kerry would be only the second Catholic president in the history of this nation of 60 million to 65 million Catholics. The only Catholic president of the United States to date was John F. Kennedy.
Despite the candidate's solemn approach to his speech yesterday, the audience of about 2,000 people treated it as more of a rally, at one point interrupting Mr. Kerry's call for prayers for whoever wins the election with chants of "No more Bush."
It was partly a reiteration of his Democratic National Convention speech about how he learned his values while fighting in Vietnam, and partly the themes from his standard campaign speech, with Biblical verses added.
At less than 30 minutes, the speech was far shorter than most of his major speeches or even his standard remarks at rallies, and several Republicans said it didn't live up to its billing.
"Senator Kerry managed to give 'a major speech on faith and values' today without mentioning either one in any detail," said Republicans Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Jim Ryun of Kansas.
"John Kerry himself has quoted Scripture and pointed out that 'faith without works is dead.' The same can be said about empty political speeches about faith and values that ignore a 20-year record of voting against both in the United States Senate," said the three congressmen, who are Jewish (Mr. Cantor), Catholic (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and Protestant (Mr. Ryun).
And Massachusetts state Rep. Brian Golden, a Democrat and a Catholic, said in a statement that Mr. Kerry's record of opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion matters most.
During yesterday's speech, Mr. Kerry was interrupted by a man who shouted, "End the war, end the war, John."
"It's a very legitimate concern, and it's a part of faith," Mr. Kerry responded. "What that cry about the war means to me — what all the complaints we hear from people mean to me — is that you have to hold and have a vision of society that is concerned about the common good, where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibility to others."
Campaign adviser Mike McCurry said Mr. Kerry's decision to talk about his religion so late in the campaign was aimed at voters just tuning in now.
"The question that many of those who are still undecided are asking is, 'Can I put my faith in John Kerry the person?' and I think helping make that decision by giving them a sense of who he is personally is very important at this stage of the campaign," Mr. McCurry said.
Before the speech, Mr. Kerry attended Mount Hermon African Methodist Episcopal Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Pastor John F. White said God's work will be done through voters' selecting Mr. Kerry, as it was through Moses' leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
"There's one who can divide the Red Sea for us and we can cross over to dry ground," Mr. White said.
Mr. Kerry pointed to a list of 10 "Christian principles in an election year" created by the National Council of Churches USA (NCC), printed on the back of Mount Hermon's worship program, which the council said Christian voters are to keep in mind.
The first principle was that "war is contrary to the will of God," and it went on to call on politicians to "reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness."
The NCC list did not mention abortion or marriage, and a statement on the group's Web site said that was deliberate because there wasn't agreement on those issues.
Mr. Kerry attended Mass on Saturday at St. Anthony's Catholic Church in Anthony, N.M., taking Holy Communion, though he may have violated the fasting period that Catholic teaching requires before receiving it.
Reporters traveling with Mr. Kerry said he appeared to be munching chips and salsa and drinking iced tea throughout his stop at the Red Rooster Cafe, which he left five minutes before the beginning of the 6 p.m. Mass. He took Communion 50 minutes later, at about 6:45 p.m.
Catholic canon law says that those who are to receive Communion must "abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion." This rule actually relaxed the requirements from when Mr. Kerry was an altar boy. Overnight fasting was required then.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041025-011431-5595r.htm


Ellie

[thedrifter]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Kerry's phantom meeting
Published October 26, 2004


John Kerry has called truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership." He told National Guard veterans last month, "As president, I will always be straight with you -- on the good days and the bad days." He has repeatedly said President Bush fails the test, especially when it comes to foreign policy. All the richer, then, is yesterday's revelation that, for political purposes, Mr. Kerry fabricated a meeting with the "entire" U.N. Security Council in October 2002 just before the United Nations voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
As Joel Mowbray reported in the Washington Times yesterday, of the 15 ambassadors who sat on the council in 2002, four say they have never even met Mr. Kerry. Neither has their staff. Mr. Kerry met individually with the French, Singaporean and Cameroon delegates, Mr. Mowbray confirmed. But no all-encompassing meeting with Security Council members ever took place the way Mr. Kerry said it did.
For more than a year, the phantom meeting had been a useful cudgel for Mr. Kerry's attacks on the president. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, Mr. Kerry said he had met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein." In the second presidential debate, Mr. Kerry again trotted out the meeting to argue that "this president hasn't listened ... I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them."
But that turns out not to be true. Kerry spokesmen entered into spin mode over the weekend, backtracking from the above statements with the assertion that Mr. Kerry "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council." But even this seems dubious. "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council," one U.S. diplomat told Mr. Mowbray. Another saidonconditionof anonymity that Mr. Kerry met with "a few" of the ambassadors.
In all likelihood the reality is that Mr. Kerry chose to trump up the importance of piecemeal meetings with a few delegates as part of his effort to cast the president as disdainful of allies and hasteful as commander in chief. Mr. Kerry had wanted to make himself appear the better on both accounts. It helps, of course, if the acts of diplomatic finesse one ascribes to one's self actually took place. Just as it helps to have a truthful record when trying to cast an opponent as a deceiver. Clearly, Mr. Kerry has some explaining to do.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

October 25, 2004 <br />
<br />
News Briefs <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Desert ‘Donkeys’ want Kerry <br />
A correspondent for The Times of London claims to have found Marines, sailors and U.S. diplomats in Iraq who are exchanging e-mails...

[thedrifter]

26 October <br />
<br />
New York Sun (Unedited version) <br />
<br />
<br />
26 October <br />
<br />
New York Sun (Unedited version)

[thedrifter]

The president's 'secret weapon'


By Stephanie Mansfield
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


WEST ALLIS, Wis. — She's never in a bad mood, says one member of her Secret Service detail.
She's "cordial," Robert Haugh says, putting away the silverware on the blue-and-white C-9 Air Force jet that has been home to the first lady and her 22-year-old twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, for the past few weeks.
"You can't ask for anything more," Mr. Haugh says of Laura Bush, who may prove to be the real "October surprise" of the 2004 presidential campaign.







She is described by President Bush as his "secret weapon" and by daughter Jenna as "a role model for women across the country."
Her chestnut hair perfectly coifed, her gray suede pumps unscuffed and understated, her pastel blue coat and paisley shawl comfortably stylish, the 58-year-old former schoolteacher has been deployed by the Bush campaign to do what she does best: Make undecided voters fall in love with her.
Take Jeanne Richter, a 77-year-old registered Democrat who is a resident of the Village at Manor Park, where Mrs. Bush made her last solo appearance before joining her husband for the last week of the campaign. Mrs. Richter, who said she was "wavering," is now leaning toward voting for Mr. Bush.
"She's seems to be a wonderful lady," the Wisconsin woman said.
Mrs. Richter says Mrs. Bush is a better first lady than Teresa Heinz Kerry would be. "No doubt about it in my mind. ... [Mrs. Bush] was absolutely wonderful, and I'm so happy I took the time to come down and hear her personally. Sometimes when you read things, that's one thing. It's informative, yes. But seeing her in person makes you think a little bit deeper."
The president's wife and daughters spent last week wooing voters like Mrs. Richter in their "W Stands For Women" tour, so named for the president's middle initial. An all-day trek through New Hampshire on Thursday was followed by a quick trip to Wisconsin, and then on to Ohio and Florida, visiting church suppers and firehouses.
"We've been all over the place this week," Jenna says in her Texas drawl. "We started out in Las Vegas on Sunday. Because of the change in time zones, Barbara and I were lying awake last night until 2 in the morning."
Mr. Bush joked last week that he had promised his daughters a camping trip, and it turned out to be the 2004 campaign instead. Wearing a vanilla embroidered coat by favorite designer Lela Rose, Jenna says, "We're exhausted."
The president has said he promised his wife when he proposed to her that she would never have to make a political speech, but as Jenna told a small rally of Republican women in New Hampshire, "Wrong family, mom."
In the past month, the first lady delivered 30 political speeches, mostly to women and seniors. And Mrs. Bush is enormously popular — a Gallup poll showed her with a 74 percent approval rating, more than 20 percentage points better than her husband's rating.
The first lady stays on message: Tax relief. Childhood education. No military draft. The war on terrorism. Women starting their own small businesses. Nothing ruffles her regal bearing.
"She's a source of inspiration to countless women," says actress Angie Harmon, also stumping for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. "I have such great respect for the job she's doing."
Mrs. Bush begins every appearance with a slight nod to someone in the crowd, and makes eye contact. When Jenna introduces her mother at a rally— repeating the same jokes she told two hours earlier at a previous stop — the first lady laughs as if it's the first time she's heard it.
She is a hugger, a hand-holder and a reader. While Jenna scans the newspapers, chews gum or fiddles with her Blackberry on the campaign plane, her mother catches up on paperwork and nibbles apples. She usually does her own hair, unless there's a hairdresser around, and prefers simple salads and sandwiches and bottled water on the plane. Tonight is lasagna night. She keeps her wardrobe in blue garment bags, and keeps her personal opinions to herself.
"This last leg of the campaign is so crucial," says 24-year-old Erika Harold, Miss America 2003, who has taken a day off from her Harvard Law School studies to spend the day campaigning with the first lady. "I think [Mrs. Bush is] definitely an asset. She could definitely make a difference."
The first lady — who says she hates it when police use their sirens in her motorcades because she thinks it bothers other drivers — gets her own sugar for coffee at Jack's coffee shop in New London, Wis., where supporters have been waiting 40 minutes, chanting "Four More Years."
Inside the shop, Mrs. Bush responds without anger to Mrs. Kerry's statement that the first lady, despite years of teaching and working as a librarian and raising two daughters, "never had a real job."
Saying it "didn't hurt" her feelings, she said Mrs. Kerry "apologized ... I know how tough it is. And, actually, I know those trick questions."
While the first lady turned the other cheek to Mrs. Kerry's remark, Miss Harold says she thought the remark was catty and indicative "of how out of touch [Mrs. Kerry] may be with the way real people live."
Mrs. Bush was "probably more disappointed for other women whose choices are demeaned by [Mrs. Kerry's] remarks," said Kitty Sununu, the 39-year-old wife of New Hampshire Sen. John E. Sununu and mother of three who joined the first lady's bus tour.
Mrs. Kerry's "real job" remark apparently angered women like Kristy Donaghy, a 41-year-old mother of two from Nashua, N.H., who held up a sign reading, "I Never Had a Real Job Either — I'm a Mom + Teacher."
The first daughters, meanwhile, are working hard to be taken more seriously, especially after Jenna was photographed sticking her tongue out at the White House press corps.
"The strongest they've been is on the road," said ABC White House correspondent Ann Compton. "It's been a very gradual coming out of their shells. There's still a little bit of the giggle there, but they're much stronger than they were."
Can the Bush women make a difference Nov. 2? Marilyn Prell, a 59-year-old Kerry supporter, sat in a bar watching the first lady's motorcade leave town.
"She doesn't hurt."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041025-011433-9527r.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Civilization Watch <br />
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC <br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
By Orson Scott Card October...

