Posted on 02/09/2004 5:00:28 AM PST by Elkiejg
KERRY TO SOUTH --- DROP DEAD
Was it my imagination, or did I read that John Kerry says that he can easily win the presidency without taking a single Southern state? Yup ... seems that he did. He also had a few things to say about that Southern drawl. So here we have this Massachusetts Senator denigrating the South. I wonder if Southerners will remember this when Kerry starts campaigning down there. Probably not ... you know how stupid they are. Right?
Michigan Senator Carl Levin has now endorsed Kerry. Levin says that he thinks the Democratic candidate needs to have military experience. In 1992 and again in 1996 Levin endorsed a draft dodger and a man who wrote of his loathing of the military for the presidency.
AND THE KERRY MOMENTUM CONTINUES
The only question now is when the other 5 guys are going to drop out. John Kerry picked up 3 more wins over the weekend in Washington state, Michigan, and Maine. He's leading in the polls for Tuesday's primaries in Tennessee and Virginia. This is it for the other candidates; the fat lady has sung.
So what are they running for? Why are Weasly Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich still running? For Sharpton, it's the money. Remember, his campaign is paying him a salary. Nice job, if you can get it. Kucinich? Publicity. He loves it. Edwards and Clark? The vice-presidency. Dean? He'll be out by this time next week, one of the most amazing crash and burn episodes in political history.
Of course, if you listened to the candidates, they are going all the way. But all the big money and endorsements are behind Kerry, and the rest of the party establishment is lining up behind him. This is their guy.
The Deanie babies and Weasly supporters will have to find a new hobby. So close, yet so far away. There's always 2008 ... but then there's Hillary to contend with.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
The stupidity continued Sunday morning on 'Meet the Press' over President Bush's service record in the National Guard. Of course, you knew Tim Russert was going to grill him about it: "The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there's no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972," For the 10,000th time, George Bush replied "There may be no evidence, I did report; otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged." But that doesn't matter to the Democrats.
George Bush, you see, is a Republican, the liberals demand a much higher standard when it comes to military service. When it involved Bill Clinton dodging the draft in 1992, it was okay. We were told it didn't matter then. But it's an important, burning issue now...and the media is going along with it. Doesn't matter that Bush didn't dodge anything, put in his service, and as he said, was honorably discharged. That should be the end of discussion, but of course not.
And what about the proof? Every time this is brought up, it is presented that Bush is guilty until proven innocent. If the military records cannot be found, then he must be lying! Where was he for those months in Alabama in 1972? Who cares?
The Democrats case is as weak as it gets ... but then so are their voters, so this is likely to have some effect.
THE PHONY WMD CONTROVERSY CONTINUES
The media and the Democrats continue to be obsessed with the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to be found in Iraq. Don't be misled here, this has nothing to do with finding the truth. Their true mission: to prove that the President lied, that George Bush knowingly misled the American people and invaded Iraq knowing there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. But there were, and the Democrats and their buddies in the media know it.
In an Oval Office interview with the President taped Saturday but aired yesterday morning on Meet the Press, Tim Russert grilled Bush for most of the hour on this very issue. What always seems to get left out is the fact that Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations for 12 years, violated resolution after resolution, had WMD, used WMD and kicked out inspectors. The man threatened the world and his neighbors...that is, until a Republican moved into the White House.
No, what is really happening here is that the Democrats are not being called out on their selective amnesia about Iraq. For 8 years during the Clinton administration, many Democrats warned of the threat of Saddam Hussein and even sent letters to the President concerned that enough wasn't being done. It wasn't until George Bush came along and did something about Saddam Hussein that they are all upset.
President Bush only did what the Democrats and the UN were too afraid to do themselves; he rid the world of Saddam Hussein, and made the world a safer place.
Do you buy the idea that those weapons didn't exist, or that Saddam destroyed them? Consider this: At one time Iraq claimed that it had 8,500 liters of anthrax. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? That would e 8.5 tons. In February Colin Powell said that it was possible that Hussein could have three times that much anthrax in liquid form. That would be 25 tons. How much space would it take to hide 25 tons of liquid anthrax? One 18-wheel tanker truck. That's all. Remember, please, that Hussein had Russian MIG jet fighters buried in the Iraqi desert. How many places could you bury a tanker truck? Or maybe you would just reduce that liquid anthrax to powder form? How much space would that take? About 12 suitcases. Twelve suitcases could have been hidden in Saddam's spidey hole. Just something to think about.
