An Email Conversation

In the context of an email conversation, B wrote the following.

You could take 50% of the GOP and 50% of the Dems and put them in a room. Remove their labels and you could NOT tell which is which. I, however, do disagree with several of this administration's policies and therefore, in general, feel that it is bad for America and must change. So your generalization of Dems is without merit and I am offended. I have heard so much about "Kerry's voting record", but no facts.... if you do have such information, please share.

First off, I consider myself a Democrat in many ways - in fact, probably on the majority of social issues. I feel Bush has become less fiscally conservative than I think is wise; and has also brought certain faith-based aspects to the office with which I am personally uncomfortable.

But the issue I believe is one thousand times more important than any social issue is this: confronting and defeating extremist Islam. Do you doubt that Mohammad Atta would have detonated nuclear weapons in New York City if he'd had them? Do you doubt that there are other suicidal extremists who are trying -- at this moment -- to acquire small payload nuclear weapons to detonate in our major cities? In fact, their stated goal is to kill 3,000,000 Americans. I, for one, don't doubt that they are trying to make good on that promise.

And please note that my generalizations are not of "Democrats"... they are of the "Democratic leadership". Please note this exact phrasing in this post from July, in which the following Democratic Senators and Representatives met with groups affiliated with terrorists: Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, Nick Joe Rahall, Democratic whip David Bonior, and Gregory Meeks. My article was picked up by DhimmiWatch.com because the very act of meeting with CAIR, in the opinion of many, borders on 'aiding and abetting the enemy' (see Anti-CAIR for more on CAIR's ties to terror groups). And what were they meeting about? Dismantling the Patriot Act.

Also note that almost every claim I make is backed up by 'linkage', attribution in the form of articles, press releases, or other citations. Yesterday's post, with multiple hyperlinks, outlined the Democratic leadership's efforts in the following areas:

1) Calling Iraqi ally Prime Minister Allawi essentially a liar (Investors Business Daily: "by snubbing his Thursday speech to Congress and, as soon as it ended, calling him little better than a liar")
2) Attempting to tear down our alliance with Australia (Captains Quarters: "Kerry Campaign Attempts To Destabilize Australian Partnership")
3) Meeting with groups tied to terrorists, as described above.

and many more. These statements and actions are used by our enemies.

As for John Kerry's voting record... I have many, many posts on this subject, including his statements on the floor of the Senate which do more to illustrate his egregious record throughout his entire career. Are you wondering why the DNC never brings up his Senate record? Because any inspection of it reveals that he has no business running for any public office, much less President.

This post, for example, outlines some of his more outrageous strategic mistakes during his long and refreshingly accomplishment-free career including specific statements and votes (I also have a more complete list I can send you if you're interested).

Again, just to re-emphasize: I am not tarring all Democrats with one broad brush. I am indicting the Democratic leadership, which has hijacked the true spirit of the Democratic party in the interest of greed. How else do you explain insulting our allies, meeting with groups tied to terror, undermining troop morale, and providing talking points for our enemies?

I'll close with a little Hugh Hewitt:

"Just how much damage can Kerry do to the war effort in the 40 days of self-destruction he has left? John Edwards will help make it a record certainly, using the Q word today...

So John Kerry will end his political career as he began it, attacking America's role in a just war, undermining the morale of the troops who are fighting it, and expressing contempt for the leadership of a nation struggling to be free of oppressors. It is the only mark of consistency he's displayed, but not one that many voters will admire."

John Kerry's Scorched Earth Policy

Irresponsible? Outrageous? You decide.

...[When] Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition. But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." Is Kerry proud that his senior adviser's derisive comment about the leader of free Iraq will now be quoted by terrorists and by enemies of the United States, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East? Is the concept of a loyalty to American interests that transcends partisan politics now beyond the imagination of the Kerry campaign? John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible--and not even in his own best interest...

Disgraceful

An offer to vote for Kerry, if...

Michael Barone made a great point on Brit Hume’s show. He pointed out that John Kerry critcizes President Bush for not showing respect to foreign leaders. Kerry, however, shows contempt for all the world leaders that stand with America... ...If I were a foreign leader I don’t think I would be too eager to join the coalition of the "bribed" as Kerry calls them. In fact, I have even questioned whether or not Kerry could hold the current coalition if elected. Don Hyatt of Cary, NC... made an offer to John Kerry: John Kerry has said that in order to improve the situation in Iraq he would get more help from the Europeans. I’m guessing this means help from France and Germany, since we already have help from several other European countries. Our allies have fought and some of them have died because they believe in a free Iraq, even though Kerry belittles their contributions by insinuating that without France and Germany, we don’t really have any European help. Letting that slide for now, I’ll make him a promise. As a Republican, a Bush supporter and one who feels democracy must prevail in Iraq at any cost, this promise doesn’t come easily but here it is: If John Kerry receives written affirmation from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac that they will each commit 10,000 ground troops to assist with keeping the peace in Iraq once Kerry is elected in November, then he will get my vote. Success in Iraq and eliminating as many terrorists as possible is that important to me. So far, Kerry has given me nothing but a few assertions that he would handle the situation in Iraq "better" than President Bush has. Here is a chance to prove it and to get another vote in the process.

An offer

Disgraceful, part 2

Allawi told a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday that democratic elections will take place in Iraq in January as scheduled, but Kerry disagreed.

