Giving dirty tricks a bad name

I'm detecting... a... pattern.

Was Iraq part of the Global War on Terror?

The World Trade Center. Bali. Madrid. Beslan. These names are synonymous with devastating attacks by terrorists targeting innocent civilians. There is little doubt we are engaged in a global war on terror. There are disagreements, however, with the methods used to defeat terrorists.



A major area of dispute lies with Iraq's role in the war on terror. General Tommy Franks, the former commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command, is on record as saying, "There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the… United States of America... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?"



The 9/11 Commission couched its report delicately, perhaps due to political considerations, claiming that Al Qaeda and Iraq had no "operational" links. That statement, however, masks Iraq's involvement with not only Al Qaeda associates, but its longstanding support for extremists.



Terror heavyweights Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were all present in Iraq prior to the war. A terrorist training center at Salman Pak featured a Boeing 707, which was used to train hijackers. The Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam operated in Iraq. And Hussein’s government provided official support and funds for numerous terror groups including Hamas and Hezbollah.



Furthermore, details of Iraq's nuclear weapons program are only now emerging thanks to Mahdi Obeidi, its former head of uranium enrichment. In the aftermath of the war, Obeidi disclosed to American officials that his backyard contained uranium-enriching gas centrifuges. He described the hide-and-seek games Iraq played with UN weapons inspectors. We now know that Iraq was fully prepared to resume its nuclear weapons program as sanctions eased.



In addition, recently disclosed Iraqi intelligence documents -- confiscated by U.S. forces -- confirm that Iraq possessed both anthrax and mustard gas prior to the war.



Iraq was, quite literally, a major terrorist way station in the Middle East. The current fight to bring Democracy to Iraq is an important step in combating global terrorism. If the end of Cold War is any indication, freedom will spread its wings. A Democratic Iraq will bring enlightenment, economic prosperity, tolerance and, hopefully, a repeatable formula to end state-sponsored terror throughout the world.

Kerry's Iranian Fundraisers

Does it strike anyone else as ominous that John Kerry endorses giving Iran nuclear fuel in exchange for promises that the Mullahs refrain from developing WMD's? This is the same Iran that, according to the State Department, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism".



Well, it turns out that three of John Kerry's biggest fundraisers are Iranian and have worked tirelessly to normalize relationships between the U.S. and the Iranian terror state. As Captain's Quarters reports:

John Kerry and John Edwards Iran policy proposal has raised eyebrows around the world, offering to give the Iranian hardliners nuclear fuel in exchange for a promise to drop their enrichment program... ...three top financial backers of the Kerry/Edwards ticket may account for the unusual notion of giving fissile materials to the largest backers of Islamofascist terror groups: Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran... Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. ... Nemazee was a major Clinton donor... [and] joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime... The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring. Nemazee isn't the only five- to six-figure donor to the Kerry campaign connected to efforts aimed at lifting the economic sanctions against the Iranian mullahcracy. Faraj Aalaei has raised between $50,000 to $100,000 for the Kerry campaign while his new wife, Susan Akbarpour, has raised a similar amount... ...The article also outlines other positions that Kerry has taken for normalization with the current Iranian regime rather than support the nascent democratization efforts within Iran. It appears that the Kerry campaign's commitment to fighting terrorism and its sponsors takes a back seat to pandering to its financial supporters -- as does American national security...

Captain's Quarters: Kerry's Iranian Fundraisers may explain his desire to give Nuclear fuel to the Mullahs

Best of the Symposium

The following are highlights from Hugh Hewitt's virtual symposium. Full disclosure: I used a cheat sheet while preparing these items.

In the debate Thursday night, John Kerry attacked President Bush for underwriting research into bunker-busting nuclear weapons. "I'm going to shut that program down," says Kerry, arguing that we are not "sending the right message to places like North Korea" when we are pursuing such programs. Evidently, Kerry believes that if we provide the proper role model by abandoning such efforts, then North Korea and Iran will be more inclined to abandon their own nuclear programs. Which makes about as much sense as arguing, in the late 1930s, that Britain and the U.S. should have provided a better role model for Nazi Germany by abandoning key weapons programs--say, the Spitfire fighter and B-17 bomber. Could any sane person believe that such actions would have led Germany to moderate its behavior? And today, could any informed person not believe that the leaders of Iran and North Korea are cut from cloth very similar to those from which the Nazi leaders were cut?