AND A NOTE ABOUT SADDAM'S VICTIMS
Since the 1980s Saddam Hussein has killed about two million people. That's about 10 times more than the number of people killed by Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton used the U.S. Military against Milosevic in the 1990s citing human rights concerns. The lesson we're learning here is that it's OK for a Democratic president to attack a bloody dictator who has killed 200,000 people, but who presents no threat whatsoever to the rest of the world on purely human rights concerns; but it is definitely not OK for a Republican president to use troops to unseat a dictator who has killed two million people, and who may have the weapons needed to kill millions more. Yeah .. I think I get it now. Makes perfect sense to me.
COULD THERE POSSIBLY BE A HIGHER LEVEL OF HATE ...
... against any living human being then the people of this country feel for Joseph Smith, that sex-predator mechanic from Sarasota who is charged with the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia? The death penalty is too good for this SOB, unless, that is, he dies the same way his victim does. Then there's the person(s) who is shooting at people from expressway overpasses near Columbia, Ohio. When he's caught and convicted don't you think a firing squad would be the right way to go?
AL QAEDA WITH NUKES?
A London-based Arabic-language newspaper reported Sunday that Al Qaeda has had tactical nuclear weapons for about six years. The weapons were reportedly bought from Ukrainian scientists who visited Afghanistan in 1998. The report raised the possibility that Al Qaeda could attempt to detonate the weapons on American soil, and that the weapons could be used against American troops in the Middle East if Al Qaeda "is dealt a serious blow that won't leave it any room to maneuver."
OK .. can you stop for a moment to think about what would happen if (a) Al Qaeda really did have such weapons, and (b) decided to use them either against our troops overseas or against an American city? Thousands would die .. at a minimum.
Now .. here are the questions facing us.
First of all, are the reports true? They either are, or they are not. We all know how intelligence reports go these days. But can we afford to assume that the reports are bogus? If we treat them as true, and step up our efforts to destroy all that is left of Al Qaeda, what will be the downside? Certainly we would lose more American troops. What if we treat them as not true? The downside there is worse. That would leave Al Qaeda free to position and detonate one of these devices in order to fulfill their desire for another spectacular strike against Americans. Of course, there is always the possibility that the reports are not true and the nuclear threat does not exist.
Question: On which side do we err?
Now ... let's all remember here that John Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, not as a problem worthy of a military response. Germany sides with Kerry. Germany has been saying that terrorists should be tried in courts of law rather than military tribunals. Last week. The former roommate of Mohamed Atta was acquitted of charges he was involved in the terrorist attacks. So much for working through criminal courts.
President Bush only did what the Democrats and the UN were too afraid to do themselves; he rid the world of Saddam Hussein, and made the world a safer place.
Yep.
I always make his site one of my regular stops in the morning.
Do you remember the last ten minutes or so where the camera crew and SF troops toured a building they had taken that looked like a sophistcated bomb engineering, research and development facility?
Here is a brief review of that segment from:
www.strathlachlan.com/blog/2003/11/an_ounce_of_pre.html
November 06, 2003An Ounce of Prevention
Last night I caught the tail end of one of the National Geographic Specials on PBS called "Inside Special Forces". I only caught the last 10 minutes or so, but that was enough to illustrate what we are really finding in Iraq.
A group of US Special Forces were tipped off about a former hideout of some Fedayeen Saddam smack dab in the middle of a Baghdad suburb. The outside of the house was enclosed by a wall and the windows all had bars across them. Local residents lived in fear of what might happen to them should they venture through the gates. The locals eventually notified the soldiers in the area when they thought the occupants had fled, and a team of US Special Forces troops were called in.
Inside the US troops found a room on the lower level filled with
- explosives,
- spools upon spools of wiring,
- blasting caps, and
- plenty of aluminum tubing to make pipe bombs.
As if this discovery wasn't unsettling enough,
- stacks of briefcases and hollowed-out household items like
- books,
- umbrellas, and
- other seemingly harmless objects
were found on the far side of the room. On the surface it appeared as though this might have been just a staging area for bomb making.
Upstairs the search continued and the US Special Forces uncovered a more ominous finding. In amongst
they found
- more explosives and
- bomb making equipment
The soldiers also located
- manuals and schematics for airport metal detectors.
- explosives detection equipment and
- documents that detailed airport screening procedures.
As it turned out this house was not just a simple ammo depot.
Draw whatever conclusions you want about the motives and purposes of the items found upstairs. But something tells me the house wasn't the former headquarters for Iraq's own Transportation Security Administration. The words "imminent threat" come to mind a bit don't they? Unless of course you're a politician that doesn't fly commercial. Good thing for them no one watches PBS anyway.
BTW, please name the "Iraqis" who crashed planes in to the WTC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.