"The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq," Kerry told reporters outside a Columbus firehouse. "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone." So the Democratic Party's candidate for President is on record as saying that January elections are impossible; or, if held, they will be illegitimate. The primary purpose of the terrorists' current terror campaign is to force the postponement or cancellation of the Iraqi elections. A secondary objective has been to secure the election of John Kerry. Through Kerry's own actions, those objectives have now become one. Kerry's message to the terrorists is: What you're doing is working. Keep it up. If I'm elected, you'll get your wish and there will be no elections in Iraq. In all of American history, is there any parallel to Kerry's disgraceful conduct?

Powerline: Disgraceful Conduct

John Kerry's Message to the Enemy

One man's vision of the future. And it ain't pretty.

...Kerry came home from Viet Nam and with a vengeance turned on his fellow vets... In desperation, John Kerry has resurrected the same plan that gave the North Vietnamese, by their own admission, the will to fight on--to continue the killing of our soldiers and innocent civilians... ...As president, Kerry will pull the troops out of Iraq and leave that country to radical Islamists as a reward for their assistance with the hope that Iraq will be enough for them. He will do it slowly, in the first few months, then quickly, proclaiming that the United Nations now has control. The terrorists will have won and Iraq will be their playground... ...but Iraq with its oil-producing ability next to Iran and Iran’s budding nuclear program and picture both these countries under radical Islam’s control and what picture to you see? Let’s not forget about Syria, also under the strong arm of the Ba’ath Party and a harbinger of terrorists. Now, instead of sporadic terror attacks in a couple of cities in Iraq, the civilized world will be facing at the very least, a triumvirate of radical Islamic terrorist-controlled countries with nuclear weapons and billions of dollars of oil. They will, in effect, have control of the world’s economy via the oil and weapons that can obliterate any enemy that dares challenge them. Their victory will be complete--almost... There will be the small matter of the North American Continent, target rich and full of infidels that need to be killed. For those who need to kill like a junkie needs a fix, their new playground will be California, Texas, Indiana, and Rhode Island. With fifty states to choose from, they can take their pick. Europe, already seen as weak, can wait. Europe will be dessert after an American main course. People must understand. We must stop these killers in Iraq. If we don't, you can expect a suicide bomber in an elementary school near you. The goal of radical Islamists is not just to conquer Iraq. Their goal is to conquer the world. Never forget that.

John Kerry's Message to the Enemy

Zarqawi's mentor gets whacked

Big news that you might not have caught in the mainstream media. Surprise, surprise.

Reader Mark Sebald draws our attention to this article from today's Washington Times: "Zarqawi's mentor said to be killed by a U.S. hit." The Times reports: The Muslim cleric responsible for the practice of beheading hostages in Iraq - including two Americans this week - has been killed in a U.S. air strike, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said yesterday. The Muslim cleric, Sheik Abu Anas Shami, 35, was killed when a missile hit the car he was traveling in on Friday in the western Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib. Mr. Sebald observes: Notice any similarities to the way Israel takes out terrorists? To me this is good news. It implies that U.S. forces are developing intelligence sources and making progress fighting the insurgents. I had thought there would be some reaction to this by now, but so far I haven't seen any.

Zarqawi's Mentor Eats a Missile

Bush's National Guard Service: a first-person Perspective

Courtesy Powerline, Air Force Col. John H. Wambough, Jr.:

I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don't strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit. Cowards (or people who lack courage) don't take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot." "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," Colonel Killian wrote: "He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing." Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush's time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973. Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush's ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.

A First-Person Perspective on Bush's Guard Service

The Fall

If we wonder why CBS is in trouble, why no one trusts the universities or the U.N., or why the Democrats may soon lose the Senate, the House, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, the answer has a lot to do with arrogant hypocrisy - the idea that how one lives need have nothing to do with what one professes, that idealistic rhetoric can provide psychological cover for privilege and preference, and that rules need not apply for those self-proclaimed as smarter and nicer than the rest of us. But none of us - none - get a pass simply because we claim that we are more moral, educated, or sophisticated than most.

The Fall of CBS

GOP Chairman Says Dems, CBS Coordinated Bush Attack

Excellent timeline that details the exquisite timing of the Democratic National Committee's "Fortune Son" strike with the CBS 60 Minutes II debacle. You would think that forgery, apparent collusion between a network and a political party, and related skulduggery designed to influence a Presidential election would be worthy of some major news coverage, a la Watergate. Aside from Fox, it appears, you'd be wrong. And they say there is no media bias. Uhmm hmmm.

GOP Chairman Says Dems, CBS Coordinated Bush Attack

Remembering Saddam

As Iraqis emerge from the dark ages of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the staggering dimensions of his cruel atrocities are becoming known. One million, three hundred thousand Iraqis are still missing and believed murdered through his orders. "Remembering Saddam" is the story of nine Baghdad merchants who incurred the wrath of Saddam in 1995 for allegedly dealing in foreign currency and who were brutally punished. Unlike many others, they survived to tell their story and even discovered video of their ordeal shot by the Secret Police for Saddam's amusement. They spent a year in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, and then were led into the clinic where Doctor's surgically amputated their right hands...

Remembering Saddam

PoliPundit's Quote of the Day

"We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest."

- John Kerry, on CNN’s Crossfire, in 1997.

Also Heard around the Web

"While Mr. Kerry has every right to criticize U.S. conduct of the war, one would think he'd be wiser than to attack Mr. Allawi for saying it will be possible to hold the same elections that Mr. Kerry said just this Monday were his own exit strategy from Iraq. Or to accuse Iraq's Prime Minister of painting an unrealistic picture about a country the Senator has never visited. Having described the U.S. allies who liberated Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed," Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President."

- OpinionJournal