Photon Courier

Note to John Kerry: a double standard concerning the possession of nuclear weapons does exist. We are America, we are morally better than nations such as Iran and North Korea, we can be trusted to act responsibly with our nuclear arsenal, and our possession and development of bunker busting nukes in no way spurs the development of nukes by other nations. Iran and North Korea (plus Pakistan, India and Israel) developed nuclear weapons programs for their own national interests, not in reaction to our arsenal... Is the development of bunker busters going to cause Iran to want nukes even more? Who is kidding whom? America is not a proliferator of nuclear weapons, as he implies in his statement. John Kerry has always opposed America’s nuclear deterrence, as evidenced by his opposition to the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet’s movement of nukes into Eastern Europe. John Kerry indicates that he does not trust America’s ownership of nuclear weapons. He is shortsighted on the need for bunker busting nukes as well, as there may be a real military need in the future.

Bill Roggio

Hearing John Kerry's "Not this president!" during the debate gave me flashbacks to childhood. I remembered Jimmy Carter getting nuclear weapon advice from Amy. (In googling to refresh my memory on that, I found this fascinating transcript of an interview with President Carter by Jim Lehrer on the topic of presidential debates). I remembered how President Carter, too, was on the wrong side of nearly every issue. Those were dark times for our country, and I shudder to think of returning to them under a Kerry Administration. Can you imagine having our president, in this age of radical Islamic terrorism, believe that we are in the wrong for wanting to have the best, most precise weapons available?

Palmtree Pundit

My global test for whether to attack our enemies is twofold: 1. Did somebody attack us or are they acting like they are going to attack us? 2. Are they somewhere on the globe? Two out of two earns a visit from Mr. MOAB and their snake-eating friends. Or a corps or two. Whatever it takes to defeat the threat. And if it takes using small yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy a rogue regime’s nuclear arsenal, I do not think we need to feel any guilt at all wielding them as we tell those rogues to give up their nuclear weapons. We are not morally equivalent. I have no patience with somebody who thinks our possession of weapons designed to destroy enemy weapons is the same as an enemy with weapons intended to slaughter civilians...

Brian James Dunn

In all actuality, a new arms race has begun. The race is between the democracies and rogue nations. Democracies need the ability to wipe out rogue nations' secretly located, deeply buried atomic installations. The rogue nations, WHO ARE DICTATORSHIPS that kill thousands if not millions of their own citizens, want to develop and spread these weapons. They may want to give them to terrorist organizations. That must be stopped. But Kerry, incredibly, views this simplistically. He feels he has no answer if a rogue nation asks us "Why should we stop developing nuclear weapons when the U.S continues to do so?" The answer of course, is that we are democracies and they are dictatorships. When they become democracies, we will begin to accord them the full rights of states. Until then, they are illegitimate and have no rights.

penraker

John Kerry, who opposed Reagan as a Senator, now wants to once again unilaterally disarm ourselves of a critcal weapon while arming one of our most intractable enemies of the last 25 years. His logic must be that if the US "sets the example" of not moving forward with a critical tactical nuclear weapon, then the psychotic mullahs will see our peaceful gesture and reciprocate. WTF?

FroggyRuminations

When asked what is the greatest threat facing us, he replied "nuclear proliferation". Not terrorism, not WMD in general, not even al Qaeda or Osama himself. And he was careful to say that Iraq was a "grand distraction" from the real war in Afghanistan. But all of that is beside the point. No, the War on Terror is not the greatest threat to us. Not Islamic extremists who want to slaughter each of our children in the name of "divine justice". Not WMD in the hands of terrorists. No, he thinks nuclear weapons in general are the greatest threat, especially those produced by his own country.

NonBoxThinking

... John Kerry goes a' trippin. First he asserts that the situation in Iraq can be resolved by a summit ... then he tells us that it is hypocricy to tell others to give up their nuclear weapons, even as we develop new, deep-penetration nuclear weapons for "bunker busting"... Once again, his hippie roots are showing -- in particular, the myopic assumption that, if we get rid of the tools men can use for evil, that evil itself will disappear.