[thedrifter]

It's the same on the news and entertainment talk shows and in the intellectual and scholarly magazines. While the Right does not lack for shallow-thinking spouters of the party line -- one thinks of...

[Phantom Blooper]

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, "Your Majesty,
how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can
give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself
with intelligent people."

Kerry frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really
intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to
answer an intelligent riddle." The Queen pushes a button on her intercom.
"Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room. "Yes, my Queen?" The Queen smiles. "Answer
me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your
brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice the
same question.

"John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's
not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says John Edwards. "Let me get back to you on that one."
Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an
answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin
Powell's shoes in the next stall. Edwards shouts, "Colin! Can you answer
this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother
or your sister. Who is it?" Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's
me!"

Edwards smiles, and says, "Thanks!" Then, Edwards goes back to speak with
Kerry. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle.
It's Colin Powell."

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and angrily yells into his
face, "No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!" :)

[thedrifter]

Will the "October Surprise" Explosives Blow Up In Kerry's Face?

October 28, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Joe Mariani
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 25 October 2004, the New York Times ran a front-page story: "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq." The Times warned readers that "380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations." They didn't even mention that more than 400,000 tons of explosives and munitions have been secured by Coalition forces in Iraq. Other so-called "mainstream" media outlets joined this seeming devastating attack on President Bush. Senator Kerry seized on the accusation that the President was responsible for "losing" 380 tons of dangerous HMX and RDX explosives, which the Times was quick to point out "could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings." And it's missing! And it's all Bush's fault! Desperate for any attack on the President that might stick, the Kerry campaign rushed out a press release attacking him. "[T]his administration failed to guard those stockpiles – where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. Today we learned that these explosives are missing, unaccounted for and could be in the hands of terrorists," the Kerry team trumpeted. "Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops and our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings." Kerry went on to accuse President Bush of "unbelievable incompetence" over the missing explosives, using the theme in speeches and even a TV ad... all produced within hours. Kerry doesn't seem to realise that he's actually accusing the troops of incompetence by this attack... not that he would stop it if he did.

Suddenly, these missing weapons are the centerpiece of Kerry's attack strategy, as reported by -- what else? -- the New York Times. "Iraq Explosives Become Issue in Campaign," the Times announced in a brilliant example of the media making, not reporting, the news. Kerry continued his attack in campaign speeches. "This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration. The incredible incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk and put our country at greater risk than we ought to be." John Edwards came out of whatever spider-hole he's been hiding in the last few weeks to say, "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country." The Times story continued, "Mr. Kerry's surrogates, from his adviser Joe Lockhart to Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, were deployed on the airwaves to repeat the case, describing in detail how many car bombs, larger explosions or nuclear triggers could be fabricated from the high explosives." Nuclear triggers? But I thought Saddam had nothing capable of being used to make WMDs! Somehow, I must have been mishearing every Liberal on Earth for the last year and a half. Suddenly they're claiming that Saddam had stockpiles of dangerous materials that could be used by terrorists to attack America, possibly with nuclear weapons! It's the biggest flip-flop in history!

The rest of the story gets even more entertaining, as the plot thickens.

According to the LA Times, the CBS show "60 Minutes" was planning to run the missing explosives story on Sunday 31 October, less than two days before the election. 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager said, "our plan was to run the story on [Oct.] 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold, so the decision was made for the Times to run it." This "news" story was planned to break hours before the election, specifically in order to influence the vote. But that's not all! According to the New York Sun, Mohammed El Baradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was the person who focused attention on the missing explosives by addressing the issue in a letter to the UN Security Council last week. It's almost impossible to imagine that Mr. El Baradei would be unaware of the impact of an accusation made a week before such a tight election. The Bush administration has already stated that they would not support him for another term as head of the IAEA, which he announced he was seeking just a week before sending the letter. Even a four-year-old child could connect the dots between El Baradei and the UN, the NY Times and CBS, and John Kerry -- who has made his intentions to center his foreign policy (should he be elected) around increasing the power of the UN abundantly clear.

However, like the last CBS story intended to destroy President Bush -- the now-infamous National Guard story based on forged documents -- this one turns out to be false as well. The explosives that Kerry, the media and the UN accuse President Bush of losing were already gone when US troops first arrived on the scene. Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the IAEA, reported that the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa were tagged and sealed on 15 March, five days before the war began. Elements of the 3rd Infantry Division arrived on 4 April, nearly three weeks after the bunkers were sealed. The troops checked out the site and found conventional weapons, but no high explosives, Army officials told NBC News. CBS News reported a fairly thorough search of the al-Qaqaa site by the 3rd ID, which found "thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare." No report mentioned finding UN-tagged explosives. They left the next day. Six days later, the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne arrived, with an embedded NBC reporter named Lai Ling Jew, and also saw no sign of the IAEA-marked explosives during a 24-hour stay, although no more than a cursory patrol of the site was conducted. After that, the dozens of trucks needed to move 380 tons of explosives would have been noticeable on roads full of Coalition vehicles, to say the least. It would have taken truck convoys... like those the Iraq Survey Group confirmed were moving into Syria right before the war in Iraq began. Hmm.

If this is really the best line the Democrats can come up with, they need another four years of practice.

Joe Mariani

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani102804.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Kerry's Lies Don't Matter

October 28, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Bob Redman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry's lies don't matter to the 45 and more millions of people who are going to vote for Kerry on Tuesday. Nor that he lobbied to get a purple heart for a scratch, bugged out early from Vietnam, committed treason afterward, left one heiress and children to marry another heiress, took campaign money from Vietnamese, Chinese, and Iranians, and will stoop to any lie in a debate or on the stump. His supporters know or sense all of this already. In short, these people identify with him.

There will, however, be consequences for sanctioning the politics of winning at all costs. Here is what is going to happen if Kerry is elected:

- The war in Iraq will be hastily wound down, and the attacks of the jihadists against our troops will redouble and cause thousands of unnecessary casualties, and thousands upon thousands of deaths among those who supported us (sound familiar?).

- The National Guard will be brought home, augmented, and deployed for new tasks, as Kerry himself stated in the 3rd presidential debate. This will provide the government with more means to suppress any dissent here.

- A new and much more comprehensive Assault Weapons ban will be passed which will forbid all semi-automatic rifles or handguns. The legislation will also mandate registration of all firearms and firearms owners. It will become a felony to not register, to use a firearm to defend your own home against invasion, or to buy or sell firearms privately without informing the authorities.

- A year or two after the new Assault Weapons Ban will have been passed, the police will start making spot checks, using the yellow forms people have filled out when they purchased firearms from a dealer, and rounding up anyone they catch not in compliance. Moreover, by this time it won't be the police as we know it, such as it is, but will be reinforced with former felons.

- At the first sign of resistance, or perhaps preemptively before any serious resistance manifests itself, Kerry's government will clamp down, and the cycle of repression and state-sanctioned violence will begin and eventually spiral out of control.

- All limitations of abortion on demand will be swept aside, and Judges will be appointed to the appellate courts and Supreme Court who will discover the right of mothers to kill born children they don't want, and the right of adults to get rid of burdensome aged parents. This principle will be extended to other classes of undesirables such as the mentally ill, the handicapped, the homeless, and the dissidents.

- The groundwork will be laid for unchecked manufacture of fraudulent votes by the big city machines, and a perfected "litigation model" will insure favorable recounts in any states with close outcomes. In short, our institution of contested national elections will be dead, and all elections held (until replaced by plebiscites) will be managed shams.

There is much more which will happen, but all you have to do is read up on Lenin's career to get the whole story.

This election is not about the war in Iraq, but about values. Do we take responsibility for our own retirement and health care, do we accept the blood debt we owe to the people who have died in the past to protect us and our experiment in liberty, do we restrain our appetites? Nobody said it better the James Madison, main author of the Constitution and our 4th president:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

We stand at the edge of a precipice. George Bush is only trying to make us step back and reflect. There is no more margin for error, and if we go forward on this path, the Republic is doomed.

There is, by the way, another possible scenario if Kerry wins. Rather than the slow way described above, it could happen quickly. Terrorists, emboldened by our weakness will attack us again on our own soil, but then with much more force than on 9/11.

That will be the perfect occasion for the declaration of martial law which will then never be lifted.

I suspect that this wouldn't matter either to many of Kerry's supporters.
Bob Redman

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/redman/2004/redman102804.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

John Kerry, Girlie-Man: Next Leader of the Free World? <br />
<br />
October 27, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Carey Roberts ...

[thedrifter]

Fallout From a Kerry Presidency <br />
<br />
October 28, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Christopher G. Adamo <br />
...

[thedrifter]

Time to Follow Kerry’s Lead?

October 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Christopher G. Adamo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At one time, John Kerry wanted to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, based on his belief that the contrast between his four months of combat and George Bush’s guard service would stand the Massachusetts liberal in good stead with an America immersed in the war on terror.

Unfortunately for Kerry, groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth followed suit, thus bringing forth his overall war record for examination. And what was learned wasn’t pretty. Kerry's “battle wounds” amounted to little more than the degree of “boo-boo” which might earn a typical five year old an ice cream cone or maybe cupcake (though conscientious parents would probably consider three such incidents in four months to be evidence of a suspicious pattern).

Nevertheless, Kerry demanded much greater recognition of his “sacrifice,” insisting that he eventually be awarded three Purple Hearts. No wonder he found it so easy to discard those medals some months later during an anti-war protest.

This was an account of Kerry’s Vietnam service that he did not want the nation to see. Yet the Swift Vets persevered, and the truth was told. Immediately, Kerry’s poll numbers began to plummet (Truth seems to have that effect on him). So the Senator did the only thing he could. He changed the subject.

Now he believes he has stumbled on a winning strategy for the last days of the campaign… talk about the war on terror. If the Bush camp is smart, they will seize this opportunity and follow suit with a vengeance.

Kerry’s latest ploy is of course to focus attention on the bogus story of 380 tons of missing explosives in Iraq, which he seeks to convince America, were looted under the watch of US forces. In reality, it was a combination of bungling UN inspectors, coupled with the endless delays in the commencement of US operations to remove Saddam (and Kerry vehemently and steadfastly supported those delays), that allowed time for removal of the weaponry by Russian special forces and Saddam loyalists.

Yet right up to this week, what has Kerry advocated but more deferrals to the UN, as well as his hindsight appraisal that we should have waited even longer to deal with Hussein, thus allowing time for even more munitions to be spirited away to places like Syria.

So, by all means, let’s talk about the war on terror. Let’s talk about the fact that Kerry voted to send US troops into battle, but then voted against giving them proper funding once deployed.

Let’s talk about the fact that, in an identical manner to his treasonous 1971 Senate testimony, Kerry is once again attempting to boost his own political fortunes by making outlandish and unsupportable claims of malfeasance and incompetence on the part of the US military.

Let’s talk about the fact that Kerry’s constant harping on the “failures” and “bungling” of US efforts in Iraq only serves to boost the morale of the Islamist insurgents, ultimately at the expense of the lives of American soldiers. When it comes to giving aid and comfort to America’s mortal enemies, Kerry has been absolutely consistent throughout the entirety of his public life.

Let’s talk about the effect on the resolve, and thus the belligerence of Islamic militants in Iraq and around the world if America, by electing Kerry, signals its willingness to retreat in the face of increased violence and opposition.

Let’s talk about how the leaders of Islamist terrorist organizations, with an end game in mind of seeing the total destruction of the United States, are doing and saying whatever they can to help secure a Kerry victory.

Let’s talk about the fact that, if elected, Kerry will likely promote Jamie Gorelick to high office within the US Justice Department. This despite the fact that Gorelick is the very person who crippled the ability of America’s intelligence agencies to share and compile information on terrorist plots, thus setting the stage for the surprise attacks of 9-11.

Let’s talk about the other Clinton “insiders,” who are likely to become major department heads under a “President Kerry.” It was on their watch that Osama Bin Laden was offered to America on several occasions. But according to their thinking, the entire issue was one of “law enforcement,” and not of national security. So Bin Laden walked, and was thus allowed to continue with his dastardly plan. Kerry would return America to that blindfolded and ineffectual approach to dealing with international terrorism.

On the heels of the fraudulent Al Qaqaa controversy, the Bush team should once again move the discussion of militant Islamism to the forefront. They should point to their successes during the past three years since 9-11, chief among which being that no follow-up attack of that magnitude has occurred within the borders of this nation since then.

And they should remind Americans that in Kerry’s world, malignant forces such as the Hussein regime would still be up and running, with the only response being an endless excretion of more toothless resolutions from the United Nations. Unaccounted explosives would not be measured in the hundreds of tons, but in the thousands or ten thousands of tons. And the United States would be utterly powerless to prevent their deployment.

Finally they should drive home the fact that had John Kerry had his way, America’s posture to this day would be inept and defensive, waiting nervously to respond to the next bloodbath on American soil.

So, by all means Senator Kerry, let’s talk about national security and the war on terror.


Christopher G. Adamo


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart, and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.
After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace, working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/adamo/2004/adamo102904.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

The Death of the Democratic Party

October 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Barbara J. Stock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrat Party of my father is dead. It started to die with Lyndon Johnson and the “Great Society.” Jimmy Carter crippled it, but it could have been saved. Bill Clinton put a stake in its heart and John Kerry has let his party bleed to death. There is no hope now. The Democrat Party is almost devoid of morals, honesty or integrity. Its members have thrown it all away in their rush for power and in their headlong plunge towards socialism. The liberals don’t even try to keep it secret anymore. They don’t care who knows. They just keep lying.

To win the election in 1991, the Clinton camp put out their “October Surprise.” Lawrence Walsh handed down a last-minute indictment of Casper Weinberger and that tipped the scale in Clinton’s favor. Interestingly, if one checks, he will find that the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy was chaired by none other than Senator John F. Kerry. Perhaps Bill Clinton climbed out of his sick bed to repay a favor.

In 2000, a Democrat operative leaked the news of a George Bush drunk driving arrest that was 25 years old. It nearly cost Bush the election as a 5% lead disappeared overnight.

This year the Democrat lie-machine has been moving at warp speed. The truly horrifying thing is that they have openly been joined by their ultra-liberal friends in the media. The New York Times has totally sold its soul to the Kerry campaign. CBS has sacrificed 50 years of credibility to assist John Kerry. Can anyone now believe anything either of these once irrefutable sources of news puts forth? Not only has the Democrat Party committed suicide, it has taken many great American icons with it. It was all done in the name of power and the need to regain it.

The Democrat Party never recovered from loosing the Congress in 1994. Democrats have been bitter and angry ever since. When Al Gore lost in 2000, the rage turned into blind hatred. Democrats perpetuate the lie that the Supreme Court “gave” the election to Bush. They did not. Democrats continue to insist that a million African Americans were “disenfranchised” in the last election in Florida. They were not. Now they circulate a disgusting pamphlet that tells minorities if they try to vote, evil Republicans will hit them with fire hoses “like they did in the 1960’s.” Pay no mind to the fact that most of those using fire hoses were following the orders of southern Democratic governors.

For the 2000 election, Democrats put out ads that showed a man being dragged to death behind a truck while saying Bush was against severe penalties for “hate crimes.” This ad ran while the men responsible for that very crime were on death row. Is there a more severe penalty than death for such a crime? Are not most murders “hate crimes?” Then the liberals have the gall to accuse Bush of executing more people than any other governor--which was another false statement.

Can today’s Democrats say anything that is not a lie? Is it possible anymore? Do they care? If they can’t win an election honestly, then they will just lie and cheat.

Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft has reported that four counties have now been found to have more people registered than even live in the counties and are eligible to vote according to the last census. The old Democrat saying “vote early and often” is alive and well. Be sure to drag dead or senile grandma with you so you can vote for her as well.