Casebolt

The underlying assumption in all this is that Americans are, all recent events and facts notwithstanding, exactly as trustworthy and sane and humane as the mooooolahs of Iran and other terror supporters. No, not even that, we are somehow less trustworthy and sane and humane. Now, how many normal, everyday Americans actually believe that? Somewhere in the 10% range? The same percentage that believe the moon's made of green cheese? Such an inexplicable rejection of facts, history, and common sense in favor of some self-flagellating "we are the enemy" position means John Kerry's not fit to teach 7th grade history, let alone lead the nation...

Minutiaman

Sen. Kerry asserts that development of high-yield Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, better known as the “bunker busters” sends a mixed message. What it does is add force to the message. Not only do we want you to stop WMD development, but if you fail to comply we have the ability to destroy what you have... Sen. Kerry supports a unilateral U.S. nuclear arms moratorium!

Pajamahadin

(Technically not part of the symposium, but worth repeating) I'd really like to live in John Kerry's world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

Lileks

A vote you may one day pay for with your life

...John Kerry's position on Iraq has been a model of inconsistency and flip-flopping. But his position on providing America and its military with the tools needed to defend America has been consistent his entire political career: He was against properly arming America before he was against it. And he's still against it. We don't want to look back 20 years from now, watching news pictures of the smoking rubble of an American city devastated by a North Korean or Iranian nuke brought in by terrorists and remember the day President Kerry canceled the program that could have developed and deployed the weapon that could have destroyed that North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons facility before the nuke ever got passed to the terrorists. A vote for John Kerry is a vote to risk the lives of millions of Americans on the proposition that a strong defense is risky but having no defense against madmen is sane. It is, quite literally, a vote you may one day pay for with your life...

Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons System

Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry

...Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake. Have I got that right? Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit...

Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry

"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland

In reaction to John Kerry's continuing efforts to disenfranchise United States' allies, the president of Poland speaks up. Specifically, he details his reaction to Kerry's debate performance. So far, the Kerry campaign has insulted the entire coalition (calling them a 'coalition of the coerced and bribed'), insinuated that fighting terrorists will increase terror attacks against Australians, and claimed that the prime minister of Iraq was a "puppet".



This is diplomacy, John Kerry-style.

In the interview for a Polish channel TVN, President of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski expressed his admiration and full support for President George Bush for his leadership in the war on terror. As a comment to the Bush-Kerry debate, President Kwasniewski said that "President Bush performed like a truly Texan gentleman who was able to notice and fully appreciate the presence and sacrifice of the Polish ally in the war on terror in Iraq. " "I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.", Kwasniewski commented John Kerry’s stance. "I don’t think it’s an ignorance.", said Kwasniewski. "Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It’s highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world. "That’s why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished", President Kwasniewski commented Kerry’s speech during the debate. "Perhaps Mr Kerry, continues Kwasniewski, thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq. According to poll research centers, Poland is the only European country where President Bush would win the election. What’s more, it would be a landslide victory...

"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday. Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it." "We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq. The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost. "What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson. Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there." Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.

Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

The view from Iraq: the First Debate

I have been in Iraq almost 9 months and I have seen the good and the bad of this war. Terrorists from other regions have been “pouring over the borders”, but certainly not for the first time. They are making contact with other members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporters on the inside of Iraq... ...Terrorism was not born when the US rolled in on March 19th, 2003! Terrorism has been networked across the globe, and Iraq has been a major hub for terrorist activity long before we arrived. The 1st debate between Bush and Kerry has highlighted a chasm between the two campaigns, more importantly, the two men regarding the question of Iraq and its role in terrorism. This is a split that is impossible to comprehend from where I stand! Of course the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror! When Senator John Kerry said “the president made a colossal error of judgment by diverting attention from the war on terrorism and the hunt for terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden”, he could not be more wrong. When Senator Kerry said that “Mr. Bush was not candid with the public about his reasons for invading Iraq or the difficult fight ahead”, besides exhibiting a poor memory, he showed an incredible lack of ability to see that no mission will ever go exactly as you plan it. A candidate for the US presidency ought to know that your enemy is going to have something to say about how the fight is fought. The enemy is going to do the unexpected, and plans will change. I am sorry that it’s not an ideal scenario for Senator Kerry, but no war is. I am repeatedly asked what the soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Soldiers in the US armed forces come in all shapes and sizes… and viewpoints. I don’t pretend to speak for all soldiers, but I do believe that most men and women in today’s military share something very close to these same beliefs. Most soldiers here believe in the mission in Iraq. They know, like I do, that the former regime in Iraq was an important component in the war on Terror. There is no doubt that terrorist cells have been allowed to operate within these borders for some time, and that Hussein’s regime most likely provided financial support as well...