Now we have this years “October Surprise.” The Democrats, in concert with the New York Times and CBS, are trying to convince Americans that Bush allowed 350 tons of high explosives fall into the hands of the enemy. The way the story was written, it sounded as though the explosives were stolen last week or yesterday. As it turned out, they probably were not stolen at all. Their plan was a good one, but they forgot about those pesky reporters who were embedded with the troops. The reporter embedded for NBC, Dana Lewis, now with FOX News, states that he saw no weapons with the IAEA’s seal on them as he walked the complex when the troops arrived on April 10, 2003. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watch-dog group, had reported in February 2003 that some of the high explosives had already been moved. The IAEA also reported huge explosions at that site during the opening days of the war. One has to ask, since these weapons were illegal under the United Nations agreement with Saddam, why were they not removed and destroyed when they were found by the IAEA?

The last visit from the United Nations organization was in January of that year. Sometime between January and April, Saddam probably moved many of those explosives. A complete inspection of the site was done on May 27, 2003 and nothing with an IAEA seal was present. There were several deep craters. How does one get 40 semi-truck loads of high explosives out past roads teaming with American soldiers and the sky full of spy planes without being seen? Who would have organized such an operation? The Saddam government was in chaos and there was no insurgency at that early date.

Why then did the Mohamed El Baradei, chastised by Bush for not know about Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program and being weak in its dealings with Iran, leak this story to the media? Remember, El Baradei knew these explosives were missing in May 2003 when it was reported to him that our inspectors had found no such weapons at that complex. Why did he wait until one week before the American election to reveal this “news?” Could it be that the mighty and corrupt United Nations feels its world supremacy is threatened by President Bush? Is it possible that it would feel much more comfortable with John Kerry who has already pledged his allegiance to the United Nations and stated that dying under the U.N. flag is honorable, but dying under the American flag is not? John Kerry voted against the Gulf War because he felt the war should have been carried out by United Nations commanders, not American generals. Kerry wanted to do the unthinkable--put American troops under foreign command.

This election year has been like no other. Outside interference from Europe in the form of mass email messages pleading with Ohioans to vote for Kerry and British newspapers printing columns with statements like “Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?” Terrorists like Yassar Arafat endorse John Kerry. Forged documents and blatant lies abound. Democrats have sold their souls to the devil in an attempt to regain their power and the devil wants his due.

Hopefully, Americans will bury this rotting and decaying Democrat Party on November 2, 2004 without allowing them to totally corrupt our democratic system beyond repair. If we are lucky, Bush will win is such a decisive manner that Kerry’s army of 10,000 lawyers, poised to make the election a living hell, will be sent home. A new Democratic Party may rise from ashes and if it does, I hope that there will be at least a few honest people among them. But at this point, I’m not going to place any bets on it.

Barbara J. Stock

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/stock/2004/stock102904.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

October Surprise III: Kerry To Receive Fourth Purple Heart

October 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Noel Sheppard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defense Department has announced that Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Forbes Kerry, will be awarded his fourth Purple Heart for injuries received this week on the campaign trail. Mr. Kerry apparently incurred near fatal wounds to his character, ego, presidential aspirations, and whatever was left of his integrity when he errantly stepped behind an exploding bombshell hurled by the New York Times this past Monday.
By now, everybody in America is probably familiar with the story about missing munitions from an Iraqi military installation at Al Qaqaa. However, what has to be amazing to even the most casual election observer is why Senator Kerry would rest his entire campaign on this one issue. Without getting into all of the boring details that you have likely seen, heard, or read ad nauseum since this story first broke late Sunday evening, let’s instead focus our attention on whether this strategy, regardless of the validity of the accusations, appears to be a wise one for Mr. Kerry.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted last week, voters prefer President Bush in terms of National Defense and the War on Terror by a margin of 52% to Kerry’s 43%. This has basically been the tally since the first polls taken after the Republican Convention. Additionally, President Bush is besting Mr. Kerry in who the electorate feels is a better leader by a similar margin. However, in this same poll, President Bush is only ahead of Mr. Kerry by three percentage points when it comes to who the electorate thinks would be better for the economy.

Given the disparity in these numbers, one would imagine that it would be a much better strategy for Mr. Kerry to be trying to focus America’s attention on economic issues as they head into the polls versus one that he so largely trails the President on. Put another way, by making this real or imagined miscue in Iraq the focus in the waning days of the campaign, the Senator appears to be playing to the President’s strengths rather than his weaknesses.

This thesis is further evidenced by the fact that America at this point views the condition of the economy as being much more important than the war in Iraq. For example, a recent Time magazine survey concerning national priorities suggests that 24% of the electorate places the economy as being their number one concern today. By contrast, this number shrinks to only 18% who feel that way about the war.

Supporting these assertions is Dick Morris in today’s New York Post:

Right now [Kerry] should be talking about domestic-policy issues — the ones where he has a lead. To batter futilely at Bush's bastion of strength — foreign policy and the war — is to throw good money after bad in one last failed attempt to replace a sitting commander-in-chief as America's choice to run the war. On Bush's worst days, voters have consistently told pollsters they trust him more than Kerry to run the war, usually by double-digit margins. What makes Kerry think he can win the point now? He's failed at it all year; now he squanders his final week on one last effort. In undertaking such a gamble, Kerry ratifies Iraq, the war, terrorism and foreign policy as the key issues in the race at just the moment when he should be downplaying them.

I couldn’t have said it better. However, Mr. Kerry would be lucky if that was the only mistake that he was making by focusing on this issue. Unfortunately for him, the other problem is that every other news agency in America is running as fast as they can from this story. To be sure, the first one was NBC News who on Monday evening was quick to announce that they had an embedded reporter with one of the first divisions to visit Al Qaqaa after the start of the war, and that they didn’t see any of the weapons in question there.

Since then, ABC News reported yesterday, “ Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.” Furthermore, “… the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility -- a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.”

Beyond this, the Washington Post published an editorial this morning stating:

It's not clear whether the explosives vanished before or after invading U.S. forces reached the Qaqaa facility near Baghdad in April 2003, though it appears likely that the materiel was gone by May of last year, when the weapons-hunting Iraq Survey Group first visited the site. Nor is it evident that any of the explosives have since been used against U.S. forces in Iraq or any other target. It's possible that some or all of the HMX was destroyed by U.S. bombing.

It may not be fair to claim, as Sen. John F. Kerry did on Monday, that the loss represents “one of the greatest blunders of this administration.” Apart from the doubts about whether the explosives disappeared before or after U.S. troops reached the site, Iraq was covered with some 10,000 weapons sites under Saddam Hussein; Qaqaa was not among those given highest priority by U.S. intelligence.

Additionally, the highly esteemed Financial Times ran an article this morning entitled, “Russians ‘may have taken Iraq explosives’”. In it, they state, “ John Shaw, a deputy under-secretary of defense, suggested that ‘Russian units’ had transported the explosives out of the country.”

Lastly, it seems quite likely that it will be difficult for CBS News to continue to support this charade, as they reported on April 4, 2003, “ U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives.” Guess where this report emanated from.

The bottom line here is that Senator Kerry appears to be stranded on a desert island right now regarding this issue with his sole compatriot being the New York Times. And, this is not a very solid partner given that they are considered to be a highly credible source of information by only 21% of the population according to a June survey done by the Pew Research Center.

Complicating matters even further for Mr. Kerry are the obvious contradictions in his position concerning this issue. With his current accusations, the Senator is suggesting that our world has been made less safe as a result of these weapons now being in the hands of our enemies. Oddly, this is the same man who has maintained since after the primaries that Saddam Hussein represented no imminent threat, and that the absence of WMDs indicated that the President misled the nation and the international community about their very existence. Well, which is it, Senator? Were these weapons in question dangerous before we went into Iraq when they were in the hands of Saddam Hussein? Or, did they just become dangerous now that we don’t actually know where they are? Also, as you now admit that these weapons indeed did exist, does this mean that the President didn’t mislead the nation? Furthermore, as it appears that we have captured and/or destroyed 400,000 tons of such weapons since the invasion, is the world safer today as a result, or less safe because there might be 400 tons that we can’t account for?

In reality, not only is Mr. Kerry now standing virtually by himself presenting an untenable position to the electorate that is totally groundless and diametric to what exists in the public record, but it also goes quite contrary to his assertions that this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Furthermore, the only media outlet that is continuing to support his absurd position on this matter has been continually declining in its perceived credibility as a result of its rather atrocious record concerning the accuracy of its reporting the past few years.

In the end, it quite appears that Mr. Kerry has once again shot himself, this time in the proverbial foot. And, in a bizarre twist of fate, the Purple Heart that he receives on this occasion for similarly self-inflicted wounds might signal the end of his political career rather than the beginning.

Noel Sheppard


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in Northern California. He receives email at slep@danvillebc.com.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/sheppard/04/sheppard102904.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Time to Follow Kerry’s Lead?

October 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Christopher G. Adamo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At one time, John Kerry wanted to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, based on his belief that the contrast between his four months of combat and George Bush’s guard service would stand the Massachusetts liberal in good stead with an America immersed in the war on terror.

Unfortunately for Kerry, groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth followed suit, thus bringing forth his overall war record for examination. And what was learned wasn’t pretty. Kerry's “battle wounds” amounted to little more than the degree of “boo-boo” which might earn a typical five year old an ice cream cone or maybe cupcake (though conscientious parents would probably consider three such incidents in four months to be evidence of a suspicious pattern).

Nevertheless, Kerry demanded much greater recognition of his “sacrifice,” insisting that he eventually be awarded three Purple Hearts. No wonder he found it so easy to discard those medals some months later during an anti-war protest.

This was an account of Kerry’s Vietnam service that he did not want the nation to see. Yet the Swift Vets persevered, and the truth was told. Immediately, Kerry’s poll numbers began to plummet (Truth seems to have that effect on him). So the Senator did the only thing he could. He changed the subject.

Now he believes he has stumbled on a winning strategy for the last days of the campaign… talk about the war on terror. If the Bush camp is smart, they will seize this opportunity and follow suit with a vengeance.

Kerry’s latest ploy is of course to focus attention on the bogus story of 380 tons of missing explosives in Iraq, which he seeks to convince America, were looted under the watch of US forces. In reality, it was a combination of bungling UN inspectors, coupled with the endless delays in the commencement of US operations to remove Saddam (and Kerry vehemently and steadfastly supported those delays), that allowed time for removal of the weaponry by Russian special forces and Saddam loyalists.

Yet right up to this week, what has Kerry advocated but more deferrals to the UN, as well as his hindsight appraisal that we should have waited even longer to deal with Hussein, thus allowing time for even more munitions to be spirited away to places like Syria.

So, by all means, let’s talk about the war on terror. Let’s talk about the fact that Kerry voted to send US troops into battle, but then voted against giving them proper funding once deployed.

Let’s talk about the fact that, in an identical manner to his treasonous 1971 Senate testimony, Kerry is once again attempting to boost his own political fortunes by making outlandish and unsupportable claims of malfeasance and incompetence on the part of the US military.

Let’s talk about the fact that Kerry’s constant harping on the “failures” and “bungling” of US efforts in Iraq only serves to boost the morale of the Islamist insurgents, ultimately at the expense of the lives of American soldiers. When it comes to giving aid and comfort to America’s mortal enemies, Kerry has been absolutely consistent throughout the entirety of his public life.

Let’s talk about the effect on the resolve, and thus the belligerence of Islamic militants in Iraq and around the world if America, by electing Kerry, signals its willingness to retreat in the face of increased violence and opposition.

Let’s talk about how the leaders of Islamist terrorist organizations, with an end game in mind of seeing the total destruction of the United States, are doing and saying whatever they can to help secure a Kerry victory.

Let’s talk about the fact that, if elected, Kerry will likely promote Jamie Gorelick to high office within the US Justice Department. This despite the fact that Gorelick is the very person who crippled the ability of America’s intelligence agencies to share and compile information on terrorist plots, thus setting the stage for the surprise attacks of 9-11.

Let’s talk about the other Clinton “insiders,” who are likely to become major department heads under a “President Kerry.” It was on their watch that Osama Bin Laden was offered to America on several occasions. But according to their thinking, the entire issue was one of “law enforcement,” and not of national security. So Bin Laden walked, and was thus allowed to continue with his dastardly plan. Kerry would return America to that blindfolded and ineffectual approach to dealing with international terrorism.

On the heels of the fraudulent Al Qaqaa controversy, the Bush team should once again move the discussion of militant Islamism to the forefront. They should point to their successes during the past three years since 9-11, chief among which being that no follow-up attack of that magnitude has occurred within the borders of this nation since then.

And they should remind Americans that in Kerry’s world, malignant forces such as the Hussein regime would still be up and running, with the only response being an endless excretion of more toothless resolutions from the United Nations. Unaccounted explosives would not be measured in the hundreds of tons, but in the thousands or ten thousands of tons. And the United States would be utterly powerless to prevent their deployment.

Finally they should drive home the fact that had John Kerry had his way, America’s posture to this day would be inept and defensive, waiting nervously to respond to the next bloodbath on American soil.

So, by all means Senator Kerry, let’s talk about national security and the war on terror.


Christopher G. Adamo


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing up during the turbulent decades of the ‘60's and ‘70's, Christopher Adamo saw, to his dismay, the nation's moral foundations being destroyed before his very eyes. But even then he was a staunch Conservative at heart, and rejected outright the tenets of America's counterculture revolution.
After a hitch in the Air Force, where he specialized in airborne electro- optical systems, he pursued a career in the field of aerospace, working for major defense contractors in California, Florida, and Colorado. But his career plans abruptly changed during the industry-wide downsizing that followed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Presently he is working in the field of industrial instrumentation in the state of Wyoming. Concurrently, he has become involved in that state's political process, attending state GOP conventions as a delegate, and serving as a member of the Wyoming Republican Central Committee. He has also aided in the candidacies of local legislators and state senators, as well as a U.S. Senator and Congresswoman.

From 1993 to 1996, he edited and wrote for “The Wyoming Christian”, the state newsletter for Christian Coalition of Wyoming. During that period, he developed an acute awareness of the harm being done to Conservatism by liberal activists within the Republican Party as well as the Democrats. This remains a favorite theme of his articles, which now appear as a regular feature on GOPUSA.

Visit his website at chrisadamo.com

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/adamo/2004/adamo102904.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Why Democrats Should Vote for Bush
October 29, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tammy Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a Democrat and a pro-choice feminist, it’s time for me to explain why I support the president, and why other thoughtful Democrats should join me in doing so. I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve received from other Democrats either condemning me for not toeing the line, while others write who are genuinely curious, after all the hate-mongering and demonizing of Republicans and the president specifically, they hope I can ease their fears about what their inclination to vote for the president means about them.

The simple answer? It means you’re a confident liberal, a thoughtful person who realizes that game of party loyalty takes a back seat to the safety of your family and this nation. It also means you take the slogans of “choice” and “radical individualism”seriously. Isn’t it ironic that there’s nothing more radically individual these days than a liberal who doesn’t conform?

For me, Authentic Feminism is rooted in making it possible for people to make the choices that best suit them. If you have recognized the weakness of John Kerry, and know in your heart a vote for the president is the right thing to do, join me and do it! It can be done with a clear conscience as you embrace the radical individual inside you that attracted you to liberal causes in the first place.

Because some things simply transcend party lines, when in front of that Early Voting touch screen, I stood there as an American first, and voted for George W. Bush. This nation, our lives, and the lives our children require nothing less.

I explain to detractors and supporters alike that President Bush is the man who will keep this nation safest. The president and I hold dramatically divergent views on a number of social issues of importance to me, and yet for the 3,000 people who died on September 11 th, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions mean absolutely nothing to them now. These issues, while important to me and ones on which I will continue to speak out about, are luxuries in the face of a world war where the enemy is a stateless savage who hunts children and cuts off people’s heads.

We have a responsibility to leave this nation as great as it is to the next generation. We all know, and must reflect on, the fact that the joy we have in our lives today is due to the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of other Americans who died fighting for this country. Those soldiers did not die because they were promised 72 virgins in the afterlife, they fought not for themselves—they died in the most noble of American causes— so future generations—us—could live in freedom.

I do not take that action for granted, and I have learned that generosity of spirit and commitment to freedom is inherent in each of us, and a duty we cannot shirk.

Those of you with children have a more immediate concern, which is the literal safety of the light of your life. That little face looks up at you as you tuck her in, and sleeps gently knowing that Mommy and Daddy are there. That same face stares at you in the morning, with a heart full of hope, limited only by her imagination because you confront, for her, the harsh realities of every day. And these days it’s not just about making a living, it’s about the Beslan school massacre, it’s a new al-Qaida tape threatening Americans at home, it’s about war and mad savages who have specifically targeted children.

I voted for President Bush because having a Pacifist Internationalist in the White House will only embolden those who salivate at the sight of our blood. Having a man in the White House who stands for nothing will only excite Islamic Fascists who revel in torture and the cutting off of heads. I do not want a man in the White House who is so cold, when asked by a New York Times reporter how September 11 th changed him, answers “It didn’t change me much at all.”

While I know a Bush presidency makes my work as a feminist more complicated and demanding, I will love and be grateful for every day I have the luxury of working on those issues. And frankly, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a president who encourages social activism on issues. Liberals make the mistake of thinking a Democrat president is indeed Daddy, who can be trusted in all things. Apathy soon follows that false comfort.

Bill Clinton showed us the decline of the Democratic Party into a gang spouting slogans to make women, gays and blacks feel Daddy was in the house, to our grave regret. What did we get? A sexual compulsive who put Monica Lewinsky on her knees instead of cutting bin Laden off at his.

Yes, there were plenty of Democrats, feminists, gays and blacks in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on those fateful flights. I’m sure you would agree that in their last moments their literal lives were more important to them than party affiliation.