The view from Iraq: the first Debate

Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again

Kerry’s insane, nuclear freeze-inspired position on the development of bunker-busting nukes-the very weapons we’re going to need most if Kerry’s other foreign policy initiative comes to pass, and he supplies the mullahs of Iran with nuclear fuel: And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States (!) is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, "You can’t have nuclear weapons," but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is moral equivalence at its lowest ebb. John Kerry will help the mullahs of Iran develop a nuclear program, but wants America to disarm-because if we disarm and stop researching the mean! evil! bad! nukes, the rest of the world will join us in the world of colorful butterflies and laughing flowers, and we’ll all dance happily through the meadow. Tra la! Remember: a vote for John F. Kerry is a vote for Armageddon.

Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again

The Real Struggle for Iraq

The "insurgency" in Iraq is going nowhere fast. It will be as roundly defeated as were its predecessors in so many other countries. The danger for Iraq's future lies elsewhere. It comes, in part, from Americans who want Iraq to fail because they want President Bush to fail. Some 81 books paint the president as the devil incarnate; Bush-bashing is also the theme of three "documentaries" plus half a dozen Hollywood feature films. Never before in any mature democracy has a political leader aroused so much hatred from his domestic opponents. Others want Iraq to fail because they want America to fail, with or without Bush. The bitter tone of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he declared the liberation of Iraq "illegal" shows that it is not the future of Iraq but the vilification of the United States that interests him. Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies - the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others - but on the side of the "insurgents."

The real struggle for Iraq

Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?

UN officials are investigating a video showing Palestinians loading suspicious, elongated objects into UN ambulances after Israel released the images and accused UN personnel of collaborating with the terrorists: UN officials said Saturday they are investigating a claim by the Israeli military that Palestinian terrorists transported a rocket in a vehicle with UN markings, but accused Israel of having made false allegations in the past. On Friday, the IDF released video footage taken from an unmanned aircraft, or drone, flying over the Jebalya refugee camp. The blurred black-and-white video showed three men walking toward the U.N. vehicle, including one who carried an elongated object. The army said the object was a rocket. Don't expect too much from this investigation, however. As the above indicates, the UN "investigator" assigned to the case has started out his probe by assuming the Israelis are a bunch of liars...

Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?

Links o' the Day

San Francisco School of Jihad



John Kerry: Peace Criminal?



Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France



John Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops from the Debate



Humor from IowaHawk: Classic TV script

What is "The Global Test?"

Many of my regular readers have written in, wondering what John Kerry meant when he refered to "The Global Test". For those who missed the debate, Kerry said, "the president always has the right... for [a] preemptive strike... But if and when you do it, ...you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test."



Through some friends at CBS News, I've been able to acquire a rare copy of The Global Test (hat tip: Danny... I owe ya one!). From what I gather, the Global Test was written in 1972 -- on a highly advanced typewriter (with proportional fonts, no less!) -- and reads as follows:

The Global Test You have six minutes to complete the test. Please use a number 2 pencil to mark each of your answers. Turn your sheet in at the Front Desk of the UN Building when you have completed the test. 1) Your country is engaged in an unpopular war in Southeast Asia, but one which is necessary to contain Communism. Should you: [] A) Attempt to gain a draft deferment [] B) Join the US Navy's Swiftboat group because you think, "it's a way to avoid the action" [] C) Game the Navy's system by reporting minor injuries in order to gain three purple hearts, which allows you to bureaucratically exit from the combat theater [] D) All of the above 2) You are a veteran returning from a bitterly contested war and have an opportunity to publicize your views on the war. Should you: [] A) Claim that your fellow soldiers, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals , cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side... " [] B) Provide ammunition to the enemy with which they can torture American POW's to solicit confessions [] C) Illegally meet with the enemy in France [] D) All of the above 3) Your country is engaged in a 'Cold War' on Communism. Your president believes that the "Evil Empire" is susceptible to a massive arms buildup, which it cannot possible match. He also believes that such a buildup could bankrupt the Communist regime without a shot being fired and thus result in the spread of democratic freedom throughout Asia. Should you: [] A) Stand up in the Senate and say, "The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability' which we now know not to exist." [] B) Stand up in the Senate and say, "We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use." [] C) Stand up in the Senate and say, "the biggest defense buildup since World War II has not given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by the prospect of war, not less so." [] D) All of the above 4) Your country is combating the Communist Sandanistas in Latin America. Should you: [] A) Attempt to appease the Communists by publicly stating, "We believe this is a wonderful opening for a peaceful settlement…"; [] B) Conduct a pointless witch-hunt of Americans fighting Communists; [] C) Call the American President's actions, "Barbaric" [] D) All of the above 5) Your country is waging a global war on terror. Should you: [] A) Insult our Allies, calling them a "coalition of the coerced and bribed" [] B) Insult the leader of a free Iraq when he visits the United States to speak in front of Congress [] C) Have your sister attempt to shake the confidence of our Australian allies [] D) All of the above 6) For two decades, your country has armed itself to provide protection for the innocent, promote peace, and spread democracy throughout the world. Should you: [] A) Vote against every significant weapons system over a 20 year period, including the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, F-15, and F-16 Fighters, the M1 Abrams Tank, the Patriot Missile, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and the Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, and others. [] B) Attempt to curtail funding for every major Intelligence budget [] C) During the rise of Bin Laden and global terrorism (1997), ask, "now that [the Cold War] is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?" [] D) All of the above

If you answered "All of the above" on each and every answer, odds are you're John Kerry!

More Debate Reaction

The debates percolated in my brain overnight and I noted three key takeaways, all from the Kerry camp:



1) Kerry - no pre-emptive war: Kerry will not pre-emptively use force to protect the United States unless such action passes a 'global test'. What in the hell is a 'global test'? This statement, in and of itself, should disqualify Kerry from serving as CINC.



2) Kerry - unilateral disarmament: Kerry would unilaterally halt U.S. development of advanced weapons systems. This 'show of weakness' approach didn't work during the Cold War and it certainly won't work now. What in the hell is he thinking by promising to unilaterally disarm? This is a classic Neville Chamberlain approach that gets innocent people killed.



3) Kerry - provide nuclear fuel to the Iranians: Kerry would help Iran build their nuclear facilities by providing them with nuclear fuel in exchange for promises. What in the hell is he thinking? Shipping nuclear fuel to the world's greatest state sponsor of terror is just wrong-headed. It's catastrophically wrong.



I don't like John Kerry because John Kerry is going to get me killed.

Lies about Lies

SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word [Ed: lied] as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04) BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq... Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03) AND IN SEPTEMBER 2003, KERRY SAID BUSH ADMINISTRATION "LIED" AND "MISLED." "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us." (Sen. John Kerry, Campaign Event, Claremont, NH, 9/20/03)

Who do you trust?

John Bolton, the State Department's point man on proliferation... noted that it is technically possible for Iran to remain in compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, then suddenly renounce the NPT and "breakout" with its own bomb... ...Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control reduced the status quo to three lines: "You cannot verify a lie. You cannot successfully inspect a country that lies. You come to a dead end." ... the Irans and North Koreas of the world are assembling a bomb and the missiles to deliver it. Current "policy" won't stop them. What will? The Bush administration filed its answer two Septembers ago with the National Security Strategy, a 31-page document whose most famous word was "preemption." It said, "In an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." Pre-emption... without a 'global test'

Think you can avoid the global war on terror?

A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified. The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man's intentions were unknown...

Terror surveillance on U.S. School Systems?

Another Kerry Fable

Appearing on ABC's Good Morning America today, John Kerry offered yet another explanation for his trademark line "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it": it was late at night, and he was tired: "It was a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those moments late in the evening when I was tired in the primaries and didn't say something clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is, I thought, to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted." Just one problem: Kerry made the statement at noon. Maybe his watch was set on Paris time.