I want a president who will be strongest making sure tomorrow comes, that this nation not just survives, but emerges from this war like the others we have fought, in a world that has been transformed for the better. I want a president who understands this is war, not a “nuisance.”

I know George Bush has made many in the world angry, and frankly, I am dismayed at the hard feelings. A recent poll of Europeans revealed their general belief that Bush has made the world a more dangerous place.

Upon hearing that, I remind myself of the time President Reagan increased arms production and installed more Pershing Missiles in Europe as we faced down the Soviet Union. President Reagan grappled with European polls, anger and resentment, all of which evaporated when the Soviet regime collapsed.

Yes, they hated Reagan, but he plodded on, never swayed by those polls or made doubtful by others’ hatred. His resolve freed Europe from the shadow of a bear which had no mercy and the blood of tens of millions on its paws. As a man of faith with a love of this country, Reagan stayed the course, and did what he knew had to be done. He was a leader, and I’m proud to say, one that only America could deliver.

Today, President Bush faces the same polls, the same anger, and the same resentment as he, too, recognizes and engages a rabid enemy of civilization, Islamo-Fascists. Europeans felt Reagan was leading them to Armageddon, as they now insist Bush is doing. We can’t know what it’s like for Europeans to see such a young nation doing so many things, but one thing Europe will find, again, is that while we may be wild, young and even cowboys on occasion, we have a pretty good track record of making the world a safer and better place.

With George W. Bush at the helm, this time will be no different.

I voted for President Bush because he has freed 50 million people, 25 million of which are women and girls. The feminist establishment, in a shameful exhibit of their hypocrisy, has ignored that fact. As a feminist, I thank the president with my vote, in solidarity with the millions of Afghan and Iraqi women who now, courtesy of the president and our astounding military, finally have hope, liberty and freedom.

Like all of our presidents, George W. Bush is quintessentially an American. He’s a Cowboy. A Texan. He will never be mistaken for a Frenchman. He’s a Yalie. He’s a man of faith, a husband and father. He’s a man who has fought with and overcome addiction. He’s a man of strength and character.

And while he is also wrong on some issues, if I have to work harder on social issues, I want it to be against a man whom I can admire, who I know, despite our disagreements, honors me in his work to keep this nation free and great.

For those of you who are Democrats and liberals—and I know through my years as a leader in left wing causes, including feminist and gay activism—we all have gone through a sort of conditioning that makes dissent or difference a frightening prospect. Republicans and conservatives have been decidedly demonized in your circle—perhaps by your own friends and family.

Let me tell you this--voting for the President does not change who you are or what you stand for. I stand for the classical liberal concepts of personal liberty and individualism, and have spent a great deal of my adult life working for those causes. I have found that “Choice” and “Individualism” are only slogans if you never act on them. Sometimes being yourself means straying from the expected, standing apart from your crowd.

November 2 nd is a good a day to be a Democrat who’s an American first.

Tammy Bruce

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/bruce/2004/bruce102904.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

The Salient Case Against the Anti-American John Forbes Kerry

October 28, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sher Zieve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, I have received multiple emails challenging my position of “if leftists were to run the country (and left to their own devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation”. My answer is that it would and if the most liberal Senator to ever hold that position seizes the Presidency of the United States…it will. One recent reader even wrote: “ I have never heard this goal spoken by anyone, including Sen. Kerry or Edwards nor anyone ever, nor can I imagine how you came to this conclusion . ” Apparently, as a ‘good liberal’, this gentleman doesn’t really listen to what his candidate says; or only picks and chooses the phrases he likes. Generally, the only liberal responses I receive are the standard democrat talking points; leading me to the logical conclusion that not many Kerry supporters do listen to what their candidate has said. Most certainly, they have paid no attention, whatsoever, to what Mr. Kerry has done. So, before Election Day, perhaps it’s again time to offer a few reminders to those who are still undecided or confused about for whom to cast their votes.
First of all and briefly, President George W. Bush has not only lived up to his campaign promises but, actually does what he says he will. Whether one likes him or not, President Bush is direct, honest and a leader who can be counted on to keep his word. Our alliance partners (over 64 nations at last count) know this. On the flip side, John Kerry takes virtually any and all positions, contingent upon what the polls show. Despite his bought-and-paid-for ‘mainstream media’ continuing to spin and tell us that he has “been consistent on his Iraq position”, the truth speaks otherwise. As witnessed by his using the new and documented bogus story (concocted by the NY Times and CBS regarding ‘missing explosives’), Mr. Kerry is now using TV Ads based upon this false story. Kerry is the candidate who never let facts get in the way of his political motivations.

In taking yet another look at John Kerry’s past actions (which reflect his current positions toward the United States), Mr. Kerry was one of the instrumental parties in creating the defeat of the US during the Viet Nam war. After returning from his 4-month tour of duty in Viet Nam, Mr. Kerry worked closely with Viet Cong leaders; most notably Madame Binh-Viet Cong representative. During covert meetings with the enemy, in 70’s Paris, John Kerry contributed to the enemy plan for the US troops’ removal. After returning from France, Kerry continued to rage against the United States and its policies, in favor of the Viet Cong. Later on in his career, he supported the Nicaraguan Communist Ortega brothers. Moving forward, Kerry has supported the United Nations in favor of the USA. His comments in 1990 were that he would support the Gulf War if it were run by the UN but, NOT if by the US. Recently, Kerry spoke of his (now infamous) “global test”; to be applied to the United States if and when it wanted to take any and all preemptive actions. He has since modified his statement. However, in consideration of his past actions, his first statement spoke volumes of his true bent and rings the truest. This is not a man who can be trusted with the power afforded to the President of the United States. He will, indeed, remove the almost sacred sovereignty we have enjoyed as an independent country; in favor of a world (IE UN-controlled) government.

Although I do believe that the majority of US voters see this man for who and what he is, there is still a real and present danger. The Democrat Party’s voter fraud has reached a magnitude of deception never before experienced in our country. My real fear is that this fraud may work in seating this anti-American candidate in the White House. That is my final reason for my firm belief that “if leftists were to run the country (and left to their own devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation”. It is a factually documented belief and a rational fear; a fear that everyone needs to realize
Sher Zieve


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sher Zieve is a conservative political commentator who firmly believes that if Leftists ran the country (left to their own devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation. Sher’s articles regularly appear on Google, MSN Newsbot, US-News.Net, Useless Knowledge and other news sites. Ms. Zieve welcomes you comments and can be reached at: earthseed@iwon.com.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/yz/z-misc/zieve/2004/zieve102804.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

'Wrong war' could become Kerry's war

By PHILIP GAILEY, Times Editor of Editorials
Published October 31, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the campaign trail John Kerry has called it "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." If Kerry defeats President Bush on Tuesday, Iraq becomes his war and he could come to regret his choice of words. He has criticized Bush for getting everything wrong in Iraq and promised that he would wage a smarter war. Bush's miscalculations and failures in Iraq are well documented, and voters may decide to give Kerry the chance to prove his competence as commander in chief.

Iraq has been the overarching issue of the 2004 election and will be the central challenge facing the next president, whether it be Bush or Kerry. If Kerry becomes a wartime president he will be put to the test at home and abroad, by friend and foe. He is sure to come under pressure from the antiwar - make that the Michael Moore - wing of the Democratic Party to start winding down "Bush's war" and bringing U.S. troops home, even if withdrawal could lead to chaos in Iraq and a surge of anti-American extremism across the region.

I can't imagine Kerry sounding retreat, but I'm not sure he has any better options than Bush would have in a second term. Kerry has said repeatedly that, as president, he would be committed to finishing the job in Iraq and that he wants to "win." However, if Bush has made as big a mess of Iraq as Kerry keeps saying - and the evidence says he has - it's not clear what he would or could do differently or how he would define a "win." Will Kerry be prepared to see through the battle against Iraqi insurgents and terrorists as the cost - in American lives and treasure - keeps rising on his watch? Last week, Kerry pounced on a news report saying Bush plans to seek another $70-billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"How much more are the American people going to have to pay?" Kerry shouted in Wisconsin.

If Kerry is elected, he will have to answer that question soon enough. How many American and Iraqi dead is too high a price to pay for winning the "wrong war"? At what point would Bush's war become Kerry's war?

The Massachusetts senator has left a maddening trail of inconsistent and contradictory statements on Iraq, but by the end of the campaign his goals and strategy sounded essentially the same as Bush's - to bring stability and some form of democracy to Iraq and to seek more international support to bring some relief to U.S. forces. In the campaign Kerry has spoken simultaneously of his willingness to commit more American troops to Iraq and of his hope to start bringing our soldiers home by the end of the first six months of his presidency. Which would it be? He couldn't do both.

Kerry has told voters he has "a plan" for just about everything - job creation, health care, deficit reduction, schools, you name it. But if he has a plan for winning in Iraq we haven't heard much about it other than his pledge to persuade our European allies to lend a hand in fighting the "wrong war." There's little chance of Old Europe coming to a President Kerry's rescue. The French and the Germans have made it clear there is no way they will send troops to Iraq, even if Kerry gets down on his knees and says, pretty please. It's possible they might offer some reconstruction assistance, but it's hard to see how reconstruction can go forward until there is security and stability in Iraq.

If Germany and France were to spurn a Kerry request for military support, it could complicate another Kerry goal if he becomes president - repairing American-European relations, which have been strained almost to the breaking point during the Bush administration. "If they were to say no to Kerry the risk of a backlash against Europe in America would be large," William Drozdiak, director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center, told the New York Times. "Americans would say, "We can't depend on Europe, even though we protected Europe for 50 years.' It will cause lasting damage to the relationship, a great sense of disillusionment."

Rejection by France and Germany would not be Kerry's only problem. He has disparaged other countries that sent soldiers to fight alongside Americans in Iraq as "a coalition of the bribed and the coerced." As president, Kerry might want to call the leaders of Poland, Italy, Britain and South Korea, among others, to say he meant no offense. Those governments are under growing pressure to pull out of Iraq - allies Kerry could not afford to lose.

As a senator, Kerry's record is not one of making difficult or unpopular choices. As president, that would be about all he would face at home and abroad.

Philip Gailey's e-mail address is gailey@sptimes.com

[Last modified October 31, 2004, 00:56:31]

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/31/Columns/_Wrong_war__could_bec.shtml

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Seeing Over Kerry, Finding Success in Iraq

October 31, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Arlen Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week, John Kerry seemed to base the selling of a would-be Presidency upon his mock certainty that 377 tons of very high explosives were looted from Iraq's Al Qa Qaa complex. This, despite a collection of inconclusive and potentially refuting accounts and reconnaissance.

But on a broader level, Kerry is just depending upon his renowned ability to spin the public into profound confusion and self-doubt about their heavily invested war effort. Who better for this challenge than the Naval Lieutenant who mastered the feat thirty-three years ago, after direct counsel with our communist Vietnamese enemy? Back then, after Kerry lied, two million died. And now he finds the main drain media even more eager to be his comrades.

Observing the media's harmonizing with Senator Kerry, Democratic candidates down the ballot decided to lip-sync his song. Hearken to the ol' theme and follow the bouncing ballad:

And it's one-two-three, what are we fighting for?
Don't you know that we don't give a damn?
Don't care about no Vietn-um-Iraq....

Wait, this needs some updating, John.

And it's one-two-three, what are we campaigning with?
Don't you know that we don't need the facts?
We'll just say what we choose about Iraq....

Psychologists tell us that when facing a crisis, one is apt to resort to his most deep-seated reactions. And Kerry, speaking through his media mouths has pulled his Iraq related propaganda from a familiar place very deep in his seat. To list examples of the media bias and mailasecasting involved is like pointing to Yosemite and saying, "See? A couple trees."

Whatever of Manhattan-sized Al Qa Qaa was or was not looted, that is one set of facts among many that scream out for perspective. Among the facts, Iraq was a California-sized arsenal and our coalition did not have enough troops availed or available, to prevent a small portion of arms from being looted.

So, what would Kerry have done if he were President -- come up with more troops, more devoted to serve under a Vietnam War traitor? Or, as his "No" vote on our 1991 Operation Desert Shield/Storm indicates, would he have failed to counter the continuously plotting threat the Duefler Report labels Saddam's Iraq to have been? The media doesn't really ask and Kerry doesn't tell us anything hopeful, that counters his long, long track record of un-development and un-commitment in defense and intelligence.

After this campaign gambit touting a possible 377 tons of munitions lost of an estimated 400,000+ tons captured is played upon us ad nauseum, perhaps Americans want to know what progress may actually be occurring in the nation formerly wielded like a sword in a mass murdering, international terrorist and imperialist's hand. But do we have media to this vital information, without having to glean tiny fragments out of 377 tons of campaign horserace blather and homicide bomb reports, or from the buried mentions and back pages of newspapers?

Yes, truth and perspective are out there, on the 'net. There, we are reminded that the terrorists and insurgents are being steadily defeated, their leaders apprehended or killed. Logical steps continue for freeing Falluja from arch-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who was in Iraq before we got there). Samarra was taken with minimal loss of our troops. And in the southeast, Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militiamen have given up Najaf.

Loss of American lives and of innocent Iraqis will continue, spotty perhaps, but each tragic. Warfare may escalate for a few weeks. And Iraqi's security forces are being recruited and trained. Iraqis are well motivated to run their own country for a change and they are rebuilding their society.

Places to go, on Iraq

Web sites and blogs about our Iraq peacemaking abound, really. Some of the best:

Liberating Iraq - well updated and including links to numerous other sites

The Truth about Iraq - a Web Central Station of Iraq reality

littlegreenfootballs.com - there , Iraq is put into the broader perspective of our Global War on Terror

And a few days ago, I happened to find...

Pictures from Iraq

There they were. Pictures. Pictures of our devoted troops, men and women. And free Iraqi citizens -- men, women and children.

Pictures of smiles and tender moments shared between uniformed Coalition liberators, now protectors, and the comforted and admiring little Iraqlets they defend.
A tense moment -- a soldier's eyes examining his surroundings, searching out any harm, an tiny infant lying placid his arms, wrapped in soft white and blue.
A pick-up baseball game played by local boys.
American soldiers healing Iraqi wounds.
Pictures of new freedom. Pictures of basic human love.
Pictures unseen in "mainstream" American media.

A timeline is being followed leading to January and free elections in Iraq. First, we here at home have an election and there is very little time. Would that our election were free of warring against the truth upon which so precious lives here and across the world depend.

Instead, President Bush, a champion of freedom and like-minded candidates are opposed by a "leader" of the Democratic ticket whose twisted revilement would cause the jaws of both Joe McCarthy and Edward R. Murrow to drop, together.

Please enlist and fight for reality in this war. Please share the truth with those you know and defend the cause of freedom and peace, Tuesday at the polls.



Arlen Williams

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/williams/2004/williams103104.htm

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Kerry's dishonorable response



With his shameful effort to exploit Friday's videotape message from Osama bin Laden, John Kerry has illustrated once again that he lacks the judgement necessary to be president. Bin Laden, addressing the American people, gloated over the September 11 attacks, called President Bush a liar and a supporter of despotism, and said al Qaeda is targeting the United States because this country opposes "freedom." The terrorist leader said that America would only "remain safe" if it refrained from doing things that bother radical Islamists like bin Laden.







Mr. Kerry got it right with his initial reaction: "Let me make it clear, crystal clear: As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry's scripted commitment to unity only lasted a few minutes. Shortly after the initial broadcast of the tape by Al Jazeera, Mr. Kerry attempted to use the bin Laden propaganda missive to score some political points against the president and prop up his own campaign.
"As I have said for two years now, when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, it was wrong to outsource the job of capturing them to Afghan warlords," Mr. Kerry said on Saturday. "It was wrong to divert our forces from Afghanistan so we could rush to war with Iraq without a plan to win the peace." Mr. Kerry hasn't always been so disdainful toward Mr. Bush's conduct of the very successful military campaign in Afghanistan, an effort which achieved what many pundits said could never be done — the overthrow of the Taliban dictatorship in two months. Back in December 2001, he praised the Bush administration's conduct of military operations in Afghanistan. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the operation in Tora Bora — where many terrorists were killed or captured — says Mr. Kerry doesn't know what he is talking about when he asserts that bin Laden "escaped." It is entirely possible that he may have been nowhere near Tora Bora at that time.
With his latest broadside, Mr. Kerry has shown once again that there is nothing he won't do or say to try to become president — including the exploitation of a bin Laden propaganda statement. He has shown once again why he is ill-suited to become America's new commander in chief.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041031-105725-1155r.htm


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Kerry delivers 'closing argument'


By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


DAYTON, Ohio — Sen. John Kerry stormed through three crucial states yesterday, making what his campaign called his "closing argument" to the American people and whipping up every last pocket of support before tomorrow's election.
During speeches from the Midwest to Florida, Mr. Kerry hewed close to the domestic themes that are the biggest Democratic crowd pleasers. The Massachusetts senator blamed President Bush for a host of economic ailments that he says are racking the country.