A problem telling it straight

Remembering

Click for WTC Slide-Show

Iran in Turmoil

Why the mullahs have their fingers crossed, hoping to be able to keep a lid on all this for another six weeks. From the SMCCDI, with thanks to Ali Dashti: Deadly clashes rocked, today, Iran's main southern port of Bandar-Abbas located by the Hormoz Strait on the Persian Gulf. Elite commandos of the Pasdaran Corp. entered in action in order to smash a popular protest initiated following the news of murders of three local fishermen by members of the regime's security forces. Rumors had stated that the fishermen were killed as they had refused to bribe the regime's agents. Angry residents attacked several public buildings and the regime forces vehicles with pieces of stones and incendiary devices after that the militiamen started to shoot on the crowd. Several deaths and injured have been reported. The situation is very tense and the accesses to the city-port and the port's facilities are under heavy military watch. Bandar Abbas is the main commercial entry to Iran and its paralysis will plunge the country in an unprecedented chaos from which the Islamic regime won't survive. Why six weeks? Consider this detail from Andrew2's report from Munich: The Democratic representative, John McQueen, took the podium with the trademark shout-out from the movie Good morning Vietnam--"Good morning Munich!" He immediately went to work highlighting the Democratic view of the current administration. "The preservation of civil rights, dialogue with North Korea and Iran, and health care are all important to John Kerry".

JihadWatch: Deadly clashes rock Iran's main southern port

Iraq, the Bush Doctrine Test Case: 'You Support Terror, We Kick Your Ass'

I think liberals are as wrong as can be, and it’s easy to demonize those you disagree with. So I have taken to ascribing all liberal thinking to my best friend for 25 years. He’s a card-carrying liberal, but I love him like a brother. This helps me keep things in perspective - some people are wrong, but they are not necessarily evil. His heart is certainly bigger than most. This exercise keeps me mostly sane - otherwise I’d be driving down the road flipping off Kerry-stickered cars ;-) Sometimes I really have a hard time believing the country is somewhat evenly divided when I look at Kerry. Of all of the disparaging things that are said about Bush, most of them apply to Kerry to a much higher degree. * Lied about service in the ‘Nam era? check * Inarticulate? check * The pawn of someone close to him? check * Can’t ever admit to being wrong, or take responsibility for things going wrong? check * Misses the point on the War on Terror? check I have some hope that a groundswell of sanity will return to the American electorate, and Bush will win 40+ states, thus repudiating Kerry’s current "Iraq is the wrong war" theme. Iraq was exactly the RIGHT war to make the Bush Doctrine stick. Afghanistan was not - that war had to be done in answer to the 09/11 attack. Iraq was the test case that proves the reality of the Bush Doctrine; it is the generalization of the specific case of Afghanistan, and as such the Object Lesson. You DON’T necessarily have to attack us or be an IMMINENT threat. Just a growing threat and an internationally condemned lunatic who supports terrorists. That’s enough to get you your head handed to you courtesy of the US Marines. Those who say that there are no links between 9/11 and Iraq are completely missing the point! The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Attack on Terror Sponsors is a turning point in history, and Iraq was the Test Case. Americans must assert that this war was just, right, and even necessary. Even absent links to 9/11, or actual stockpiles of WMD (besides, those are not "non-existent", they are merely hidden in Syria). Only if the US Electorate confirms and validates the Bush Doctrine will countries like Iran, North Korea, and even psuedo-allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan "get the message". We mean what we say - you support terror, we kick your ass.

Bush Doctrine

Links o' the Day

Esquire: The Pentagon's New Map (Updated)



Government Archives: World War II Photo Archives



LGF: WTC slide show (warning, this is very graphic)



Peter Brookes: An Iran/Israeli War



JihadWatch: US President says Islam has "declared undistinguishing and exterminating war...against all the rest of mankind". John Quincy Adams, that is.



The Corner: Kerry/Mexico... "If FDR had followed the Kerry plan, we wouldn’t be going after Japan so much as those pilots who were flying those planes over Pearl Harbor. I can almost hear Kerry circa 1944, 'it’s been three years and those pilots are all still at large!'"



The Corner: GLOBAL TEST ALL OVER W'S ALLENTOWN RALLY RIGHT NOW -

"The presidents job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America."