Mr. Kerry began the day by attending a service at Shiloh Baptist Church in Dayton, his fifth visit to a black Ohio congregation in as many weeks. He addressed the congregants with a veiled jab at Mr. Bush and the sincerity of his faith.
"There is a standard by which we have to live," he said. "Coming to church on Sundays and talking about faith and professing faith isn't the whole deal."
Mr. Kerry cited the New Testament, saying "faith without works is dead," and said it frustrated him to hear "politicians talk about values ... without actually valuing families the way we ought to."
Citing tax cuts for the wealthy, job losses and a decline in the number of Americans with health insurance, Mr. Kerry said he was running for president because he was "sick and tired" of watching while the wrong choices were made.
But the latest Newsweek poll showed Mr. Kerry trailing by six points, after being tied with Mr. Bush in the same poll a week earlier. Democrats also told the Associated Press that their private surveys hinted at momentum toward Mr. Bush.
Mr. Kerry took Communion at a Roman Catholic church service yesterday, the Church of the Holy Angels. Shortly after Mr. Kerry took his seat at the front of the church, a couple of churchgoers arose and walked out.
"I won't spend a moment with that man," said one woman, who disappeared before reporters could catch up with her.
After church, Mr. Kerry stopped at a field here and took off his coat, but not his tie, to toss the football with campaign aides traveling with him, including his former brother-in-law, David Thorne.
Asked whether he had any election-eve message for the American people, Mr. Kerry replied: "We need to bring America together, and we're going to do that."
At Shiloh Baptist, Mr. Kerry tempered his red-meat political message with lessons from the Bible to chide Mr. Bush's social and economic policies.
"For the next four years, we are going to work out what we need to do to heal the wounds of this country, to be one America," Mr. Kerry said.
"We are going to get this done. Let's make it happen. Let's walk in the footsteps of the Lord."
The congregation greeted Mr. Kerry with a standing ovation, and the Rev. Selwyn Bachus promised that the church would work hard for Mr. Kerry's election.
Mr. Kerry implied that Mr. Bush's policies on health care, unemployment benefits and overtime pay did not square with the president's Christianity and preference for faith-based social services.
In an interview with the Associated Press released yesterday, Mr. Kerry said he would keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives created by Mr. Bush, but would run it differently.
He said the president's program "steps over a constitutional line" because it allows religious activities as part of the programs.
"I think I'll actually get further in terms of leveraging faith-based efforts than George Bush did, because I'm not going to cross that line, and we'll get Congress to be supportive of it," he told the Associated Press.
In the interview, Mr. Kerry was vague about national security and the war on terrorism apart from saying he "will get other people to the table."
"I know exactly what I want to do to get the job done, and I'm going to get the job done" in Iraq, he said. "I'm going to make America safer, and I have some very strong and real steps to take quite immediately to make that happen. I will make America safer."
But he said he is "not even going to begin to speculate on any military operation, or any timings of anything."
Mr. Kerry's supporters expressed optimism about tomorrow's election, though even the campaign's own polling shows no discernible movement toward the candidate.
In recent days, Mr. Kerry's campaign rallies have become both larger and smaller. Some, featuring rock superstars such as Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi, have attracted as many as 80,000 spectators. Others have attracted only a couple hundred supporters.
At a rally yesterday, Mr. Kerry was joined by several officials from the Boston Red Sox, which just won the World Series. A crowd of about 12,000 showed up and jammed the streets of Manchester, N.H.
Missing from the lineup on stage was pitcher Curt Schilling, who startled some the morning after winning the World Series by endorsing Mr. Bush live on "Good Morning America."
•This article was based in part on wire-service reports.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041101-012526-4538r.htm


Ellie

[Wyoming]

Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer <br />
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun <br />
November 1, 2004 <br />
<br />
A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case...

[hrscowboy]

god i cant wait till this nightmare is all over...

[thedrifter]

Bush and Kerry sprint toward finish line


By David Espo and Nedra Pickler
ASSOCIATED PRESS


MILWAUKEE — President Bush and Sen. John Kerry reached for the finish line today in a campaign for the ages, each claiming to be the strong, steady leader needed in a time of terrorism. "The world is watching," said the Democratic challenger in a race that defied safe prediction.
"This election comes down to who do you trust," Bush said as Air Force One carried him to a half-dozen states on a final full day of campaigning.
By election eve, uncounted millions of Americans had voted early in 32 states, including more than 1.8 million in Florida alone. Both campaigns primed Election Day turnout programs in battleground states from New Hampshire to Nevada.







Democrats, claiming Republicans were seeking to discourage minority voters, won a pair of court rulings Monday in Ohio that barred party representatives from challenging voters at their polling places. GOP lawyers quickly appealed.
The war on terror aside, there were fresh reminders of the election's stakes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80 and the cornerstone of a conservative Supreme Court, disclosed he was undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for his thyroid cancer, signs that he had a potentially grave form of the disease.
Democrats, claiming Republicans were seeking to discourage minority voters, won a pair of court rulings in Ohio that barred party representatives from challenging voters at their polling places. GOP lawyers quickly appealed.
After nearly eight months of head-to-head campaigning between the president and the Massachusetts senator, the final pre-election polls turned up tied - 49-49 in one CNN-USA Today-Gallup survey, with Ralph Nader at 1 percent. Tight surveys in Florida as well as Ohio and other Midwestern states added to the uncertainty of the competition for 270 electoral votes.
With the nation divided, Democrats needed ticket-splitters to help them to gain seats in Congress. Only nine of 34 Senate races on the ballot appeared competitive, seven of them in states where Kerry had not seriously contested Bush.
Texas, the president's home state, figured to have an outsized influence on the battle for the House. There, five Democratic incumbents with 82 years seniority combined faced difficult challenges as the result of GOP-engineered redistricting.
Kerry made six stops in four states on Monday - two each in Ohio and Wisconsin - pledging to be an advocate for the middle class and those struggling to join it. "I've heard your struggles. I share your hopes. And together, tomorrow we have a chance to make a difference," he said, casting Bush as a friend of the rich and powerful.
In Florida, Kerry said he stood ready to assume national command in a time of terrorism. "I believe we can bring the world back to the side of America. I believe that we can regain America's respect and influence in the world, and I believe we deserve a president who knows how to fight a more effective war on terror and make America safe," he said.
In Iowa several hours later, he pledged a "fresh start to Iraq."
"I know what we need to do and so do you. It is inexcusable that American troops have been sent to war without the armor they need, without the number of troops that they need, without the ability to have allies at their side, making America stronger. This president rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, and we need a commander in chief who knows how to get the job done."
Bush campaigned across five states before heading home to vote on Election Day. At one point, the two men and their entourages nearly crossed paths, the president preparing to leave Milwaukee aboard Air Force One in early afternoon as Kerry's chartered jet was arriving.
"There have been some tough times in Ohio," Bush conceded as he began his day in a state that has lost 232,000 jobs since he took office. But he said the state has 5,500 new jobs since last month, and added, "We are moving in the right direction."
He said his rival belongs in the "flip-flop hall of fame" for saying he voted for and against legislation providing $87 billion for troops in Iraq, but for the most part, the criticism was muted.
"The American president must lead with clarity and purpose. As presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt to Reagan so clearly demonstrated, a president must not shift with the wind," Bush said. "A president has to make the tough decisions and stand by them."
Vice President Dick Cheney was far more pointed. "The clearest, most important difference in this campaign is simple to state: President Bush understands the war on terror and has a strategy for winning it. John Kerry does not," he said in Hawaii, a traditionally Democratic state where Republicans hoped to spring an Election Day surprise.
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, was in Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio and Florida, forecasting victory for the Democrats at every opportunity. "Tomorrow, hope will arrive," he said in Iowa, the state where precinct caucuses provided the first returns in the race for the White House more than nine months ago.
With the polls so tight, the biggest imponderable was turnout.
Curtis Gans, director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated that as many as 117.5 million to 121 million voters would cast ballots, 58 percent to 60 percent of those eligible.
The more the better, said the Democrats, knowing that Kerry couldn't win without carrying at least one state Bush claimed in 2000. They argued that get-out-the-vote operations financed by organized labor and other organizations would help them hold Pennsylvania, where Al Gore won in 2000, and take Ohio, where Bush won.
Republicans counted on their own nationwide effort to mobilize, particularly in small towns and distant suburbs where they hope the president's opposition to gay marriage, abortion and gun control give him an opening with conservative Democrats.
Thus, while Bush was struggling in Ohio, Kerry was forced to defend Michigan in the campaign's final hours, as well as Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Gore carried all four states in 2000.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041101-051825-4950r.htm

Ellie


Out of here for a few....Going to exercise My Right to VOTE........ ;)


Ellie

[Sgt Morales, AM]

GO KERRY!!!!

[HardJedi]

EEEEEEK! another Liberal! welcome to the site Sgt Morales! Now Yellowing and Ivalis will have someone on THEIR team :D LOL

[cjwright90]

Or was it sarcastic support?

[Sgt Morales, AM]

I never thought that me and my fellow Marines would be this divided. I just want this great nation to be the way it was before Bush came along. No debt, more jobs, Better Health care, and NO BUSH!!!

[HardJedi]

well Sgt. most of us AREN'T divided. MOST of us are for Bush. Kerry supporters are in the minority on this website, but still welcomed as the brothers they are. Semper Fi'

[Sparrowhawk]

Would vote for Kerry.

He is so contrary to the values, morals and professionalism the Marine Corps represents.

Can you imagine serving under a Commander-In-chief that threw away the medals his country honored him with?

One that betrayed fellow servicemen for political purposes.

One that flip flops so often, the Corps would not know if it should prepare to train for war, or to go on parade.

Kerry represents the opposite of everything the Corps stand for.


Semper Fidelis / Always Faithful, has no meaning to John Kerry